598 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/853df586fa07b14d9edc27de008de81c.pdf 74194832d438ca5faa46cc61c3aa8ffa PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Year 1 Budgeted vs. Actual Figures Program Service Hours FfE (1700) Federal Funds Exp. Cost perFfE Ed. Awards Cost oer Ed Award CircleNet Budget Actual 34,000 28,177 20 16.5 $277,475 $244,546 $13,874 $14,820 20 18 $13,874 $13,585 Oakland Budget Actual 36,000 26,517 20 15 .5 $223,706 $185,618 $11,185 $11,975 40 29 $5,593 $6,400 Genesee Budget Actual 42,500 38,758 25 23 $267,127 $226,157 $10,685 $9,832 25 19 $10,685 $11,903 Grand Rapids Budget Actual 56,100 32,892 33 19.5 $248,252 $231,108 $7,522 $11,852 33 13 $7,522 $17,777 Saginaw Budget Actual 46,750 44,093 27.5 26 $265,708 $213,237 $9,662 $8,201 41 37 $6,481 $5 ,763 34,000 18,617 20 $208,283 $188,999 $10,414 $17,182 32 28 $6,509 $6,750 E.M.U. Budget Actual 11 1 �Program Service Hours FfE (1700) Federal Funds Exp. Cost perFfE Ed. Awards Cost oer Ed Award UofM Budget Actual 51,000 47.266 30 28 $310,537 $283.165 $10,351 $10.133 20 20 $15,527 $14.158 Sub-Total Programs Budget Actual 300,350 236,320 175.5 132 $1,801,088 $1,572,830 $10,263 $11,915 211 164 $8,536 $9,590 N/A 0 $47,114 N/A 0 N/A 300,350 236,320 175.5 132 $1,848,202 $1,619,944 $10,531 $12,272 211 164 $8,759 $9,877 R.S.A.I. Planning Grant COMMISSION TOTALS Budget Actual Figures do not include MSU. It is a combined two year grant. MSU' s numbers will be com"f?ined and included with Year 2 numbers. 2 � 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-Year-1-Budgeted-vs-Actual-Figures Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps year 1 budgeted vs. actual figures 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 year 1 budgeted vs. actual figures. 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, 49875 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/0b38220d936fca557c6c0d902c40caaf.pdf 1057beffabe8080c6d100493acd9aeaa PDF Text Text Michigan's Ameri Corps Grant Review Process December 9 through 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 . .January 31: The peer reviewers received the materials needed to prepare them for the peer review. This packet of information included: the Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only Concept Paper application materials, the timeline for the grant application process, an overview of national service programs, lessons in effective practice for Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, and a copy of Principles for High Quality National Service Programs. February 4: MCSC received 30 Concept Papers-- 27 Michigan's AmeriCorps and 3 Education Award Only. February 5: Applicants were notified by MCSC that their Concept Paper was received. February 7: A conference call was held with the panel of peer reviewers to discuss the review process and their roles and responsibilities as peer reviewers. February 17: The Concept Papers 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 Concept Paper guidelines, which of the Concept Papers submitted should or should not be forwarded to the next step in the review process -- the MCSC staff review. �February 19: The MCSC Staff Review of the Concept Papers took place. The papers were reviewed for requirements, priorities, and preferences. MCSC staff also took into consideration: 1) Geographic Diversity and Concentration- to ensure that the programs recommended are geographically diverse and include projects in urban and rural areas. 2) Diversity- MCSC seeks to fund a broad range of programs with various approaches to addressing community need. February 21: Based on the results of the peer and staff reviews, 23 individuals/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 both the peer and staff review and were required to attend a technical assistance meeting. 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. February 26: MCSC held a technical assistance meeting for applicants submitting a Comprehensive Proposal. MCSC staff provided the applicants with an overview of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Comprehensive Proposal and technical assistance on how to prepare a strong budget. Paula Bilinsky from Project STAR, a national technical assistance provider, attended the meeting and discussed writing quality objectives for AmeriCorps programs. At this meeting, applicants had an opportunity to sign-up for a conference call with MCSC staff to review the Concept Paper feedback. March 21: MCSC received 20 Comprehensive Proposals. March 24: MCSC notified applicants that their Comprehensive Proposal had been received. March 26: MCSC staff reviewed the 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, MCSC staff made recommendations as to which proposals would be included in the national competitive package and formula package. Staff review of the Comprehensive Proposals determined that 18 proposals were strong enough to advance to the next stage of the review process-- MCSC Commissioner review. March 31: Applicants whose proposals may be included in the competitive package received the staff review feedback in order to make revisions before final submission to CNS (pending MCSC Commissioner approval). April 1: Renewal competitive proposals were submitted to MCSC. April 7: Revisions of the Comprehensive Proposal due to MCSC. �April 10: Michigan Community Service Commission meeting to review staff recommendations for Michigan's AmeriCorps competitive package and possible formula package. April 11: Applicants will be notified as to whether the proposal submitted by their organization will be included in MCSC's federal funding request (competitive). April 15: Michigan's AmeriCorps competitive package due to CNS. Michigan's AmeriCorps formula renewal applications due to MCSC. April - May 1997: Possible new formula funded programs will receive feedback generated from staff review. Revisions for Comprehensive Proposal due to MCSC. June 6: Michigan Community Service Commission meeting to review staff recommendations for new and renewal formula programs. June 20: CNS will notify commissions of funding approval for competitive programs . .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_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Grant-Review-Process Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps 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 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps 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, 49874 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/d299a3a2cd0e96188330a1b22f586b14.pdf 7be298aac29d0a6c25d7e7de928f26b2 PDF Text Text II GRANTE E/ PROGRAM NAME Con t rac t Start I I FT Mem bers I PT Members I 95-96 Funding I I 95 -96 FTE FTE Difference 1. 1996 $ 156.604 $13.050 12 0 $169, 145 $ 14,095 • 1,045 Oaklan d Unlverslly AmertCorps Oakland Sepl. 1. 1996 $241.704 $ 12,085 0 40 $241,350 $12 .068 + 17 Ecumenclal Project S .AV.E. Caring Togeth er Elderserve Nov. 1. 1996 $251.591 $ 11.436 22 0 $24 1. 000 $ 12 .050 . 614 Big B rothers Big Sis ters Circle Net Ocl. I. 1996 $ 151.800 $ 13.800 I I 0 $25 1, 947 $15 ,934 • 2, 134 30 11 995-96) 0 (1 995-96) $295,260 ~9.842 $26 1.66 1 $ 13,083 , Marquette County Health Depl. ' AmeriCorps MILES , I YEAR T HREE F UNDING MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS I 96-97 Funding 9 6 -97 FTE F anu l~ Independence Agen cy Citizen 's Heal t Servi ce Corps Nov. Apr. 10, 1995 Gov. program • 243 FLA (expansion gran l) Dec. 29, 1996 $287 ,966 $9.599 25 10 UnJted Way Community S ervi ces Detroit's Acad emic S uccess Nov. I. 1996 $265.308 $13 .265 20 0 $48.57 1 $9.7 14 5 0 Eastern Mic hlgan Univers ity Teams for School Success Sep . I. 1996 $25 1. 759 $ 10.805 0 66 l27-2yr: 39- l yr) $222.005 $ 11. 385 . 580 Fitzgerald Pu blic School Fi tzge rald's Ameri Corps Jan. I. 1997 $ 135.6 12 $13,56 1 10 0 na na na Unl ted Way of Genesee County Genesee County AmeriCo rps Sep. 22, 1996 $330.703 $ 11. 023 23 14 $320.099 $ 11.432 . 409 Grand Rap ids Service Corps Sep. I. 1996 $280, 129 $8 ,489 33 0 $222.039 $8 .540 -5 1 Unlvers it y of Michigan Mic h . Neigh borh ood Ameri Corps J an. I. 1997 $343.299 $10 ,728 22 20 $349,2 16 $ i 0 ,91 3 . 185 American Yo uth Founda ti on Ru ral S tra tegic Acti on inJUalive Sep. 16. 1996 $ 2 45, 475 $13 ,638 18 0 $305.863 $ 14.565 . 92 7 Boy's & Girl's Club of Saginaw Saginaw Am eriCorps Program S ep . I. 1996 $289.382 $ 1 1,348 15 21 $283,679 $ i0,316 + 1032 Volun teer Centers of Michigan VCM AmeriCorps J an. $182,633 $6,088 15 30 na na na 261 201 $ 3 , 163,264 DASP (expansion gran l) 1. 1997 TOTAL $ 3,462,536 • 528 Year Three FTE Cost $11,027 Year Two FTE Cost $ 12 ,488 Year One FTE Cost $ 11,244 Year Three Formula FTE Cost $10,916 Year Two Formula FTE Cost $ 12,586 Year One Formula FTE Co• t $11,284 Year Three Comp. FTE Cost $11 ,529 Year Two Competitive FTE Cost $11,998 Year One Competitive FTE Cost $ 1 1,40 1 �YEAR FOUR FUNDING -MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS (revised 4-9-97) Legal Applicant/ Program Name Funding Request FfEcost Ff Pf B-H-K Child Development Board: Copper Country AmeriCorps $ 226,661 $11,333 18 4 Grand Rapids Service Corps $ 232,095 $9,284 25 0 Norther Mich. Community Mental Health: Dreamcatchers Yolunteer Program $ 71,194 $11,866 2 8 SOS Crisis Center: Washtenaw Family Support Network $ 52,990 $10,598 2 6 Van Buren Public Health De~artment: Health Forward Mentoring roject $ 113,094 $11,309 10 0 Youth Volunteer Corps of Muskegon County: Volunteer Muskegon! $ 95,835 $11,979 8 0 TOTAL (Formula) $791,869 $10,701 65 18 American Red Cross: AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service $ 58,469 $11,694 5 0 Eastern Michicflan University: CLASS: Coor inating Literacy for America's Students' Success $ 274,502 $10,558 3 46 **Family Inde~endence Ae_ency: Citizens Hea th Service orps $ 287,189 $9,573 30 0 Michigan D(frartment of Agriculture: Michigan's round water Stewardship Program $ 225,415 $11,271 20 0 Michigan Communities in Schools $ 95,820 $11,978 6 4 New Detroit, Inc.: Nonviolence KOPS $ 259,226 $12,961 20 0 Oakland University: AmeriCorps Oakland $ 222,879 $11,578 .75 (3 2yr PT= .75 FTE) 37 Olivet College: Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County $ 273,290 $13,665 10 20 Saginaw Public Schools: Saginaw AmeriCorps $ 271,691 $13,585 20 0 United Way of Genesee & La~eer County: Genesee County AmeriCorps rogram $ 305,792 $9,266 20 26 **United Way Community Services: Detroit's Academic Success Program $ 318,521 $12,741 25 0 University of Michigan: Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program $ 402,798 $8,951 20 50 $ 179,266 $10,244 15 5 Young Detroit Builders: Detrmt YouthBuild AmeriCorps $ 232,578 $13,290 0 35 TOTAL (Competitive) $3,407,436 $11,126 194.75 223 Average Program Cost $11,062 (formula) Wa~e County Neighborhood Legal Services (W NLS): WCNLS AmeriCorps Community Service Program Average Program Cost (competitive) $11,525 •• denotes competitive renewal profeams. Please note that FIA is submitting t e Subtitle H grant competitively. Total Average Program Cost $11,386 �YEAR FOUR FUNDING -MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Legal Applicant/ Program Name Funding Request FfE cost Ff Pf d-H-K Child Development Board: Copper Country AmeriCorps $ 226,661 $ 11,333 18 4 Grand Rapids Service Corps $ 232,095 $ 9,284 25 0 Norther Mich. Community Mental Health: Dreamcatchers Volunteer Program $ 71,194 $ 11,866 2 8 SOS Crisis Center: Washtenaw Family Support Network $ 52,990 $ 10,598 2 6 Van Buren Public Health Department: Health Forward Mentoring Project $ 113,094 $ 11,309 10 0 TOTAL (Formula) $ 696,034 $10,546 57 18 American Red Cross: AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service $ 58,469 $ 11,694 5 0 $274,502 $ 10,558 3 46 $ 287,189 $ 9,573 25 10 $ 225,415 $ 11,271 20 0 $ 95,820 $ 11,978 6 4 New Detroit, Inc. : Nonviolence KOPS $ 259,226 $ 12,961 20 0 Oakland University: AmeriCorps Oakland $ 222,879 $ 11,578 3 37 $ 273,290 $ 13,665 20 0 Saginaw Public Schools: Saginaw ArneriCorps $ 271,691 $ 13,585 20 0 United Way of Genesee & Lapeer County: Genesee County AmeriCorps Program $ 305,792 $ 9,266 20 26 United Way Community Services: Detroit's Academic Success Program $ 318,521 $ 12,740 25 0 $402,798 $ 8,951 20 50 $ 179,266 $ 11,032 15 5 Young Detroit Builders: Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps $ 232,578 $ 13,290 0 35 TOTAL (Competitive) $ 3,407,436 $ 11,582 177 213 Eastern Michigan University: CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps Michigan Department of Agriculture: Michigan's Groundwater Stewardship Program '-- Michigan Communities in Schools Olivet College: Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County University of Michigan: Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services (WCNLS) : WCNLS AmeriCorps Community Service Program � 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-Funding Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps funding 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 funding. 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, 49873 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/5ac6eb2a455d94dd2566640c68d3028a.pdf d35ae2aea7f66b2f4e0ff9af75390fb9 PDF Text Text ( Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Applications Recommended for Funding Proposal Narne Legal Applicant COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS I Genesee County AmeriCorps Prograrr(t.A o"'-t:} - " -,-p~ V\.lltD Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program {) )6 88.75 82 University of Michigan o._\1 o ddt!~S 84.76 80.8 83.75 89 80.25 63 78.5 66 Young Detroit Builders 77.5 66 MI Communities in Schools 77.25 57 Oakland' U ni versi ty Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun Colll/: ::Olivet College -rP MT Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps R Michigan Communities in Schoo(s - U)E'o't Peer Review Concept Paper United Way of Genesee/Lapeer Co CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success ~ ~astern Michigan University ~~ ~ ~~~AmeriCorps Oakland Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Wayne County Neighborhood Le'gal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program r;,'vJ Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services 73 81.1 AmeriCorps Youth E~cellence in Service (YES) ~b American Red Cross 73 79.5 68.25 63.8 MI Department of Agriculture 67.5 70 School District, City of Saginaw 63.3 53 Nonviolence KOPS Michigan Groundwat §(.Stewar~ship Program Saginaw AmeriCorp~ kA /RJ ~ew Detroit, Inc. vJeo.Wh6 ~~ / -rP etA-+:) FORMULA APPL'icATIONS \. ..1b /M'T 115)& I DS" /[(N Copper Country AmeriCorps ~-i~ h..m. ""' Van Buren Public Health Department Mlku+~J M~• SOS Crisis Center 79 85.8 BHK Child Development 78 88 Van Buren Public Health 71.5 67 Northern Michigan Community Mental Health/ Northern MI Cornm. Mental Health 65 68.3 54.75 67.4 50 32 Washtenaw Family Support Network Volunteer Muskegon! Grand Rapids Service Corps ( I YVC Muskegon Grand Rapids Service Corps �Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Programs Not Funded Peer Review Concept Paper Reason for Not Funding Proposal N arne Legal Applicant Big Brothers/BigSisters: CircleNet Big Brothers/Big Sisters n/a 93 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Wayne State University Wayne State University 53 67.5 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center 55.5 67 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Expanding Horizons Youth Volunteer Corps YMCA n/a 66 Concept Paper not approved AmeriCorps Program of Volunteer Impact Volunteer Impact n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved School Based AmeriCorps Project Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved Focus HOPE, Inc. Focus HOPE, Inc. n/a 55 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity n/a 44 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted One Family for Success IMPEL Individual/Family Growth, Inc. n/a 41 Concept Paper not approved Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal � 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-Apps-Recommended-for-Funding-with-Notes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding with notes 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 applications recommended for funding with notes. 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, 49872 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/301087e9076e33967197884999b4786c.pdf 9cbd82d8a2ff5db8095ba21c6e30001d PDF Text Text Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Applications Recommended for Funding Proposal Name Legal Applicant Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Peer Review Concept Paper COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS Genesee County AmeriCorps Program United Way of Genesee/Lapeer Co 88.75 82 Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program University of Michigan 84.76 80.8 CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success Eastern Michigan University 83.75 89 AmeriCorps Oakland Oakland' University 80.25 63 Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun Co. Olivet College 78.5 66 Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps Young Detroit Builders 77.5 66 Michigan Communities in Schools MI Communities in Schools 77.25 57 Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services 73 81.1 AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) American Red Cross 73 79.5 Nonviolence KOPS New Detroit, Inc. 68.25 63.8 Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program MI Department of Agriculture 67.5 70 Saginaw AmeriCorps School District, City of Saginaw 63.3 53 FORMULA APPLICATIONS Washtenaw Family Support Network SOS Crisis Center 79 85.8 Copper Country AmeriCorps BHK Child Development 78 88 Van Buren Public Health Department Van Buren Public Health 71.5 67 Northern Michigan Community Mental Health Northern MI Comm. Mental Health 65 68.3 Volunteer Muskegon! YVC Muskegon 54.75 67.4 Grand Rapids Service Corps Grand Rapids Service Corps 50 32 �Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Programs Not Funded Proposal N arne Legal Applicant Big Brothers/BigSisters: CircleNet Big Brothers/Big Sisters n/a 93 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Wayne State University Wayne State University 53 67.5 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center 55.5 67 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Expanding Horizons Youth Volunteer Corps YMCA n/a 66 Concept Paper not approved AmeriCorps Program of Volunteer Impact Volunteer Impact n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved School Based AmeriCorps Project Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved Focus HOPE, Inc. Focus HOPE, Inc. n/a 55 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity n/a 44 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted One Family for Success IMPEL Individual/Family Growth, Inc. n/a 41 Concept Paper not approved Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Peer Review Concept Paper Reason for Not Funding � 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-Apps-Recommended-for-Funding Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding 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 applications recommended for funding. 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, 49871 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/dfec6ad87970d29128e6f3dcb6e14778.pdf b20f936105dbf227e581ae1f949f6813 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 hasq't told me about yet." As I read the clip it turned out to be a notice about the Delta Sigma Theta Sororjt}: 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 small 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 atready 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 devol~tio~ 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. ~ .; ' ..; 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 benefiCi'aries 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 of you know. '· But in the end the cooperation and the learning environment have benefited both our operations and our imrnedl'hte 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? What should you~ �I encourage you to become as involved as you can in meeting and obsen;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 service among 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. I 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 considerable strain 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. �MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DIRECfORS 9851 Hamilton, Detroit, Michigan 48202 + (313)883-7764 + FAX 883-3957 ·- ... . 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 '1ecosta and ,ceola Lake Counties BethDebano Macomb County Wilma Kahn Kalamazoo County Jill Kind Washtenaw County RSVP Director Grand Traverse Bay Area Hersh ell 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 Monroe County 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 of human 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 legislated 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 !O 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 ofthe way national and community service 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 Americorp and Americorp' s survival. We are deeply concerned that the support that we once received from Washington, before coming to the Corporation has, indeed, been eroded. The Commission' s focus 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 support senior volunteers v;hile they meet community needs . n -rhe ideal, what is the besT 1my rhat national and community service and mlunteerism 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 indiYidual 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. \Vhy 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 effectiYe partnerships that make our programs the low cost, creative solutions to many of our communities ' problems? If the detern1ined anempts to eliminate our state offices do ultimately succeed, then there is only one clear choice 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 Yolunteers to aid in solving community problems. Because they already provide support 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, -will address senior volunteerism because ours is a senior volunteer program. We appreciate the Commission' s .. ccision 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, religious 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 momentUD1 of the Council seems to be waning. Ti1wt 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. W_e provide seniors with the framev,rork to improve their ovm lives while serving others. The Commission should recognize the strength of seni or Yolunteers without exploiting seniors as cheap labor. To try to dictate what a volunteer will choose to do is an oxymoron. Senior volunteers, actually volunteers of any age, cannot 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. Otherwise, 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 forward to working r01laboratively with the Commission on projects in the future thus puning to good use the strengths of each entit)~ �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 fmancial 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 are .~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! �11r1a L~r') MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY MARCH 25, 1997 ARIA LARSEN, DIRECTOR SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY 202 E. BOULEY ARD DRIVE STE. II 0 FLINT, Ml 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 Pro!:,rram since it was started 13 years ago. Prior to the creation of our Senior Companion Pro!:,rram, I was the Director of the Foster Grandparent Program in our area for two years and then assigned joint directorships ofboth Programs for two years for a total of 15 years as a Director of National Senior Service Corps Programs in Michigan. The Senior Companion Pro!:,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% 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 \veil as a daily meal allowance and travel reimbursement. An hourly stipend ofS245 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 qua lity 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 \vith 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 written abrreements v,:ith the SCP to be matched with senior volunteers by the Program staff. The community referral agencies are there for the needs of their adult clients and the Senior Companion Pro!:,rram is there for their Senior volunteer. By \VOrking together the Pro!:,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 assi!:,'Tled 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 Pro!:,rrams (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. O ur 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 recob'Tlizes the NSSC Prot,rrams as volunteer prot,rrams for seniors and promotes them as a service to senior volunteers as well as the volunteers ' community. This was the purpose of the NSSC Probrrams 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 was changed to the NSSC our Pro!:,rrams were known as the Older American Volunteer Programs (0 A VP ). The name supported the original purpose of the Probrrams ofthe emphasis being placed on the senior volunteer over any community service they provided. The Corporation is changing the purpose of the NSSC Programs 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 office and nO\v as the Corporation state office since these Pro!:,rrams began thirty years ago. The Programs are comfortable with the state oftice as a known entity and the Corporation State O ffice works .... ell with OSA giving a solid base to all the NSSC Pro!:,rrams in Michigan. Unfortunately, not all the states which have NSSC Programs across the country have state offices on aging or even Community Service Commissions like we have in Michigan. What the NSSC Program s nationall y 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 Co-rporation State Offices. The fiscal and programmatic 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 Programs 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 prot,rrams nationally and in Michigan. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICIDGAN 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 ofMid-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 ·d(jfi.~ 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 of Michigan 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 ow 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 ofthe 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. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICIDGAN 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 ofMid-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 ·d(jfi.~ 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 of Michigan 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 ow 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 ofthe 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. �A part ofyour lift ...ali_J'Ottr lit~. 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 SOMETH ING 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 . T HE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION HAS A LONG STANDING HISTOR Y 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. • • ~ I .. • ... c. r - : l ., •• l • . �IN ADDITION TO THE COMMONLY KNOWN CYO P~Q_GRAMS SUCH AS, CAMPS , ATHLETICS AND YOUTH TRAINING DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP , THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS , CHURCHES , PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS , SCHOOLS , GOVERNMENT AGENCIES , 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 GRANTING 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 PRIMARY COMMUNITY RESOURCE FOR YOUTH ·- ·" . 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 NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , EXPLORE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING POSSIBILITIES , AND SHARE RESOURCES. MEMBERSHIP WAS EX PANDED TO INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS, CHURCHES , COALITIONS , NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND OTHERS WHOSE PURPOSE INCLUDES PROVIDING SERVICES TO YOUTH . THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES , NOW , AS A RESULT OF THE MCSC / CYO 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 AFFILIATED HEALTH NEIGHBORHOOD AGENCIES , GROUPS, LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS , HUMAN SERVICES AND -BUSINESSES. AGENCIES , MANY SERVICE EMERGING PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEGUN TO GEL AS A RESULT OF 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 . ATTENDED THE "NURTURING BY ALMOST FUTURE 200 ADULTS GENERATIONS" WHO RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ; PARTICIPATED IN NETWORKING ACTIVITIES ; HEARD FROM 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 �THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHER BENEFITS TO YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE DETROIT AREA, THROUGH THE CYSA , AND I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DISCUSS 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 , THEY ALSO INVOLVE OPPORTUNITIES , PLACES TO GO, AND CARING ADULTS . THIS PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP , LIFE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IS UNDERWAY TO SEEK A GRANT TO STIPEND THE YOUTH. AS YOU CAN TELL I AM VERY EXCITED BY THIS WORK. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TELL YOU A BIT ABOUT THE WORK OTHER CO& T DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN AND ARE ENGAGED IN . 6 �THROUGH A MICHIGAN 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 THY 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 MIDPLE 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 DEVELOPMENT OF UPON THE THE MICARES BASE COMMUNITY IN THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION LEAGUE HAS THE BEEN FAC ILITATED 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 PAINS OF ANY NEW IN ITIATIVE , 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 OUTW EIGH 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 REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES , WORKSHOPS , CONFERENCES , N ETW 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 GROW 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. T HE 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 FACILITATED BY THE MCSC . 10 CAN �IN CONCLUSION, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofthose 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 of the 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 of the 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 Com.riiission and the programs under the aegis of the Commission. Discussing in a public forum what can be improved isn't easy. All of us 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 Americorps 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 Americorps programs for the SuperConference there was a notation that said, "Two persons to a room Same sex roommates onlv!" 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~~e_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 VISTA 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. VISTA 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 volunteerism. 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: 1. Link organizations 2. Promote new collaborative partnerships 3. Recruit volunteers 4. Gather community agency information 5. Support collaborati ve 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 , low income, children or the elderl y mentioned. This project is totall y 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 significantl y different miSSIOnS. The Jackson County Community Transformation Projects mission is to create a community where citizens individually and collectivel y increase their desire and ability to meet their own needs, the needs of the community , and the needs of the larger en vironment. 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 an yone 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-service training. What a sham. A reverse Robin Hood seems to be the operative methodology that created this project: take resources from those small 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 flaw 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 gov_e rnor 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 riot one of them. I hope that in the near future that we are able to sit down and develop a more suitable plan. Respectfull y submitted: Stanley M. Stewart �D ~bra t-tD I('fVJf:- b3rn so Yl 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., fonnerly 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 fonnal process for pooling their resources and delivering 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 lives 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 ofthis innovative movement are the four CIS basics, recently adopted as values for the upcoming Presidents' Summit: • • • • 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 and 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 operational status. Operational CIS pro~:,rrarns 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~:,rrams 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 (ofMichigan'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 stafftime 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_1997-04-10_MCSC-Testimonies Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission testimonies 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 Community Service Commission testimonies. 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, 49870 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/f04afbaba66ba8a1d05d26cf1bbda3fd.pdf 598b8404bf27f98854e686f4a4b75fdf PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Capitol Ave . Olds Plaza Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: The Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service C;~n RE: Executive Director' s Special Meeting Report DATE: April 7, 1997 ~ APPROVAL ITEMS Michigan's AmeriCorps New Program Application Package The staff is presenting for your approval a package of 18 new AmeriCorps programs, one competitive renewal program, and one innovative grant reassigned to competitive. Enclosed you will find: 1) 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. As you know, the MCSC proposal package represents a combination of state formula funds and national competitive program funds. This new program year will be the fourth year that AmeriCorps has been in operation. All current AmeriCorps programs in their third year of operation must re-compete as new. Therefore, we have a large package of programs to present. Michigan is permitted to submit 12 new national competitive applications. Michigan also has $1.6 million in formula funding available as a result of the reapplication of third year programs, program completion, and unspent carryover funds from the past fiscal year. The package we are recommending includes one second-year renewing competitive program, seven new competitive programs, five competitive programs that are current, reapplying state formula programs, five new formula funded programs and one current, reapplying formula funded program. The total of formula funds that would be expended is $791 ,866, leaving $994,173. The remaining formula funds will be directed to support competitive programs that MCSC submits, but which are not approved by the Corporation for National Service. As you are aware, it is unlikely that the Corporation will fund all of the programs in the competitive package. Having a flexible pool of formula funds will enable MCSC to support the strongest remaining competitive submissions. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission 0' ~ �MCSC April 7, 1997 Page Two MCSC will submit the new and renewal competitive package on April 11. The Corporation will notify MCSC of its funding decision in late June. At that time, MCSC will have to decide which of the unfunded competitive submissions it will support with formula funding. The staff requests that the Commission pre-approve the selection of unfunded competitive programs for formula funding in the order of their proposal score rankings and geographic distribution. MCSC will then submit a final comprehensive new and renewal formula package to the Corporation on June 30. If · there are any changes to the new formula programs or·the amounts requested under renewal formula funding vary, the staff will submit a revised formula package at the June 6 meeting. One final note. At the Corporation's request, MCSC is resubmitting the recently approved second year innovative grant for the FIA Citizen's Health Service Corps as a national competitive program grant. This is an accounting shift for the Corporation. It will not count against the competitive package. State Service Commission Meeting Reception As you know, MCSC will be hosting a meeting of state service commissions from across the country on May 16-17, in Midland. This meeting is an important part of the Ford Foundation grant that is supporting state commission development. Commission chairs, members, and directors from forty-five states and Puerto Rico will be attending. Governor Engler will also attend part of the meeting. Terry Pruitt has arranged for Dow Corning to sponsor a lunch. MCSC has been recognized nationally as a leader among the states. This meeting is the most compelling symbol of your leadership. With that in mind, I would like to propose that the Commission sponsor a reception at the meeting before dinner on Friday, May 16. This will be an excellent opportunity for you meet and share your vision with commission members from other states. INFORMATION UPDATES Jim Muir Get well Jim! You remain in our thoughts and prayers. Volunteer Investment Grants Appropriations The House Appropriations Subcommittee will take up the Jobs Commission budget at a hearing on May 7. As with any new appropriations request, MCSC can expect the scrutiny of law makers over the Volunteer Investment Grants proposal. Keep in mind that this request includes additional support for Commission operations. The recent controversy over the Corporation' s policy toward national service in the states may intensify this scrutiny. Terry Pruitt and Mike Tate have taken the lead in building support for MCSC' s work, but they cannot do it alone. Every member of the commission must be prepared to step forward if we are to succeed in advancing our mission. We have much to be proud of, much more to share with others, and much, much more to do. With your help we can make a real difference in Michigan. �MCSC April 7, 1997 Page Three Commission Information Gathering Meeting Materials Because of the controversy over proposals for restructuring the national service system, MCSC held an information gathering meeting with programs from the service field. The Commission was represented by Michelle Engler, Dorothy Johnson, Kathleen Keen McCarthy, Matt Wesaw, and Ray West. I am sure that your colleagues will share their insights .from the meeting. We will schedule time for a discussion at our June meeting. For your review, we have included the written materials that were presented to the Commission during the meeting. Michigan's AmeriCm:ps Retention We have continued with our efforts to better understand the problems of AmeriCorps member attrition, its impact on the programs, and what we can do about it. Enclosed you will find our analysis of the actual cost of the Year 1 program with attrition rates factored in. The actual average FTE rates are higher than budgeted, but not above the Corporation's Year 1 average. Of some concern should be the number of education awards issued. We have now taken steps to control education award issuance. � 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_Executive-Directors-Special-Meeting-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting executive director's special meeting report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting executive director's special meeting 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, 49869 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/ae0390563ae6a2cb85897c16e8828587.pdf d76d4276d7d080c525e625c87ce01a81 PDF Text Text MEETING OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS ON NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Midland, Michigan May 15-17, 1997 Sponsored by the Ford Foundation through a grant to the State Commission Coordinating Group. Hosted by the Michigan Community Service Commission, the State Commission Coordinating Group, and Aguirre International DRAFT AGENDA Thursday. May 15 6:00 Reception and Informal Networking Friday. May 16 7:00 BREAKFAST 8:00 Welcome First Lady Michelle Engler Chair, Michigan Community Service Commission Meeting Overview Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission 8:45 Post President's Summit: Follow-up Strategies This plenary will present the ideas and comments of commissioners from three states who attended the President's Summit for America's Future. 9:30 Plenary Session: The Challenge to Commissions A panel of commission chairs and executive directors will discuss the role of community service commissions in igniting citizen service, commission identity beyond CNS programming, and possibilities for reaching commissions' fullest potential. 10:30 Break 10:45 Stability, Autonomy, Innovation, and Sustainability Caucuses Commission executive directors and chairs will separate and break into small groups to discuss a range of issues, such as visibility in states, institutionalization, bipartisan support, match, administrative structure, constituencies, and competition. DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 1 of 4 �12:15 LUNCH Governor John Engler, State of Michigan Following his luncheon address, the Governor will respond questions from state commission chairs on concerns such as strategies for obtaining governor support for commission and service related activities. 2:00 How Do We Get to the Future Together? Building Consensus on the Future Direction of a State Commission Network/Association This session will introduce the question regarding the merits and feasibility of establishing a formal national association or network of state service commission. Options for creating an association and information about other associations will be presented. 2:30 What Do We Want and What Will It Take? Participants will break into small groups to discuss specific recommendations for developing an ongoing network or association. 4:00 Report from Small Groups and Next Steps This process will synthesize the recommendations of the small groups, designate a representative small group to develop a proposal for the large group, and make recommendations regarding next steps (development of by-laws, structure and functions of commission, calendar, and fundraising, etc.). 6:30 Reception 7:30 DINNER Future of Service and .Volunteerism The dinner address will feature a panel of representatives from national and regional foundations and Grantmakers Forums from the Council on Foundations who will share insights on investing in national and community service. Evening Evening activities may include network and policy development work groups as needed. DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 2 of 4 �Saturday, May 18 7:00 BREAKFAST Breakfast will provide an opportunity for issue caucuses and work groups as requested. 8:15 Implementing "Option 3" Presentation and discussion with Deb Jospin of CNS regarding plans for testing six to seven options or models for coordinating the delivery system at the state level. This will be followed by small group discussions. Deb Jospin, Corporation for National Service 9:45 Break 10:00 Plenary Panel: Gaining State Support and Funding for Service Kate Mehr, along with a panel from three selected states, will present a policy paper which addresses community development and obtaining state support for service initiatives. Kate Mehr, Executive Director, Massachusetts National and Community Service Commission 11: 15 Strengthening State Commission Capacity Concurrent sessions are offered, geared to the different needs of executive directors and commissioners. 1. Application of Monitoring Guide. An update on the monitoring guide, featuring discussion of strengths and weakn~sses of different monitoring techniques and strategies will be presented (small group session for EDs). Bea Boccalandro, Aguirre International 2. ED Refbook. This session provides a presentation of progress to date on the ED Reference . Book (small group session for EDs). Bill Cole, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3. Commissioner Handbook. This session provides a presentation of progress to date on the Commissioner Handbook (small group session for Commissioners and EDs). Janis Glenn, Project TASC, Aguirre International 4. Redesigning Your Commission. Alternative structures that promote autonomy and accountability will be considered. What do commissions look like now and are these structures designed to meet the demands of the future? Frank Slobig, Project TASC, Aguirre International 5. Gaining State Support and Funding for Service. Executive directors from two states with different types of state support will present their strategies. 12:30 LUNCH Research: What is it trying to tell us and how are local voices being heard? Gary Walker, President, Public/Private Ventures DRAFf AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 3 of 4 �1:30 Concurrent sessions continued: 1. Taming the Task - Analysis of Management Roles, Part II. This session offers task management strategies from scheduling to doing and revising requirements (small group session for Commissioners and EDs). JoAn Intilli and Ed Kissam, Project TASC, Aguirre International 2. Leadership Training for Commissioners. What and who are we in charge of? How are we to lead the charge? Strategic grantmaking to leverage the field: What can we learn from major philanthropies? Who sustains the effort? Marvin Kaiser, Ida Jeter and Sue Hyatt, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3. Contributing to a National Framework for Research. This forum informs executive directors and commissioners about ways to contribute to the national research framework Gary Walker and Kathryn Furano, Public/Private Ventures 4. Gaining State Support and Funding for Service. Executive directors from two states with different types of state support will present their strategies. 5. Redesigning Your Commission. Alternative structures that promote autonomy and accountability will be considered. What do commissions look like now and are these structures designed to meet the demands of the future? Frank Slobig, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3:00 Break 3:15 Presentation, discussion, and vote on network/association direction proposed by work group The outcome will set the direction for State Commission Coordinating Group and Chair Work Group for future meetings or result in the end of these groups in order to form a new associative group which represents commissions. 4:30 Informal discussion regarding directions of CNS and State Commissions on National and Community Service Deb Jospin, Corporation for National Service 6:30 Closing Dinner DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 4 of 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_Draft-Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting draft agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting draft 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, 49868 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/adf9c20c12c0900f40a666e642eb8d99.pdf 2db502f8e6402ac57d547363998a344e PDF Text Text Michigan's AmeriCorps Year One '94-'95 Attrition of Program Members April 7, 1997 Report prepared by Tracy McCloskey, MCSC The February, 1997 the GAO issued its Report to the Congress on the Role of State Commissions in Implementing the AmeriCorps Program. That report broke down the attrition of AmeriCorps members into two categories: compelling personal circumstances, which includes illness or critical family matters, for which members who have served at least 15% of their service will receive a prorated educational award; and for cause, which includes being convicted of a felony, chronic truancy, and consistent failure to follow directions, for which members did not receive any educational award. It also included in the "for cause" category, however, members who left a project early to take advantage of significant opportunities for personal development or growth, such as educational or professional advancement. The report stated that of the projects they reviewed, "outputs and characteristics varied extensively." The report calculated attrition rates on two bases: (1) the number of participants who ended service early for cause, and (2) the combined total of participants who ended service for cause and for compelling personal circumstances. It found that the attrition for participants who ended service early for cause ranged from 3 to 58 percent. The median attrition rate was 22 percent. The overall attrition rate -participants who ended service early for either cause or compelling personal circumstances -ranged from 9 to 95 percent, and the median was 39 percent. The report stated that the "results cannot be generalized beyond the commissions and programs studied." Michigan was not one of the seven commissions studied for the report. However, many Michigan's AmeriCorps programs fall at or very near to the median attrition rates for the seven commissions studied in the report. In order to address the issues raised in the GAO' s report, this report and accompanying graph illustrate the attrition of members for Year One '94-'95 of the Michigan's AmeriCorps program. Seven of nine Year One programs are highlighted. One program, Environmental Problem Solving: Michigan's AmeriCorps, a two-year AmeriCorps had insufficient Year One reporting data. That program will be analyzed in the Year Two attrition report. Another program, Rural Strategic Action Initiative (RSAI) had a planning grant for Year One, so they did not enroll any members. Programs operating in Year One enrolled members on a rolling basis, so some members did not begin and/or complete the year with their "class." Also, if a member left for cause within the fust weeks of the program, and that same position was filled by another person, it was counted as one member enrolled, and not two. While the person who left would be included for purposes of attrition, the spot that they occupied would still be available for a member to fill and still be eligible to receive an education award. For that reason, the attrition rates are not as accurate for Year One as they will be for Year Two, when the programs were advised not to allow rolling admissions. This report takes into consideration the individual decisions made by the AmeriCorps program directors in granting their members prorated education awards. As such, there may be inconsistencies with one program director granting a prorated, or partial award for a member who left a program for a job, while another director considered leaving for a job a "for cause" reason and did not allow a prorated education award. �AmeriCorps Oakland: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members are students at Oakland University who work with Pontiac-area youth in schools and nonprofits to decrease the level of violence through mediation and alternative activities. Part-time members 40, all enrolled on 1111/94 First Quarter Report October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 attrition of 1 member due to "a difficult family circumstance," but she was replaced Second Quarter-Report January 1, 1994-- March 31, 1995 attrition of 4 members, two were "at-risk youth who experienced difficulties and dropped from the University" Third Quarter Report April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 3 members, all for "compelling reasons - they left school" Fourth Quarter Report July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 attrition of 2 members due to "extenuating circumstances, both took prorated stipends." 21 members completed their 900 hours and earned their educational stipend. 5 members continued to volunteer and complete their term of service in the fall. Of 31 members, 29 served the entire 4th quarter. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have received) the full education award: 26 part-time members Total number of education awards issued= 29 (26 full awards, 3 partial awards) Attrition of 14 members. 11 for cause, not eligible for partial award 3 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 35% Attrition rate of those for cause = 27% Overall, Oakland AmeriCorps fell below the median overall attrition rate of 39% for the seven commissions studied in the GAO's report. It was slightly above the 22% rate of "for cause" attrition. Attrition of Oakland AmeriCorps individual members (data from the files and the members' forms): Q. Baffield Exit date: 3/31195 left school; not eligible for education award, 63 hrs. J. Baumgarten Exit date: 1131196 got a job; eligible for partial education award, 734 hrs. C. Blair Exit date: 8/18/95 moved away; eligible for partial education award, 788 hrs. �K. Deroche Exit date: 1/20/95 left at parent's request, not enough time for school/grades; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. J. Franchi Exit date: 1/20/95 low school grades; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. M. Gueits Exit date: 1111/94 no exit form, no explanation given; no education award, 233 hrs. M. Hairston Exit date: 2/24/95 . removed by program manager, no participation; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. D. Hickson Exit date: 3/20/95 left for health reasons; not eligible for education award, 113 hrs. C. Newton Exit date: 3/28/94 dissatisfied with assigned tasks and ArneriCorps experience; no education award, 0 hrs. K. Payne Exit date: 9/6/95 left for health reasons; eligible for partial education award, 650 hrs. S. Putrus Exit date: 2/8/95 student refused to complete paper work; not eligible for education award, 5 hrs. J. Robinson Exit date: 5/12/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 158 hrs. L. Rowland Exit date: 9/22/95 no exit form, student would not sign it; not eligible for education award, 348 hrs. M. Smith Exit date: 3113/95 left for personal reasons, dissatisfied w/program; not eligible for education award, 11 hrs. CircleNet: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members aid Big Brothers/Big Sisters in the placement of volunteers with developmentally disabled children in Southfield/Oakland County. The nature of this program, which deals with developmentally disabled youth, posed an initial unique challenge in hiring, training, and retaining corpsmembers. Full-time members 20 members granted to the program, start date December 10, 1995 First Quarter Report October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 Recruitment and member selection -- 20 members selected Second Quarter Report January 1, 1995 -- March 31, 1995 attrition of 4 members who "dropped out." One was replaced, so at the end of the quarter 17 members remained. �Third Quarter Report April1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 1 member, who resigned from the program; 16 members served the entire 3rd quarter and 16 members were enrolled on the last day of the 3rd quarter. Fourth Quarter Report July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 brought on one member in July and one already completed the 1700 service hours, so 16 members were active this quarter. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 15 full-time members Total number of education awards issued= 17 (15 full awards, 2 partial awards) Attrition of 8 members. 6 for cause, not eligible for education award 2 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 40% Attrition rate of those for cause = 30% Overall, CircleNet fell just above the median overall attrition rate of 39%. It was also above the median attrition rate of 22% of "for cause" attrition. Attrition of members: D. Elliott Exit date: 1/28/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 150 hrs. J. Ingrao Exit date: 1120/95 no exit form; not eligible for educational award, 60 hrs. S. Johnson Exit date: 7/5/95 member refused to sign exit form, no explanation given, no hours. M. Kleino Exit date: 2/10/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 150 hrs. S. Kromberg Exit date: 3/9/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 269 hrs. T. Nelson Exit date: 12/14/95 no exit form; eligible for partial education award, 61 hrs. R. Riley Exit date: 4/17/95 no exit form, left program with no notice; not eligible for education award, 555 hrs. T. Kish Enrollment date: 7/24/95 Exit date: 3/15/96 no explanation; eligible for partial education award, 1432 hrs. �Genesee County AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members work through community organizations to recruit volunteers to act as Girl Scout troop leaders; develop service-learning workshops and activities for youth, rehabilitate homes; educate citizens about Medicaid and new health care options; offer safe haven for at-risk youth and neighborhoods set up block clubs. 25 full-time members allocated, 23 started service on 10112/94. As noted below, this program enrolled members on a rolling admission basis. 5 members were enrolled after the start of the program. And 5 members continued their service into the next program year. Therefore, the numbers used to calculate the attrition rates are not consistent with a program that did not enroll members on a rolling admission basis. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 attrition of 2 members who were not fulfllling their participant requirements; they were replaced Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 attrition of 2 members, one resigned in January, one was released in February 20 members started the quarter, 18 finished Third Quarter April 1, 1995 -- June 30, 1995 attrition of 2 members during the third quarter 3 members enrolled to replace terminated members 21 active members as of June 30. Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 of 21 members, 7 completed their service by September 30, 4 will complete by October 11, resulting in 11 receiving a full education award, and 4 receiving a partial award due to compelling circumstances, 1 not receiving an education award, and 5 continuing their term of service in the next program year. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) 13 full-time members the full education award: Total number of education awards issued= 19 (13 full awards and 6 partial awards) Attrition of 20 members 14 for cause, not eligible for partial award 6 received partial awards Overall attrition rate = 86% Attrition rate of those for cause = 60% These overall attrition rates are high due to the rolling admissions of this program. Because 19 education awards were issued, out of 23 spots allocated to the program, the true rate is only 14%, which is below the median. Attrition of individual members: start date 10112/94 unless otherwise noted M . Hairston Start date: 217/95 Exit date: 2/6/96 didn't get the required hours in, not eligible for ed award, 1690 hrs. �A. White Start date: 8/16/95 Exit date: 1/2/96 dismissed for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award, 1292 hrs. S. Dunigan Start date: 1127/95 Exit date: 5/13/95 left to take another job, not eligible for education award, 405 hrs. L. Cancel No start date Exit date: 1126/96 NO FILE-- not eligible for education award, 215 hrs. G. Aldridge Exit date: 5/24/95 resigned because of her daughter's ill health, eligible for partial ed award, 1091 hrs. H. Alford Exit date: 3/3/95 dismissed for cause, not eligible for education award, 366 hrs. J. Bielert Exit date: 10/11/95 compelling personal reasons, eligible for partial ed award, 1575 hrs. T. Brown Exit date: 12/23/94 quit, dissatisfied w/program-staff, not eligible for education award, 251 hrs. R. Douglas Exit date: 2/14/95 early term. for cause, dissatisfied w/program staff, enrolled in a job training program; not eligible for education award, 430 hrs. S. Garza Exit date: 1112/94 left to take a job; not eligible for education award, 49 hrs. L. Grier Exit date: 911195 dissatisfied w/program staff; not eligible for education award, 1070 hrs. M. Howell Exit date: 11/8/94 dissatisfied w/program staff; not eligible for education award, 46 hrs. S. Johnson Start date: 10/3/94 Exit date: 9/23/94 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1583 hrs. S. Packnett Exit date: 10114/94 left for personal reasons; not eligible for education award, 13 hrs. A. Snell Start date: 11115/94 left for a job, very dissatisfied w/program, compelling personal reasons; eligible for partial education award, 1196 hrs. C. Taylor Exit date: 1113/95 got a job, not eligible for education award, 340 hrs. T. Wagenheim Exit date: 10/11/95 compel. pers. circumstances, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1668 hrs. �D. Williams Exit date: 2/4/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 611 hrs. M. Winters Exit date: 10/12/95 no explanation; eligible for partial education award, 1563 hrs. G. Woodberry Exit date: 1127/95 was asked to leave the program; not eligible for education award, 628 hrs. Grand Rapids Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members served full-time starting 10/3/94 unless otherwise noted. 33 members for full enrollment. Members volunteer as mentors, tutors and teaching assistants in various elementary schools across Grand Rapids. They are also involved with neighborhood revitalization projects through neighborhood associations and Habitat for Humanity. The program had a rolling admissions policy, so attrition rates are higher than a program that did not offer rolling admissions. Five corpsmembers were added in the third quarter. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 27 full-time members enrolled on 10/3/94 attrition of 9 members Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 Report focused on the problem of attrition in the corps ranks. There are currently 23 full-time members enrolled, after having started the program with 32 (first quarter report states 27, question where the five people came from). 3 members were asked to leave for disciplinary reasons; 4left on their own when they were one step away from a formal disciplinary action; 2 left on their own for personal reasons. The major reason for attrition, according to the report, was poor attendance and repeated failure to call in to report lateness or absence. There are 3 members "hanging on by a thread." · Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 five members were added to the corps (member list only has 4) report lists this as a "second class" of one team facilitator and 4 corps members who will receive a prorated educational award based on number of hours served through August 11, 1995, the program end date. All five will continue in to Year 2 in September as full time corpsmembers. 24 members were enrolled at the end of the quarter. Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 no changes in membership -- winding up of the program year, etc. Began recruiting for Year 2 of the program. �Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 11 for sure, possibly 13 full-time members (incomplete records) Attrition of 20 members 20 for cause Total number of education awards issued: 13 Overall attrition rate = 74% Attrition of those for cause = 74% The Grand Rapids Service Corps dealt with a high rate of attrition early on in their program year. They also offered rolling admissions, and enrolled a second "class" of members in the third quarter. Their attrition rates are higher than the median average of 39%. However, they issued 13 education awards based on 33 enrolled members, which is only a 39% attrition rate. That rate is at the median average. Individual member attrition: (start date is 10/3/94 unless otherwise noted) M. Bell Exit date: 6/18/95 moved away, not eligible for education award, 1180 hrs. M. Brown Start date: 9/27/94 Exit date: 11/10/95 no exit form, not eligible for education award, 138 hrs. W. Bryant Exit date: 1/5/95 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 371 hrs. A. Elamin Exit date: 11110/95 asked to leave by program manager, not eligible for education award, 1119 hrs. S. Gillespie Exit date: 6/26/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave by program manager, not eligible for education award, 156 hrs. L. Kolthoff Exit date: 8/11/95 early termination for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award, 1396 hrs. M.Mendez Exit date: 4/2/95 early termination for cause, got a job; not eligible for education award, 880 hrs. D. Morales Exit date: 8/11195 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 1346 hrs. A. Pagan Exit date: 11110/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 156 hrs. J. Pena Exit date: 12115/94 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 278 hrs. �S. Rider Exit date: 2/24/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 356 hrs. L. Rincones Exit date: 1/12/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 364 hrs. J. Sommerville Exit date: 6/20/95 asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 1136 hrs. T. Tapely Exit date: 911/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 965 hrs. E. Thomas Start date: 11/10/94 Exit date: 11/4/95 left for health reasons; not eligible for education award, 94 hrs. I. Villa Exit date: 8111/95 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 1652 hrs. A. Wyant Start date: lin/94 Exit date: 6/20/96 early termination for cause, moved away; not eligible for education award, 98 hrs. H. Williams Exit date: 2/28/94 asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 411 hrs. A. Hinton Start date: 6/1195 Exit date: 8/10/95 no forms, not eligible for education award, 1321 hrs. C. Carpenter Start date: 611/95 Exit date: 8111195 termination for cause, no explanation; not eligible for educational award, · 286 hrs. Michigan Neighborhood: Michigan's AmeriCorps Launched January 20, 1995, and based out of the University of Michigan, this program will addresses the specific educational, economic, environmental, public safety, and human needs in the Detroit area. Program allocated 20 full-time and 20 part-time members. Enrolled only 22 members at the start, and added 7 more in the third quarter and 5 in the fourth quarter. Rolling admissions for this program, and a late start date, make for inconsistent reporting and incomplete files, as many members fulfilled their term of service over the summer or in Year 2. - First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 program in its infancy; established process for recruiting members Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 program launched January 20 with 10 full-time and 12 part-time members. �Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 2 full-time members added 7 part-time and 6 full-time members Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 attrition of 3 members added 5 members (no additional information was provided) Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 11 Attrition of 4 members 3 for cause, not eligible for education award 1 eligible for partial award Overall attrition rate = 18% Attrition rate of those for cause = 13% Overall, the attrition for this program is much lower than the median average of 39%. It is also lower than the "for cause" attrition rate of 22%. The part-time corpsmembers are graduate students at the University of Michigan, which may account for the high rate of retention, and- low attrition. Individual members: The member files are missing numerous forms. There is a possibility that the members have continued on to a second year of service, and that is why the files are incomplete. E. Avery Start date: 6/6/95 Exit date: 6/11/96 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award, 311 hfs. C. Grose Start date: 1/18/95 Exit date: 6/96 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation, eligible for ed award, 729 hrs. M. Morse Start date: 5/8/95 Exit date: 8/19/95 no explanation, (summer only possibly) not eligible for education award, 518 hrs. M. Stein Start date: 5/8/95 Exit date: 8/5/95 no explanation, not eligible for education award, 502 hrs. Saginaw AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps United Way of Saginaw County was awarded 41 members, 14 full-time and 27 part-time. They work with the Saginaw Police, the school district, the YMCA, and other community groups on community policing, urban issues, youth violence, and neighborhood safety, among other issues. First Quarter October 1, 1994 --December 31, 1994 Hired 41 members by November 14. Replaced 4 out of 41 members within the 6 week grace period. 14 full-time members 26 part-time members at the end of the quarter �Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 3 new members added Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 7 members, 1 full-time and 6 part-time added 2 part-time members, for a total of 23 part-time and 13 full-time Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 attrition of 2 full-time members who were terminated Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 27 Total number of education awards given =37 Attrition of 20 members 10 for cause 10 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 50% Attrition rate "for cause" = 25% Overall, the Saginaw AmeriCorps program had a higher rate of total attrition than the median average of 39%. The rate of ''for cause" attrition was just above the median of 22%. This program had a rolling admission policy and added 3 new members in the second quarter and 2 in the third quarter. Member attrition: Members enrolled in October/November unless otherwise noted. The launch was on November 14. K. Bond Exit date: 4/16/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 227 hrs. R. Brown Start date: 12/23/94 Exit date: 5/20/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 445 hrs. D. Burch Exit date: 11/4/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 75 hrs. J. Ervin Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 664 hrs. R. Johnson Exit date: 11116/94 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 24 hrs. 0. Lopez Exit date: 8/16/95 Full-time for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award; 1259 hrs. E. McKenzie Exit date: 6/9/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for ed award, 1014 hrs. J. Nettles Exit date: 5/15/95 for cause, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award; 428 hrs. �A. Omar Exit date: 8/18/95 for.cause, no exit form; not eligible for an education award; 1257 hrs. W. Parks Exit date: 6/19/95 compel. pers. reasons, sick mother, moved away; eligible for partial ed award~ 561 hrs. B. Patrick Exit date: 1114/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award; 120 hrs. L. Pierson Exit date: 7/28/95 for cause, no exit form, not eligible for ed award, 558 hrs. Exit date: 1/14/97 exit form says he completed 1700 hours T. Robinson Exit date: 4/27/95 for cause, got a job; not eligible for award, 416 hrs. T. Smith Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 727 hrs. D. Soza Exit date: 7/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 631 hrs. F. Thomas Exit date: 8/25/95 for cause, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award; 630 hrs. T. Warren-Bennett Exit date: 12/20/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for award, 40 hrs. J. Weinrauch Exit date: 4/1/95 compel. pers. reason, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 387 hrs. M. Welch Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reason, got a job; eligible for partial ed award-, 271 hrs. J. Thompson Start date: 5/29/95 Exit date: 8/25/95 conflicting reports: one report says compel. pers. reasons, one report says for cause, there is no explanation on either form, report says he is eligible for a partial ed award, 239 hrs. Eastern Michigan University, Teams for School Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members work with students to provide meaningful activities through numerous after-school clubs and tutorial programs around Ypsilanti. Allocated 8 full-time and 24 part-time members. Rolling admissions and the nature of the program account for an inaccurate attrition rate. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 24 part-time and 2 full-time members joined on 10/17. attrition of 3 part-time members, replaced them after 10/17. added 5 full-time members at end of quarter, 8 full-time (where did the extra 1 come from?) and 24 part-time members enrolled �January 1, 1995 --March 30, 1995 recruited 1 part-time member and 1 full-time member attrition of 1 full-time member attrition of 2 part-time member, will NOT replace one member at end of quarter, 8 full-time and 23 full-time Second Quarter Third Quarter April1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 4 full-time and 11 part-time members 2 graduated from school and left, most left "permanently" because of school commitments, which means they weren't going to remain members for the - nextschoolyear 4 full-time and 5 part-time members remained to work over the summer Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 July and August, 4 full-time and 5 part-time members served "those who resigned without completing their term of service did so for a variety of reasons. Most left permanently because their academic programs require clinics or student teaching during our second year and time commitments precluded continuing in the program. Two graduated. One did not return to the university." Year 2 began in September, with 2 full-time and 10 part-time members Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 5 Total number of education awards= 28 (out of 32 allocated spots) Attrition of 30 members 7 for cause 23 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = undeterminable Attrition rate "for cause" = 26% See below for an explanation of the attrition rates of this program. Overall, the "for cause" attrition rate is just above the median. Individual members: Start date was 10117/95 unless otherwise noted. Because of the nature of the program, and the program year conflicting with the school year, many of the partial awards are considered as full completion of the term of service, even if the member did not complete the full number of hours, and so should not really be considered "attrition" in a negative manner. Also, many exit forms are missing or not filled out completely. K. Amos Start date: 12/14/95 Exit date: 6/16/96 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award, 126 hrs. J. Banks Exit date: 7/20/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 346 hrs. �J. Bannick Exit date: 9/20/95 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 309 hrs. J. Bird Exit Date: 12/31/95 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award; 681 hrs. M. Chmura Exit date: 6/16/96 compel. pers. reason, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 329 hrs. T. Daniel Exit date: 6/30/95 compel. pers. reason, student teaching; eligible for partial ed award; 476 hrs. P. deHart Exit date: 511/95 no explanation; not eligible for education award, 144 hrs. K. Eagle Exit date: 8/31/95 compel. pers. reasons, "not the right fit;" eligible for partial ed award; 293 hrs. N. Faust Exit date: 4/28/95 Full-time no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 1197 hrs. J. Gilbert Exit date: 12/31195 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 598 hrs. S. Jackson Exit date: 5/4/95 for cause, no explanation, 147 hrs. Exit date: 8/31/95 left for personal reasons, eligible for partial education award; 218 hrs. A. Johnson Exit date: 6/16/96 no exit forms, eligible for partial education award; 349 hrs. D. Johnson Exit date: 6/16/96 no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 349 hrs. J. Little Start date: 12/1/94 Exit date: 4/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 243 hrs. M. Little Exit date: 4/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 563 hrs. J. Lott Start date: 2/13/95 Exit date: 2/14/96 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1214 hrs. K. Logan Exit date: 8/31195 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1230 hrs. �C. Martin Exit date: 8/31/95 no explanation, eligible for partial ed award, 1676 hrs. G. McKinney Start date: 3/13/95 Exit date: 8/31/95 Exit form 8/31/95 says compelling personal reasons, partial ed award, 722 hrs. Report says NOT eligible for education award 562 hrs. Suspended 12/22/95 Terminated 1119/96, no exit form. J. Mierzwa Exit date: no exit form no explanation, eligible for partial ed award, no hours D. Moore Exit date: 11115/94 for cause, no explanation, not eligible for ed award, 20 hrs. S.Motley Exit date: 6/15/95 compel. pers. reasons, student teaching; eligible for partial ed award, 440 hrs. W. Patterson Exit date: 8/31/95 compel. pers. reasons, enrolled in school; eligible for partial award, 202 hrs. - K. Rice Exit date: 6/28/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 747 hrs. D. Roberts Exit date: 5/30/95 compel. pers. reasons, looking for full-time job wlbenefits, car problems; eligible for partial ed award, 343 hrs. D. Rougeau Exit date: 2/11195 compel. pers. reasons, got a job, dissatisfied w/program staff, left for other personal reasons; eligible for partial ed award, 107 hrs. S. Sanbum Exit date: 8/31/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, school; eligible for partial ed award, 906 hrs. K. Skinner Exit date: 6116/96 (1 year, 7 mo.) for cause, no explanation; not eligible for award, 91 hrs. R. Souza Exit date: 8/31195 compel. pers. reasons, school; eligible for partial ed award, 302 hrs. D. Walton Start date: 1211/94 Exit date: 2/13/95 Full-time for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award; 56 hrs. � 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_Attrition-of-Program-Members Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Attrition of AmeriCorps Program Members 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 Attrition of AmeriCorps Program Members. 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, 49867 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/77ecef1ba47d6425ec069ea211369e62.pdf 6a01022b2bae3e8e2789a5e0c1766f18 PDF Text Text AN OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS (12/4/96) MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS VISTA Education Award Only Administered by MCSC Administered by CNS/MI Administered by MCSC Provides direct community service with demonstrable and measurable impact. Can include, but must not be limited to support for and/or coordination of direct community service projects. Mobilizes human and other community resources to increase the capacity of low income communities to solve their own problems. Does not provide direct service or administrative support. Provides direct community service with demonstrable and measurable impact. Can include, but must not be limited to support for and/or coordination of direct community service projects. Priority placed in four issue areas: education, public safety, environment and human needs. Capacity building emphasis: employment training, literacy, public safety, health, housing, and revitalization programs. Priority placed in four issue areas : education, public safety, environment and human needs. Selected competitively. Grants provide 85% of member support and 67% of operational costs. Selected competitively. Administered through memo of understanding. No funds change hands. Selected competitively. Programs fund member support & operational costs . Programs may receive up to S1,000 per FTE member tor operations. AmeriCorps member support requires a cash match and operational support requires cash or in-kind match . No cash match, however sponsors must provide operational support to accomplish tasks. Except for education awards and S1,000/FTE operational allowance, programs provide full support. FT and PT members serve 1, 700 or 900 hours per year. Full-time only . Forty hours per week preferred. FT and PT members serve 1, 700 or 900 hours per year. Open to U.S. citizens 17 years or older with or working for a H.S. d iploma . Open to U.S. Citizens 18 years or older. Open to U.S. citizens 17 years or older with or working for a H.S. diploma . Member support may include child and health care. Members receive a post service education award of $4,725 for full-time or $2,362 for part-time service . Member support may include child/health care. Members may receive a FT education award or waive it for a S100 monthly stipend over and above the living allowance. Member support determined by program . Members receive a post service education award of $2,362 for 900 hours of part-time service. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with MCSC and CNS. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with CNS. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with MCSC and CNS. Program disburses member living allowance and benefits. CNS disburses member living allowance and benefits. Living allowance and benefits determined by program. Members may have up to 20% of their service time dedicated to training and development. CNS provides a three-day orientation for members, sponsors provide other training . Program determines training and member development up to 20% of service time . Minimum program size of 10 FTE members. Minimum program size of four members. Minimum program size of 10 PT members . Quarterly reports to MCSC . Quarterly reports to CNS/MI. Quarterly reports to MCSC. � 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_An-Overview-of-National-Service-Programs Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting An Overview of National Service Programs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting An Overview of National Service 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, 49866 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/fcd800863c7a6eb347fb03b32433f176.pdf 1860025f619dd52b384afb55a3041b33 PDF Text Text AMERICORPS FY97 AVAiLABLE FORMULA FUNDS Revised 3/24/97 + Estimated FY96 Formula Unspent Michigan's FY97 Formula Amount $2,564,671 $ 32 1.368 Total Formula Available for FY97 $2,886,039 Less: Marquette County Health Dept. Project S.A.V.E. Family Independence Agency Fitzgerald Public Schools American Youth Foundation Volunteer Centers of Michigan $156,000 $252,000 $288 ,000 $136,000 $246,000 " $183 ,000 Total Subtractions C$1.261.000) TOTALFORMULAAV~ABLEFORNEWPROGRAMS $1,625,039 (if Marquette County does not reapply) $1,781,039 � 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_AmeriCorps-Available-Funds Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps Available Formula Funds 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 AmeriCorps Available Formula Funds. 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, 49865 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/2c9703aad282bfa78f362035100fa5fa.pdf 7fe7f73e20108af59c5d81cb9e945806 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Te lephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Capttol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Comrni FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Direc Michigan Community Service Co RE: Special Public Hearings meeting DATE: February 28, 1997 In response to the request made by Commissioners at the last meeting, we have scheduled a special hearing for gathering public views on supporting service in Michigan. The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 5:00p.m. on March 25, 1997 in the Olds Plaza Building, 2nd Floor, Cabinet Room. Please let me know if you will be able to attend, as this meeting is optional. Also, please remember your attendance at the April 10, 1997 is critical as it will determine our state's funding application to the Corporation for National Service. Thank you and call me if you have any questions or concerns at (517)335-4295 . A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission .._,., 0' �" STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commi FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Direc Michigan Community Service Co RE: Special Public Hearings meeting DATE: February 28, 1997 In response to the request made by Commissioners at the last meeting, we have scheduled a special hearing for gathering public views on supporting service in Michigan. The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 5:00p.m. on March 25, 1997 in the Olds Plaza Building, 2nd Floor, Cabinet Room. Please let me know if you will be able to attend, as this meeting is optional. Also, please remember your attendance at the April10, 1997 is critical as it will determine our state's funding application to the Corporation for National Service. Thank you and call me if you have any questions or concerns at (517)335-4295. ~'i +-o all Cowv'Y) i ss!~ CVV\tA (Ylet ; \ ~ -to J . Hu i v A . fr i t-eit~ s . &wtl'H\ 2--- ;;((; _cr7 a;no\ A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commi ssion 0,-- ~P(7 3/'J �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza 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 FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commi RE: Special Public Hearings meeting DATE: March 13 , 1997 We have scheduled a special hearing for gathering public views on supporting service in Michigan. The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 5:00p.m. on March 25, 1997. The location has been moved from the Olds Plaza Building to the Kellogg Center, Room 105 A&B Michigan State University, Harrison Road, East Lansing. Also, please remember your attendance at the April 10. 1997 Commission meetin~: is critical as it will determine our state's funding application to the Corporation for National Service. The meeting will start at 11 :00 a.m. in the Cabinet Room, 2nd Floor of the Olds Plaza Building. Lunch will be served after the meeting in the Michigan Room, Olds Plaza Building. Please RSVP to Mary Estrada if you are planning to join us for lunch. Thank you for your attention and don' t hesitate to call me if you have any questions or concerns at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission 0' ~ �·' (810)334-9225 OTHERS Ms. Carol Wolenberg (DOE) 517-241-0062 Mr. Doug Stites (MJC) 517-373-6227 Mr. Joseph Graves (DSS)/Barbara Bradford 517-373-2860 5541 Ms. Bonnie Graham(OA) 517-373-9360 Ms. Roberta Stanley(DOE) 571-373-3287 (616)243-3555 (MNF) 517-353-5038 Ms. Lisa Ditch Murray (313)983-6191 Mr. Ross Dodge(DNR) 5-1619 Sam Singh(VAC) (517)353-5038 Lisa McGettigan(MCC) (517)353-9393 Mary Pheiler-Detroit Corporation (313)-226-7848 Staff (F. Dirks, M. Estrada, L.Reurink, G. Gross, P. Kaiser, D. Wells, A. Salas, J. Epps, T. McCloskey) Mr. Alton Shipstead (616)929-5000 1 � 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_1997-03-25_Special-Public-Hearings-Meeting Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting special public hearings meeting Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting special public hearings meeting. 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, 49864 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/726a559f628cea77199bc3ec8bd8a7b4.pdf f2e171a82ac87e53bdf462a53b96c5cd PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICHIGAN March 25, 1997 1:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Kellogg Center, East Lansing, Michigan Order of Presenters Mary Pfeiler Michigan State Office Director , Corporation for National Service, Detroit Karen Washington VISTA Program Director, Emmanual Community House, Inc. , Detroit Linda Lark RSVP Program Director, Senior Neighbors, Inc., Kent County Brad Johnson Director, Voluntary Action Center of Greater Lansing Aria Larsen Senior Companion Program Director, Lapeer/Genesse Counties Doreen Thomas Learn & Serve Program Director, Kalamazoo Public Education Foundation Leisa Richardson AmeriCorps Program Director, Urban League of Flint Peggy Burns Foster Grandparent Program Director, Gerontology Network, Kent County Debra Holmes-Garrison VISTA Program Director, Michigan Cities In Schools, Grand Rapids Joy Graves RSVP Program Director, CSS of Wayne County Sharon Campbell Learn and Serve Program Director, Catholic Youth Organization, Detroit Bob Parks AmeriCorps Program Director, Family Independence Agency, Lansing Sue Johnson Michigan CARES Program Director, Volunteer Muskegon Each presenter will be allotted fifteen minutes for their presentation, and questions and answers with the Commission. If time permits, there will be opportunity for further public comment until adjournment at 4:30p.m. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commissi on 0,-- �STATE OF MICHIGAN . JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICHIGAN March 25, 1997 1:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Kellogg Center, East Lansing, Michigan Order of Presenters Michigan State Office Director, Corporation for National Service, Detroit VISTA Program Director, Emmanual Community House, Inc. , Detroit RSVP Program Director, Senior Neighbors, Inc., Kent County indahatk ~ .....ft,SI.c:1 • Director, Voluntary Action Center of Greater Lansing ,.Brad IohnsGfl .....Afia Larsen HAfV~.V ~D ~ Senior Companion Program Director, Lapeer/Genesse Counties Learn & Serve Program Director, Kalamazoo Public Education Foundation Lcisa R:ieha:rdson AmeriCorps Program Director, Urban League of Flint -Peggy Burns Foster Grandparent Program Director, Gerontology Network, Kent County - 1Tel5ra VISTA Program Director, Michigan Cities In Schools, Grand Rapids o mes-Garnson .. ~~ RSVP Program Director,-€SS 6f-Wayne.Qotmty-f1 f\~:S 8ha:ron Eampbe'l Learn and Serve Program Director, Catholic Youth Organization, Detroit \)/) j) {j,_,<J..Je'fl. ':f- -B05 Parks AmeriCorps Program Director, Family Independence Agency, Lansing !""Sue Johnson Michigan CARES Program Director, Volunteer Muskegon Each presenter will be allotted fifteen minutes for their presentation, and questions and answers with the Commission. If time permits, there will be opportunity for further public comment until adjournment at 4:30p.m. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission 0,-- · �-· 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 hasq' t told me about yet. " As I read the clip it turned out to be a notice about the Delta Sigma Theta Soro~_i~ 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 small 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 devolution 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. ~ · 1, ~ .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 of you 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 would 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? What should you~ �I encourage you to become as involved as you can in meeting and observing 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. I urge yoy 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 considerable strain 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. I think it is what the people of Michigan would ask us to do. In fact, I think they expect us to do this without their having to ask and remind us to do this. We all need to take hold of our part of the solution and stop being part of the ~·'lp,l JI < ~(-z( v&~ n �LInda La.r-t 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.) I. 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 are utilized 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 Story . 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 SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICIDGAN 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 ofMid-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 done 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 of Michigan 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 Service 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 ofthe 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. �Ar-ia L~'l •• MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY MARCH 25 , I 997 ARIA LARSEN, DIRECTOR SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY 202 E. BOULEVARD DRIVE STE. I 10 FLINT, MI48503 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 Program since it was started 13 years ago. Prior to the creation of our Senior Companion Program, I was the Director of the 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 Program 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% 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 hourl y stipend of $2.45 for a maximum of 20 hours \veek or 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, 2 I 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 written agreements with the SCP to be matched with senior volunteers by the Program staff. The community referral agencies are there for the needs of their adult clients and the Senior Companion Program is there for their Senior volunteer. By working together the Program 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 independentl y as possible by providing companionship, advocacy, respite, and social activities to their assi!:,Tfled clients and their familie s. �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 assit,rned clients benefits both the Senior volunteers and the referred adults. Two special groups of indi vid uals, 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 Program . Now there are nine Programs with only two of the SCP funded primarily by the Corporation for National Service (CN S). 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 recognizes the NSSC Prot:,rrams 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 was changed to the NSSC our Programs were known as the Older American Volunteer Programs ( OA VP). The name supported the original purpose of the Programs of the emphasis being placed on the senior volunteer over any community service they provided. The Corporation is changing the purpose of the NSSC Prot,'Tams to have the emphasis on the service the senior volunteers provide the community over the service to the senior volunteer to fit 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 Prot,'Tams, tirst as the ACTION state office and now as the Corporation state office since these Prot,'Tams began thirty years ago . The Prot:,rrams are comfortable with the state oftice as a known entity and the Corporation State Office works v,:ell 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 oftices on aging or even Community Service Commissions like we have in Michigan . What the NSSC Prot,'Tams nationall y do have in common is the Corporation State Offices. What has made the �NSSC Programs successful and so long-standing with bipartisan support is the consistent fiscal and programmatic oversight and structure nationally with the Corporation State Offices. The fiscal and programmatic 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 qualitied Americans. Because the Michigan NSSC Programs 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 programs nationally 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 Mecosta and Osceola Lake Counties BethDebano Macomb County Wilma Kahn Kalamazoo County Jill Kind Washtenaw County RSVP Director Grand Traverse Bay Area Hersh ell 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 Monroe County + (313)883-7764 + FAX 883-3957 March 17, 1997- Micrugan 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 I 8 hundred thousand.... nearly two million hours.. .. meeting a variety of human 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 legislated 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 service 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 Americorp and Americorp' s survival . We are deeply concerned that the support that we once received from Washington, before coming to the Corporation has, indeed, been eroded. The Commission' s focus 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; �MARSVPD Testimony - page 2 conununity nonprofits ; and other organizations to support senior volunteers while they meet community needs. In the ideal, what is the best way that national and community service and volunteerism should be supported in .\fichigan? Our mission is senior volunteerism, so I will address that issue. Ideally, our state office \vill continue to be a viable and reliable source of support. The partnerships formed , and the 26 years of experience in admini stering our programs should continue. The current system allows for flexibility in identifying the needs of the individual conununities, 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. \Vhy change a system that so ideally meets the needs of our programs, our volunteers and our conununities? What efficiency can be gained by stripping our programs and the communities they serve of experienced, dedicated support and damaging effective partnerships that make our programs the low cost, creative solutions to many of our communities ' problems? If the determined attempts to eliminate our state offices do ultimately succeed, then there is only one clear choice 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 seruor volunteers to aid in solving commuruty problems. Because they already provide support and administer fund ing 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. T¥hat should the Commission do to support national and community service andvolunteerism in Michigan ? Again, I will address senior volunteerism because ours is a senior volunteer program. We appreciate the Commission's decision 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 seruors in Michigan as a source of wi sdom, 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, religious 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. T¥hat 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. W_e provide seruors with the framework to improve their own lives while serving others. The Commission should recogruze the strength of seruor volunteers without exploiting seniors as cheap labor. To try to dictate what a volunteer will choose to do is an oxymoron. Senior volunteers, actually volunteers of any age, cannot be forced to provide service for free. Service and volunteerism are not synonymous. To be an effective RSVP volunteer, there must be benefit to the seru or first, and service to the community, second. Otherwise, volunteerism becomes exploitative. The Conunission 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 opporturlity to express our views. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Commission on projects in the future thus putting to good use the strengths of each entity. �.. A.,l}art ofyqur lifo.. , a l your lift. 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. CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION • 11 305 MICHIGAN AVENUE • DETROIT , MICHIGAN 48226 • 3 I 3-963-7 I 72 Getting kids & communities into something good since 1933 \nll'rll'oln (',tnlptng \ -.u,·iatum �IN ADDITION TO THE COMMONLY KNOWN CYO PROGRAMS SUCH AS, CAMPS, ATHLETICS AND YOUTH LEADERSHIP , THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS , CHURCHES , PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS , SCHOOLS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES , 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 GRANTING 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 �MISS ION ; AND TO SERVE AS A PRIMAR Y COMMUNITY RESOURCE FOR YOUTH SERV ICES 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 NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , EXPLORE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING POSSIBILITIES, AND SHARE RESOURCES . MEMBERSHIP WAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS , CHURCHES , COALITIONS , NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND OTHERS WHOSE PURPOSE INCLUDES PROVIDING SERVICES TO YOUTH. THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES, NOW , AS A RESULT OF THE MCSC / CYO 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 , NAT IONALLY AFFILIATED AGENCIES , HEALTH NEIGHBORHOOD AGENCIES, GROUPS, LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS , HUMAN SERVICES AND -BUSINESSES. AGENCIES , MANY SERVICE EMERGING PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEGUN TO GEL AS A RESUL T'OF 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 FUTURE GENERATIONS" 200 ADULTS WHO RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ; PARTICIPATED IN NETWORKING ACTIVITIES; HEARD FROM 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 DEVELOP 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 �THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHER BENEFITS TO YO UTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE DETROIT AREA , THROUGH THE CYSA , AND I DON ' T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DISCUSS THEM ALL . I DO , HOWEVER , W ANT TO TELL YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PLANS DEVELOPING FOR THE SUMME R. 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 QUALIF IED TO IDENTIFY RESOURCES THAT ARE USEFUL TO THEM . RESOURCES, NOT ONLY INCLUDE SERVICES , THEY ALSO INVOLVE OPPORTUNITIES , PLACES TO GO , AND CARING ADULTS . THIS PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP , LIFE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IS UNDERWAY TO SEEK A GRANT TO STIPEND THE YOUTH. AS YOU CAN TELL I AM VERY EXCITED BY THIS WORK. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TELL YOU A BIT ABOUT THE WORK OTHER CO& T DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN AND ARE ENGAGED IN. 6 �'· THROUGH A MICHIGAN 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 THY 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 15 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 COMMUNITY , THE RECREATION LEAGUE HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY RECRUITING AND TRA INING VOLUNTEERS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY , COACHES , REFEREES, AND PLAYERS . THE COMMUNITY RECREATION [EAGUE 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 PAINS 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 REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES , WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES, NETWORKING 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 FACILITATED BY THE MCSC . 10 CAN �.. I • - IN CONCLUSION , OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MCSC, THROUGH THE MYSAM GRANT, Ml CARES FUNDING, AND WITH TH E 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 ofthis 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 Michigan. 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 of the 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 of the 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. �I 1' 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 Commission and the programs under the aegis of the Commission. Discussing in a public forum what can be improved isn't easy. All of us 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? �... • '.. r- Requests for information often come with very abbreviated 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 Arnericorps 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. � 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_1997-03-25_Public-Information-Gathering-Presenters Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting public information gathering presenters Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting public information gathering presenters. 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, 49863 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b473938fd21c74ad7810dc1d752f0218.pdf 6ff6e2e2eacb4d4211854242e32b0696 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 March 24, 1997 Mr. Bradley J. Johnson, Executive Director Voluntary Action Center of Greater Lansing 6035 Executive Drive, Suite 105 Lansing, Michigan 48911 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for agreeing to share yorn 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. Frank Dirks, Executive Direct Michigan Community Service Commission A Division of the Mi chi gan Jobs Comm ission -- ol ��� 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_1997-03-25_Public-Information-Gathering-Letters-to-Presenters Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting public information gathering letters to presenters Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting public information gathering letters to presenters. 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, 49862 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ca16983c109d8c9f1f277e2f22bed4f1.pdf 4c435a14ede29b5e9f16b5934258d759 PDF Text Text BACKGROUND The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (NCSTA) merged the National and Community Service Commission (NCSC) and the ACTION Agency. NCSC was created through the National and Community Service Act of 1990 with the support of a bipartisan coalition in Congress and President Bush. The Act supported the creation of the Points of Light Foundation and provided funding for K -16 youth service (Learn and Serve) programs, and service corps programs. The 1990 Act created most of the programs that the MCSC administered until1993. The ACTION Agency, created through the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 administers the VISTA, VISTA Literacy, RSVP, Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs. The administrative agency that NCSTA created in the merger is called the Corporation for National Service (CNS). A government corporation, CNS has a board and CEO appointed by the president with advice & consent of the senate. CNS is authorized to raise private funds to support its activities. NCSTA eliminated the youth corps programs that had been administered by NCSC in order to create a new national service program, which has since been named AmeriCorps by CNS. NCST A also created the National Service Trust, which holds the annually appropriated post-service education awards for national service participants, and a CNS administered service corps named the National Civilian Conservation Corps (NCCC) . CNS supports 85 % of the $7,945 of the national service participant's full time living allowance, 85 % of health care, 100% of child care if needed, and a $4,725 post-service education benefit drawn as needed through the National Service Trust. CNS also supports 75 % percent of the cost of operating a national service program. One third of the AmeriCorps program funding is administered by CNS and available to other federal agencies and national non profits. Two thirds of the national service program, AmeriCorps, is administered through state service commissions and supports community-driven service initiatives. Fifty percent of the national service administration budget goes to state commissions by a formula allocation. The original intent of the NCSTA as submitted by the president was to completely merge the administrative structure of the ACTION agency into the new CNS as well as create a system of limited term employees. However, the ACTION agency employees represented by AFSCME prevailed upon Congress to maintain their existing structure in the merger. As a result, the old ACTION Agency programs are administered in each state by federal CNS offices while state commissions administer most of the AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve programs (state depts. of education administer 75 % of K-12 L&S funds), and competitive innovative service programs. �NCST A received modest bipartisan support in Congress. Few argued with the overall concept. As Sens. Kassebaum, Hatch, and Thurmond wrote in their minority views in the Labor and Human Resources committee report, "The argument is not about the value of national service, but rather about how to deal constructively with this issue." Opponents raised a number of concerns including the standard issue of the apparent oxymoron of paid volunteerism, the inefficient administrative structure, the relative value of a service education award as opposed to a Pell grant, and the projected growth and expense of the program. Sen. Kassebaum offered the most thoughtful substitute that was guided by the following principals: 1) consolidate national service and volunteer programs into a single federal entity to avoid duplication, 2) maximize state flexibility in determining service needs and priorities, 3) maintain a modest rate of growth, and 4) test various post-service benefit options. While her substitute was rejected in the Senate, it does offer an example of how National Service has thoughtful supporters across the political spectrum. While much criticism has been leveled at AmeriCorps, its administrative structure is decentralized and relies on, and supports state service commissions to make most program funding decisions. On the other, if on going congressional criticism of AmeriCorps are any indication, the centrally organized and federally administered former ACTION Agency programs may be the only programs to survive reauthorization. By dismissing the AmeriCorps model, Congress may unwittingly eliminate the only state administered service funding stream. Much of the concerns raised over the cost of AmeriCorps are based on a report by the GAO that attempted to estimate the resources necessary to support an FTE AmeriCorps participant. The GAO has said that it was not conducting a cost benefit analysis. It was only estimating how much goes into AmeriCorps and what that divides out to per FTE. In so doing, GAO included CNS and state commission administration, grant and matching resources for program operation, participant support, and the post-service awards. GAO did not attempt to calculate the impact of new volunteers generated by AmeriCorps participants. By calculating everything that supports a project, GAO included things like the cost (funded or match donated) of lumber and paint that goes into an AmeriCorps home renovation project. If a company donates lumber as a match, GAO calculates that as a resource necessary to support an AmeriCorps member. What is really a cost of a project is rolled into the FTE cost figure. Thus critics express concern over the high FTE cost of AmeriCorps. For your information see the attached sheet on actual cost of first year Michigan's AmeriCorps programs. �Percentage of National Service Administrative Costs Michigan Community Service Commission For FY96 MCSC was eligible to receive a formula administrative grant of $450,000. MCSC uses this grant to administer AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, and produce publications on service and volunteerism, coordinate Make a Difference Day, National Volunteer Week, as well as the other activities in which MCSC regularly engages. However, if you were to only apply the administrative grant to AmeriCorps FTEs the costs follow. Average cost per AmeriCorps participant - with state adrnin. Funds $12,886 - without state adrnin. Funds $10,812 Overall budget percentages of Michigan's AmeriCorps administrative funds and program funds -Program 87 .14% -Administrative 12.86% Corporation for National Service Overall percentages of administrative funds and program funds in the CNS budget generally referred to as AmeriCorps. - adrnin compared to total budget 5.85% - adrnin without National Service Trust (NST)* 7.77 % - adrnin without NST, Inspector General, and Audits 7.94% Overall percentages of administrative funds and program funds in the CNS budget that contains all the former ACTION Agency programs. - adrnin compared to total budget 14.5% * This is the fund that provides the post service education awards for AmeriCorps members. �In the spring of 1995, MCSC's chair submitted testimony to a U.S. House sub-committee on the national service program. At that time, AmeriCorps was a high profile target for the congresionalleadership. Nevertheless, her testimony asserted her support for national service. She made a compelling case for the value of national and community service as well as the need for a public, federal investment in service and volunteerism. In addition, she made some suggestions for improving national service delivery including streamlining the "dual delivery system" in order to achieve improved cost effectiveness. The "dual delivery system" refers to the way CNS administers its portfolio of national and community service programs. While it speaks primarily to the function of the state commission and the CNS state office, in principle, it also refers to the way CNS directly administers other programs in the states. While state commissions are expected to provide coordination and oversight of national and community service in states, they are given little direct responsibility for most programs. Currently, state commissions administer grants to state formula AmeriCorps programs, state AmeriCorps programs selected through a national competitive process, and community-base Learn and Serve programs awarded to states on a competitive basis. CNS awards grants to national direct AmeriCorps programs through national nonprofit agencies like YMCA, but expects state commissions to provide technical support to these programs in their states. CNS awards school-based Learn and Serve grants by formula to state education agencies. CNS awards and administers grants to higher education institutions in states through a national competitive process. Despite these directly CNS administered programs in the states, the dual delivery system refers mostly to the programs operated by state CNS offices. CNS provides administrative support for both commissions and CNS state offices. CNS state offices administer the allocation of VISTAs and the funding and administration of Retired Senior Volunteer Programs (RSVP), Foster Grandparent Programs (FGP) , and Senior Companion Programs (SCP). The criticism of the dual delivery system is that by maintaining what are in effect two offices in the states--commissions and CNS-- the system is not as efficient as it would be if there were only one. At about the same time that MCSC's Chair submitted her testimony, MCSC's director was leading an effort among other state commissions to approach the Ford Foundation for support of a national grant to help state service commissions develop their capacity in states. Commissions are uneven across the country; not every state enjoys the level of support from the administration that Michigan does. The Ford grant was intended to help commissions help themselves and more importantly to develop an identity and purpose for commissions that extended beyond the administration of a federal program. The goal was to develop states' capacities to support service and volunteerism. �In the late 1970s the old ACTION Agency had supported an effort to create state offices of volunteerism. Beyond initial seed funding, ACTION did not do much to support an expanded role for these state offices. Without a clear function for program administration and limited policy understanding of service as a means for meeting community needs, the state offices of volunteerism withered on the vine as governors looked for areas for cost saving. The rationale being the nonprofit sector alone should support volunteerism. The Ford grant was also intended to avoid this from happening by taking advantage of the current level of federal support to develop a lasting institution of modest scale in the states that would function as a catalyst for volunteer community problem solving. Nevertheless, the timing of the MCSC Chair calling for the elimination of the dual delivery system and the MCSC director organizing an effort among state commissions to develop their capacities alarmed the network of CNS state office directors who saw this as a threat to their jobs or at least the way they have done business. CNS state office directors are civil service employees of CNS. Many have been in their state offices for most, if not all of their career. Because they have been in the "field" all this time, they view CNS with suspicion; run by political appointees intend on disrupting the good they are trying to achieve in their states. Many of these directors have operated as free agents-- forging political and program alliances in their states. The former, long-time director of the Michigan CNS office, Stan Stewart, worked with the Michigan Legislature to get state matching funds for senior programs--RSVP, SCP, and FGP. Over time each state director developed their own unique program policies that reflected his or her own program philosophies. While the federal expectation was that VISTA programs would have to be renewed periodically, there was no time certain in Michigan, the CNS office staff actually trained programs on how to operate around to spirit of the rules to ensure perpetual operation. In order to limit interference from the Washington office in the 1980s, the state offices worked with their grantees to secure in federal regulation a rule that stated that any VISTA program that was not to be renewed would be eligible for an appeal hearing. As of this date, some Michigan VISTA sites have operated for more than ten years. The senior service programs (FGP, RSVP, SCP) that state offices administer share with VISTA a similar sense of permanence. The last FGP grant that was awarded in the United States was more than fifteen years ago according to the National FGP Association. Senior program advocates argue that this kind of stability and permanence is critical for the success of effective senior service programs. They say that the reason that few new grants are issued or reconsidered is because no one else in the community would want to run them. Of course, if organizations don't know its an option because there has been no change over the years it is difficult to tell what the real interest would be. �FGP and SCP also consider themselves to be income supplement programs since they provide living stipends for their volunteers. When CNS wanted to change the way it evaluates programs looking more at community impact rather than participant numbers, the programs responded that impact assessment would undermine the programs' work with seniors. Programs also bristled at the CNS proposal the senior programs reapply every six years. Yet now the role of the states has become the biggest potential change to the status quo for these programs and they have gone on record as not finding impact assessment and six-year replications as arduous. Over the years the state office network and the programs they operate have developed a closely coordinated advocacy alliance. If the state office staff are questioned, the programs defend them. If the programs are questioned, the state office staff defend them. This alliance is assured by the fact that these networks have been largely unchanged over the years. The programs are content to protect what they have, lay low, and let the criticism of AmeriCorps pass them by. If the continued existence of CNS is questioned, the senior programs, with their substantial voice from seniors, are ready to argue for transfer to the federal office on aging. These program like to think of themselves as more aging than service programs when they see the status quo challenged. The uproar within the field from senior programs, VISTA programs, and the CNS state office network caused CNS to convene a group of state commission directors and CNS office directors to develop options for how they could work together more efficiently. Even though the NCSTA called for the merger of the old ACTION network, CNS chose to focus most of its energy on getting AmeriCorps up and running and them defending it from criticism. CNS let its state office network alone. At the same time these CNS state directors sat as ex officio members of commissions and often worked in opposition to the state commission director. The CNS state office directors acted as if the commissions were theirs to control because their growth and development represented a threat to the status quo. The CNS convened group of commission and state office directors developed a compromise proposal for working together that called for a "unified state plan." CNS would judge a state on the quality and comprehensive nature of the comprehensive plan. Concurrent with this, the MCSC presented testimony to a U.S. Senate committee on national service reauthorization. Again, she questioned the dual delivery system, but because of the efforts of this working group the reaction from the program network was muted. In the spirit of the comprehensive plan, Mary Pfeiler, the CNS state office director and I began working together on ways to improve the coordination of our two offices we began to contemplate how we might better allocate national service resources. The current system does not prevent potentially redundant �awards of VISTA and AmeriCorps programs to the same community, even the same organization, to do the same of kind work. There is no incentive in the current national service program delivery system for organizations in a community to collaborate in proposing more efficient use of multiple program resources. There is no mechanism that ensures the efficient deployment of limited resources. Most distressing, the current system appears designed to enable the indefinite support of VISTA sites regardless of their performance or the focus of their activities. Even before the unveiling of the Corporation's Unified State Plan Application, Mary and I were working to develop systems that would better support and complement community innovation through service, while reducing the potential of supporting duplicate community programs. We had already established a solid track record of partnership through trainings, communication, and outreach. The Michigan Corporation Office is a principal partner in the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative. The Commission and the Michigan Office have collaborated in conducting a series of regional trainings. The Commission and the Michigan Office are the principal co-sponsors of the upcoming statewide service and volunteer conference. We have prepared and disseminated a detailed directory of all national service programs in Michigan, cross-referenced by community. We have also begun to hold periodic joint staff and operational planning meetings. Finally, the Commission will begin dedicating a page in its quarterly newsletter to the projects of the Michigan Corporation Office. Despite our productive partnership, we recognized that until we established a means for effectively coordinating our program delivery systems, unified planning would be superficial at best. In the late summer, we began to develop our plan. Michigan's VISTA budget was to be reduced for the next year. Rather than impose easy, across-the-board reductions, Mary saw this as an opportunity to open the VISTA allocation process to new and renewal applications. We both saw the VISTA application process as something that we could link to the state's new AmeriCorps application process. The process, as we envisioned it, would create a level playing field on which renewing and new communities from across the state could compete for national service resources. For the first time, communities would be given an opportunity through this process to develop a national service program application that would build on the best elements of VISTA, AmeriCorps, and Education Only Award programs. The Commission and the Michigan Corporation Office would create a comprehensive packet of applications from which communities would select separate program applications or a combination of applications. The two offices would conduct joint outreach and technical assistance meetings across the state to introduce communities and agencies to the opportunities found in national service. The offices also would conduct an initial, joint screening of applications to ensure that communities had not submitted duplicate proposals or that communities submitting complementary, multiple program proposals were duly �noted. We believed that such a coordinated process represented both the most efficient use of national service resources and the ideal envisioned for the Unified State Plan. In September and October, Mary and I notified our contacts in the Corporation's Washington office to determine: 1) if there were any fundamental policy or administrative problems with the process; 2) if we could proceed immediately with implementation; and 3) if we could put into action what we considered to be the central element of our Unified Plan prior to the formal submission of the plan. We encountered only encouragement from all of the Corporation staff members we consulted. In fact, we were told through our respective channels in the Corporation that what we were proposing indeed typified what had been envisioned for the Unified Plan. We were very excited about the prospect, and we were quite open in sharing the idea at the Corporation's Unified State Plan orientation meeting in November. The Commission also highlighted the process in its administrative grant application. In November and December, our staffs met to develop the comprehensive application packet, prepare the agenda for the application outreach and technical assistance meetings, and plan the review process timeline. In December, more than 150 people attended the four regional meetings that our staffs conducted across the state. After the regional meetings, at least one current VISTA site director, realizing that his organization would have to reapply competitively for the first time in its operation, consulted Stan Stewart, the former Michigan CNS office director on the VISTA rules. Mr. Stewart indicated that the regulations provided VISTA sites with an opportunity for an appeal hearing should they not be refunded. Further, Mr. Stewart suggested that a congressional constituent letter could serve as an alternative route for appealing. When Mary learned of this, she once again discussed our process with her Corporation contacts in Washington. The initial response remained positive. However, after further internal consideration, the Washington office told Mary that the VISTA portion of the comprehensive application was inconsistent with, or in violation of VISTA regulations. With this decision from the Corporation, we have moved immediately to notify anyone who has inquired about national service through the outreach process. We are faxing notices of the cancellation of the VISTA portion of the application package. Since one goal of the outreach meetings was to begin to break down national service program barriers that are perceived to exist by many local organizations, Mary and I share concern that the cancellation notice may dissuade potential AmeriCorps applicants. As it has turned out, we will be left with a fewer number of VISTAs at our current VISTA sites while potentially fewer organizations may choose to apply for AmeriCorps. Of course, this also returns us to the more administratively palatable across-the-board VISTA reductions. �POSSIBLE QUESTIONS What value has the Commission added to the delivery of services in Michigan? What program and technical assistance needs do programs have? What is an appropriate time limit for programs to operate without reapplication? What is the difference between a poverty program and a service program? By what standard should a senior service program be assessed in its performance? How should AmeriCorps and VISTA programs be coordinated in support of the field? Has the CNS Michigan office ever held a meeting of this kind to gather views from the field? Is a competitive process good for selecting and supporting programs, if not what? What should MCSC do to support the field? �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Capitol A venue, George Romney Building, 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 FAX FAX COVER SHEET To: Ray West United Way Community Services From: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission Date: March 24, 1997 Number of pages including the cover: Message: 10 �MI COMMUNITY. SERV COM Fax:517-373-4977 **Transmit Conf .Report Mar 24 '97 MI COM~1Ut~ITY SERV COM --- > W est No . 0026 Mode NORMAL Time 4'23" Pages 10 Page (s) Result 0 K ** 17:42 � 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_1997-03-25_NCSTA Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting The National and Community Service Trust Act Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting The National and Community Service Trust Act. 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, 49861 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f70b92799340b33341d5991a30ee0fd7.pdf cc1b1e5878d05015fbc5185b23edf421 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Public Information Gathering Meeting: 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., fonnerly 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. Fonnerly 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 fonnal process for pooling their resources and delivering 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 "turn 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 perfonnance, 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' Summit: ... ... ... • All children need and dese.rve: a personal, one-on-one relationship with a caring adult; a safe place to learn and grow; a marketable skiU 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 connect ion of needed community resources, parent and schools to help young people successfully learn, stay in school and 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 operational status. Operational ClS 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-Learnjng efforts, Youth Engaged in Service and Youth Irutiative programs 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 last two and a half years through MCTS, 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. I) 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 fi scal 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 trai ning, 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 �Michigan Communities In Schools: How We Work Michigan Communities In Schools (MCIS) works with local initiatives to REPOSITION EXISTING health and human services into the schools to address the needs of youth in a comprehensive, wholistic, and accountable manner. CIS does not compete with existing programs, but rather provides a process for more integrated and effective service delivery based on local needs and resources. . " ,' . . · · ·· ·· ···:· · . :· ······· .. According to the 1996 Making Kids Count community advocacy book, " communities must begin to design comprehensive programs that address the interrelated social, emotional, fmancial, educational and health-related needs of children." Similarly, one of the action steps recommended by the Michigan Business Leaders for Educational Excellence is to "assign a higher priority in health and human service agencies to work with poverty impacted schools to provide systematic programs of health care, counseling, nutrition education, drug abuse treatment, safety, and parent-community involvement." I All of us in the business world like a program that gets results. CIS gets results. Kids who were once dropouts or at great risk, are now graduating from high school and coUege. They are productive members of society... I am solidly behind CIS." Lee Iacocca Former Chairman The Chrysler Cor·poration ___ _ . . -. ........,._. - ·~ ~... -~ THAT'S WHAT Communities In Schools IS ALL ABOUT!!! Outcomes Repositioned Services t t - Business ----_. __,...,. Improved graduation rates Health SeJVices - Higher academic achievement - - - - Enhanced social skills Recreation Activities _ _ _....,. - Greater parental involvement =:::::. -----.. Increased school attendance Employment SeJVices Juvenile Justice~ Mentors/Tutors ~ CIS makes a Difference! .............._ Decreased disciplina•y actions - Improved attitude toward school ~ Better developed labor force "This is a model program that the nation could learn much from." Elizabeth Dole President of the American Red Cross National Headquarters For More Information, Call (616) 771-3939 MCIS 12/96 �... Michigan Communities In Schools: Our Accomplishments Michigan Communities In Schools (MCIS) is a unique process with a proven track record. Since its beginning in 1994, MCIS has ... • increased the number ofCIIilllrll served annually through local CIS programs to over 5,000; • e!Ept4nded its network in Michigan to include 20 communities representing 6 operational, 6 implementing, and 8 interested locales throughout the state; • been a conduit for state, regional, and national resources to existing and developing local initiatives; • conducted a statewide conference with participants representing 22 Michigan communities; • provided training and technical assistance to over 200 individuals inclusive of over 70 site visits; • established a gtro~ ttltd ditllltBII board of directors with leaders from both public and private sectors; and • through local programs, assisted in the coordination of an estimated 172 repositioned human services into Michigan schools. According to Wedgewood Associates' 1995-96 independent evaluation of Michigan Communities In Schools, Growth in the numbers ofyouth served in Michigan has been close to spectacular. The need for CIS in Michigan is clear and irrefutable. There is a mismatch between the size of the challenge as represented by the need, and the size of MCIS to meet that need. "CIS makes sense to me because it views the education of all our young people as a responsibility all ofus must share ifwe are to be successful. The program uses what each of us can contribute." Andrew Young Former Mayor of Atlanta "I personally visited a CIS site and was extremely impressed with what I saw. I was impressed not only with the progress the students are making, but also with the method by which they are being reached. Because somebody shows that they care about these kids, they are responding and making progress in their lives." President Bill Clinton "tJtte ~ tie IIIHt uuu+~ ~ ~1~~... 1j«t ~~~eudlut ~· 7~ ~ ~. 4414 ~~4~~ ~ ~ ~ etNII-~ teauM ... /14- we ~ jM ~ ~ '#~~~'-~ 4414 ~ tJWe tie. de lut ~/M-4~~.1 ~~f#itt~e1s~ ~~ ... fl.d~eoy ?-uss~~~~& 1/Jtu Z>~-ut MCIS 12/96 � 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_1997-03-25_MCIS Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting Michigan Communities In School, Inc. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting Michigan Communities In School, Inc.. 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, 49860 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e290bcc0ca13938f02aa7bc9a80c8e20.pdf eeef50dd283b984076a930162d78d39e PDF Text Text Kellogg Hotel & at ·Michigan • Con~erence Center State~ Unjversity March 10, 1997 MAR 1 3 \991 Ms. Mary Estrada MI ~ommunity Service Commission 111 S. Capitdl, Olds Plaza 4th floor Lansing, MI 48909 D~ Ms. Estrada: t ' - Thank you for choosing the Kellogg Center! We ate looking forward to the opportunity to work with you and your organization .' Enclosed is -the .contraCt confrrming the details of your event. If everything meets with your approval, please sign and return both pages of the booking contract to me by March 15, 1~97 . Feel free to contact me with any questions you might have or if there is any additional information you require. Again, thank you for choosing the Kellogg Center and I look forward to working with you on this event. Sincerely, /Jul f.~"hA/ 7 Paul Trudell - """...,. Conference Services Manager lg Enclosures . ' Supporting Continuing Education Michigan State University • East Lansing, Michigan 48824· 1022 1 ph: 517-432-4000 • fax: 517·353-1872 • http://www.hfs.msu.edu/kellogg/ � 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_1997-03-25_Kellogg-Center-Reservation Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting Kellogg Center reservation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting Kellogg Center reservation. 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, 49859 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/84cde15c1029e58e5bbefa3752dcc654.pdf 365873e3646ea927a650753ac4f518df PDF Text Text . .. A celebration of communitY ··~e~i6~ >.- . ' )·: Lansing alumnae of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority will celebrate 37 years of community service Saturday at the Holiday Inn-South, 6820 S. Cedar St. , '· The guest speaker will be Marcia Fudge, an Ohio attorney and national president of the 84-year-old organization. · . . . · She will be welcomed by Hortense Canady, .a f9rt;ner. natioo.al president and one of the charter members of the .Lansing Alu~na~ .· Chapter. . · · ·· · · A public reception ($15) will be held from 2 . p.m. to 4 p.m. The sorority·was formed in 1913 by 22 AfricanAmerican women at Howard University in Washing-. ton, D. C. Their mission: To devote their lives to higher education and cultural and moral ideas f9r the betterment of themselves and society. ; · The local chapter organized in 1960 and mem- . · hers have worked diligently on numerous projects to . · .· benefit the community since then. . Among them, Summitt II,. a mentoririg program Fu.dge . for local high schools; Delta Day at the Capitol; a st~teWide ~vent. to give members a chance to discuss social and political issu·es wit~ legislators; School America, a six-week program that focuses 9n reading tech· ·· niques for parents to use to teach their children to read. 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_1997-03-25_A-Celebration-of-Comm-Service-Marcia-Fudge Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting A Celebration of Community Service Marcia Fudge Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-03-25 commission meeting A Celebration of Community Service Marcia Fudge. 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, 49858 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 1997-03-25 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/003f8ec08e3d8256a61af7d33048c781.pdf bfc27a50fbbd310374fee15c1aa40ec2 PDF Text Text 217/97 VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Introduction The Volunteer Investments Grants program will provide grants to community-based, volunteer, nonprofit agency partnerships for the purpose of: 1) supporting local endowments that will help to permanently sustain community volunteerism; 2) increasing the number of volunteers serving their communities; 3) meeting important community needs through service and volunteerism; and 4) sustaining the activities of community nonprofit agencies that support volunteerism. Communities need nonprofit agency infrastructure that supports community volunteerism. The pillar for this infrastructure in most communities is the nonprofit volunteer agency. Michigan's nonprofit 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. Volunteer Investment Grants will increase the number and self-sufficiency of local volunteer agencies/centers while building their capacity to involve volunteers in community problem-solving. Eli~ibility Volunteer Investments Grants are available to community partnerships of nonprofit organizations from any Michigan community that designate a volunteer agency and include a community foundation or, in communities without community foundations , an alternative local endowment authority which conforms to federal, state, and local tax regulations, such as a local bank. 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 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 project development, 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, or an alternative endowment authority and designate a 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 and deploy volunteers. Requirements • A partnership agreement that designates a volunteer agency to serve as the applicant, specifies a community foundation or alternative endowment authority to administer the endowment fund, and includes a partnership agreement with the local Family Independence Agency volunteer coordinator. �• The application must include: * * * * * * * * * A plan for generating the $2-to-$1 minimum local cash match A survey of community volunteer resources A description of how a Volunteer Investment Grant will strengthen and promote collaboration among these resources A description of the developmental priorities of the volunteer agency An inventory list of community volunteer assets A description of community needs that may be met by volunteers A one-year volunteer action plan that includes at least two community-wide service projects which meet community needs and demonstrate measurable community results An agreement from the community foundation or alternative endowment authority that stipulates that it will cap its annual endowment administrative service fee at no more that 1% of principal. A detailed, twelve-month operating budget for the volunteer agency covering the amount of the Volunteer Investment Grant request Application Process Grants will be awarded competitively. Applicants may request grants of no more than $75,000 and no less than $25 ,000. The grant award process will involve three stages including an expert peer review, a technical compliance review by MCSC staff, and final review and approval by MCSC. Applications will be rated on the strength of the overall proposal as well as the strength of the individual elements of the application. MCSC will promptly notify applicants of its award decision. The cash match will be deposited in a permanent, dedicated agency endowment fund established in the local community foundation, or local endowment authority for the express purpose of supporting the operation of the community volunteer agency in perpetuity. Awarded applicants must generate 100% of the minimum cash match no later than 12 months after the notification of award. From the date of the award notification, an awarded applicant will have no more than six months to produce 50% of the cash match. At the time of the deposit of the 50% match, the community foundation or local endowment authority will certify the formation of the fund and its match level. 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, the community foundation or local endowment authority 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. Award applicants must submit progress reports after six and twelve months, and a final report after eighteen months. A warded applicants will report on program activities, the status of the endowment fund, and grant expenditures. Communities will be encouraged to exceed the minimum cash match and continue to build on the endowment fund. The local endowments will be managed by the community foundation and governed by the federal and state tax laws and regulations applied to such funds. Priority for Grant Awards Priority consideration will be given to applicants that demonstrate: • The quality of the community volunteer partnership • The extent of community support for volunteer activities • The quality of collaboration among volunteer service entities including youth and senior volunteers • The level of financial match support and the plan for achieving it • The relative (based on community size) number of volunteers to be involved in projects and the number of new volunteers to be recruited • The quality of anticipated outcomes of the volunteer service projects. � 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_1997-02-14_Volunteer-Investment-Grants Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants. 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, 49857 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 1997-02-14 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6ca3276f0253eeb6a93c08ba0d1affa3.pdf 65f8f6031368b0316bb6c64617ca65d2 PDF Text Text Draft #3 (1/30/97) Results of the State Commission Survey Regarding the Potential of a State Commission Network or Association Information reported is based on responses from 24 states: AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WV, and WY. The first two pages summarizes the type and number of responses to the questions on the survey. This is then followed by the specific responses to questions #4, #5, #6, and #7. Similar responses have been combined for brevity. 1. Are you familiar with the work of the SCCG? YES: 83% (20) Somewhat: 13% (3) NO: 4% (1) 2. Have you found this work to be helpful for your Commission? YES: 75% (18) Somewhat:8% (2) NO: 8% (2) No Opinion:8% (2) 3. What 2-3 things have been most helpful? a. b. d. e. f. g. h. 1. J. Networking opportunities to discuss common concerns, share ideas and solve problems (16) Peer Resource Matrix (7) Awareness of common issues among EDs and advocacy with CNS in a unified voice (7) Timely Information sharing and exchanging nuts and bolts about best practices (5) Monitoring information and guide (5) Input surveys (i.e. administrative guideline letter) (4) Redirecting the focus ofT A contract (2) Work on 2-stage application process (2) Professional development (l) Working papers/groups (1) 4. What are the 3-4 most pressing developmental needs of your State Commission that a peer network might help address? a. b. c. d. e. Sustainable Infrastructure for service and volunteerism (22) Sustainable Funding (17) Administrative Capacity (15) Training Commissioners (11) Timely Information from CNS (4) Evaluation (2) 1 of6 �5. How might your colleagues help meet those needs? a. b. c. Information exchange: opportunities to come together, in person and electronically, to share ideas, information, expenence and strategies was reflected in nearly 75% of the responses. Common front to D.C.- reduce unfunded mandates Working together toward reauthorization d. Consider hiring lobbyist for SCCG e. f. g. h. Network with State offices of volunteerism Give$ Relocate some Michigan Foundations Share expenses Stop sending survey's Stop trying to create more work for state Commissions that has no real benefit 1. J. 6. What 3-5 services might a peer network provide that you think would be helpful in developing national and community service programs in all states? a. b. c. Networking (in person and via internet) (16) Program Development (11) Commission and Staff Development (10) d. e. Delivery System Development (8) Monitoring (6) f. g. h. Funding (5) Public Relations and Communication (1) Don't need another bureaucracy (1) 7. What would you most want from a peer support network and what could you offer to support it? a. WANT FROM NETWORK... [see responses to question #6] b. WHAT COULD YOU OFFER.... o Small state strategies and perspec~ve (3) o Willing to send information (1) o Host meetings (1) o Organized network with clear focus (1) o Provide speakers/ consultants (1) o Provide information on programs that enhance the o Index and directory of peer resources ( 1) o Standards of performance for national service program (1) act of national service i.e. welfare reform, education reform (1) o Share listening campaign Colorado is doing (1) o How to fight state bureaucracy (1) o State/chapter assistance review teams (1) o Doing it on the cheap ( 1) o Pay membership dues to support network (1) o Ideas on on-line forum (1) o Information and Partnership ( 1) o Participation o Developing models for RFPs (1) o Share information; avoid reinventing the wheel (1) o Collaborating with State CNS office (1) 2 of6 �4. What are the 3-4 most pressing developmental needs of vour State Commission that a peer network might help address? Sustainable Infrastructure for service and volunteerism (22) o Integrating national service with education and o Moving from rhetoric to promoting broad-based welfare reform(2) ethic of volunteerism & service in all communities (1) o Increasing volunteer support; development of Office o Unified state plan models - how display information; of Volunteerism function for the Commission (2) cross stream models (4) o Developing a collaborative network with other o Looking at relationships with national directs (3) o Models and best practices for developing service players (1) o Public relations; PSAs billboards, etc. (1) infrastructure in the state ( 1) o Reauthorization ( 1) o Project development (1) o Help on work study initiative (4) o Partnerships (1) '-d. b. Sustainable Funding (17) o Sustainibility, diversified private sector funding (14) o Sharing insights regarding how different states handle match requirements for administration (1) c. Administrative Capacity (15) o Getting Commission to think about alternative \dministrative models and organizational structures ~ that work (i.e. 50l.(c)(3)) (4) o Different monitoring schemes (fiscal especially) (4) o Developing internet and computer capacity (1) o Sharing approaches on management issues (1) o How to cut down on useless, unproductive, frivolous paperwork ( 1) o Discussing tradeoffs re: sustainability and the national movement ( 1) o Networking- Where are we with funding ? (1 ) o Small staff! shrinking budgets ( 1) o Forces of emulation; i.e. "How do other states do things?" (1) o Running community-based Learn and Serve grant process (1) o TA with state regs/DC regs (1) d. Training Commissioners (11) o Training commissioners on basics and developing roles and responsibilities (7) o Opportunity to interact with commissioners from other states (1) o Growing pains on Commission - broader representation challenges us to grow the agency (1 ) o What the Commissions should be when they grow up (1) o Building a strong Commission (1) e. Timely Information from CNS (4) o Getting timely informative responses from CNS (1) o Responses from Washington (1) 0 Philosophies & policies o Program calendar - staggered responses to reflect program (1) f. Evaluation (2) o Evaluation that is outcome based (2) 3 of6 �5. How might your colleagues help meet those needs? a. Information exchange: opportunities to come together, in person and electronically, to share ideas, information, experience and strategies was reflected in nearly 75% of the responses: o Other Commissions sharing what they are doing ( 1) o Sharing PR materials ( 1) o Peer networking; sharing programs and other o Share successful strategies so we don't have to reinvent the wheel (4) resources (2) o Who has used internet effectively? (1) o Sharing best practices and models (1) o Share monitoring systems (2) o Collaborating on resource sharing grid - directory of o Share alternative administrative models (1) who is doing what, expertise, etc. (2) o Sharing experiences and successes (1) o Share information (3) o By sharing ideas and by providing a unified voice to o Discussion, heads together, comparing alternatives from states ( 1) the CNS on issues of mutual concern (1) o Roundtable discussions around issues when we meet o Communication/ information exchange (1) as a group (1) o Share strategies, tools, practices on monitoring, fundraising, and evaluation ( 1) o Network (1) o Sharing info: 501(c)(3), fundraising; state legis. (1) b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 1. J. Common front to D.C.- reduce unfunded mandates (1) Working together toward reauthorization (1) Consider hiring lobbyist for SCCG (1) Network with State offices of volunteerism (1) Give$ (1) Relocate some Michigan Foundations (1) Share expenses (1) Stop sending survey's (1) Stop trying to create more work for state Commissions that has no real benefit (1) 4 of6 .,; �6. What 3-5 services might a peer network provide that you think would be helpful in developing national and community service programs in all states? .. Networking (in person and via internet) (16) o Information sharing; increase forums for sharing best practices (5) o More cohesive network would multiply problem solving capacity and result in a more unified national service movement (2) o Continued opportunity for EDs to interact o Develop matrix more of people who worked together on a topic o Communication and sharing b. Program Development (11) o Sharing information re: successful programs o Sharing copies of successful concept papers and proposals o Recruitment and retention of members o Analysis of problems; e.g. how to stop a bad o developing network wide relationship of partnership with CNS o On-line forum with conversation threads-- maybe a web page with forum attached o Get matrix on e-mail system so we can scan it o Support system for new Commission EDs o Organized network with clear focus o Index and directory of peer resources program? o Help on work-study initiative (3) o Advocacy for role of community service in welfare reform o Looking at relationships with national directs (3) Commission and Staff Development (10) -J Opportunities for commission members to share information, build capacity o Have shared educational opportunities, and build a shared vision o Help develop roles of Commission members (3) o Staff development o Commission development and training (3) o Peer exchanges and sharing of best practices can be helpful if done to meet specific assistance requested by a commission o Peer exchanges d. Delivery System Development (8) o Additional assistance on unified state plan (3) o Develop coordinated delivery system models (2) o Looking at relationships with national directs (3) e. Monitoring (6) o Develop effective monitoring systems; identify appropriate roles for Commissions and CNS (2) o Develop standards of performance for national service program (2) o State/chapter assistance review teams o Cross-network monitoring f. Funding (5) o providing a unified voice in reuthorization (and ther legislative opportunities "Read America") (2) Fundraising o o CNS funding policies ( l) o Accessing pools of money and other resources not available on the state level 5 of 6 �g. Public Relations and Communication (1)\ o Short publication/brochure or PR videos to get a unified message out on service h. We don't need another bureaucracy (1) 7. What would you most want from a peer support network and what could you offer to support it? a. WANT FROM NETWORK ... [see responses to question #6] b. COULD OFFER... o Small state strategies and perspective (3) o Host meetings (1) o Provide speakers/ consultants (1) o Provide information on programs that enhance the impact of national service i.e. welfare reform, education reform ( 1) o Share listening campaign Colorado is doing (1) o How to fight state bureaucracy (1) o Willing to pay membership dues to support network (1) o Ideas on on-line forum (1) o Work with group on developing models for RFPs (1) o Willing to send information (1) o Organized network with clear focus (1) o Index and directory of peer resources (1) o Standards of performance for national service program (1) o State/chapter assistance review teams (1) o Doing it on the cheap (1) o Collaborating with State CNS office (1) o Information and Partnership (1) o Participation o Share information to avoid reinventing the wheel (1) 6 of6 � 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_1997-02-14_State-Commission-Survey-Results Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting State Commission survey results Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting State Commission survey 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, 49856 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 1997-02-14 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/85ba054eedf2e745b5fb17ab55127590.pdf b48507904fa3a3d52441164b2c829177 PDF Text Text P.02 Oac-26-00 06:01A {12/.5/'Jfi) State Commission Survey Regarding the Potential of a State Commission Network or Association A. BACKGROUND: Briefly review the development and focu.~ of the State Cummi~~i011 Coordinating Croup (SCCG), ~oals of Ford grant and li~t of accomplishments over tht! past 18 months: Background: ln rchruary. 1995 the Ford roundation funded the National Governor's Asso\.:iation (NGA) and Public/Private Ventures (PPV) LO hcr§t ameeting in St. Louis 3-' Lh~ final step in an initiative sponsored by the Ford Foundation to suppon and aC\.~ss the dcv~lopmcnt or State Commissions. At that meeting a number of Commission dire<.·wrs attending agreed Lhat it would be useful to seek additional funding Lo create regular opportunities for Ctlmmis.~ion~ to c..:omc Logclhcr, independent or hut in partnership with the Corporation for 1\:ational Service. for purposes of organi:.a1Lional and network d~vclopment. As a result, after c.:onsultalion with other states, the Mi(.;higan Commi~sit.m sclll a l:um.:cpt paper to the Ford Foundation on h~half of more than twenty sta~:> which had indkatcd support at that tim::::. The kLter was followed by a meeting in May. 1995 with the dire<.:tors of the Mil.:higan and Vem1ont Commis.)iuns and the Ford Foundi:!.tion at whil:h time Ford indica.Led intcrc~l in re<.:civing a proposal. Ba.scd on the exprcs~d interest of Ford a m~Ling of the EDs wa.s hdd in Washington. D.C . on Scptcmhcr of 1995 tied to an all EDs meeting hosted by Lhe CNS . An outcome of the meeting wa..s the establishment of an ongoing coordinating group. the SCCG, c;ompri~ed of volunteers from ea<.:h commissitm duster willing to commit time and resources to moving this process along. T he SCCG has been and is open to any Ed inte~stcd. A proposal was developed, reviewed and approved hy the SCCG and suhmitted to Ford in September that rcque.~;ted modest suppon to convene State Commissions for a ~erics nl' independent meetings to address the following goak o o o cstahlish a self-supporting peer network: develop polir.;y recommendations that strengthen state-level infrastnJclure; and, assess merits and f~asibility of establishing a formal national as.-;ociation or network of stale service commissions. Sin<.:e that time the SCCG ha..o; met by monthly conference calls and and hao; hostd three meetings (3/96 San Diego; &96 Wash_ D.C. and 10196 Wa.~h- D.C.) . Notices of meetings , <.:lmfcrence �.1- ODc-26-00 06:01A (.:alls. meeting notes and material~ are ma.1agcd and coordinated by the Michigar: Comm issjl)n staff and made available to all EDs. A grant frnm the Pord Foundation was approved in June and has provided partial .support to convene the SCCG in June and Octoher and will pto\'ide funds lo convene all EDs in the Spring of 1997. In addition the. SCCG has worked closely with Aguirre and Assoc. in developing the agenda for the technical assic;tance conference planned for Fcbmary 1997. Results: With leadership and suppon provide by the Michigan Commil\sil)n, the SCCG has supported fnur meetings and monlhly conference calls since ~pril. 1995 w address ~onccm., and supp011 the de,·elopment of Commi.'\sions. Result<> tn date, on hehalf of the State Commis.')ion.s. include: o Developed and disseminated a State Commission peer resource matrix. o Produced white paper on technical assistance and worked with the CNS to redirect the focus and proc.:ess of the State Commission TA contract l() more appropriately and adequ~.ttcly m-xt the needs of State Commhsions. o Estahlished a working group of EDs to ovcrse~ and help direct lh~ implcmcntalion of the T A (.;Onlract with Aguirre. o Worked with CNS to implement a 2-stagc FY96 applic.:ation pnx:ess for fonnula funding that would better meet the needs of slates. o Received $9~.000 grant from the Ford Foundation to convene Sratc Commissions o Deveh.1ped consensus on administrative and programmatic issues of concern to Commissions for con.o;ideration in reauthorization and regulations. o Established 11 collective voice to addrc.ss administnllive issues in pannership wilh the C.l\S. o Sought and re~.:cived a ravornhk clarirkation from CNS on colocation of Slate Commission and State Office of the CNS. Other areas in proc.:ess include white papers Lo as.si.st state in linking nalional service with o other state iniliatives, a monitoring guide and a guide for new EDs. o Continuing a discussion to clarify roles and rcsponsi bilitics to develop a mo~ <:ohcrcnL system of monitoring. In~titutcd a strategic planning discussion regarding the level of administrati vc support !'or o State Commissions. ~ ~ P.03 � 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_1997-02-14_State-Commission-Survey-Background Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting State Commission survey background Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting State Commission survey background. 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, 49855 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 1997-02-14 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f1dcb5ba80cf89cc8bff4f02d906530b.pdf 3f30a5e96f54d37a8a996e3190cabbc6 PDF Text Text VJ. / J.v / ~1 .111un J.u.uu r£U. uOi> ~1oo ur..r • .C..Ar..l..UUL ~UVJ. • December 30, 1996 •• Mr. Harris Wofford Chief Executive Officer Corporation for National Service 1201 New York Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20525 UL--'"-·.. _! -_u-j~-~ -! _.ll}J Dear Mr. Wofford, I retired from CNS in 1995 after 23 years as the state program director for Michigan. I wrore to you after you were appointed to be the new head of CNS . I wrote about my concerns with equal opportunity at CNS. CNS is primarily a white enclave at the senior level . I know of no black person who has any significant policy role at CNS. This letter is about a different subject, yet probably related to the former because of the backgrounds of the policy makers and their lack of real life programming experience. have attached a letter I wrote to the new state director in Michig@. It fairly well ex~ns mx views on w at JS happening With VISTA and the Senior Cor:p.s. I find some of the proposals coming out o Washington to be abominable. T.he inherent elitism of the S~i_or Corps troposals show how out of t()~ch Tom Endres and his stJf are. The balkaruzation ofVIS A is just plain dumb. The VISTA model is more appropriate for addressing the needs of poverty communities. The Americorps model is a result of a public relations campaign, based not on sound social policy , but on the flawed national service concepts of the Bush administration and the staff of Senator Kennedy. I will be submitting a policy paper to Representative Goodiing. I hope he can stop some of the madness coming out of Washington. I didn't hear from you the last time I wrote to you, so I have no expectations this time. I am awart:.l4_a_t_the~e i~a __g£_~~-~- ~_l.~s!J:IOle in Washington wher.e__ktt_e~ t_haum~_I!O~ (lan~ri.I!_g _t~~~.§..g~: ~expect th~~ l~~~~r to_g()_then:. Nevertheless, maybe Tracy Gray or Gary .Kowalczyk will reaa tbis correspondence before it is dismissed. CNS is headed in the wrong direction. It needs to stop and reconsider its mission, or it will not survive. Sinc.erely, ;:Jta.....fu.-.:r {Y1 Sta.nley M. Stewart 1787 Manchester Ypsilanti, MI 48198 313-487-0717 smsdas@ aot .com ~lJ- �December 30, 1996 Dear Diana, I hope things are well with you and your family. I have attached correspondence I sent to Mary Pfeiler and Harris Wofford. I am extremely concerned with the direction CNS is going. Wofford doesn't know me so he is unaware how tenacious I will be. I hope you will tell him. Over the holidays I spoke with lots of other folks who are also upset with CNS. We plan to have input during the re-authorization hearings. It appears that the Senior Corps associations have been co-opted, and VISTA has little voice. My best wishes to you for a happy new year. Sincerely, Stanley M. Stewart �01/13 / 97 MON 15 : 05 FAX 565 2788 DEP.EIEC.DIR. December 24, 1996 Ms. Mary Preiler State Program Director CNS 211 W. Fort Street Room 1408 Detroit, MI 48226 Dear Mary, I have received several phone calls from VISTA sponsors asking me about the new competitive VISTA project approval process that you just recently implemented. Since I am personally unaware of what you are proposing, this letter is based primarily on information provided to me by VISTA sponsors. However, what you conveyed to me over the phone yesterday is basically what the sponsors have been saying to me . It has been almost two years since I retired as the state program director for Michigan. And during that timeT have made a conscious effort not to be involved with CNS issues in Michigan. I did not want to second guess yours or others programming decisions. Unfortunately, what I am hearing from sponsors, both VISTA and the Senior Corps , is of ~reat concern to me. Consequently, I am discarding my self imposed gag order on CNS ISSUeS . [twas stated to me that ):9U plfii.!..!9_~~~m~_~l_VI~TA 2!9~-~tJ~newal~cajjpn_s io_to.ope great con:n~eti~iv~ _P-Qol,_And t at the best concept papers will be gi ven permission to submit full applications. I believe the state commission uses that same flawed procedure for choosing grantees. t_hose .£fJ!s...Y!!!9 .h~Y-~ m9.r~J.b.an _fiy~ _minu~~.$_9f.P~9g_~mLI!g e~~ri~_~ce ~e.c~gE:ize th~_i!].~q~i~_Qf that meth_.9dol~gy. I was a panel member for national and government grantees m 1994. I am aware of who was chosen and what criteria was used to select them. It was quite clear that certain agencies who submitted the ';cleanest paper'' would be the recipients of CNS funds. They were not necessarily the best applicants, but they had lhe match money , and they were safe. Several of us objected rather vociferously to the selection criteria, but neither CNS nor the state commissions would listen. We were accused of being stuck in the past : old thinking. We needed to become accustomed to doing things the "new way." The result of the new way was the selection of government agencies, large social services agencies, and universities as Americorps grantees. CNS and state commissions chose those entities that historically were not involved with poor people. Of course, Americorps is not a poverty program, but one would think it would at least pay lip service to the most vulnerable in our society. Getting things done was a concept created by aPR machine with no heart. It is little wonder that Americorps lacks a viable constituency. There is little public support for $20,000 a year members whose main functions are cleaning streams and picking up litter. In spite of CNS and the state commission there are several successful Americorps projects in Michigan. Interestingly, they have chosen the VISTA programming model over the new Americorps model, which places large numbers of members on specific projects. As you know the VISTA model permits the placement of small numbers of vol untecrs with grass roots organizations. It is called "meeting the needs of the community." What you are proposing to do is called " meeting the needs of the bureaucracy." If I didn't know better, I would think that Bush was still president and Jane Kenny was running CNS. la!002 �01 / 13/97 MON 15:06 FAX 565 2788 DEP.EXEC.DIR. ln_addit~Q~ _t~_~lievi~g th~t 'Nh.~t y~~-~re_ p~ps>sjng i_s unsound programming, I also bf!lie'.:':~t is illeg£1. In the early 1980's VISTA director James Burnley attempted to summarily deny renewal to several VISTA projects that he didn't like. He was challenged in court and the court ruled that VISTA had to have denial of refunding procedures. Presently, those procedures are spelled out in the VISTA regulations. You should read them, because what you are proposing violates them. The reason for the regulations is to protect due process. Consequently, in order to deny the renewal of a VISTA project , VISTA must follow specific procedures. Your plan does not follow those procedures. I recognize that without anyone looking VISTA will interpret the regulations to benefit the new order. But, if it does, it will violate not only the letter of the law but also the spirit. lt was disheartening to learn that you had given VISTA volunteers to the state welfare department, a 9 billion dollar operation, and to the Non-Profit Forum, an entity that has never seen a poor person. I guess you must be trying to curry favor with the state commission. I am certain (hat both FIA and NPF will probably write better concept papers than many grassroots organizations. But as you should know, good papers don't necessarily equal good projects. It is clear to me that the state commission does not care about poverty issues. They are about getting things done, a misnomer if there ever was one. Not surprisingly, the director of the state commission, Frank Dirks, is on record as favoring the closing of CNS state offices. He believes they are redundant Frank is into service, not poverty programming. I_ho e ou will reconsider our ill conceived Ian. It is blatantly unfair to penalize agencies because o your errors m ca cu atmg servtce years. l could be a little sympathetic, but for the fact that I warned you that you were making a big mistake in training entries, and that the residuals would be catastrophic. You did not listen and went ahead with that ill conceived plan. And the result\\ ill be that there will be r:o VISTAs in Michigan in the month of September. I sincerely hope you listen this time. In my 23 years in Michigan we never had that problem . I recognize that Washington wants you to be a mindless team player, but I hope you don't succumb too easily. I have heard other disturbing things coming out of Washington that appear to be violating the spirit of VISTA for the convenience of Americorps. ~anv of us are aware that VISTA i_s an embarrassment to CNS. It is difficult to explain the difference between a VISTA volunteer and an Americorps member, except that one is much more expensive than the other and requires a sizable bureaucracy to support it. The state commissions are the product of bad social policy developed by the Bush administration. They serve no useful purpose, except they are politically correct. In addition, I heard that Bob Jackson has an npproved FGP project that recruits overincome volunteers. Whatever happened to the law? I also heard that the Senior Corps programs are going to have to compete in the future . Is CNS trying to commit political suicide? There must be too much staff with too little to do in Washington. Further, I was informed that the Senior Corps is looking for "high quality volunteers." I guess the volunteers who are serving now are "low quality." Endres and his cohorts are dangerously ignorant. Maybe congressman Goodling was right in proposing to move the Senior Corps programs to another agency.lt may be the only way to protect the programs from the new ways folks. We have known each other for a long time, and I take no gratification in writing this letter to you. However, you must know how serious I am to write this letter. It appears to me that VISTAs' so called friends will do it more harm than its so called enemies could ever do. I am sending a copy of this letter to Diana London and to Harris Wofford, not to ~OOJ �U.J.. / ...l~/ ~ J l!lU .:. ' ..LV. UU 1-. .ll..d.. -.JU" ._, UU JJJ.:.C • LA£,.\,.; • u J.J.\. • ~VV"I: resents As you know, I spent the last several months working for candidates who were all elected to office. And now I plan to turn my attention to CNS. I plan on contacting projects in the state to develop a strategy to save VISTA and the Senior Corps from its friends. Old fashion door to door campaigning still works, even if the new way of doing things pundits don't believe it. Sincerely, Stanley M. Stewart l?in Manchester Ypsilanti, MI 48198 313-487-0717 SMSDAS@aol.com � 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_1997-02-14_Stanley-Stewart-Letter-to-Harris-Wofford Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Stanley Stewart letter to Harris Wofford Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Stanley Stewart letter to Harris Wofford. 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, 49854 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 1997-02-14 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/07ebac5c412f4a5d87817b3783dd7e14.pdf 9ae0fba77a368c427873f19c782fd531 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Cha i rperson Miche lle Engle r Exec uti ve Directo r Frank D1rks MEMORANDUM 111 Olds Plaza Lans in g. Telep hone FAX TO: Alan Lopatin, National Senior Program Assoc. Rep. (DC) John Pribyl, National Senior Companion Assoc. Rep. (MN) Pat Renner, National Retired Senior Volunteer Program Assoc. Rep. (KY) Mary Louise Schweikert, National Foster Grandparent Program Assoc. Rep. (PA) Bill Basi, Washington Commission on National and Community Service Jeanne Bradner, Illinois Commission on Community Service Nancy Deaver, Oklahoma Community Service Commission Barbara Finch, Iowa Commission on Community Service David Karoff, Rhode Island Commission for National & Community Service Kate Mehr, Massachusetts National and Community Service Commission Marlis Miller, Oregon Commission for National and Community Service Lynn Thornton, Georgia Commission on National and Community Service Joe Madison, State Commission Coordinatincr National Consultant FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commis RE: Senior Corps Network Conference Call DATE: February 10, 1997 S . Cap itol Ave. Bldg., 4th Floor M1ch1gan 489 13 (517) 335 -4295 (517) 373-4977 As you know, our group had a conference call scheduled for later today. The purpose of the call was to continue a recently established dialogue that was intended to help the senior corps programs and the commissions better coordinate and support their activities in the states, as well as facilitate coordination of all service programs in the field. Unfortunately, because of the response from networks to the recently leaked internal CNS memo, the National Senior Service Corps Directors Associations requested that we cancel the call. We agreed that a resumption of our communication would await word from the three national associations. I regret that politics and differing interests regarding field structure appear to have overshadowed the needs of our programs in the field. I have faith in the efficacy of working together to support our programs in the field. I am sure that all commissions are eager to see this conversation resume, and that commissions stand ready to build more effective intergenerational collaboration for service in our communities. A Di vision of th e Michigan Jobs Commis si on 0,-- � 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_1997-02-14_Senior-Corps-Network-Conference-Call Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Senior Corps Network Conference Call Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 commission meeting Senior Corps Network Conference Call. 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, 49853 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 1997-02-14 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7ba1c85fa0003fae6f621217f98a00c4.pdf a1a4a93dd91debb1fabaa05755015e31 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 4-24-96 Updated Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol A venue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Ms. Judith Dunn 24404 Catherine Industrial Rd.,Ste. 308 Novi, Michigan 48375 Fax: 810-344-8857 (W) 810-344-6644 Mr. Frank Dirks, Ex. Director Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol A venue Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W)517-335-4295 Ms. Dorothy Johnson Council of Michigan Foundation 1 South Harbor A venue, Ste. 3 P.O. Box 599 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417 Fax: 616-842-1760 (W) 616-842-7080 Ms. Karen Aldridge C. S. Mott Foundation 1200 Mott Foundation Building Flint, Michigan 48503 Fax: 810-766-1753 (W) 810-238-5651 Ms. Nancy Lenz Michigan National Bank 200 W. Michigan A venue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Fax: 616-349-0550 (W)616-349-0549 Mr. Victor Begg 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (H)81 0-338-4180 (W)810-334-9225 Fax: 810-334-9225 Sister Mary Martinez Madonna College 36600 Schoolcraft Livonia, Michigan 48150 Fax: 313-432-5393 (W)313-432-5300 Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell 619 E. Chippewa Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858-1741 Fax: 517-774-4250 (W) 517-77 4-6448 Mr. James W. Muir 1607 Philadelphia A venue, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49507 (H)616-243-3555 rox: (Cot~) L7SCJ -'1'1Db Ms. Julie F. Cummings 6380 Muirfield Ct. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301 Fax: 313-874-4001 (W)313-871 -8000 Ms. Lisa Hitch Murray Fox Office Center 2211 Woodward Detroit, Michigan 48201-3400 Fax: 313-983-6494 (W)313-983-6420 1 �Ms. Eunice M. Myles 22741 N. Kane Detroit, MI 48223 Fax: 810-355-6009 (W)810-355-6027 Mr. Alton Shipstead Northwest Michigan Council of Governments 2200 Dendrinos Drive Traverse City, Michigan 49684 Fax: 616-929-5012 (W)616-929-5000 Ms. Kathleen Keen McCarthy Supervisor of the Charter Township of Plymouth 42350 Ann Arbor Road Plymouth, Michigan 48170 Fax: 313-453-5680 (W)313-453-3840 Mr. Scott Smith Albion College 4963 Kellogg Center Albion, MI 49224-5018 (H)313-941-4499 Mr. Michael J. Tate, Asst. Director of 5t<f.-ett~r~ ~i~Ctal Al~d\4- t~ . c ~ Mr. Randy Neelis Menominee School District 4701 Fifth St. Menominee, Michigan 49858 Fax: 906-863-1171 (W) 906-863-9951 East Lansing, MI 48824 Fax: 517-353-4981 (W) 517-355-6580 Ext.203 D. Sgt. Matthew Wesaw 3939 Mayapple Lane Lansing, MI 48911 Fax: 517-484-5825 (W)517 -484-6772 Ms. Vernie N ethercut 1139 Washington Alpena, Michigan 49707 Fax: 517-356-6334 (W) 517-356-9021 ext. 271 ~h-1 ~l.~ ' ·-o -· -r.p Lr 109 f. /klnuJ.fw~ J {<loll ~~ !Jlg;.V-103<t Mr. Raymond W. West United Way Community Services of Metro Detroit Labor Department 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 Fax: 313-226-9210 (W) 313-226-9215 Dr. Joel Orosz W. K. Kellogg Foundation One Michigan Avenue East Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 Fax: 616-969-2693 (W)616-968-1611 Ms. Amber J. Pritchard Ms. Geneva Jones Williams 710 Dutton Place Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (W)616-796-3214 (H)616-344-5955 Executive Vice President and COO United Way Community Services of Metro Detroit 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 Fax: 313-226-9388 (W) 313-226-9444 Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48630 Fax: 517-496-1657 (W) 517-496-8827 2 cy' ' i ~ ~ j � 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_1997-02-14_Roster Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-02-14 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 1997-02-14 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, 49852 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 1997-02-14