602 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a2f5f27a8480b78ad0dbb47e8642ab03.pdf de465ac73962022e85834093f6036e23 PDF Text Text AmeriCorps*VISTA New Concept Paper Michi~:an s New Partnerships Applicant Name: Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC)* * MCSC is working in partnership with the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) and the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA). Location: MCSC is located in Lansing, Michigan. The members will be grouped into teams of five. The teams will be assigned to six regions of the state. The location and designation of the six regions are 1., the Upper Peninsula; II., the upper Lower Peninsula including Alpena and Traverse City; III. , central and northeast central including Midland, Saginaw and Flint; IV., southeastern Michigan, including Detroit, Pontiac, and Ann Arbor; V., south central, including Lansing, Jackson, and Battle Creek; and VI., west, · including Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon. Issue Areas: Human Needs (youth development during non school hours) and Education (school success). While they will serve as a unifying cause for action in targeted low income communities in six regions, the teams will not concentrate exclusively on these issues. The principal purpose of the program is to support the continuation of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative to facilitate communication, cooperation, and collaboration among the nonprofit, business, religious, and public sectors in support of citizen-driven, community problem solving through service and volunteerism. The program will also regionally tailor the implementation of service and volunteer capacity building efforts that will develop service learning programs during non school hours and generate new community volunteers. Slots Requested: 30 NRVs Requested: The program will require a level of experience and skill in members that may require some national recruitment. MCSC and its partners are open to negotiating a target number with CNS if requested. Background Data on Applicant and Service Area: Applicant Data-- MCSC's mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. MCSC is a catalyst for positive community change, stimulating innovative programs that meet real community needs through service; a convener of diverse individuals and groups, building community through shared efforts toward common goals; and a broker of ideas and resources, encouraging collaboration and entrepreneurial approaches to service and volunteer program development. MCSC makes training and technical support available for organizations involved in community service and service-learning. MCSC helps groups find and network with other organizations across the state who share the same goals and operate similar programs. MCSC's activities include the following list. • Michigan s AmeriCorps involves more than 360 full- and part-time service volunteers in twelve communities including Ann Arbor, Detroit, East Lansing, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, Pontiac, Saginaw, Shelby, and Ypsilanti. • Michigan CARES is a national demonstration project funded by theW. K. Kellogg Foundation to assist communities in developing comprehensive, collaborative plans for community service. CARES is active in Alpena, Flint, Marquette, Muskegon, Grand Rapids, and Detroit. • Learn and Serve Michigan is grant program for community-based agencies to support the involvement of school-age youth in service and volunteerism. Programs operate in Alpena, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Manistee, Muskegon, and Petosky. • TAP Youth Service, funded by the C.S. Matt Foundation, provides grass-roots low income community organizations with the information, network access, and expertise to more effectively develop, operate, and support community service and youth development programs. • The Governors Community Service Awards annually recognize outstanding examples of service 1 �provided by individuals, nonprofit organizations, and businesses. • Michigan Youth Progressive Action Council (MYPAC) is MCSC's statewide youth advisory council involving 16 youth leaders from across the state. • The Senior Advisory Council is MCSC's state-wide senior citizen advisory council involving 16 leaders from across the state. The New Partnerships for Michigan AmeriCorps*VISTA program will be guided by a state steering committee. The steering committee will advise MCSC and its collaborating partners on the development and implementation of the program. The steering committee will be made up of representatives from statewide public, private, nonprofit, and religious sector networks, such as the United Way of Michigan, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Ecumenical Forum, the Michigan Association of Community Action Agencies, Michigan State Extension, Michigan Family Independence Agency, the Corporation for National Service State Office, and the Michigan Association of School Boards. MCSC's two collaborating partners in the New Partnerships initiative are the Council of Michigan Foundations and the Michigan Nonprofit Association. CMF is an association of foundations and corporations which make grants for charitable purposes. As a membership organization, its mission is to enhance, improve and increase philanthropy in Michigan. Among its goals CMF provides the means for regular exchange of ideas, experiences, and expertise among Michigan Grantmakers; represents Michigan grantmakers' interests and concerns with local, state and national governments; and provides Michigan grantmakers with educational resources, information and services in order to enhance and to improve philanthropy. Among the programs that CMF operates is the Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project (MCFYP): A statewide program to build community foundation capacity, to establish youth as philanthropists, and to build permanent and growing funds within each community to meet local youth needs. Funded by theW. K. Kellogg Foundation MCFYP supports youth as resources and decisionmakers in communities and establishes important statewide ties to service, volunteerism, philanthropy and service-learning. MNA is Michigan's association for nonprofit organizations. MNA's mission is to promote the awareness and effectiveness of Michigan' s nonprofit sector, and to advance the cause of volunteerism and philanthropy in the state. MNA houses and is affiliated with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan and the Michigan Campus Compact. MNA functions to: • Act as a convener, bringing together nonprofit leaders as well as the leadership of the government and private sectors, to increase understanding of the nonprofit sector, confront common issues and concerns, and promote collaboration; • Encourage voluntary giving and service; disseminate information important to defining the sector-- its scope values, meeting the management/technical needs of organizations in the sector, and fostering communication and collaboration in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors; • Take an active role in public policy that affects the nonprofit sector at large; • Provide programs and services that enhance the sector by strengthening organizational capacities. Service Area Data-- According to the 1994 Kids Count in Michigan Data Book, "Compared to the other five peer states in the Great Lakes region, Michigan ranks at or near the bottom on eight of ten indicators, and ranks above only one state, Illinois, in its composite ranking of 38th among the 50 states." Because the New Partnerships for Michigan AmeriCorps*VISTA program will cover six regions encompassing the whole state, the Kid Count national composite ranking of Michigan ' s "children's well-being" indicators is significant. The data book reports that, "Michigan has more children in (distressed) neighborhoods than all but three states in the nation. " Each of the six selected regions of the state include counties that the data book reports include distressed neighborhoods. The designation of a distressed neighborhood is based on such factors as the rates of youth not graduating from high schools on time; percentage of teens not in the labor force; violent teen death; the rate of violent juvenile crime arrests; and rates of children in poverty. By concentrating on youth development in non school hours and school success, the program will assist communities in preventing 2 �the emergence of factors that contribute to neighborhood distress. The program will achieve this, in part, by building community infrastructure that links existing service, volunteer, nonprofit, religious, business, and government resources. Initially, the program will locally connect the networks maintained by the principal state partners, MCSC, CMF, and MNA. Each partner' s state network extends well into the six state regions. MNA supports a network of 27 volunteer centers and 23 Campus Compact institutions. The CMF network includes 48 community foundations. MCSC directly supports programs operating in 20 Michigan communities. Combined, these networks represent the key institutional service and volunteer assets of many Michigan communities. The determination of the specific service area in each region will be based on a selection process established by the partners in conjunction with a state steering committee. The steering committee will issue an in-state RFP to agencies in each region that requests a plan that supports the overall goals of New Partnerships for Michigan in the region. One service area/community will be selected in each region, a community like Saginaw for instance. Within the service area the local team sponsor may vary depending on the strength and approach of the local partners. Service area sponsors could include community foundations, volunteer centers, United Ways, county inter-agency social service systems reform teams, councils of government, and/or chambers of commerce. The selection of the local service agency sponsor will be determined, in part, by the quality of the vision and plans for sustainability of the multi-sector collaboration, its connection to other community service and volunteer programs, the effectiveness of intended service learning and volunteer multiplier efforts, its inclusion of grass-roots organizations, and knowledge of best practices of community service and service learning programs. Proposed AmeriCorps*VISTA Members Activities: Overall, members will document, develop, and generate inter-sector partnerships that strengthen the nonprofit sector and support citizendriven community problem-solving, particularly as they relate to youth development during non school hours and school success. Members will serve as capacity builders, program networking agents, information brokers, resource providers, data collectors, volunteer generators, service learning advocates, and technical assistance providers. Assigned to a team of five in a lead community networking agency, members will specialize in task areas. Each team will have the following member assignments. One member will act as the team leader, and serve as the community organization network broker-- linking organizations, promoting new collaborative partnerships, assisting in collaborative community strategic planning for service and volunteerism, and identifying alternative funding sources. Two members will function as community information facilitators-- conducting community member focus groups, leading New Partnerships community meetings, developing community asset maps, gathering community agency information, recruiting volunteers, and disseminating volunteer service resource information. Two members will serve as nonprofit agency technical assistance providers-- training community-based programs in the best practices of service learning and youth development, assisting community agencies in developing their own program capacity, supporting discrete collaborative service projects, facilitating the development of service learning in established mentoring programs such as Big Brother/Big Sisters, and promoting "one-stop shopping" models of comprehensive community-based program services. Corporation Priorities: The New Partnerships for Michigan AmeriCorps*VISTA program will directly support the following Corporation for National Service priorities. • Promote collaboration with other Corporation and non-Corporation service initiatives, including a model relationship between the state CNS office and the state commission. • Provide AmeriCorps*VISTA members with leadership opportunities (This is central to the program as an outgrowth of a governor sponsored initiative. Members function in a critical leadership role.) • Develop and expand programs that integrate service into an organized community-wide strategy to address a pressing local need (youth in distressed communities). • Develop and expand service learning and community student service opportunities by shifting the perception of youth in distressed communities from clients to service providers. 3 �Expected Benefits and Outcomes: The New Partnerships for Michigan AmeriCorps *VISTA program will generate the following: • Comprehensive resource assessments of six distressed communities. • Stronger nonprofit community-based agencies trained in the best practices of service learning. • Demonstrated models of new community collaboration and partnership that connect the sectors in support of citizen-driven community problem solving. • A state resource directory of multi-sector program initiatives in support of community problem solving. • New state multi-sector networks supporting service and volunteerism. • Reductions in indicators of risk behavior among youth in targeted communities (over a two-year period) • Six thousand new volunteers (recruited over two years) • Six regional inter-sector, collaborative action plans. • A fmal state collaborative action plan to follow-up the New Partnerships Framework. Significant Local Resources: In addition to the obvious resources that will be brought to bear through the participation of the partners and steering committee, the program will build on the experience of a number of initiatives. Michigan's New Partnerships Initiative On February 12, 1996, more than ninety leaders representing the nonprofit, business, government, and religious sectors gathered in Lansing, Michigan to discuss strategies for renewing and developing new partnerships among the sectors. The meeting was convened by Governor John Engler and First Lady and Chair of the Michigan Community Service Commission, Michelle Engler. The discussions at the meeting were guided by two overarching questions: Should government, business, nonprofit, and religious institutions work together to improve the quality of life in Michigan's communities? What are the most effective ways in which the public and nonprofit sectors may work together to connect people in local community problem solving? The Council of Michigan Foundations, the Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Michigan Nonprofit Association serve as the co-sponsors of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative. The February 12, meeting served as a kick-off for what the co-sponsors hope will become a series of statewide discussions and activities that promote collaboration among the sectors. A paper entitled, "A Time for New Partnerships" offered a rationale for the initiative and proposed a framework for action. The paper called for "a new way of doing business," arguing that, "the time is right for the formation of new partnerships among the nonprofit, government, religious, business, and private sectors." The meeting participants agreed that government, business, nonprofit, and religious institutions should work together to improve the quality oflife in Michigan 's communities. Without reservation, the participants affirmed the importance of encouraging the sectors to collaborate in support of community problem solving. Michigan CARES was conceived as a demonstration model to test the effectiveness of collaborative community planning for national and community service programs. Supported by a grant from the Commission on National and Community Service, Michigan CARES was initially a project of the Michigan Community Service Commission. Support from theW. K. Kellogg Foundation enabled MCSC to enter into partnership with CMF. The CARES program encourages the development of sustainable community infrastructure for service, service- learning, and volunteerism. MCSC and CMF provide the communities with structured support and guidance in collaborative community planning and program development. Each community foundation facilitates the following activities: the development of a community resource and needs assessment, the initiation of a comprehensive community service plan, the integration of the best practices of service learning and youth development in all aspects of youth service, and the launch of a sustainable youth community service program that meets the goals of the community plan and produces tangible service outcomes. TAP-Youth Service has enabled MCSC to develop the capacity to provide technical assistance to community-based agencies from low income communities. More than two hundred agencies have received training through TAP-YS. The project has produced two comprehensive resource guides for community agencies. These guides will be provided to all participating New Partnerships agencies. 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_1996-05-10_AmeriCorps-VISTA-New-Concept-Paper Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps VISTA New Concept Paper Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps VISTA New Concept Paper. 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, 49779 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 1996-05-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/61dc63f8c35c377855897f1096887c36.pdf 55df23f25d114fd51dcb90c2d87b3fed PDF Text Text AmeriCorps*VISTA Dear Friend: CO R P O RAT I ON FO R NATI ONA L f l sE R V I C E Thank you for requesting information about AmeriCorps*VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America. To be eligible for AmeriCorps*VISTA. you must be age 18 or over and a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident. Plus. you need to have the appropriate experience. education or skills. Every day, ArneriCorps*VISTA Members apply their knowledge and skills in response to requests from local organizations helping communities across the U.S., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. These full-time assignments last one year. Members work with state or local public agencies, or private non-profit organizations. These sponsoring groups ask for people with specific skills or backgrounds. Sponsors and AmeriCorps*VISTA staff establish the assignments and the qualifications needed. AmeriCorps*VISTA Members usually do not provide direct services, but rather work as catalysts for "getting things done." We would like to accept every person's offer to serve; but, this is not possible. Today there are more well-qualified applicants than there are assignments. Most AmeriCorps*VISTA projects call for the ability to recruit and lead people, locate financial and other resources, and build the capacity of local residents to improve their lives. Many assignments require college study, sometimes a bachelor's degree. If you do not currently have the experience and/or education to qualify, we encourage you to develop such skills before you apply- through work or volunteer experience, or through college study. If you would like an application, or have additional questions, please call AmeriCorps*VISTA Recruitment toll-free at 1-800-942-2677, TDD# 1-800-833-3722. We appreciate your interest in AmeriCorps*VISTA. Sincerely, 1201 :-Jew York A'enu• DC 20525 Telephone 202~5000 Was hin~n . Patricia A. Booker, Administrator Recruitment and Placement AV-5 (4/95) Getting Things Done Lea rn and &orvice America National &-nior Service Corps �AmeriCorps*VISTA What's Inside:•• •.More aSout;;,Benefif$ < 1 • Program E~pha~is Aleas • Application'Proces's • Placement' Officer Listing AMERICORPS*VISTA BENEFITS For AmeriCorps*VISTA Members, benefits start now... and last a lifetime. AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) offers you the kind of skills and perspectives which employers are seeking. Here are just a few of the rewards for serving America as an AmeriCorps*VISTA: Career Opportunities You'll develop flexibility, maturity and resourcefulness as you help low-income communities successfully tackle their problems. You'll share your skills and experience as you work in one of four project areas: education, human needs, public safety or the environment. Education & Post-Service Benefits Members are eligible for~ the new $4,725 education award (for up to two, one-year terms of service or a total of $9,450) Q[ a $100 per month stipend paid upon completion of service. Stafford and Perkins student loans may be deferred during service. And you'll receive noncompetitive eligibility for federal employment upon completion of one year in AmeriCorps*VISTA. Living Allowance You'll receive a monthly allowance to budget for food, housing and incidentals. It is equal to the economic level of the low-income community where you serve. It does not reduce Social Security, veterans' or public assistance benefits but is subject to taxes. Medical Insurance You are provided comprehensive medical insurance and have the option of purchasing life insurance. Benefits do not apply to family members or dependents. Orientation & Training First, you'll attend an AmeriCorps*VISTA pre-service training of up to five days. Then, you can look forward to on-the-job training by your sponsoring organization, usually a public agency or nonprofit organization. There's also in-service training like workshops and conferences to help you hone your skills. Travel AmeriCorps*VISTA pays for travel to pre-service training, on to your project, and back to your home of record after service. Be Part of National Service! Be an AmeriCorps*VISTA. You'll join 4,000 dedicated individuals presently working on over 900 projects across the United States ... people committed to helping others improve their lives. If you have questions about AmeriCorps*VISTA, call toll-free 1-800-942-2677. TOO# 1-800-833-3722. AmeriCorps*VISTA is a program of the AmeriCorps National Service Network �CIVIL SERVICE BENEFITS Service Credit AmeriCorps*VISTA service may be credited toward federal employment in the same manner that regular employment in the Federal Government is credited. AmeriCorps*VISTA service will apply toward determining seniority, reduction-in-force and layoff rights, leave entitlement and other privileges based upon length of service. AmeriCorps*VISTA service is not credited toward any probationary or trial period or completion of any service requirement for a career appointment. Noncompetitive Eligibility A federal agency may hire you, as a former AmeriCorps*VISTA, by establishing that you meet the minimum qualifications for a position opening. If you meet the minimum qualifications, you do not have to compete with the general public before being selected for the position. Noncompetitive hiring privileges last for a period of one year after completion of AmeriCorps*VISTA service. These privileges may be extended for up to three years at the discretion of the hiring agency if you enter military service, pursue studies at an institution of higher education, or engage in activities which, in the view of the hiring authority, warrant an extension. It is your responsibility to locate an agency with a vacancy and to interest that agency in hiring you. Former AmeriCorps*VISTAs are not guaranteed a federal position. Questions? For additional information on noncompetitive eligibility, contact the Federal Office of Personnel Management. �AmeriCorps*VISTA PROGRAM EMPHASIS AREAS HUMAN NEEDS/ Public Health AmeriCorps*VISTAs (Volunteers in Service to America) help develop and expand community-based health care activities in medically underserved areas. They organize outreach programs in prenatal care, prevention of infant mortality, HIV/AIDS education, and maternal and child nutrition. AmeriCorps*VISTAs also establish low-income community health clinics or recruit health professionals as part-time volunteers to offer basic health services to the homeless, Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farm-workers, and others deprived of adequate medical care. Community and Economic Development AmeriCorps*VISTAs research, organize and develop activities designed to generate income and enhance the economic potential of low-income urban or rural areas. AmeriCorps* VISTA Members work on neighborhood economic revitalization. They develop financial resources by encouraging credit unions to locate or expand branches within low-income communities. They help residents rehabilitate their homes and assist them by putting together loan packaging. They work with low-income residents who want to start a business by providing them with entrepreneurial development and management training. Employment Opportunities AmeriCorps*VISTAs help create opportunities for job training, placement and development - emphasizing private sector involvement. They match the unemployed with job training resources; set up community job banks or job fairs; provide skills training in job-readiness and job-seeking for low-income youth, the homeless, the disabled and refugees; and establish mentor programs for at-risk youth. Fighting Hunger AmeriCorps*VISTAs increase the production, solicitation, and distribution capacity of organizations providing food to the hungry. They help food banks obtain and deliver food to low-income neighborhoods ... organize urban gardening projects ... develop better growing techniques for low-income farmers ... establish and expand agricultural production and marketing cooperatives. AmeriCorps*VISTA is a member of the AmeriCorps National Service Network �Improving Housing AmeriCorps*VISTAs recruit local volunteers to repair, renovate and expand existing housing, or to construct new homes at affordable rates. They seek out low-income families to purchase the newly-constructed housing. They also try to expand the base of donors, coordinate fundraising events or develop public relations materials. For the homeless, AmeriCorps*VISTAs frequently establish, support and expand short-term shelter as well as transitional or permanent housing for low-income families, victims of domestic violence, runaways, senior citizens and the mentally-ill homeless. Legal Aid AmeriCorps*VISTAs help ensure that people needing legal help can obtain assistance dealing with issues like tenants' rights, substandard housing, job discrimination and domestic violence. For some projects, Members need a legal background such as paralegal studies, while for others they may need a J.D. degree and be licensed to practice law. EDUCATION/ Literacy AmeriCorps*VISTAs establish and expand literacy programs that serve at-risk youth and the growing population of illiterate adults. They recruit tutors and design training programs; identify people needing assistance; expand community-based literacy councils; or create workplace projects to provide the marginally employed and unemployed with occupational literacy skills. To help nonEnglish speaking people and their families, AmeriCorps*VISTAs develop English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and organize intergenerational literacy efforts. PUBLIC SAFETY/ Crime Prevention AmeriCorps*VISTAs work on crime prevention programs- such as organizing the support of low-income parent groups to address crime and substance abuse problems; coordinating peer educational activities; forming prevention and education programs in public housing projects; or creating support services for children. ENVIRONMENT/ Environment, Community Design and Urban Planning AmeriCorps*VISTAs help ensure that low-income communities are equipped with indoor plumbing, have safe drinking water, and have sewer systems to manage water and disposal problems effectively. They create awareness programs to educate communities about improving and controlling the quality of their environment. AmeriCorps*VISTAs work to dispel the belief that protection of the environment conflicts with employment and economic development goals. And More ... These are examples of AmeriCorps*VISTA's largest program emphasis areas. If you have questions, call toll-free 1-800-9422677. TOO# 1-800-833-3722. Pr1ntad on rwcycled paper. AV.!J (4115) �APPLICATION PROCESS Application Application is submitted to the AmeriCorps*VISTA placement officer who oversees the state where you currently reside, even if you wish to serve in a different part of the country. Preliminary Review A preliminary review will determine your basic eligibility and qualifications for AmeriCorps*VISTA service. To be eligible, you must be age 18 or over and a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident. (There's no upper age limit.) Plus, you need the appropriate experience, education or skills for an assignment. If your application does not meet eligibility and qualification requirements, it will be removed from active consideration. Interview If you clear the preliminary review stage, a placement officer will contact you to arrange a personal or phone interview. The interview will include a discussion of an AmeriCorps*VISTA Member's role, and whether this is the right program for you . The placement officer will answer additional questions you have and review the terms and conditions of service. References At some point in the application process, individuals who can comment on your suitability for AmeriCorps*VISTA service will be asked to complete a confidential reference form . Review Your application, interview and references will be reviewed . If your application package does not meet qualifications for AmeriCorps*VISTA service, it will be removed from active consideration. If you clear this stage of review, your placement officer will attempt to locate a suitable assignment, taking into account your skills and preferences. Referral/Placement When a suitable assignment opens, a copy of your application will be sent to the Sponsoring Agency. The project supervisor may contact you directly for a phone interview. This will give you and the Sponsor the chance to learn more about one another. The project supervisor must recommend you for placement on the project. If you are not selected, your application may be referred to other projects. (Your application may remain active for .!J.Q...1Q 12 months before being removed from consideration.) If you are selected and accept the assignment, you will be invited to training and contacted to make your travel arrangements. t t Questions? Call 1-800-942-2677. TOO# 1-800-833-3722. (Or, call the placement officer serving your state. See other side .) �PLACEMENT OFFICERS If you live in ... Telephone or write .... Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont (617} 565-7005 10 Causeway Street, Room 4 73 Boston, MA 02222-1039 New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (215) 597-3495 801 Arch Street, Suite 103 Philadelphia, PA 19107-2416 Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia (404) 331-5760 101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 1003 Atlanta, GA 30323-2301 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin (312) 353-1959 77 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 442 Chicago, IL 60604-3511 New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas (214) 767-5447 1100 Commerce, Room 6B11 Dallas, TX 75242-0696 Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana and Missouri (303) 844-2677 Executive Tower Building 1405 Curtis Street, Suite 2930 Denver, CO 80202-2349 American Samoa, California, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming (310) 235-7088 Federal Building, Suite 11221 11000 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024-3671 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington (206) 553-1558 Jackson Federal Office Building 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3190 Seattle, WA 98174-1103 Prlnttd on ,.cycled ...,.... AV.:J(.WS) ��AMERICORPS? • Getting things done. WHAT IS AMERICORPS*VISTA? rps is a national 1itiative administered Jrporation for Service, which also ~rs Learn and Serve for school- and ~e youth and the Senior Service Corps. rps engages ts of all backgrounds · things done ut our nation's urban communities. The -ps National Service includes two operated service -AmeriCorps*VISfA rs In Service To and AmeriCorps* ational Civilian ty Corps) . :orps follows a long tradition of ng and rewarding rrough programs ivilian Conservation : GI Bill, and the -ps. AmeriCorps are locally driven tunity-based, but nited by a common AmeriCorps helps communities meet their education, public safety, human, and environmental needs with direct and demonstrable results. AmeriCorps*VISfA is a national service program for individuals age 18 and older. AmeriCorps*VISfA Members are service entrepreneurscatalysts for getting things done. They increase housing opportunities, develop literacy programs, establish credit unions, and improve health care in underserved communities. Members serve in lowincome areas, helping residents improve their lives and their communities. AmeriCorps*VISfA has a 30-year tradition of getting things done. Since 1965, more than 100,000 VISfAs have joined forces with 12,000 public agencies and nonprofit groups to help communities across the country. • Strengthening communities. AmeriCorps unites people from all backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities. "Service shows that our country deserves to be called a civilization, not for its absence of problems but for its citizens' willingness to be responsible for solutions." -Eli Segal, CEO, Corporatiotr for Nationa l Service WHO ARE AMERICORPS* "I consider my AmeriCorps* VISTA MEMBERS? VISTA experience to be one of AmeriCorps*VISfA Members are a diverse group of committed citizens who bring a wide array of skills to service. Members must be at least 18, and the median age is about 25. There is no upper age limit. Different AmeriCorps* VISfA sponsors request differ- the most significant and memorable events in my life. I never imagined that I would have such an opportunity to identify my skills, develop new ones, and work with a diverse group of people. And now, since making a difference in my community is in my blood, I know that I will continue to use the skills and knowledge I've acquired." -Dorothy Torrey, AmeriCorps •VJSTA Member, Prospect Harbor, Mai11e "[AmeriCorps*VISTAs Tina Sweeten and Kim Champney] "Even though I don't plan have made an amazing impact to stay in social service, I on the small communities that think it's been really helpful to they served.... They developed work in a professional and implemented the [day environment. It's a really good camp] program and, in doing so, • Encouraging responsibility. "When it is all said and done, traveled to Kake, Hoonah, Through service and civic education, AmeriCorps enables Members to become problem solvers and leaders. it comes down to three simple Juneau, and Metlakatla, the only questions: What is right? Indian Reservation in Alaska. What is wrong? And what are The program was a great we going to do about it?" success and we plan to continue -President Clitrton. speaking at the launch of AmeriCorps, September 12, 1994 it in the future." • Expanding opportunity. AmeriCorps helps those who help America. Members acquire job skills, invaluable experience, and scholarships or loan repayment for schooling or job training. -Lesley Thompson, AmeriCorps • VISTA project sponsor, Girl Scords.}uneau, Alaska springboard, and it's been ent kinds of Members. Some projects require people with college study or a bachelor's degree. Other projects may emphasize experience or skills rather than formal education. The ability to speak Spanish is especially helpful in certain areas. In general, Members are people who know how to put their skills and resources to work within communities. fascinating to be invollled." -Giemr Stirrat, AmeriCorps •VJSTA Member, Austin, Texas "Before VISTA I wasn't really into the education field. Now, I've clarified my interests and goals. I know I want to pursue study and work in alternative education." -Scott Rutberg, AmeriCorps•VJSTA Member, Salt Lake City, Utah �IN S*VISTA? *VISTA provides !S to work with s to help solve •ressing problems. in AmeriCorps* nbers utilize the tave and develop tat open future !S. They learn to ze, and get things transform !S-and their own s who wish to eir education find ·s and graduate alue their s*VISTA For Members J begin careers or new ones, s*VISTA provides ofessional training )n experience. er Members, s*VISTA can help ears following more productive neaningful. -r their personal .spirations, s*VISTA Members 'erence-in their nd in the lives of serve. 0 MEMBERS DO? 1s*VISTA Members done in the areas m, public safety, initiated the AmeriCorps*VISTA are complementary-not conflicting-goals. Health Corps in response to the In the mountains of North The Texas Department of Health state's suffering perfonnance on Carolina, AmeriCorps*VISTA disease prevention-~me of the Members are helping residents lowest immunization rates in the and state officials plan badly countty. During the summer of needed sewer systems. that more than 100,000 children received immunizations. The state was so impressed with their work that it expanded the Corps. Today, with hundreds of clinics to offer basic health services to the homeless, Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farm workers, and other underserved populations. To meet needs in hunger and homelessness, Members increase the production and distribution capacity of organizations providing food to the hungry. They help establish agricultural production and marketing cooperatives. They recruit local volunteers to repair, rF>novate. and exoand housinsz AmeriCorps*VISTA Members, the Texas Health Corps is the largest service project in VISTA histoty. AmeriCorps*VISTA Members work on crime prevention programs such as organizing parent groups to address crime and substance abuse; coordinating peer educational activities; forming prevention and education programs within public housing projects; and creating support services for children. WHERE DO MEMBERS SERVE? Members usually work with state or local public agencies or private nonprofit organizations. They serve in urban and rural locations in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Some Members serve in their home communities; others travel to different parts of the country. Although Members may serve in large groups or individually, most serve in small groups of four or five. At the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety in Chicago, AmeriCorps*VISTAs are working throughout the city to help organize residents to work with the police on solving crime- AmeriCorps*VISTA Members establish and expand literacy programs that serve at-risk youth and the growing population of illiterate adults. They recruit tutors and design training programs, identify people who need assistance, and create workplace projects to provide occupational literacy skills. AmeriCorps* VISTAs also develop English as a Second Language (ESL) "The education award enables AmeriCorps*VISTA Members to 1993, Members helped ensure Meeting community members' human needs is AmeriCorps*VISTA's number one priority. Because these needs are so diverse, the range of activities is very broad. To meet needs in public health, AmeriCorps*VISTA Members organize outreach programs in prenatal care, prevention of infant mortality, HIVI AIDS education, and maternal and child nutrition. Members also establish Members receive health coverage at no cost and have access to non-competitive hiring in the federal civil service after completing a full AmeriCorps*VISTA year. related problems in their neighborhoods. Members HOW DO MEMBERS LIVE? AmeriCorps*VISTA Members live in the low-income communities in which they serve and receive a small living allowance to cover room, board, and other expenses. plan for their future, to set goals. It gives them the idea of taking their service experience and building on it by continuing their education." -Nicole Ralsto11, AmeriCorps•VJSTA Member, Habitat for Humanity, Miami, Florida HOW DO I APPLY TO BE AN AMERICORPS*VISTA MEMBER? AmeriCorps*VISTA Members are selected through a review process involving an initial screening of the application, an interview, and a review of references. Once an applicant qualifies for AmeriCorps*VISTA service, a placement officer attempts to locate a suitable assignment, taking skills and preferences into account. This process may take a few months, so early application is advised. conduct community safety "When you live in the surveys, organize graffiti clean- community you serve, in the To request an application, ups, and implement neighbor- same economic bracket .. it contact: AmeriCorps*VISTA hood watch programs. helps you keep perspective on Recruibnent and Placement Office what you're doing and who 1201 New Yo~ Avenue, N.W. you're doing it for." Washington, D.C. 20525 -Tracey Porter. AmeriCorps •VJSTA Member To request information, call: 1-800-94-ACORPS, WHAT BENEFITS DO MEMBERS RECEIVE? (1-800-942-2677, TOO# 1-800-833-37221 , . . VftiiP am..Pil".nn>e*VI!ITA �y immunizing •rganize family tiatives rather than )ring families; 'mmunity credit :1er simply than lenders. just some of what are already doing in 1es all over America. transitional housing for families, victims of domestic violence, runaways, senior citizens, and the homeless. And to meet needs in community development, Members develop projects to revitalize neighborhood economies. They develop funding sources for new and expanding businesses by helping credit unions attract investors and depositors. They also provide low-income people with business development, management training, and job placement. Richmond provides literacy tutoring, tutor training, and resources to three counties in the metropolitan Richmond area. Since 1989, eight VISTAs have helped to promote the Council, ron its office, establish and develop its libraty and resource center, and extend its services. AmeriCorps*VISTAs continue to serve the Council by recroiting students, tutotS, and the volunteetS who make the project work. 17ranks to AmeriCorps*VISTA, the Council has grown from 150 volunteetS to more than 600. - . "I THE ENVIRONMENT AmeriCorps*VISTA Members help ensure that communities have indoor plumbing, safe drinking water, and sewer systems. They educate citizens about improving the quality of their environment. Their projects prove that environmental protection and economic development AmeriCorps education award of$4,725 upon completion of at least one year of service(a total of up to $9,450 for two one-year terms of service) . Alternatively, Members may elect to receive a cash award of $100 per month, payable at the end of service. Stafford and Perkin student loans may be deferred during AmeriCorps*VISTA service. Those who elect to receive the post-service cash award in lieu of the education award may also qualify for partial cancellation of certain qualified student loans. � 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_1996-05-10_AmeriCorps-VISTA-Information Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps VISTA information Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps VISTA information. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49778 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 1996-05-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0dce0d790af687379b1f39693b6f5dcf.pdf 768792f6642fa1d9ef938ed8738a875d PDF Text Text MCSC AMERICORPS RENEWAL PROCESS NARRATIVE Administrative System MCSC launched Michigan' s AmeriCorps in 1994 with a three year program development plan that was intended to produce high quality, sustainable service programs.- The plan set three stages of development and served as the basis for MCSC's integrated program monitoring and technical assistance system. Program directors were thoroughly briefed on the Michigan's AmeriCorps system and its goal at the first MCSC program director orientation meeting in July, 1994, and at the new program directors ' meeting in August, 1995. The system includes: an MCSC developed program director' s handbook that includes the particular program standards and expectations of MCSC, monthly directors' meetings, regular program training and technical assistance workshops, regular program monitoring site visits, frequent phone consultation, and a quality assurance assessment process based on annual business plans developed by the programs containing progress benchmarks and program outcomes against which MCSC measures their performance. While MCSC has refined the Michigan 's AmeriCorps system since 1994, in consultation with its programs, CNS, and technical assistance providers, the basic elements of the system have remained constant. MCSC continues to operate according to the three stages of the plan. In the first year, programs were primarily assessed on the quality of operating systems and program implementation. First year renewals had to demonstrate that they were operating in a manner that would ensure high quality results. In the second year, all programs (including those that were starting new in the second year) were held to high quality program impact standards. Second year renewals had to demonstrate that they were operating effectively and that they were making a significant impact on the community. In the third year, MCSC will assess programs against their community strengthening objectives as a means to test the likelihood of program sustainability. 1 �Among the refinements made to the MCSC program system was the revision of the program director's handbook. Retitled the Michigan's AmeriCorps Policy and Procedure Guide, the six chapter guide with four appendices provides a comprehensive enumeration of the standards and expectations of Michigan's AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps*USA. (A copy of the guide is on file with Michigan's CNS program officer.) In October, 1995, MCSC provided new and renewing program directors with a complete orientation to the new guide and clearly established MCSC's annual standards of Michigan's AmeriCorps program accountability. Renewal Process The August, 1995, meeting marked the first step in the 1996 program renewal process. Programs were informed that Michigan's AmeriCorps renewals would be based on the quality of their community impact. Programs, through their quarterly reports, would have to demonstrate the positive measurable effect of their work in the communities. While, MCSC would mostly rely on the programs' community service objectives as a standard to measure community impact, programs were informed that first-hand site visit reports would also be used to assess program impact. Programs were informed, in no uncertain terms, that even if they were running an effective operation, they would not be renewed if they could not demonstrate that they were making a difference in the community. This message was reaffirmed at every subsequent gathering of Michigan's AmeriCorps program directors. In order to complement what its programs considered to be demanding expectations, MCSC instituted a rigorous process of program training, technical assistance, and monitoring. In August, MCSC contracted with an independent national service consultant to lead a two-day program director training on the design and implementation of high quality service programs. In September, MCSC held a meeting for program directors on evaluation. Dr. James Perry, of Indiana University, who is conducting an evaluation of four Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, 2 �led a presentation on establishing effective performance measures. In October, second-year program directors met at the CNS meeting in Baltimore. MCSC held program director's meetings in October and November. (December's was canceled due to weather.) In January, MCSC offered program directors a two-day fundraising training led by the Indiana School on Philanthropy. That same month, MCSC contracted with a national service program consultant to lead a two-day "Front Line Leaders" training for program staff. In February, MCSC brought the United Way of Chicago to the directors' meeting for a half day training on effective methods for continuous improvement and program development. In March, MCSC held a two-day, state-wide training for all AmeriCorps programs operating in Michigan. More than 350 members, supervisors, staff, and program directors from state and national direct programs attended. MCSC involved 19 state and national technical assistance providers including the following CNS technical assistance providers: Project STAR, National Association for Service and Conservation Corps, United Way of Chicago, National Crime Prevention Council, Southern Regional Council, University of Notre Dame's Center for Social Concerns, and National Skills Center for Home Care and Independent Living. In January and February, MCSC program staff conducted one-day monitoring site visits to all of the programs. (During the fall, MCSC staff made preliminary site visits to each of the new programs.) Based on the site visits and a review of the First Quarter Report, MCSC program staff provided each program with a critical analysis of all aspects of its operation and recommended steps for improvement. MCSC also placed programs in touch with specific national technical assistance providers to address special concerns. MCSC called most heavily upon the United Way of Chicago, Project STAR, and NASCC. The technical assistance providers were able to make contact with each referred program before they submitted their Second Quarter Reports. 3 �In January, when MCSC informed program directors of the renewal application process, it introduced a new element to the renewal expectations-- improved cost-effectiveness. While in 1995/96 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs have an aggregate FfE average of less than $12,000, MCSC is determined to see further reductions in the FfE rate. Programs were informed that they would only receive flat funding. In addition, any program with an FfE rate over the CNS target of $13,800 would have to reduce not only the CNS recommended 10%, but to a figure at or less than . $13,800. The Michigan's AmeriCorps renewal process required programs to submit a renewal application on April 12. MCSC' s assessment of program progress to date was based primarily on the Second Quarter Report. MCSC set the date close to the May 1, CNS deadline in order to allow the programs the full reporting period in which to demonstrate accomplishment. MCSC staff reviewed the renewal applications using past reports and site ·visits as a reference. MCSC staff conducted telephone conferences with each program to clarify issues, refme objectives, and revise budget categories. Programs were asked to revise elements of their applications accordingly. In cases in which programs demonstrated progress and improved cost-effectiveness, MCSC offered additional FfEs at $8,000 per member. This strategy helped to further reduce the FfE rate. Final Renewal Selection The members of the commission voted to empower the executive committee to approve renewal applications. MCSC staff prepared review sheets detailing each program's strengths and weaknesses and submitted them to the executive committee for approval. On April 26, the executive committee approved the package .and the staff's May 1, renewal recommendations. Of eleven Michigan's AmeriCorps programs eligible for renewal, MCSC staff recommended that seven be renewed. MCSC staff withheld their recommendations on four other programs. These 4 �four programs will be held back until the: staff and Commission have an opportunity to assess progress in the third quarter reporting period. MCSC will submit a supplemental package to CNS in August. This supplemental package will request the balance of Michigan's available formula funding allotment for the remaining renewal programs recommended and as many as three new programs. 5 � 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_1996-05-10_AmeriCorps-Renewal-Process-Narrative Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps renewal process narrative Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps renewal process narrative. 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, 49777 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 1996-05-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b3349019826e46e992cc79ef1e62af95.pdf 29370ccaa11ddc037d2b2df05a8bca85 PDF Text Text t+'vVtl1~(9 1 '\V ~ Renewal Funding Chart jJ~ Formula Allotment Marquette Health Dept Oakland University Caring Together Elderserve Eastern Michigan University United Way of Genesee Count SubTotal Competitive Allotment University of Michigan United Way Community Servic Subtotal Total 95/96 $ 169,145 241 ,350 241 ,000 222,005 320,099 1 '193,599 349,216 261,661 610,877 Year 3 Formula Allotment Yr 3 Estimated Renewal$ Minimun New Program Funds 10,913 13,083 1 ,804,476 July Renewal Submission Lelvel Ceilings CircleNet 254,947 GRSC 252,263 RSAI 305,863 Saginaw 306,650 Subtotal 1,119,723 Year 3 Formula FTE Cost Year 3 Competitive Cost Year 3 Avg FTE Cost FTE Cost 14,095 12,067 12,050 11 ,385 11 ,432 15934 9702 14,565 10,222 96/97 $ FT PT 193,161 242,024 256,752 252,948 336,099 1 ,280,984 15 0 22 0 23 60 0 40 0 66 14 120 349,216 270,000 619,216 22 20 42 20 0 20 1,900,200 102 140 161,900 269,236 289,800 306,565 1,027,501 12 30 21 17 80 0 0 0 19 19 11 ,841 12,207 11,907 2,728,315 2,308,485 419,830 Page 1 FTE Cost FTE Difference -1,218 12,877 34 12,101 11,671 -379 -506 10,879 -229 11 ,203 58,731 10,913 13,500 24,413 0 417 13 ,492 8975 13 ,800 11 ,569 47,836 -2,442 -727 -765 1,347 �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: 4/24/96 PROPOSAL: Caring Together Elderserve: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: __ _n_FT _ _ _ PT ___2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION Caring Together Elderserve: Michigan's AmeriCorps will provide 5,000 (member) hours of support services to 1,200 elderly residents so that they may remain independent in their homes. These support services include transportation, home maintenance, chore services, social support, and personal advocacy. In addition, the program will recruit 1,000 volunteers to provide 12,000 hours of volunteer service to the elderly. STRENGTHS As a ftrst year program Elderserve has listened to the existing AmeriCorps programs and learned from their mistakes. The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive two week orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field . The members seem to be comfortable and clear on their roles. They appear to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The service being provided appears to be of high quality. The program appear to be providing significant direct service to the seniors. Elderserve provided a total of 4,430 hours of direct service to 441 Detroit area residents in the first two quarters. The 248 new volunteers are providing additional services to the elderly in 8 of the I 0 sites. In addition, there has been an overall increase in community participation across sites averaging nearly 70%. Elderserve has spent a significant amount of time on partner development. There seems to be a sense of cohesiveness and ownership across the sites. The program has created a strong, vital image of the partner organizations within their neighborhoods. The AmeriCorps program has built or enhanced partnerships between Caring Together and other organizations throughout the elderly service network. Furthermore, the program has solicited significant community involvement through the recruitment of 248 volunteers. Elderserve has provided extensive member development and support as well as made significant progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. Elderserve has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particular the program has improved record keeping and formalized site visits. In addition, this program has experienced little attrition to date. WEAKNESSES One of Elderserve' s challenges is being able to prove a greater level of independence for the seniors based on the service provided. How have the seniors' independence changed due to AmeriCorps? In addition, the program's reporting has not been consistent across all of the 10 sites. Not all of the sites are accurately reporting on the overall progress. This ultimately makes assessing the individual sites very difficult. Furthermore, the program does not have a formalized site visit format. Finally the program has experienced some member performance issues. These issues have forced them to reassess their policy and procedures to better define program expectations. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $256,752 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program's FrE cost is $11,671 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: 4/24/96 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Marquette County Health Department, AmeriCorps MIT.,ES: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: _ _ _ PT _ _ _ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Two, AmeriCorps MIT.,ES: Michigan's AmeriCorps will provide health care and personal care needs to 200 low income elderly to allow them to remain in their homes. Furthermore the program will provide chore services, home maintenance and minor home modifications to 50 homes of low income elderly clients to enhance the homes overall maintenance, safety, and energy effiency. STRENGTHS This program was created out of nothing. At the beginning of the program year a program infrastructure did not exist. The program had to design a system for referrals and assignment of clients. In addition a reporting mechanism was designed to track the clients and the types of services being provided. This system was created simultaneously as the client base was being recruited. This organization did not have a prior relation with the elderly in the Marquette community. Most of the first quarter was spent doing outreach trying to spread the word about the new services available to the elderly in the community. The program creates a functional system in the initial period of the program. The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive two week orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field . The members seem to be comfortable and clear on their roles. They seem to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The service being provided appears to be of high quality. The program appears to be providing significant direct service to the seniors. As noted above MIT.,ES provided a total of 880 hours of direct service to 73 seniors in the first two quarters. MIT.,ES has provided extensive member development activities and member support as well as made significant progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. They have consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and have taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particularly the program has improved member supervision by the creation of two team leader positions. These position allow the program director to focus on the overall programmatic issues while allowing the members to be better supported in the field. The teamleaders supervise corpsmembers, help with project planning, conduct all client assessments, assign clients to members of their teams, organize member schedules, and gather data for programmatic reporting. In addition, this program is committed to providing quality services to a population few have been willing to recognize. WEAKNESSES One of MIT.,ES' s challenges is being able to prove a greater level of independence for the seniors based on the service provided. How has the senior's independence changed due to AmeriCorps? In addition, the program has experienced difficulty in time management, supervision, volunteer recruitment, program evaluation, and attainment of the home modification objective. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $193,161 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program ' s FTE cost is $12,877 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: 4/24/96 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Oakland University, AmeriCorps Oakland: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: _ _ FT _ __;4,_.0'------_PT ___ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION AmeriCorps Oakland will continue to provide conflict resolution and peer mediation training to local youth to reduce the number of fights and non-physical confrontations. They will provide alternatives to violence through the delivery of educational and recreational programs for 1,000 youth in the Pontiac community. Finally, youth will receive education around potential public safety issues such as domestic and sexual abuse. STRENGTHS The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field. The members appear to be comfortable and clear on their roles. They appear to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The service being provided appears to be high quality. The program appears to be providing significant direct service to the Pontiac area through a variety of partner organizations. At the end of the second quarter 121 school-aged peer mediators were trained. The peer mediators with the assistance of the AmeriCorps members mediated 370 conflicts involving 686 students. In addition, conflict resolution information was presented to an additional1 ,099 students. A variety of educational and recreational programs have provided alternatives to violence servicing 2,040 youth during the first quarter and 2,398 in the second quarter. Oakland has spent a significant amount of time on partner development. The creation of the handbook allows the partners to clearly understand their roles and responsibilities. The site supervisors seem to be clear on the programs overall expectations. In addition, the creation of the advisory council should improve the overall quality of the program. This council can play a significant role in the overall sustainability of the program. Furthermore, the program has solicited significant community involvement through the recruitment of 248 volunteers. Oakland has provided extensive member development activities and member support as well as made significant progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. Oakland has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particularly the program has improved the overall administration and supervision of members through the creation of handbooks and systems that holds all parties accountable. WEAKNESSES One of Oakland's challenges is reporting. Reporting on member activities appears to be inconsistent across the sites. The sites need to report not only on the level of activity but on the overall impact of the activity. Some of the sites are struggling with overall impact of their service. In addition to the evaluation challenges, the program has been forced to close on-site during the second quarter due to noncompliance. They have experienced a variety of difficulties at a second site stemming from lack of strong support, for the activities, and by the site staff. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $242,024 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program's FTE cost is $12,101 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY : Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: 4/24/96 PROPOSAL: Eastern Michigan University, Teams for School Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: ___ FT 26 PT --"'3=6_2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, Teams for School Success will utilize 62 part-time members to provide a minimum of 75 after-school clubs for 1,500 elementary and middle school youth to demonstrate academic improvement. In addition, the EMU program will partner with the SOS Crisis Center to provide specialized drop- in care for up to 100 infants, toddlers, and preschool children from homeless families to improve the school readiness of the children. STRENGTHS EMU has significantly improved the overall quality of their program in Year Two. Many of the Year One challenges have been resolved prior to the beginning of the second year. The program restructured the training and orientation of members and site team leaders. The members and sites seem better prepared this year. The members are providing a higher quality of service this year compared to last year. The program appears to be providing the necessary supervision and support to the members. The graduate assistants spend a significant amount of time at the sites improving the overall quality of the clubs. The program appears to be providing significant educational activities to the youth of the Ypsilanti area. At the end of the second quarter the program has exceed its direct service objective by providing 225 clubs to 1,955 students. This program has strengthened the evaluation component significantly in the second year. At the end of the year the program will be able to report not only the number of clubs and attendance levels, but the impact the clubs are having on academic improvement, behavior and attitudes. EMU consistently reco$nize weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. The program constantly strives for perfection. In particular the program has improved the in school tutoring component in order to maximize impact. They have continued to refine reporting and evaluation in order to accurately assess the overall impact of the program. WEAKNESSES One of EMU's challenges is its relationship with its partner organizations. The partner organizations are not consistently attending the monthly partner meetings. Many of the partners are not taking on the level of ownership that is necessary in order for this program to be sustained over time. Furthermore, the program seems to be struggling with involving the community in the program. A majority of the volunteers are from the University rather than the community. If this program is going to be sustained over time, then community involvement and ownership must expand. The additional challenges include the management of multiple sites, defining staff roles and responsibilities, and completion of member terms of service. MCSC's primary concern for completion involves those members that perform 450 hours of service per year. EMU lost a significant amount of those members after the first year. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST: $252,948 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program's FTE cost is $10,879 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form LlATE: 4/24/96 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan ' s AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: University of Michigan, Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program: Michigan ' s AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: 22 FT _ _.2"-"0'-----_PT _ _ _2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, the Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program (MNAP) will involve 22 full-time community members and 20 parttime student members to address all four priority areas -education, public safety, human , and environmental needs. They will strengthen social development of 1500 at-risk children through educational and summer enrichment programs. The program will meet human needs by increasing affordable housing, and health and human services in low income neighborhoods. MNAP will strengthen neighborhood revitalization by implementing business enterprise, employment, and economic development. STRENGTHS MNAP has significantly improved the overall quality of their program in Year Two. Many of the Year One challenges have been resolved prior to the beginning of the second year. The program restructured the selection and orientation process to reflect class start dates and a detailed orientation. Furthermore, the host sites appear to have a better understanding of the program provisions and expectations. The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive one week orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field. The members appear to be comfortable and clear on their roles . They appear to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The service being provided appears to be high quality. Many of the first year members commented on the quality of the orientation and felt it made a significant difference in preparing the new members. '11e program appears to be providing significant direct service to the Detroit community . The program has provide after-school - educational and enrichment activities to 594 youth in Metro Detroit. The program has continued to address human needs by conducting 250 home visits, assisting 12-15 Arab immigrants daily with translation and social support services, addressing low income housing issues, and assisting a major immunization initiative. Finally the program has continued to focus on neighborhood revitalization by increasing community participation in redevelopment activities and increasing awareness of toxic and hazardous wastes and other environmental issues. Furthermore, the program has solicited significant community involvement through the recruitment of 1,650 volunteers. AmeriCorps has made a significant impact on the University of Michigan. It was instrumental in launching the new Center for Learning through Community Service Center, a place for the planning and coordination of activities to enable students to serve and learn, and develop durable linkages and collaborative relationships between the University and the community. MNAP has provided extensive member development activities and member support as well as made significant progress toward attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. MNAP has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particularly the program has improved record keeping and formalized site visits. In addition, this program has experienced little attrition to date. WEAKNFS8ES One of MNAP' s challenges is being able to articulate the overall impact of its services on the community and the service recipients. The program has continually reported on the services being delivered but not the impact of those services. They are currently reassessing their evaluation plan to include outcome based evaluation. In addition, the program reporting will need to be revised to reflect the outcome based evaluation. Reporting has not been consistent across all sites. The additional challenges include the management of multiple sites with multiple priority area focuses, balancing the skill level between student and community corpsmembers, and ensuring members are not engaging in prohibited activities. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST: $349,216 ,TAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: __...-After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program ' s FTE cost is $10,913 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: 4/24/96 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way Community Services, Detroit Academic Success Project: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: 20 FT _ _ _PT ___ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Two, the Detroit Academic Success Project will continue to provide in school tutoring to 250 low achieving elementary school students in four schools in the Empowerment Zone to increase academic achievement and reading comprehension. The members will also develop four after-school tutoring labs for 200 neighborhood youth. In addition, the program will develop 10 community-wide service learning projects to promote civic responsibility. STRENGTHS The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive three week orientation and training for the members. This training is reflected in the field. The members seem to be comfortable and clear on their roles. They seem to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The service being provided appears to be of high quality. The program appears to be providing quality service at the three elementary schools. The members tutored 210 students at the combined sites on a regular basis (3 times a week 1 hour per session) and an additional 390 on a drop in basis (at least 2 times a week). The program continues to provide weekly parent enrichment and academic support workshops to 45 parents to increase their skills and effectiveness as parents. DASP has provided extensive member development and support as well it has made significant progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. DASP has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particular the program has taken steps to improve record keeping and overall program evaluation. WEAKNESSES One of DASP' s challenges is being able to articulate the overall impact of all of the services on the students. The program has continually reported on the services being delivered but not the impact of those services. They are currently reassessing their evaluation plan to include outcome based evaluation. In addition, the program reporting will need to be revised to reflect the outcome based evaluation. Reporting has not been consistent across all sites. The additional challenges include the management and supervision of members, program administration (including lack of clarity in fiscal procedures) and reporting expectations. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $270,000 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports the staff is satisfied with the overall program quality and accomplishments and recommends funding this program at its requested level. The program's FfE cost is $13 ,500 which is below the CNS figure of $13,800. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY S ERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: 4/24/96 PROPOSAL: Big Brother Big Sisters of Metro Detroit, CircleNet: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: __ ___l_L_FT _ _ _ PT _ _ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, CircleNet proposes to match 75 youth with developmental disabilities with a volunteer Big Brother/Sister. The matches and member interaction will increase the youth's level of independence. Behavior showing positive change and new levels of independence will demonstrate involvement, decision making, initiative, caring, and skill development. STRENGTHS CircleNet recognized the primary challenges in Year One and has refined the program for Year Two. The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive two week orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field. The members appear to be comfortable and clear on their role. They seem to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. In addition, the new team leader positions have created more structure, accountability and direction for the program. The members appear clear on the program emphasis and the priority of generating matches. The program appears to be taken steps toward meeting the overall program objectives. The program generated 21 new matches this quarter for a total of 37. There are currently 143 adults in the application stage, giving CircleNet reason to believe their match goal will be met by June 30. MCSC acknowledges the significant increase in matches in the last quarter however recognizes in the previous year more matches were anticipated than generated. CircleNet has provided extensive member development and support as well as made some progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. CircleNet has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and have taken steps to address those weaknesses. In particularly the program has improved utilized Project STAR to assist in the outcome based evaluation. WEAKNESSES CircleNet' s most difficult challenge has been matching the developmentally disabled youth with an adult volunteer. Less than 20 matches were generate in the first year. The program has taken steps to ensure more match in this program year. In fact in the second quarter 21 new matches were made. An additional challenges is being able to prove a greater level of independence for the youth based on matches and interaction with the AmeriCorps members. How has the youth' s independence changed due to AmeriCorps? Finally the program has experienced some conflict among the teamleaders that has impacted the morale of the corps. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $161,900 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports and consulting with the grantee, the staff withholds recommendation until the July package submission. MCSC would prefer to see the next quarter's progress in order to make the final funding recommendation to the commission. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan ' s AmeriCorps DATE: 4/24/96 PROPOSAL: Grand Rapids Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: --~FT __O__ PT _ _ _ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, GRSC will development and implement in-school and after-school tutorial and enrichment activities for more than 600 youth in the targeted communities. In addition the corpsmembers in conjunction with community members will implement four signature projects that will focus on beautification of particular neighborhoods. Finally , GRSC will implement the junior service corps involving 200 youth in community service activity throughout Grand Rapids. STRENGTHS The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive one week orientation for the members. The members appear to be comfortable and clear on their role. They seem to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The program has provided significant teambuilding across the three teams. The members attended a mid-year retreat where they discussed overall program accomplishments and challenges. The program appears to be taken steps toward meeting the overall program objectives. The program is currently tutoring 450 children in six elementary schools. The corps is providing after-school educational and enrichment activities to an additional 260 youth throughout the targeted neighborhoods. In additional to their youth focus the corps rehabilitated 6 homes and prepared 764 meals for seniors. GRSC is addressing a variety of needs in the Grand Rapids community. GRSC has provided extensive member development and support as well as made some progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. GRSC has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps is currently work with them to refine the service delivery and administrative structure. WEAKNESSES One of GRSC's challenges is being able to articulate the overall impact of its services on the community and the service recipients. The program has continually reported on the services being delivered but not the impact of those services. They are currently reassessing their evaluation plan to include outcome based evaluation. In addition, the program reporting will need to be revised to reflect the outcome based evaluation. The executive director left the program at the beginning of the second year. The transition has created administrative and management issues. The additional challenges include partner organizational development, creating support mechanism for diverse members, ~d fundraising. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST : $269,236 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports and consulting with the grantee, the staff withholds recommendation until the July package submission. MCSC would prefer to see the next quarter's progress in order to make the final funding recommendation to the commission. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: 4/24/96 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way of Saginaw, Saginaw AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERs: __ __.11__FT ---'1"-"9~_PT _ _ 2 YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, the Saginaw AmeriCorps program is a public safety and youth development program. STRENGTHS Saginaw recognized the primary challenges in Year one and has refined the program for Year Two. The program spent a significant amount of time in the beginning preparing the members for service. They conducted an extensive two week orientation for the members. This training is reflected in the field. The members appear to be comfortable and clear on their role. They seem to possess the skills necessary to perform their tasks. The program appears to be taken steps toward meeting the overall program objectives. The program has provided 408 highrisk youth with various educational and enrichment activities to deter negative behavior. In addition, over 100 individuals have been served through the involvement of Saginaw AmeriCorps members in the community policing project. The identification and subsequent surveillance of suspected drug houses and street dealers by local authorities have lead to one house raid and two individual arrests. Saginaw has provided extensive member development and support as well as made some progress towards attaining the overall program objectives. The program has a basic administrative structure in place. Saginaw has consistently recognized weaknesses of the program and has taken steps to address those weaknesses. WEAKNESSES One of Saginaw's challenges is being able to articulate the overall impact of all of the services on the community and service recipients. The program has continually reported on the services being delivered but not the impact of those services. The reporting has been inconsistent across the different sites. It is difficult to accurately assess the overall impact of this program on public safety, in particular youth violence and prevention throughout Saginaw. The additional challenges include the start up of new AmeriCorps sites in Year Two. 1996-97 FUNDING REQUEST: $306,650 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a site visit and reviewing the renewal application and quarterly reports and consulting with the grantee on unsatisfactorily high proposed third year FTE levels, the staff withholds recommendation until the July package submission. � 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_1996-05-10_AmeriCorps-Program-Proposal-Review Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps program proposal review Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps program proposal review. 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, 49776 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 1996-05-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c50e61c0c41a98291f389977fd0624b2.pdf f57d66ae05fbdd3730e0e6f8e87836b4 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Agenda May 10,1996 ACCESS - Dearborn 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m I. Welcome and Introductions- Michelle Engler II. Review of Minutes of March 15, 1996 - Michelle Engler ill. Informational Items a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Michigan CARES - Allyson Knox Michigan's AmeriCorps- Paula Kaiser TAP-Youth Service- Frank Dirks MYP AC Update - Angelia Salas Senior Advisory Council - Lindy Reurink Governor's Community Service Awards- Lindy Reurink Administrative and Budget Status - Garry Gross IV. Executive Director's Report- Frank Dirks V. Long Range Plan Issues a. b. c. VI. New Business a. b. c. d. e. VII. Legislative Outreach- Michelle Engler, Mike Tate, Terry Pruitt State Outreach and Promotion- Julie Cummings New Partnerships Action Plan- Mary Pfeiler Creating Michigan's AmeriCorps Message- Victor Begg State Commission Network and Ford Grant Citizen Service and Volunteer Recognition in honor of the Michigan Legislature MCSC and Michigan Department of Education Partnership Learn and Serve Grant approval Public Comment Next Commission meeting will be August 23, 1996 hosted by Commissioner Brandell and Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant. � 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_1996-05-10_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-05-10 commission meeting agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49775 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 1996-05-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/24076f4da6c030046cab4e9517b2681b.pdf 4560a5256fabc7de33aee151b0ff86b9 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION TALKING POINTS MCSC MCSC is dedicated to enabling all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. MCSC serves this mission through three main operating areas: * * * Program Development and Administration; Outreach and Publications; and, Overall administration, financial oversight, and networking. In each of these three areas MCSC serves as a Catalyst, Convener, and Broker. I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION I Michigan's AmeriCorps In Year 2 there are 12 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs. During Year 1 there were nine programs (eight operational and one planning). These programs are located in Grand Rapids, Marquette, Detroit (3), Pontiac, Southfield, Lansing, Saginaw, Flint, Ypsilanti, and Shelby. There are 300+ Michigan's AmeriCorps members for Year 2. 194 of these members are full-time, serving 1700 hours in nine months to ony year. They receive a living allowance of $7,945 over the course of their service. They will-receive an education award of $4,725 after they successfully complete their term of service. 172 of these members are part-time, serving 900 hours in one year to two years. They receive .a living allowance of $4,200 over the course of their service. They will receive an education award of $2,362 after they successfully complete their term of service. Many 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 member. 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 doing so, the GAO included CNS and State Commission administration, grant and matching funds for program operation, member support costs, and the post-service awards. The GAO did not attempt to calculate the impact of new volunteers generated by AmeriCorps members. By calculating everything that supports a project, the GAO included things like the cost �(Corporation funded or match donated) of lumber and paint that goes into an AmeriCorps home renovation project. If a company donates lumber as a match, the GAO calculates that as a resource necessary to support an AmeriCorps member. In Year 2 the cost per Michigan's AmeriCorps members is $11,202. This amount was arrived at, by the Michigan Community Service Commission, by adding the Corporation Share Funds Requested of Budget Items A., B., C., D., E., and F. (see attached Budget Sheet) and dividing it by the number of Michigan's AmeriCorps members total. This figure includes the members' living allowance ($7,945 full-time and $4,200 part-time). AmeriCorps programs are required to provide a minimum 15% cash match for the costs of the Budget Items in .A. (Participant Support Costs). The Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, on average provided a 24.46% cash match of Budget Items in A AmeriCorps programs are required to provide a minimum 25% cash or in-kind match for the costs of Budget Items B.- F. The Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, on average provided a 50.06% match of Budget Items B. -F. During Year 1 the eight operational and one planning (total of nine) Michigan's AmeriCorps programs generated 244,996 hours of AmeriCorps service. During Year 1 the eight operational and one planning (total of nine) Michigan's AmeriCorps programs generated 3,390 additional non-stipended volunteers. These volunteers served a total of 23,777 volunteer hours. This is an average of 377 volunteers per program and 2,641 volunteer hours per program. The Year 2 budget for AmeriCorps is $3,048,985. Learn and Serve CBO In Year 2 there are currently seven Learn and Serve CBO programs administered by MCSC. The Learn and Serve CBO programs are located in Manistee, Muskegon, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Alpena, Petoskey, Kalamazoo. During Year 1 the Learn and Serve CBO programs involved 1,254 youth ages 6 - 20 in non-stipended volunteer service. The Learn and Serve program also generated 29 nonyouth volunteers. All total these volunteers served a total of 21,992 volunteer hours. The Year 2 budget for Learn and Serve CBO is $175,000. �Michigan CARES There are six Michigan CARES communities. They are Flint, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Marquette, Detroit, and Alpena. The program is currently in Phase II and has established a series of Phase II objectives. The program is funded by the Kellogg Foundation. OUTREACH AND PUBLICATIONS MCSC has several publications available to those interested in service and volunteerism. They include. * * * * * * * The 1995 MCSC Annual Report Profiles in Service Foundation for Civic Renewal The MCSC quarterly newsletter The TAP-Youth Service Resource Guide Investments in Volunteerism: Resource Guide of Volunteer and Service Programs Funded in Michigan Michigan's Service-Learning Principles and Practices MCSC also has informational packets pre-made that are available to Commissioners to use as public relations tools. OVERALL ADMINISTRATION, FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT, AND NETWORKING In addition to the afore mentioned roles and responsibilities, MCSC has several overall functions. Governor's Community Service Awards * 1995-96 marks the third annual Governor's Community Service Awards program. It will be held May 16th in conjunction with "A Time for New and Renewed Partnerships - A Continued Discussion" and Grant Makers Grant Seekers. * There are currently 13 categories, an increase of 2 from the 11 of Year 1. * During Year 1 and Year 2 there were 200 nominations per year. This year (Year 3) there were 240 nominations. �Financial Administration During 1994-95 MCSC Administrative Expenditures totaled $385,067 or 10% of the total expenditures. Councils and Groups MCSC convenes several councils and groups. We are responsible for facilitating and providing staff support to each group. * * * * Senior Advisory Council Service-Learning Leadership Council Staff Advisory Council MYPAC Poster Contests Last year MCSC co-sponsored a poster contest which focused on getting youth interested in volunteerism and service. We received over 100 poster entries and unveiled the winning poster at the Second Annual Governor's Community Service Awards. The poster was sent to all of the junior high and high schools in Michigan in coordination with Make A Difference Day. This year MCSC is co-sponsoring an intergenerational poster contest which will highlight ways that youth and senior citizens can come together in volunteerism and service. We received 21 entries and hope to unveil the poster at this year's Governor's Community Service Awards. Make A Difference Day MCSC along with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan co-sponsored a Make A Difference Day information packet. This packet encouraged individuals to volunteer on the day and was mailed to all of the MCSC grantees, MDE grantees, DSS county offices, V AC' s, and all of the junior high and high schools in Michigan. In total, there were over 80 projects that involved over 13,000 people. Conferences and Training In October of 1995, MCSC held a service-learning conference in conjunction with Quest International. This one-day conference brought together teachers, school administrators, service providers, nonprofit administrators, etc. for an intense day of training on servicelearning. MCSC is currently planning a series of Regional Trainings. These trainings will occur in four locations Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Traverse City. The frrst training took place in February and centered on service-learning and youth development. The second training will not take place regionally, instead it will be the TAP-Youth Service Conference in Lansing. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1996-03-15_Talking-Points Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting talking points Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting talking points. 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, 49774 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b04254567f9f6df41b5d107dc32d5cf2.pdf c700871e42d8a607a9e3445c5e3d48b0 PDF Text Text FEB 1 4 1996 AmeriCorps National Service February 5, 1996 Mr. Frank Dirks Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building 111 S. Capitol Ave Lansing, MI 48909 CORPORATION FOR ATJONAL I'JS E RVJ C E Dear~~ Thank you for submitting your State Plan Update. Congratulations on your success during this past year of operation. Your work with and support of service programs and initiatives in your state have helped to advance your state's vision of national and community service. We appreciate the insight you provided regarding the status of service in your state as well as your vision for the future. This allowed the Corporation to see what lessons you learned from your year of operation and how State Commissions plan to continue to improve and promote the ethic of service within their states. The purpose of this letter is to provide you feedback from the State Plan Update reviews. Your state plan was reviewed by a team of Corporation staff from Programs, Training and Technical Assistance, and Grants and Contracts. The information contained within this letter highlights areas where you excel. It also presents some continuous improvement suggestions. Feedback is provided regarding your PDAT request and administrative budget/narrative. You will only be expected to provide written responses with regard to your PDAT and administrative budget issues. Overall Comments: The Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) has made significant progress in achieving year one objectives. MCSC continues to build on Michigan's existing service infrastructure by developing and supporting quality programs and acting as a catalyst for collaborative initiatives. This docuement demonstrates the excellent work of the commission in implementing its vision. In reviewing your State Plan Update the review panel noted the following strengths or areas where you excel: State Plan Update Process: • MCSC has made good efforts to track progress toward accomplishing each of the plan's annual objectives. • Conunission meetings provide a regular and consistent opportunity to solicit feedback from stakeholders. 1201 New York Avenue, NW Was hington, DC 20525 Telephone 202-606-5000 Getting Things Done. AmeriCorps. N"': Learn and S. National Senit. �Mr. Frank Dirks February 5, 1992 Page2 • Special efforts were made to develop programs in geographic areas previously under-served by existing service programs. As a result, new programs have been funded in those locations. Vision: • MCSC embraces a broad, inclusive vision of national service as reflected in their diverse program portfolio. Sustainability: • MCSC has developed a solid and diverse funding base that will help to ensure sustainabili ty. • Fundraising efforts have been supported at the local level through training and technical assistance sessions. Convening a meeting with grant makers is an excellent example of how MCSC is connecting programs to resources. • Strong bi-partisan support has been developed as demonstrated by the overwhelming support of law makers in the state in the state legislature to provide state funding. Infrastructure: • MCSC solicitation of input from a wide variety of stakeholders has been an effective strategy for increasing statewide collaborations. • CNS strongly supports MCSC' s efforts to link service programs to school-towork initiatives. Awareness and Identity: • The signature project in Detroit was a tremendous undertaking. • The Michigan's AmeriCorps logo effectively promotes both national and state identities. Capacity: • The caliber and commitment of MCSC's staff is clearly demonstrated by the . qu<j.lity and content of this report. Monitorin& and Evaluation: • MCSC has developed a comprehensive system for monitoring and evaluating program performance. The monitoring guide is an excellent tool to assess program quality. • The use of business plans is innovative and appears to be an effective mechanism for strategic planning. The Corporation is committed to continuous improvement and recognizes the need for feedback and self-improvement. The review panel of your State Plan Update listed quality issues or concerns listed below. While we suggest that you consider these, we do not require a written response. State Plan Update Process: • No issues. Vision: • No issues. MI s~ �Mr. Frank Dirks February 5, 1992 Page3 Sustainability: • Challenges are not mentioned. The Corporation encourages commissions to be forthcoming with challenges so that we can provide necessary information and resources. • The role of the Catholic Youth Organization is not clear. Infrastructure: • The extent to which MCSC has worked, or plans to work, with the CNS state office is vague. • · Examples of how MCSC initiatives have resulted in local collaborations would be useful. · · Awareness and Identity: • No issues. Capacity: • No issues. Monitoring and Evaluation: • Little detail was provided regarding MCSC's self assessment. We encourage MCSC to conduct a self assessment if it has not been done already. The request for Program Development Assistance and Training (PDAT} and the budget was also reviewed by cluster panels. In reviewing your request the issues listed below were raised. Please continue to work with your Training and Technical Assistance Staff regarding necessary responses. • • • • • Michigan is a state that others can learn much from, and, while the Commission leadership is already well connected to other Commissions, CNS would be delighted to serve as a disseminator of information about best practices, good ideas, and lessons learned in Michigan's training and technical assistance plan. Please provide more information about Catholic Youth Organization's regional trainings. Our concern is in part one of compliance with our funding streams: how much time under PDAT goes to AmeriCorps programs? We would also like to know how much of the total Michigan AmeriCorps population CYO covers. In addition, and to enable us to understand the whole picture of support in Michigan, what AmeriCorps needs are provided by Michigan CARES and TAPYouth Service? Who are the state peer and technical assistance consultants and how is MCSC supporting them? What incentives are you using? This is an idea that other states are likely to be interested in (Massachusetts is considering something that may be somewhat similar) and also connects to a regionally-based initiative CNS is considering proposing to the Commissions, so we would like to know more. We would like to know more about the resource guide for non-profit CBOs that MCSC will make available statewide. If it is a handbook, and its lessons are widely applicable, we wonder if the state would be willing to share copies with the National Resource Center for general dissemination and distribution on request. Ml State Plan �Mr. Frank Dirks February 5, 1992 Page4 • • If the resource guide contains a listing of training and technical assistance providers, know that you are one of several states developing such lists. Would you be willing to share this list with other states? CNS often receives requests for "lists of approved trainers," but we have never wanted to get into the business of vetting trainers. In part this is because the fit. between trainer and program differs from situation to situation and a system of references rather than general one-trainer-fits-all vetting makes better sense. In addition, if anyone is going to be recommending or "approving" trainers, we feel this should be done by the people who actually have hired and experienced the work of those trainers. These thoughts have led us to consider building a national list from lists released by grantees and programs. We would be interested in your reactions to such an initiative. We have several questions about the Train the Trainers initiative. Why was so much left unexpended in this category in Year One? Also, know that several other states are interested in this strategy (for example, we have seen it in State Plans from Ohio and Connecticut in the North Central and Atlantic Clusters; other states have mentioned it as a possible strategy but wonder how realistic it is and how substantial are the learnings that can be transmitted through a system that depends on project directors, not people who train as a regular part of their work, in what may be a somewhat ad hoc system). It would be helpful to us to know what Michigan's successes and challenges have been and also, if you are revising the initiative, how. Budcet Issues: • Please explain why a fax machine is being purchased with PDAT funds. • Sub-contracts, sub-grantees: 1} Why is program staff travel listed here? 2} Who will be attending training sessions? 3) Who will own laptop computer and software? 4) What is included in administrative costs? 5) Will MCSC operate under a fixed-priced or cost-reimbursable agreement? The final area that was reviewed by the cluster panel was the budget for administrative funds. Through the review, the following concerns were noted by the panel. Once appropriations are completed, you will be notified of your funding level and the process for revisions. Corrections to these budget or budget narrative issues should be incorporated into your final budget revision. • Please provide a more detailed narrative with a breakdown of large figures. We at the Corporation wish your Commission continued success as you administer the second year of AmeriCorps programs and as you build the collaborative efforts of the various streams of service in your state. We look forward to our continuing partnership in the coming year. If you should have any questions please feP 1 free to telephone your program officer at the Corporation. Sincerely, � 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_1996-03-15_State-Plan-Update-Reviews-Feedback Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting state plan update reviews feedback Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting state plan update reviews feedback. 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, 49773 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/a238c95fb92f1533d68d563dffa46b38.pdf 30a56c0a061a506e3d2763318adbb8f6 PDF Text Text COORDINATING COUNCIL TIMELINE FOR NEXT STEPS 3/8 Cluster Calls to ED's not attending (Cluster Reps) (TA letter, Formula Memo, Matrix Update) 3/15 Notes out to ED's (Lindy/FranklJoe) 3/14 Coordinating Group Conference Call (Frank) 3/29 Cluster Conference Call (Cluster Rep's) (Reauthorization Memo, Pol/Admin Issues, Follow-up) Points that should be covered during this conference call: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 4/2 Follow-up on T&TA (NOFA) Affirm Delivery System Memo Affirm Linda F.'s Reauthorization Memo Update on Formula Funding ED Monitoring Paragraphs to Submit to Bev for the CNS Update State Commission Updates to the Resource Matrix Sustainability Ideas - send to Frank Dirks List Serve Update Ask for good dates for the next ED meeting Coordinating Group Conference Call (Frank) 6/15 Outside date for the next meeting /'7 or;~ ~Fb~ S , -- ----- �San Die~:o Meetin~: Notes: State Commission Success Stories September 1995 - February 1996 The following key accomplishments were reported by the State Commission Executive Directors at their meeting on San Diego March 3-5, 1996. Montana: They held their second statewide conference linking the field of service. Nebraska: Resource Library on-line; CBO Learn & Serve initiative vehicle for involving small rural communities. Ohio: Connecting many streams of service: created "Educational Tool" for elected officials and general public; a vehicle to bring network together. Kentucky: Second statewide conference with new sponsoring partners (Quest, Association of Experiential Education) bringing in national resources; Americorps members conducted a day of service in conjunction with the conference; Established Governors Volunteer Service Awards. New York: Connecting streams of service via regional meetings; Developing program themes at regional level to focus service initiatives; 800 Americorps members at opening day ceremony. Arkansas: Joint planning process conducted with all stakeholders to decide what service should look like in Arkansas. Michigan: Sponsored a meeting with the Governor, First Lady and nearly 100 key leaders of the private, public, social/nonprofit and moral/religious sectors on new partnerships to enhance citizen participation in community solving problems. Joint sponsorship with the Council of Michigan Foundations and the Michigan Nonprofit Association gave the State Commission a new level of credibility. Massachusetts: Obtained $250,000 in state funding to match CNS CBO Learn & Serve funds . State Senator volunteered to sponsor a $5.5 million legislative package to support all streams of service. Washington: State challenge grants; hosting a symposium where grantees are writing professional papers to share successes in the area of education with cash awards possible; made connection with the volunteer sector through the Dental Service Smile mobile project which provides dental care to kids. Iowa: Progress in connecting traditional volunteer efforts with CNS programs; produces a 10 minute video on volunteerism and PSA's; $150,000 worth of air time has been donated to the work of the Commission. A clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities that will eventually go on line. Rhode Island: All Rhode Island institutions of higher education will match CNS service education awards; Youth Action Council has created a YES Foundation giving grants to youth organizations; Youth service summit has been planned. California: Leveraged $67 million in state funding tied to a subtitle H grant; Launched C.L.A.S.P., a new local partnership effort providing mentoring and literacy service; Media effort to instill service ethic; Produced a 20 minute video on Americorps. Have a worldwide web page. �Alabama: Developed a new monitoring tool and initiated a major effort to ensure program and fiscal compliance. Uncovering deficiencies that are being addressed. Oklahoma: Empha~is on training, proposal writing and managing AmeriCorps programs; Developed an AmenCorps member driven training initiative. Georgia: Developed a promotional video for members to use; Commission members are conducting site visits involving local legislators. West Virginia: Communications linking programs in a rural state through electronic networks; Going paperless with program information and reports; Developing TA appropriate for a rural state; Developed an annual report listing programs county by county. New Jersey: Survived and thrived a change in Governor; Developed a new administrative link to state Health Department where the Commission is viewed as an asset; Developed PSA and video. North Carolina: Have included public agencies in statewide T &TA efforts; Established a clearinghouse with a web page through a university link; First annual youth voice conference was organized and run by young people; Sponsoring a grassroots level Year of Volunteer in 1997; Good media coverage linked to CNS Board meeting held in NC. Texas: Governor Bush has provided strong support, Commission is now designated as the State Office for Volunteerism; Developed Governors Awards; Sponsored an international youth conference involving folks from Mexico; Sponsoring a volunteer leadership conference and helped to develop a degree program for volunteer management at a State University. Arizona: Conduct quarterly meetings with programs; Commission members are conducting site visits to programs; Strong Governor support; 300 participants at national launch with the First Lady acknowledging publicly the more than 4,000 participants engaged in service. Indiana: New ED appointed; Celebration of Black History Month included honoring Americorps members. Missouri: Organizing a policy summit linking streams of service to produce recommendations for Commission and Governor as to how service should be developed in the state; Creating a private foundation for service to support Commission and eventually programs. Oregon: Going for state funding; Being viewed as a broker; beginning to build a service infrastructure; received two new grants to establish an Oregon Campus Compact. �To: Executive Directors of State Commissions for National Community Service From: Frank Dirks, Chair Coordinating Committee Joe Madison, Consultant Re: Notes from "The First Independent Meeting" of State Commission Executive Directors March 3-5, 1996, San Diego, CA Date: March 15, 1996 Executive Directors (Ed's) from 21 states and designees from 2 states met at the Holiday Inn Bayside in San Diego, CA on March 3-5, 1996. This was the first independent meeting of the emerging national network of State Commissions. Diana Algra, Director of AmeriCorps attended as a resource on behalf of the Corporation for National Service and at the request of the ED' s Coordinating Group. The purpose of the meeting was to review progress since the September meeting in Washington, D.C. and to discuss several pressing issues including reauthorization of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, renewals, and long and short-term sustainability of the State Commissions. Joseph Miller (IN), Lucy Todd (TX) and Jason Gross(IA) were welcomed and congratulated on their appointment as new ED's. The agenda (Att. A), handouts, list of attendants (Att. B) are attached to these notes for ED's unable to attend. These notes summarize the discussions and report the next steps to be taken. A.Proposal to the Ford Foundation (Att. C) Frank Dirks reviewed a revised proposal that he submitted to the Ford Foundation in January. He reported that the Ford Foundation continues to be supportive of the proposal to develop a Commission peer support network but funding has not yet been approved. Follow-up: Frank Dirks will continue to dialogue with Michael Lipsky of the Ford Foundation in March. B. Success Stories To begin the meeting ad set the tone of our discussions, each Ed or designee reviewed major successes that their Commission had experienced since the September meeting. Key themes that emerged included a high level of outreach, regional training, cross-stream planning and programming, development and implementation of strategies for state and private sector support, and successful strategies for developing promotional materials. A number of statewide conferences that include all of the various streams of service have occurred during the winter and many more are planned for the spring. Follow-up: A list of successes by state are reported in Att. D. It was suggested that states not attending be invited to share their recent successes and that this information be added to the update of the inventory of state resources. �C. Partnership Policy Papers Thes~ are the working group papers that were discussed at this meeting. The concept for the worl?ng groups and the working group papers originated from the September meeting. The group contmues to progress on each paper. 1. National Training and Technical Assistance Contracts (Att. E): Kitty Burcsu (OH) reviewed her working groups paper submitted to Jim Ekstrom recommending a major overhaul of national T &TA giving states a much greater stake in its design and implementation. She then reviewed a draft "OPTIONS PAPER-Training and Technical Assistance" prepared by Jim Ekstrom's office that incorporates several of the ideas incorporated in the working groups paper. ED's heartily endorsed the ideas presented in the draft. Clarification ofthe two issues: do peer networks refer to state commissions or national contractors; and the option to budget a portion of PDAT funds to respond to unidentified needs or to take advantage of an unanticipated training opportunity. Follow-up: Kitty Burscu will send a letter thanking Jim Ekstrom for his responsive proposed redesign and provide the strong endorsement of the Ed network. She will get clarification on the two issues raised. ' 2. Monitoring (Att. F): Bev Morrow reviewed her white paper and made notes that the ED's who agreed to serve on the monitoring working group had not provided input and feedback as requested. The discussion revolved around the issue of accountability. ED's stressed the importance of monitoring both to ensure quality programs and to measure accountability for State Commissions. Concern was expressed that changing resources would require that Commissions think about new ways of monitoring that tap new resources. Ideas, such as developing a program peer review, using volunteer teams from CBO's, universities, and business, and use of state office staff were discussed. There was a call for a symposium to explore these issues, the future direction of monitoring, and the larger issue of accountability (possibly co-sponsored by the CNS, ED's and the Clearing house) within the next year. Follow-up: • Bev will add a cover to her paper identifying the questions and suggestions for innovative ideas for monitoring (3/29). • ED's can submit a brief paragraph to Bev (4/15) describing innovative directions that they are planning in the corning year to be distributed through a CNS Update (TBA). • Marliss will contact Jim Ekstrom to discuss role of the Clearinghouse in monitoring practices (3/20). • CNS is developing a manual for Project Officers to use while doing site visits. CNS will provide commissions with a copy as soon as it is printed. • Jacquie, Tom, Linda and Marliss will assist Bev with this working group. 3. Communication: Steve Schad (MO) discussed internet options under consideration by the CNS. Follow-up: Steve will recommend to ERT, CNS contractor designing the internet linkages, to set up a "list serve" for ED's with and without a link to National Directs (3119). 4. National Direct AmeriCorps Contracts (Att. G): Bill Basl (WA) reviewed recommendations of the working group considering ways to strengthen the relationship between the National Directs and the State Commissions. Recommendations were made in the areas of communication, states role in the grant award process, and long-term CNS policies and guidance. Follow-up: Bill reported that the next step is to get feedback from the National Directs and revise the paper. �D. White Papers: Linkine Service to State Policy Issues 1. Economic Development: Paper proposed will consider ways national and community s.ervice can link to state economic development agendas through such efforts as work place literacy, day care, and after-school initiatives. Follow-up: • Nancy Deaver (OK) will draft paper by April 1, 1996. • Betty and Linda will act as resources to Nancy. 2. Community Development & Revitalization: As with Economic Development, this paper will consider ways of directly linking national and community service to state initiatives for community development and revitalization. The connection will give national service more exposure and credibility and the potential to tap other state funding sources. Linda Forsyth (CA) provided an example of how theCA Commission has made this connection with initiatives of Gov. Wilson resulting in the potential of over $60 million in state funds to support national service programs. Follow-up: Michelle Lyons-Mayer (AZ) will draft a paper for distribution by May. Linda volunteered to provide Michelle with input. 3. School-to-work: Steve Schad (MO) and Bill Basi (W A) discussed potential connections. Follow-up: Steve will draft a paper in May. Bill will provide excerpts from a school to work grant proposal that was written and funded. 4. Volunteerism and Community Service: (Att. H) This paper describes the need for and ways to develop more coordinated and synergistic relationships among volunteer and community service efforts, particularly among CNS funded programs. While Jeanne Bradner (IL) was not available at this meeting to discuss this paper, it should be noted that the issue of coordination and linkages with the broader network of volunteer and community service initiatives was highlighted by many of the ED's present when discussing recent successes in their state. Follow-up: None at this time. 5. Other Proposed Papers: White papers on national service linkages to welfare reform (Crowley - KS) and public policy (Mehr - MA) have not yet been developed and have not been addressed. Follow-up: Coordinating group will contact authors to establish a new timeline for developing these papers. E. Reauthorization of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 1. Review of CNS Strategy for Reauthorization: Diana Algra shared the most recent thinking of CNS for reauthorization. The preference of the administration would be to get a one year continuance of the current legislation and seek full reauthorization in FY97. The administration will not offer a bill this year, however, they are drafting papers that could be used as resources by legislators sponsoring a bill. This would take the bill out of the election year politics and provide time for a more thoughtful reconsideration. During the corning year CNS will work to build support with individual legislators who have concerns by considering ways to address their concerns administratively rather than legislatively. However, it is not yet clear what Congress intends to do. Some oversight hearings are planned for March and April. States should continue their activities to involve, inform and educate their congressional delegation about national service in their state. �On~ area .seeJ?~d that clear is that in 1996-97 there will be an effort to cut the cost of the programs while mamtammg the current level of benefits for participants. 2. Review of ED's Recommendations: (Att. I) The ED's reviewed and discussed Linda Forsyth's (CA) paper containing recommendations on which there was a greater than 90% agreement by ED's who responded to two surveys that were circulated early this winter. ED's acknowledged general agreement on the issues included but had two concerns: first the need for a cave~t that makes clear that the~e recommendations while broadly supported by the ED's are not unanimous and do not necessarily reflect the wishes of State Commissioners; and, that the number of ED's who responded is low thereby weakening the impact of the recommendation. Follow-up: • Linda will amend a paper to include a paragraph that explains who these recommendations represent and distribute it to all ED's (3115). • Coordinating Group will obtain greater affirmation of ED's through cluster conference calls (3/29). • Marliss Miller will ask Terry Russell (3/8) to review the paper and identify which recommendations would require legislative changes and which are administrative in nature. • ED's will also be asked to identify other administrative or policy changes to be considered by all the ED' s in a new survey (3/29). • Linda Forsyth will develop a new survey of adrninlpolicy issues (April). • Marliss Miller, Linda Forsyth and Kate Mehr will review the NCST Act for any additional issues that are of concern to State Commissions and that require legislative change. 3. Delivery System: (Att. J) The group reviewed a draft report and a proposal outline of the Delivery System Working Group consisting of eight State Commission ED's and eight State Corporation Office Directors. It was generally agreed that developing a coordinated system of service programs and making sense of the dual systems was imperative if national service is to survive. There was a clear appreciation as to the difficultly of merging and streamlining these two systems, given the history and constituencies involved. The group decided that it should support the ED's serving on the working groups by developing a statement of principles that all the ED's could endorse to guide the working group. The statement, which is attached, calls for maximum flexibility for experimentation at the state level to develop models for coordinated delivery system. Such efforts should seek to achieve the best of both systems. CNS should provide incentives and resources to encourage coordinated models and identify and remove any barriers to collaboration. Follow-up: •Statement of principles drafted for circulation and affirmation (3/5). • The Coordinating Group will survey ED's not attending the meeting to gain their endorsement for the statement by 3/8. The statement will be presented to the Delivery System Working Group when it meets on Monday 3111. • Marliss Miller will request that Terry Russell review the Working Groups draft report and identify items that require administrative or legislative changes to accomplish them (3/8). F. Renewal Process (Att. K) Bill Basi (W A) led a discussion of how state would approach the renewal process and timeline. Bev Morrow (WY) distributed a copy of her Commissions renewal application as an example. The discussion focused on two major issues: flexibility for State Commissions in awarding formula funds; and ensuring a longer timeline in FY97 to conduct a quality grant award process. There was a concern in the short-run states will be unable to program any formula funds that might not be obligated should a state not renew a program that is currently funded . In the long-run, a process for formula funding that is modeled on the CBO Learn and Serve program would provide grater flexibility to and ownership by the state. �A ~emoran~um was dr~ted by. Frank Dirks (MI) •. reviewed and endorsed unanimously by the ED s attendmg the meetmg. This memorandum will enable Diana Algra to convey the ideas of the ED's to Terry Russell and Mike Kenefeck for consideration at a meeting on 3/13. Follow-up (Att. L): • Frank Dirks (MI) will draft a memorandum to Diana Algra to uncouple the formula funding process from the CNS timeline and provide greater flexibility and control of formula funds to State C~mmi~sions (3/5). • The Coordinating Group will survey all ED's not attending the meeting to gam therr endorsement for the memorandum by 3/8. • Recommendations for FY97 timeline will be included in Dirks memo and shared with Peg Rosenberry at CNS. • Coordinating Group will follow-up with Diana Algra. G. National T&TA for State Commission (Att. M) The group engaged in a lively discussion of the pending Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) to provide T&TA to State Commissions. Several concerns were raised about the NOFA. Several options were entertained ranging from applying for the funds directly as a coalition of ED's to recalling the NOFA and requesting that the Corporation provide the T &TA directly with oversight by the ED's network. Bottom line there was a strong consensus that the NOFA in its current form was out of sync both with the new thinking of CNS re: national T &TA discussed earlier and with the development of the State Commissions as represented by the network meetings and the matrix of resources developed by the network of State ED's David Karoff (Rl) agreed to draft a letter to Jim Ekstrom requesting that the NOFA be recalled and that the process be designed for ED's to manage their own T &TA implementing the Resource Inventory Matrix. The letter (attached) was drafted, reviewed, and affirmed. Follow-up • Karoff letter sent to Jim Ekstrom (3/8). • Coordinating Group will survey all ED's not attending the meeting to gain their endorsement for the letter by 3/8. • Coordinating Group will follow-up via Kitty Burscu (OH). H. State Commission Resource Inventory Joe Madison reported that Greg Bahr, an intern with the Indiana State Commission, has volunteered to reformat the inventory to make it easier to update and maintain. State updates or changes for the time being, however, should be sent to the Michigan Commission. ED's also questioned the potential role of the National Clearinghouse for maintaining the resource inventory. It was recommended that a representative of the Clearinghouse attend future meetings of the ED's. Commissions want to see the Clearinghouse develop into a resource that they can easily utilize and provide resources to for dissemination. Follow-up: • Commissions send updates to Frank Dirks (MI) at the Michigan Commission (4115). • Joe Madison send disk matrix to Greg Bahr for reformatting (4/15). • Marliss Miller (OR) will discuss the role of the Clearinghouse with Jim Ekstrom (3/??). I. National Recruitment for AmeriCorps Mary Blake (MT) raised concern about a new national recruitment effort for AmeriCorps that has not involved that State Commissions in its design or implementation. While there was not agreement among the ED's about the merits of this effort, there was an agreement that the lack of consultation was not in the spirit of partnership established at the September meeting with CNS. It was agreed that a letter be drafted requesting that a working group be established to consider the �best ways to design and coordinate a national recruitment effort that compliments, supports and enhances state efforts. Elaine Wiggins (AL), Kelly Houston (ID), Betty Hicks (AR) and Bill Basl (W A) agreed to serve with Mary on such a working group. Follow-up: • Mary Blake (MT) will draft a letter to Bruce Cohen (CNS) to establish a working group on national recruitment (3115) . .I. Sustainability of State Commissions (Att. N) Given time constraints to fully consider the short term and long term issues related to sustaining State Commissions, the group elected to brainstorm ideas, both concerns and potential strategies, that could become the basis for a more sustained and focused dialogue at the next meeting. Follow-up: • Frank Dirks (MI) will draft a white paper on the issue of a three year funding that considers options of both the Corporation and foundations (5/30). • Michelle Lyons-Mayer (AZ) will identify people who are not yet fully supportive of the Commissions for a potential round table discussion at a future meeting (TBA). • Dave Crowley (KY) -per Dwen- will draft a paper on the PR/Marketing role ofthe Commissions, (ex. How to use/adapt someone else's PSNvideo). • Mary Blake (MT) will draft legislation exempting Montana from any administrative match!! • Coordinating Group will consider how to extend their brainstorm to get information from the State Commissions not in attendance (3114). �San Die~:o Meetin~: Noted: Sustainability of Commission Questions: What are we doing, and what could and should we be doing at the State and National level? MI - Move towards merger of Commissions with State Offices of Volunteerism. OH - Need more information on budget to evolve into State Office on Service. NC - • Establish a State Office on Volunteerism in conjunction with the Commission to expand level of services . • Need for a nonprofit partner to attract private funding, share space, and have interlocking Boards of Directors. OK- Establish a Commission as a 501(c)3(Note a CNS paper is corning on this topic (Slobig). NC - Partner with key stockholders (AVA, Business, Center for Nonprofit); Convene focus groups to inform and educate. MI- Build case for role of Commission as convener linking the service network under the umbrella of volunteerism. (Potential for a white paper??) KY - State conference should include time for regional clusters to meet and then time to follow up with regional round tables. Build support for a voice and focal point linking initiatives throughout the state. WV- Pushing for WV Corps; justification most clear for legislation has been the role of the Commission in motivating local communities and CBO's to reinvent government. AC is a good example of outcome based service with clear standards. Argument that it cannot happen for free. Sponsor state level forum with providers and CBO's to consider this issue. CA- Work with the Council of Foundations, but don' t count on the foundations to support this effort forever, foundations want to be on the cutting edge then pass the bill onto the taxpayers or fee for service. Need to sustain the public/private partnership. Concern about expanding hard and fast cash match requirements. KY- Commission members create in-roads to state legislators through site visits tied to state funding package. KY- Modeling a new welfare initiative based on AmeriCorps. RIPrivate nonprofit serving as State Office of Volunteerism .. .looking to merge with the Commission. RILooking to market services to smaller corporations, looking to develop employee volunteer programs. WA- W A lost State Office of Volunteerism; it lost political support; caution about devolution of responsibility, Commission must tie into local structure. CA- Developed 14 regional networks, a local structure to expand and connect with local networks. CA- Public/Private Partnership - State Commissions, Irvine Foundation and Youth Service California. MT- Reduce or eliminate administrative match. KY - Going after state funds for administrative match and program support to replace federal funding after three years. OH- Established a Sustainability Committee of the Commission. • Re: programs - discussion at the community level, how important are the services and how community can sustain them. • Re: Commission - neEDs to be considered indispensable and diversify funding. NE- Hired a public relations consulting firm to do a feasibility study to develop a statewide gift giving plan to support Commission. OH- Convening role aligned with the funding community's donor forums. MN- Develop fundraising strategies for specific areas such as training, outreach, etc. AZ- In some states political sustainability requires a very subtle approach to pushing federal initiatives such as AmeriCorps. Need to promote a broader "family" of services. �WA- lAlA- KYWV- NCOH- AZWV OHWAMI- Looking to connect service to state initiatives; eg. California Commission paper. Askin~ Commission to set priorities for sustaining Commission under various funding scenarios. Become indispensable- eg. relationship with the funding community based on providing clear products, information and a clearinghouse. Marketing; involve Commissioners and volunteers in roles that they can easily do, both activities and committees. Consider Commission as a membership organization; collect dues to support service and ownership of the Commission. What is CNS strategy for sustaining Commissions? How can they use national network/providers. What percent of administrative dollars appropriated to CNS should go to the Commission? CNS has effectively promoted accomplishments of AmeriCorps; accomplishments of the Commission need to be similarly addressed and promoted by CNS. Need to look at sustainability beyond the short term funding concern. Need to build support for infrastructure to meet basic needs. Link service to public policy development. Address issue of sustainable funding with CNS and funders . • 3 year and out funding on major issue; need a discussion with funders in considering options. • Identify which constituencies strongly support Commissions and which do not. Prioritize and cultivate those constituencies that are most essential for sustainability. How do the Commissions create value for these constituencies? What do they want and need? �San Die2o ED Meetin~:: Commitments for Follow-up A. Minutes out to ED's Success Stories: Reurink/Madison 3/15 B. Success Stories: Reurink/Madison 3/15 C. Policy Papers: 1. Nat'l T&TA - Acknowledgment letter Burscu 3/15 Jim Ekstrom 2. Monitoring -Rework cover letter with suggestions Morrow 3/29 -ED's submit short descriptions for Morrow 4/15 CNS Update -Role of Clearinghouse - Jim Ekstrom M. Miller 3/8 -Symposium on Accountability Morrow 4/15 looking forward (Tom, Marliss,Linda,Jacquie) 3. Communication; Work with ERT Schad 3/19 to set-up ED list serve 4. National Directs: Complete, no Basi further action D. White Papers 1. Service linkage to Economic Development Initiatives 2. Service and Community Development and Revitalization 3. School-to-Work 4. [Welfare Reform] 5. [Service and Public Policy] 6. Volunteerism &Community Service: Complete E. Reauthorization 1. Reauthorization Recommendations a. Linda Forsyth's paper amended & distributed to ED 's b. Paper affirmed by ED's c. T. Russell annotate paper re: admin/legislative issues d. ED's polled re: admin/policy changes e. Survey of admin/policy changes f. Review of NCST Act for reauthorization 2. Delivery System a. Principle Statement drafted for work group meeting b. T. Russell annotate paper re: admin/legislative issues Deaver 4/1 Lyons-Mayor May Schad Crowley Mehr Bradner May Forsyth 3/15 Coord. Grp. M. Miller 3/29 3/8 Coord. Grp. 3/29 Forsyth M. Miller, Mehr Forsyth April 3/29 Schad 3/5 M. Miller 3/8 ?? ?? �• F. G. H. I. Renewal 1. National T&TA Commissions a. Letters to J. Ekstrom b. Calls to ED's to affirm letter c. Follow-up 2. Formula Funding a. Policy to decouple formula CNS timeline b. Recommendations re: '97 timeline Matrix 1. Commissions updates 2. Matrix reformatted 3. Connection to National Clearinghouse National Recruitment 1. Draft letter to CNS requesting to establish a work group Karoff Coord. Grp. Coord. Grp. 3/5 3/8 3/14 Dirks 3/5 Dirks 3/5 Madison Begr ?? 4/15 ?? ?? Blake 3/15 (Wiggins,Houston,Hicks,Basl) Sustainability 1. White paper on three year funding 2. ID uncommitted constituencies for round table 3. White paper on Marketing and PR role of the Commission 4. Extend brainstorm to Commission ED's not in attendance Dirks Lyons-Mayor ?? ?? Crowley ?? Coord. Grp. ?? � 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_1996-03-15_San-Diego-Executive-Directors-Meeting Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting San Diego executive director's meeting Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting San Diego executive director's 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, 49772 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7b219f1489f03fcfdaf96e9788a899a1.pdf dcd87b6ad496ab9e0e735393de9ae636 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 4-24-96 Updated I Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Ms. Judith Dunn Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 24404 Catherine Industrial Rd.,Ste. 308 Novi, Michigan 48375 Fax: 810-344-8857 (W) 810-344-6644 Mr. Frank Dirks, Ex. Director Ms. Dorothy Johnson Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol A venue Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W)517-335-4295 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 Ms. Nancy Lenz C. S. Mott Foundation 1200 Mott Foundation Building Flint, Michigan 48503 Fax: 810-766-1753 (W) 810-238-5651 Michigan National Bank 200 W. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Fax: 616-349-0550 (W)616-349-0549 Mr. Victor Begg Sister Mary Martinez 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (H)810-338-4180 (W)810-334-9225 Fax: 810-334-9225 Madonna College 36600 Schoolcraft Livonia, Michigan 48150 Fax: 313-432-5393 (W)313-432-5300 Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell Mr. James W. Muir 619 E. Chippewa Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858-1741 Fax: 517-774-4250 (W) 517-77 4-6448 1607 Philadelphia Avenue, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49507 (H)616-243-3555 ·; Ms. Julie F. Cummings Ms. Lisa Hitch Murray 6380 Muirfield Ct. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301 Fax: 313-871-5634 (W)313-871-8000 Fox Office Center 2211 Woodward Detroit, Michigan 48201-3400 Fax: 313-983-6494 (W)313-983-6420 1 �Ms. Eunice M. Myles 8552 Roselawn Detroit, MI 48204 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 Mr. Scott Smith 12849 Hannan Rd. Romulus, Michigan 4817 4-1108 (H)313-941-4499 Supervisor of the Charter Township of Plymouth 42350 Ann Arbor Road Plymouth, Michigan 48170 Fax: 313-453-5680 (W)313-453-3840 I I I, II Mr. Michael J. Tate, Asst. Director of Extension for Governmental Affairs 48 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 Fax: 517-432-1048 (W) 517-355-2317 Mr. Randy Neelis Menominee School District 4 701 Fifth St. Menominee, Michigan 49858 Fax: 906-863-1171 (W) 906-863-9951 D. Sgt. Matthew Wesaw 3939 Mayapple Lane Lansing, MI 48911 Fax: 517-336-6211 (W)517-336-6639 Ms. Vernie Nethercut 1139 Washington Alpena, Michigan 49707 Fax: 517-356-6334 (W) 517-356-9021 ext. 271 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: 616-968-0413 (W)616-968-1611 Ms. Geneva Jones Williams 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 Ms. Amber J. Pritchard 1201 Kimbark Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006 Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48630 Fax: 517-496-1657 (W) 517-496-8827 2 i' I �Michigan Youth Progressive Action Council (MYPAC) 1995-1996 Mr. Andrew Downs 351 Bruske Alma College Alma, MI 48801 (517) 463-7842 or 135 First Ave. Alpena, MI 49707 (517) 354-2471 Ms. Sara Scholefield 7350 Manitou Rogers City, MI 49779 (517) 734-2533 Ms. Kate Eklund 1609 Brooklyn Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 995-1663 Mr. Jeffrey Schulz 6066 French Rd. Unionville, MI 48767-9656 (517) 674-2435 Ms. Kimberly Fronsman 115 Keathley Dr. Battle Creek, MI 49017 (616) 968-1821 Ms. Dounia Senawi 4868 Quarton Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (810) 855-2189 Mr. Mario Henry 4591 Roosevelt Detroit, MI 48208 (313) 894-4490 Mr. Scott Smith 12849 Hannan Rd. Romulus, MI 4817 4 (313) 941-4499 Mr. Timothy Derwin 131 E. Peck St. Negaunee, MI 49866 (906) 475-5595 Mr. Dan Stump 1409 Tallman Rd. Fowler, MI 48835 (517) 593-2584 Ms. My Lien 558 Fremoont NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 (616) 735-9030 Ms.Ha Tran 3251 Rice Ct. Lansing, MI 48911 (517) 394-5264 Ms. Beth Weber Eastern Michigan Univ. 425 Jones Hall Ypsilanti, MI 44060 (313) 487-0657 �Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capital A venue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Phone: (517) 335-4295 Fax: (517) 373-4977 Frank Dirks, Executive Director ....................................... 335-1013 Lindy Reurink, Assistant Director ................................... 335-7875 Mary Estrada, Executive Secretary .................................... 373-4998 Paula Kaiser, Program Development Director ....................•... 373-1376 Angelia Salas, Program Development Coordinator .................. 335-3407 Garry Gross, Director of Administration ............................. 353-8028 Allyson Knox, Michigan CARES Coordinator ....................... 373-0617 Tracy McCloskey, Publications Coordinator .......................•. 335-7951 335-4295 335-4295 --- -------·------ 373-4200 � 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_1996-03-15_Roster-Updated Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting roster updated Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting roster updated. 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, 49771 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b5a478ed4ecfe98393ffafa4556ef21e.pdf e6e0aa9230d7ee26cf9252031b30c341 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Mr. Henry C. Gaines Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 30015 Lansing, Michigan 48909 4107 Greenbrook Ln. Flint, Michigan 48507 Fax: 810-238-3378 (W) 810-238-1616 Ext. 39 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 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 Mr. Terry Langston Mr. Victor Begg 2872 Marshall SE Apt. D-12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508 Fax:616-842-1760 (W)616-842-7080 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (H)810-338-4180 (W)810-334-9225 Fax: 810-334-9225 Sister Mary Martinez Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell 619 E. Chippewa Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858-1741 Fax: 517-774-4250 (W) 517-774-6448 Madonna College 36600 Schoolcraft Livonia, Michigan 48150 Fax: 313-432-5393 (W)313-432-5300 Ms. Julie F. Cummings Mr. James W. Muir 6380 Muirfield Ct. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301 Fax: 313-871-5634 (W)313-871-8000 1607 Philadephia A venue, SE brand Rapids, MI 49507 (H)616-243-3555 Ms. Lisa Ilitch Murray Ms. Judith Dunn Fox Office Center 2211 Woodward Detroit, Michigan 48201-3400 Fax: 313-983-6494 (W)313-983-6420 24404 Catherine Industrial Rd. ,Ste. 308 Novi, Michigan 48375 Fax: 810-344-8857 (W) 810-344-6644 1 3-8-96 Updated �Ms. Eunice M. Myles Michael J. Tate 8552 Roselawn Detroit, MI 48204 Fax: 810-355-6009 (W)810-355-6027 Asst. Director of Extension Asst. Director of Extension for Governmental Affairs, 48 Agricutlture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 Fax: 517-432-1048 (W) 517-355-2317 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 3939 Mayapple Lane Lansing, MI 48911 Fax: 517-336-6211 (W)517-394-4292 Mr. Randy Neelis Ms. Geneva Jones Williams Menominee School District 4701 Fifth St. Menominee, Michigan 49858 Fax: 906-863-1171 (W) 906-863-9951 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 D. Sgt. Matthew Wesaw Ms. Vernie Nethercut 1139 Washington Alpena, Michigan 49707 Fax: 517-356-6334 (W) 517-356-9021 ext. 271 Dr. Joel Orosz W. K. Kellogg Foundation One Michigan Avenue East Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 Fax: 616-968-0413 (W)616-968-1611 Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48630 Fax: 517-496-4586 (W) 517-496-8302 Mr. Alton Shipstead . Northwest Michigan Council of Governments 2200 Dendrinos Drive Traverse City, Michigan 49684 Fax: 616-929-5012 (W)616-929-5000 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_1996-03-15_Roster Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 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 1996-03-15 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, 49770 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/499a95fc743915408f6f2373c01ac35f.pdf e8ffd67175e30f7228328480af5d9602 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 Olds Plaza Lansin g, Telephone FAX Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive DirectoJ.U...,.....,....: Michigan Community Service Co RE: March 15, 1996 Commission Meeting DATE: March 8, 1996 Just a reminder to everyone that the March 15, 1996 Commission meeting will be held in Lansing from 10:00 a.m. to 1::00 p.m. at the Olds Plaza Building, Michigan Conference Room, 1st floor. Special notice that a meeting of the Outreach and Promotion Committee will also be that day at 9:00 a.m. in the Olds Plaza Building, Michigan Conference Room. Those interested in attending the meeting should plan on arriving at 8:45 a.m. on March 15th. After the meeting lunch will be served at the Governor's Residence. They will be serving orange roughy for lunch. If you are planning on attending lunch at the residence and/or have any specific dietary needs, YOU MUST notify Mary Estrada no later than 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12. 1996 or we will not be able to guarantee your attendance at lunch. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please call Mary Estrada at (517)335-4295. See you on the 15th! A Division of the Michigan Jobs Comm ission 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_1996-03-15_Next-Meeting-Letter Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting next meeting letter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting next meeting letter. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49769 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8d12e8ced21f989c02658f6eb207a170.pdf 25e981b1e51849595b9ff1b7388f33f3 PDF Text Text Michelle Engler's New Partnerships Meeting Opening Remarks February 12, 1996 Thank you John. I'm delighted that you can be here with us today. Welcome and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to join us in this important endeavor. Our theme is New Partnerships. Perhaps we might also call it Renewed Partnerships. We hope this day will encourage new, and energize existing collaborative efforts that draw on the best of government, business, nonprofit/social, and religious/moral sectors in Michigan. • _As you know, and as John mentioned, the inspiration for this meeting came from the late George Romney. One of my greatest pleasures since coming to Michigan has been the opportunity to work with Governor Romney and share in his deep faith in the power of voluntary citizen service. - - - - . - -. - As many of you know, Governor Romney was driven by three principal beliefs. First, the health of our society is seriously threatened by "its internal human and social problems." Second, all of us must accept responsibility for this situation �and work collaboratively to seek solutions. Third, solutions will only come through support of community-based, citizen-driven problem-solving. For years, Governor Romney advocated for these beliefs. He appealed to two successive presidents to launch a national mobilization to "restore the social fabric . ' . of our communities." And last year, seeing states assume greater leadership in social policy making, Governor Romney saw the opportunity for such an initiative in Michigan, and helped lay the groundwork for this New Partnerships meeting. Let me also take a moment to recognize our co-sponsoring organizations: the Council of Michigan Foundations, the Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Michigan Community Service Commission. Without the work and dedication of these three organizations, we would not be here today. I believe their work in • partnership serves as a model of the kind of collaboration we hope to encourage. To welcome you, and bring greetings from the Council of Michigan Foundations, I am pleased to introduce Mariam Noland, President of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan; and the Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Council of Michigan Foundations. (Mariam will speak briefly) �Now I am pleased to introduce Rick Cole, Senior Vice President for Marketing and Corporate Communications for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, and Chair of the Michigan Nonprofit Association. (Rick will speak briefly) As you know, I have had the good fortune to serve as chair of the Michigan Community Service Commission since its inception in 1991. Bringing people together in the name of service and volunteerism, in partnership with the nonprofit sector, is what we try to do at the Commission. We operate according to a number of important principles that I would like to share with you. First, service, volunteerism, and philanthropy take many shapes, but they share • what's best about America-- free people bound by a common purpose in support of a public good. Second, service, volunteerism, and philanthropy are the building blocks of the social capital necessary-to sustain a healthy -democracy. Third, service, volunteerism, and philanthropy are not bipartisan ideas, they are nonpartisan ideas. �Fourth, service and volunteerism draw their strength from, and celebrate the diversity of, our communities. Fifth, service and volunteerism are investments in people and communities that do not come free. Volunteers are a common denominator. They are an essential ingredient in the fuel that drives the nonprofit social sector. I believe that by supporting citizen problem-solving through service and volunteerism, we create a 'win-win' formula that can facilitate agency and program collaboration across the sectors. This is why the underlying theme of New Partnerships is building capacity for citizen problem-solving . • Each of you is here today to speak for the sector in society in which you work. If we were gathered here to respond to a natural disaster, or mobilize to fight a common enemy, our mission would be clear. But today, the enemy we confront is in ourselves. It is what erodes the roots of our families, schools, and communities. -The enemy we face is our own narrow interest,- and the apparent ease with which we forget that we are all joined in community as Americans and as Michiganians. �Most of us here can speak from personal experience of a meaningful effort to collaborate with others in search of shared solutions. As leaders, I know all of us have worked hard to overcome the things that divide our communities. We all · represent the things that are good in our society. But ·We must never become complacent and forget our obligation to lead and guide our communities,_ especially in this time of great change. Ours is a great challenge; to respond to change while building community and restoring the public's trust and faith in their institutions. To meet this challenge, we must first acknowledge that none of us alone have the answers to our problems. We must grow comfortable learning from, and listening to, each other. We must be willing to take chances by giving and seeking support from each other. We must find trust in our hearts so that we might nourish our _communities in the spirit of communion. We should see that at the center of even • the most complex of problems is the reali~ation that we are all in this together. Together, we can renew the spirit of community in Michigan and set a model of civic renewal for the nation. We hope that through this meeting for new--partnerships we-will stimulate the necessary process of renewal that is so sorely needed in our communities. Our meeting today is a working meeting and we know you have joined us in that spirit. We want to produce a report that will provide a framework for continued �collaboration among the sectors. This report will reflect the consensus of the group and serve as a reference for continued discussion among widening circles within the sectors. We want it to be a report that will produce definite outcomes. As we begin our work together, it's important to recognize the importance of all the collaborative work that is already underway. We know we are not starting from scratch. This is why our theme should be Renewed as much as New Partnerships. This is an opportunity to learn the best that we have to offer each other. You have received a white paper that we hope provided a conceptual framework for our discussions as well as a framework of proposed recommendations for the group to consider in its final recommendations. You will find these documents and ·an agenda in your packets . • You will note on your agendas that we have shortened the day by an hour. You have been randomly assigned to small work groups. Your group assignment is noted on your name tag. Each group will be led by an outside facilitator. I would like to introduce our facilitators: Michael Tate, Suzanne Heath, Joe Madison, and Lisa Wyatt-Knowlton. Now for the ground rules. First, while we have recorders in the meeting rooms, �no specific comments will be attributed to individuals, unless specifically requested by the individual. Therefore, we hope people will feel free to speak with openness and candor. Second, leave agendas and preconceptions at the door. Our facilitators will ensure that we keep our discussions focused on the big picture. Third, don't get bogged down in specific issues. While we cannot effectively discuss models and approaches to collaboration without referencing issue-specific initiatives, our task should be about building the broadest most flexible and responsive infrastructure. Too often, issue specific efforts can become categorized and limit broader collaboration. Fourth, all of us must share responsibility for achieving our recommendations . • We must not let any one sector bear a greater burden for meeting our goals. And finally, we must be willing to follow through and continue with this effort to build new and renewed partnerships. We sincerely hope that our efforts today will help us change the way we do business for the better. Change is the source of growth. If we stop growing, we stop living. �Good luck to all of you and thank you for joining us in this important and exciting endeavor . • � 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_1996-03-15_New-Partnerships-in-MI-Michelle-Engler-Script Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan Michelle Engler script Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan Michelle Engler script. 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, 49768 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/cb0365ca3a5064f71c021773f7043f37.pdf a1b935c9d8f6018132a595920c95a543 PDF Text Text Governor John Engler New Partnerships Planning Meeting Monday, February 12, 1996 Thank you. Michelle and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to work with Michigan's civic leaders in building a new partnership -- a partnership of hope, community and opportunity. As I thought about today's meeting I was reminded of a town meeting I attended years ago. The town council had concluded its regular business for the month and the chairman asked if there was any new business. An elderly woman got up and said that something had to be done about the juvenile delinquents who -- in her opinion - were terrorizing her neighborhood. A local storekeeper got up and said that something had to be done about teenagers who loitered in front of his shop. A student from the local high school got up and said that something had to be done to give kids a place to go and things to do after school. One after another, citizens got up and asked that something be done about this problem or that concern. After the last person finished, the council chairman scratched his head, looked around the room, cleared his throat, and said: "We have two choices. We can raise taxes, create programs and make believe we are solving these problems. Or we can raise our sights, create opportunities and make our town a community again." • "I've lived in this town all my life," he continued. "You know me, and I know you . And we all know that together, we can do bett~r." And then the strangest thing happened. One by one, the townspeople got up and offered to help. The elderly lady offered to give piano lessons after school. The storekeeper offered to sponsor a baseball team, and so on. By the end of the meeting, you could see the spirit of community and the pride of partnership in the smiles on their faces. My friends , that story can be our inspiration. What they accomplished, we can accomplish-- in towns and cities all across Michigan. Indeed, that's why we're all here this morning. My purpose today is to thank you for your commitment to our cause. In particular, let me thank Dottie Johnson and Rob Collier from the Council of Michigan Foundations and Dave Egner from the Michigan Nonprofit Association for helping to make this meeting possible. �Let me also thank and pay tribute to a man who has inspired us all. More than thirty years ago, he began a volunteer movement that lives on to this day - stronger and more successful than ever. Speaking to the people of Michigan in January of 1966, he said, "Michigan's progress depends most of all on the quality of family life and the voluntary activity of responsible citizens. Our mounting human and social problerps can never be solved by government alone. The breakdown of the family is the foremost cause of delinquent and criminal behavior. As the family deteriorates, so will society. We must stimulate private and individual efforts to reinforce the fiber of our families." This is what Governor George Romney said in his 1966 State of the State message. They were right on the mark then, and even more so today. Indeed, his words could serve as our mission statement at this crucial time in our history-- a time of great change and great opportunity. Of course, I am speaking of the dramatic changes unfolding in our nation's capital. For the first time in our lifetimes, we are seeing a shift in power and authority from Washington back to the states. And as I've said many times before, I don't want that power returned to Michigan to horde it in Lansing. We want this flexibility so that we can return money and responsibility where it belongs - at the local level with churches, synagogues and mosques, civic groups and community organizations. The bottom line is this - government cannot replace the family, and government cannot be a parent, but it can be a partner. Certainly, Michelle and her colleagues on the Michigan Community Service • Commission are focused directly on that strategy -- being a partner. There are three fundamental principles that guide us in our efforts to be a full partner with you and with all who share our mission. First, these partnerships must begin with the idea of empowering people to solve problems through service and volunteerism. To those who think the answer to any problem can be summed up in two words --more money- we respectfully disagree. To be sure, money is important, but people are more important. If you would doubt that fact, consider this fact. Since the 1960's, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion dollars in their War on Poverty. And as Ronald Reagan used to say, poverty won. �Second, these new partnerships must be forged in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, shared sacrifice and shared reward. Because let's face it, sometimes, progress is thwarted because motives are questioned and secret agendas are alleged. We must put petty political disagreements behind us-- once and for all. We share common goals -- strengthening families , improving the quality of life in Michigan -:.. and achieving those goals should be all that matters. Third, these partnerships cannot be limited to narrow issues that categorize problems or people. They must be broad in scope, comprehensive and wide-ranging. Friends, our communities are made up of three basic sectors-- the private sector, or the business community; the public sector, or government; and the social sector, which many of you represent. To be successful, all of these sectors must support volunteerism. The social sector cannot go it alone. Indeed, I am reminded of a story I read recently in a magazine about the secret to a long, happy marriage. The author quoted a man who was married 53 years. He said: "Well, my wife and I go to dinner twice a week. A good restaurant, candlelight, some soft music, a bottle of wine. Afterward a nice long walk home in the moonlight. She goes on Tuesdays and I go Thursdays!" Unlike that couple, we must go together. For example, the private sector should encourage its workers and their families to volunteer and companies should support those efforts. • Government should also encourage volunteerism, but just as important, government must be free to take advantage of volunteers in providing services to people in need. All sectors must also keep up a constant dialogue - to share successful strategis and to build upon them. Indeed, what if the Council of Michigan Foundations sponsored a regular meeting of public, private and philanthropic grantmakers to share ideas on the best ways to invest in our communities? What if the Michigan Nonprofit Association took the lead in coordinating a new corporate volunteer campaign involving both business and government employees? Just think of all the good that we could accomplish. �Certainly I am excited, and I know that Michelle is, too. And believe me, to get her away from our three precious little girls, you better believe today's event is critically important to her. So now, it is my pleasure to introduce the Chair of the Michigan Community Service Commission -- Michelle Engler. -30- • � 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_1996-03-15_New-Partnerships-in-MI-John-Engler-Script Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan John Engler script Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan John Engler script. 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, 49767 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/17a72858b961daf6b5db4ab133369332.pdf 4136ad7ff68f370d128c133cc137d3cb PDF Text Text New Partnerships Meeting Format: Organizational leaders participated in small groups and responded to questions and ideas all relating to collaboration. Some of the questions that were asked include: among and challenges New Partnerships nnC:I.CTin. new and helpful strategies in those challenges. 'inC!·eil r.,., Rationale for the "Time for New Partnerships Meeting": The Michigan Community Service Commission in collaboration with the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundation submitted an essay asserting that "the time is right for the formation of new partnerships among the nonprofit, public, and private sectors. " From this paper the Partnership Meeting in Lansing became a starting point for conversations relating to how to effectively collaborate among the sectors. • 1. Should the four sectors work together? 2. What are some of the barriers to collaboration? 3. What is one thing that each sector does well that other sectors could learn from? 4. What are some successful collaboration models? 5. What can we do to restore citizen's faith? In the afternoon session, each participant read a list of recommendations proposed by the MCSC, CMF, and MNA and responded to the recommendations in small groups. Ideas that surfaced, responses to recommendations, and stated concerns from the morning and afternoon sessions are reflected in this summary report. On February 12, 1996 more than ninety leaders representing the nonprofit, business, government, and religious sectors gathered together in Lansing, Michigan to create new strategies for effective partnerships. + This Summary Report presents expressed ideas, utilizes participants' language documented in notes and tape-recordings, and provides needed information as sectors embark upon and strengthen collaborative initiatives. This SPECIAL DRAFT has been prepared for the Michigan Community Service Commissioners. Questions Commissioners might consider: Is the content new, helpful, and easily understood? What changes could help the document become "user-friendly" for various organizations, programs, and people? If you attended the New Partnerships Meeting , are comments and ideas you heard and offered captured in the document? All comments are welcome! Please FAX your ideas (517 373 4977) to the Commission by Friday, March 22. Thank you for your input. �Producing Pos Outcomes Thro +The four sectors agreed that efforts are needed. Successful collaborative models need to be studied and replicated. Before embarking collaborative efforts~ time rJQ<~rnrl,.f<''<J for clarifying ::~n•rJrnHr.tiRs and ideas are co.nsideJr'ecJ,( ,existing "partnerships," l et.>aiJitiQFfs, nor "collaborations" need tion, support, and Developing New Collaborative Skills • There are a lack of personal, interpersonal, organizational, inter-organizational, and collaborative skills creating barriers for success. There are personal barriers to collaborating. Organizational representatives often lack the personal, interpersonal, and leadership skills required for effective collaborative work. Expanding self-imposed barriers, rejecting power-oriented approaches, and communicating beyond commonly used "sound bite" messages enhances the ability of individuals to work together. Individual organizations are more acclimated to functioning in its own environment. Organizational isolation is limiting but familiar. Given existing internal organizational challenges, collaborative work generates perceptions of it being an "extra " "required," and "burdensome" responsibility. Lastly, working from a common agenda can be a new way of doing business for many organizations. As organizations begin to collaborate, inter-organizational barriers arise. In collaborative work, organizations are challenged to: • create a shared vision; • accept multiple organizational cultures; • work with various work styles and approaches; • and address turf issues. Finally, opportunities for consistent communication among collaborators are few, only making the process more challenging. �Existing P Sectors' limi The nonprofit, business, offer to one and outcome-oriented success-measurements. bottom-line, do not , and require quick results vtn,IJJt.t:r: ,.,.,~,,~,,n•r•n fml>lelneJr,ti~rq ··"·; ntnn•nn~nr organizations commonly "voice" in collaborative settings. nonprofit professionals are perceived as "passionate workers" or "agents for change." At the same time, nonprofit professionals can be portrayed as ineffective, poor money managers, and fearful of political arenas. State government brings resources to the collaborative table including the ability to have broad impact, access to diverse bodies of information, and power to fund new programs. Agencies can propose and/or influence state and national legislation. Limitations include abundant and often tangled "red tape, " pre-committed funds, and a focus on receiving sole credit for successful programs. The religious sector has direct access to drawing upon the spiritual, untapped, resources in people and organizations. This sector can lead in setting ethical standards and supporting altruistic efforts without being questioned by its bureaucracy. At the same time, religious institutions often struggle to survive and monetary contributions in collaborative settings are rare. Challenges of the Collaborative Process In general, "collaborative work" is a process filled with unforeseen challenges. Information describing "how to" collaborate is not readily available. The pervasive "quick-fix" mentality is not conducive as organizations learn to work together. Lack of accountability and credibility become barriers as well as unclear expectations. Effective evaluation techniques designed to meet multiple needs add to the list of barriers. Without these techniques, documenting successes and marketing outcomes become overwhelming tasks. Without the institution of appropriate techniques, collaborators view efforts as empty and send conflicting messages to the media. Without concrete success stories and marketing "know-how", messages become diluted and potentially negative. �onships among and between among organizational leaders communication frequency among commit to collaborative efforts, and expectations and limitations - trusting can serve as a catalyst for successful l~ti•r\nc~hirlc: ons increase, as leaders are willing to be relationships will manifest. This kin collaborations. Social sector representatives believe the following programs represent successful collaborative initiatives deserving further study and possible replication. Model Programs Focus Hope Strong Families/Safe Children Identified model program themes include: Ear/yOn • increasing volunteer opportunities Michigan Interagency Family Preservation Campaign for Volunteerism Michigan 's AmeriCorps Summer Youth Planning Empowerment and Enterprise Zones MSU Extension programs .. • enhancing children's lives • crime prevention • job preparation and retraining • creating opportunities for affordable housing Department of Transportation 's Adopt- aHighway • accessible, quality educational programs JTPA and PIGS • identifiable outcome measurements Royal Oak Coalition Waterford Teen Program Michigan CARES Detroit Compact Department of Agriculture's programs Local Community Foundations • youth as resources rather than service-recipients • teenage pregnancy prevention �• Summit participants with !nr'~~~::.,nt.:.rt participants responded to l!:ah''"'"""·tw. a Campaign. and playing a role in rfD 'v alr.n.inn n&J[IC.;~1m1munication among the sectors. Suggestions: One group believes regional forums would prove to be more effective. Forums need to be held all over the state, not just in Lansing. Ongoing forums are needed with broader participation base. The sectors need to share lessons-learned and steps-to-take for replicating successful programs. Support schools and youth agencies in broadening their youth participation base and efforts in spreading "youth as resources" perception. Suggestions: The value of volunteerism and service cannot begin too early. Educators should be integrated into the service field as much possible. Honor youth diversity and provide nonprofit training early. Develop a statewide database compiling user-friendly service and volunteer information accessible to anyone. Suggestions: A cross-sector database is greatly needed. This will be a complex task and remaining aware of its incredible challenges will aid in its implementation process. The database needs to be community-driven, designed to meet users' needs, accessibly, and easily updated. (The Michigan Technology Center is a rich resource in this field.) Coordinate state wide service and volunteer recognition programs. Suggestions: This idea is greatly needed and supported at the local/eve/. Senior and the volunteer service they provide need more opportunities to share their abundant resources. Promotion of multiple volunteer recognition events are needed. Support a Funders' Forum. Suggestions: Include the public and private sector. Promote corporate volunteer activities and programs. A state agency as a lead coordinator in this effort. Suggestions: Many communities are moving forward in establishing business community partnerships. Small businesses as well as large businesses need to be included within the "corporate" context. Existing successful corporate volunteer programs need to promote further involvement in the business community. �,. and, it is a common fund. fund-allocation irnl"'l~in.cJ... t Ffunctioning vol community. Suggestions: Volunteer centers do not need to be in every community because they can be uneven in their effectiveness, are often not needed in smaller communities, and may become difficult to sustain. Possibly community volunteer efforts could be housed in existing organizations. It seems that volunteer agencies should be "good news" centers which primary disseminates successful volunteer models. Develop a super-conference. Suggestion: Forums and conferences need to be focused on substantive topics such as sharing program information, lessonslearned, and the "how tos" of collaboration. (The North Carolina Center for Nonprofit communicates activities creatively and provide an example of how to share needed information across sectors.) Involve state agencies in state-wide volunteer promotion activities such as "Make a Difference Day" and "National Volunteer Week." Suggestions: State employees should be encouraged to volunteer and take active parts in the service field. �Summit participants generated of those ideas and questions include: Some and responsibilities. work will become '""'nrc•o of credibility. The the business sector. rrt:tt~.c:l~c: ~f::!~lJf::!c.:tanv Local-level input and participation in the social sector are crucial factors for making the social sector succeed. The "Framework for New Partnerships" approach There are too many ideas expressed in the "Framework" document. The ideas need to be consolidated. Idea clustering might be a better method of soliciting input as opposed to a framework. There are concerns that the framework" ideas may lead to new levels of bureaucracy. As new collaborative ideas evolve, funding strategies and funding sources need to be examined. Existing funds such as Detroit's Empowerment Zone could serve as a starting point. Additional organizations who need to be at the summit table: Media Educators Greater number of business representatives Define foundations ' role in collaborative efforts � 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_1996-03-15_New-Partnerships-in-MI Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan. 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, 49766 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0ee70b28bada1a70bb91fd7f37309556.pdf 4d419e349cca2f0fe1e306b8af15e666 PDF Text Text NEW PARTNERSHIPS IN MICHIGAN A Planning Meeting February 12, 1996 Lansing, Michigan Guiding Questions • • Should government, business, nonprofit, and spiritual/moral - institutions work together to improve the quality of life in Michigan's communities? · What are the most effective ways in which the public .and social sectors may work together to connect people in local community problem solving? Agenda 9:00 a.m. Coffee and Registration 9:30 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Governor John Engler and First Lady Michelle Engler 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. Break Small Group Sessions Group Group Group Group . I II Ill IV Royale A Reo Room Royale F Royale E Please note that your group assignment is on your nametag. The groups will consider and develop consensus answers to the following questions: • Should the four sectors work together? • Why have they, or have they not worked effectively in collaboration in the past? • What is one thing that each sector does that prevents effective collaboration with other sectors? • What is one thing that each sector does well that the other sectors could learn from? • What are three current initiatives that all the sector should support across the state? What are the three most important things that must occur in the state and in local communities to restore citizens' faith, commitment, and involvement in community problem solving? �Noon Break for lunch 12:15 p.m. Lunch Speaker Dr Leslie Lenkowsky President, Hudson Institute Before joining the Hudson Institute in 1990 , Leslie Lenkowsky was President of the Institute for Educational Affairs in Washington, D.C., and an adjunct professor of public policy at Georgetown University. In 1985, Dr. Lenkowsky became a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, where he was responsible for developing a major new project on identifying non-governmental ways of dealing with social policy problems. Dr. Lenkowsky was also a member of the board of the Corporation for National Service. Dr. Lenkowsky is a graduate of Franklin and Marshall College and holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University. 1:45 p.m. Small Group Sessions Group Group Group Group I II Ill IV Royale A Reo Room Royale F Royale E The groups will reconvene to develop recommendations based on the reports from the morning discussions and the distributed materials. Starting from the prepared list of fifteen recommendations, the groups will identify and delineate short and long term objectives. The groups may add, subtract, or modify the list in any way they wish. Recommendations must reflect the consensus of the group. • 3:00 p.m . Work Group Reports 3:30 p.m. Closing Thoughts and Next Steps First Lady Michelle Engler �New Partnership Leaders Meeting L Business Judy Lord Detroit Edison Southfield Center 26801 Northwestern Hwy. Southfield, Michigan 48034 (81 0)799-4970 (81 0)799~4595 (FAX") James Barrett, President Michigan Chamber of Commerce 600 S. Walnut Lansing , MI 48933 (517)371-2100 (517)371-7224 (FAX) Lisa llitch Murray Little Caesar Enterprise 2211 Woodward Detroit, MI 48201-3400 (313)983-6191 (313)983-6049 (FAX) Rick Cole, Senior VP for Marketing and Corporate Communications Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan 600 Lafayette East, Department 2121 Detroit, MI 48226 (313)225-0540 (313)225-6764 (FAX) Anne R. Sherwood, Vice President Issues Management Group Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce 600 W. Lafayette Blvd. P.O. Box 33840 Detroit, MI 48232 (313)596-0320 (313)964-0531 (FAX) Robert C. Reid Retiree from Ford Motor Company 5305 Royal Vale Lane Dearborn, MI 48126 (313)441-2882 Jim Carpenter U AW -Solidarity House 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48214 (313) 823-6016 (313)824-5750 (FAX) John Tysse Dow Chemical Company 2020 Willard H. Dow Center Midland, MI 48674 (517)636-0816 (517)636-5832 (FAX) • Bob Giles, Publisher Detroit News 615 West Lafayette Detroit, MI 48231 (313) 222-2300 (3130222-2599 (FAX) · Cindy Newman Dow Chemical Company 2020 Willard H. Dow Center Midland, MI 48674 (517)636-0816 (517)636-5832 (FAX) Kerry Oslund WZZM-TV 13 P.O. Box Z Grand Rapids, MI 49501 (616)785-1313 (616)784-8367 (FAX) William Brooks VP of Community and Urban Affairs General Motors Corporation 3044 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, MI 48202 (313)556-3538 (313)974-8340 (FAX) 1 �William Stouffer, Chairman Calhoun Company Economic Development Forum P.O. Box 239 Industrial A venue Albion, MI 49224 (517)629-9135 (517)629-6888 (FAX) Marcia Marsh-Gaffney Dow Corning Corporation Legal Department CO 1222 Midland, MI 48686 (517496-4287 (517)496-5849 (FAX) Mr. Pat Rochow Consumers Power 212 W. Michigan A venue Jackson, MI 49201 (517)788-0573 (517)788-0674 (FAX) Carolyn Bloodworth Consumers Power 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 (517)788-0573 (517)788-0674 (FAX) • Victor Begg 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 _(810) 338-4180 home (810)334-9225 (FAX) 2 �IL Nonprofit Helen Philpott,Trustee Community Foundation of Flint 121 2 Woodlawn Park Dr. Flint, MI 48503 (81 0)239-87 68 (81 0)234-8499 (FAX) Mariam Noland, President Community Foundation of SE MI 333 W. Fort St., Ste. 2010 Detroit, MI 48226 (313)961-6675 (313)961-2886 (FAX) Judy Rapanos Community Volunteer Michigan Council for Arts & Cultural Affairs 1012 W . Sugnet Midland, MI 48640 (517)631-2544 (517)631-4235 (FAX) Ha Tran MYPAC Representative Michigan Community Service Commission 111 S. Capitol Ave . Lansing, MI 48913 (517)335-4295 (517)373-4977 (FAX) Mel Brannon Urban League of Flint 5005 Cloverlawn Flint, MI 48504 (810)789-7611 (810)787-4518 (FAX) Scott Smith MYPAC Representative Michigan Community Service Commission 111 S. Capitol Ave. Lansing, MI 48913 (517)335-4295 (517)373-4977 (FAX) Chris Kwak W. K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan Avenue E Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058 (616)969-2308 (616)969-2693 (FAX) Russell Mawby Chairman Emeritus W.K. Kellogg Foundation Heritage Tower, Suite 1701 25 West Michigan A venue Battle Creek, MI 49017-3398 (616)963-7153 (616)963-7611 (FAX) Robert Ivory, President Unite-d Way of Michigan P.O. Box 18219 • Larising, MI 48901 (517)371-4360 (517)371-1801 FAX MarciaRapp The Grand Rapids Foundation 161 Ottawa Ave. NW #209-C Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616)454-1751 (6 16)454-6455 (FAX) Mounir Sherabeam, President Judson Center 4410 W. 13 Mile Royal Oak, MI 48073 (81 0)549-4339 (81 0)549-8955 (FAX) Kathryn Rossow, Executive Director SW Michigan Volunteer Center 12 13 Oak Street Niles, MI 49120 (616)683-5464 (616)683-1220 (FAX) Rob Collier Council of Michigan Foundations OneS . Harbor Ave., Ste. 3 Grand Haven, MI 49417 (616)842-7080 (616)842-1760 (FAX) 3 �Kevin Walker Charles Stewart Matt Foundation Matt Foundation Building Flint, MI 48502 (81 0)238-5651 (810)238-8152 (FAX) Susan Shannon Michigan Council of YWCA' s 353 E. Michigan A venue Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (616)345-5595 (616)345-8230 (FAX) Sam Singh, Director Volunteer Centers of Michigan 31 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (517)353-5038 (517)355-3302 (FAX) Maurice P. Wesson, Senior Manager Center for Volunteerism, United Way Community Services 12 12 Griswold Detroit, MI 48226 (313)226-9495 (313)226-9490 (FAX) David LaLumia, Executive Director Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards 319 W. Lenawee Lansing, MI 48933 (517)374-6848 (517)374-1053 (FAX) Barry Checkoway Professor, School of Social Work, University of Michigan 1065 Frieze Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285 (313)763-5960 (313)763-7320 (FAX) Professor Lawrence Root University of Michigan, School of Social Work 1065 Frieze Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285 (313)764-5340 (313)936-1961 (FAX) Justin King, Executive Director Michigan Association of School Boards 421 W. Kalamazoo Street Lansing, MI 48933 (517)371 -5700 (517)371-5338 (FAX) Sharon Miller, Deputy Executive Director Michigan Women' s Commission 611 W. Ottawa Lansing, MI 48913 (5.17)373-2884 · • - Jean Enright Grand Valley State University Allendale, MI 49401 (616)895-2182 (616)895-3503 (FAX) ( 517 ) 335 ~ 1649 .(FAX) Lt. Col. WilliamA. Roberts Divisional Commander, Salvation Aimy 1345 Monroe North West Grand Rapids, MI 49505 (616)459-0042 . (616)459-3433 (FAX) John E. Marshall, President Kresge· Foundation 321 2 W. Big Beaver Road P.O. Box 3151 Troy, MI 48007 (81 0)643-9630 (81 0)643-0588 (FAX) Leonard Smith, President Skillman Foundation 600 Renaissance Center Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48243 (313)961-8850 (313)963-8937 (FAX) Ann Marston, President and CEO Michigan League for Human Services 300 N. Washington Square, Suite #40 1 Lansing, MI 48933 (517)487-5436 (517)371-4546 (FAX) 4 �Lisa McGettigan, Director Michigan Campus Compact 31 Kelogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824 (517)353-9393 (517)355-3302 (FAX) Ray Byers Ford Motor Company Fund The American Road, Rom 914 Dearborn, MI 48121 (313)845-8712 (313)594-7001 (FAX) James M. Richmond, President Frey Foundation _ 48 Fountain NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616)451-0303 (616)451-8481 (FAX) David Gardiner Kalamazoo Foundation 332 Comerica Building Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (616)381-4416 (616)381-3146 (FAX) Michael Tate Assistant Director of Extension for Government Relations Michigan State University Extension 48 Agricultural Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 (517)355-2317 (517)432-1048 (FAX) Maureen H. Smyth, Vice President Programs Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Mott Foundation Building Flint, MI 48502 (81 0)238-5651 (810)238-8152 (FAX) Terry Pruitt 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, MI 48630 (517)496-4000 (517)496-4586 (FAX) Cynthia Mark, Program Leader 4-H Youth Programs Cooperative Extension Service, MSU 6H Berkey Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1111 (517)355-0 180 (517)355-6748 (FAX) • Elwin Johnson, Chair Commission on Aging P.O. Box 74 Spring Arbor, MI 49283 (517)788-4230 (517)788-4237 (FAX) Mark I. Wilson, Associate Professor James Madison College, Michigan State University . 369 S. Case H~l East Lansing, MI 48824 (517)353-2967 (517)432-1804 (FAX) Alison Young, Reporter Detroit Free Press 306 S. Washington, Ste. 401 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (810)691 -2416 (810)691-2420 (FAX) Oluwatoyin Adegbite Grand Rapids Service Corps 161 Ottawa NW, Ste. 107E Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (616)451-9445 (616)771-0329 (FAX) Darryl White 2888 E. Miller Midland, MI 48640 (517)686-924 7 (517)686-8736 (FAX) Jenny Babcock 2700 Fisher Building Detroit, Michigan 48202 (313)871-8000 (313)871-5634 (FAX) 5 �Dave Egner, CEO and President Michigan Nonprofit Association 31 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (517)353-5038 (517)355-3302 (FAX) Vernie Nethercut, Director Alpena Volunteer Center Alpena Community College 666 Johnson Street Alpena, MI 49707-1410 (517)356-9021 Ext. 335 (517)356-6334 (FAX) • Maryann Pierce Cooley Law Clinic 217 S. Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 (517)485-4077 (517)485-0022 (FAX) Thomas Jeavons Department of Public Administration Grand Valley State University 25 Commerce Street, SW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616)771-6575 (616)771-6572 (FAX) Charlene Johnson Michigan Neighborhood Partnership 3031 West Grand River Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202 (313)872-3327 (313)872-7802 (FAX) Nancy Kostka, CEO Association for Child Development P.O. Box 1491 East Lansing, MI 48823 (517)332-7200 (517)332-5543 (FAX) William C. Richardson, CEO W. K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan A venue East Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058 (616)968-1611 (616)968-0413 (FAX) Tim Wilbert, MBA Michigan Public Health Institute 2465 Woodlake Circle, Ste. 140 Okemos, MI 48864 (517)349-7110 (517)349-7999 (FAX) Jim McHale W . K. Kellogg Foundation 1 Michigan A venue East Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058 (616)968-1611 (616)968-0413 (FAX) Kimberly Johnson Detroit Opera House Project 4225 Ivernois Orchard Lake, MI 48323 (313)963-7474 (810)932-0539 (FAX) Geneva Jones Williams, Executive Vice President and COO United Way Community Services 1212 Griswold Detroit, MI 48226-1899 (313)226-9444 (313 )226-9388 (FAX) Mary Stanley Lawson United Way Community Services 1212 Griswold Detroit, MI 48226-1899 (313 )226-9444 (313)226-9388 (FAX) 6 �III. Government Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission 111 S. Capitol A venue Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor Lansing, MI 48913 (517)335-4295 (517)373-4977 (FAX) Jocelyn Vanda Michigan Department of Social Services Grand Tower 235 S. Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48909 (517)373-2000 (517)373-8471 (FAX) John Logie, Mayor City of Grand Rapids 300 Monroe A venue NW Grand Rapids , MI 49503 (616)456-3000 (616)456-3111 (FAX) Arthur Ellis Superintendent of Public Instructions Michigan Department of Education P:O. Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517)373-3354 (517)335-4565 (FAX) Kathleen Keen McCarthey Supervisor of the Charter Township of Plymouth 42350 Ann Arbor Rd. Plymouth, MI 48170 (313)453-3840 (313)453-5680 (FAX) Rusty Hills, Director Communications Division Executive Office of Public Affairs Olds Plaza Building 111 S. Capitol A venue Lansing, MI 48933 (517)335-NEWS (517)335-6910 (FAX) James K. Haveman, Jr. , Director Michigan Department of Mental Health Lewis Cass Building Lansing, MI 48913 (517)335-0267 (517)373-4288 (FAX) • Stephanie Comai-Paige, Deputy Director State Government Affairs Division Executive Office Olds Plaza Building 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 (517)335-7801 (517)335-1423 (FAX) John Iverson Michigan Jobs Commission Victor Office Center, 4th Floor 201 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48913 (517)335-5883 (517)335-0 198 (FAX) Robert Craig Michigan Department of Agriculture Ottawa Building, 4th Floor P.O. Box 30017 Lansing, MI 48909 (517)373-1052 (517)335-1423 (FAX) Carol Parr, Acting Director Michigan Office on Aging 611 W . Ottawa Street, 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48909 (517)373-7876 (517)373-4092 (FAX) Doreen Takalo West Branch Township Clerk P.O. Box 79 Scandia, MI 49885 (906)942-7656 (906)942-7300 7 �IV. Relieious Father William Cunningham Executive Director Focus: HOPE 1355 Oakman Blvd. Detroit, MI 48238 (313)883 -7440 (313)494-4340 (FAX) Cindy Hughey, Director Michigan Jewish Conference One Michigan A venue, Suite 280 Lansing, MI 48933 (517)485-9199 (517)485-5043 (FAX) Reverend Eddie Edwards, Executive Director Joy of Jesus 12255 Camden Detroit, MI 48213 (313)839-4747 (313)839-1523 (FAX) Reverend Steven Johns-Boehme, Executive Director Michigan Ecumenical Forum 809 Center Street Lansing, MI 48906 (517)485-4395 Sister Monica Kostielney President and CEO Michigan Catholic Conference 505 North Capitol Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 (517)372-9310 (517)372-3940 (FAX) Reverend Harry Cook St. Andrews P.O. Box 338 340 North Main Clawson, MI 48017 (810)588-3230 (CHURCH) (81 0)589-0239 (HOME) (810)589-1357 (FAX) Bishop Harrington The Archbishop of Detroit 1234 Washington Blvd. Detroit, MI 48226 (313)237-5859 (313)237-5866 (FAX) • Sally Whalen Public Policy Associate 505 North Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 (517)372-9310 (517)372-3940 (FAX) Dan Piepszowski Archdiocese of Detroit 305 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 (313)237-5904 (313)237-4643 (FAX) Randy Hekman, Executive Director Michigan Family Forum 611 S. Walnut Lansing, MI 48933 (517)374-1171 (517)374-6112 (FAX) 8 � 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_1996-03-15_New-Partnerships-in-MI-Planning-Meeting Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan planning meeting Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting New Partnerships in Michigan planning 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, 49765 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/295d890e5f0267324e2b6e955b6c5197.pdf 2193664f120fbd6b56eda33440c457b7 PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Governor Engler FROM: Del Chenault RE: Michigan Community Service Commission DATE: March 6, 1996 OBJECTIVES: To develop volunteer initiatives and to generally promote volunteerism among all ages. The Commission also establishes policies and procedures for the use of available federal funds. MEMBERSHIP: Mandated by the National Service Trust Act of 1993 which states that not more than 50% plus 1 of the membership shall be from the same political party. Also, it requires representatives of labor, local government, a national service organization, American Indian, older Americans, disadvantaged persons, business, younger persons, and the Superintendent of the Department of Education or a designee. TERM: 3 years COMPENSATION: Members receive reimbursement for actual expenses. There are currently 9 vacancies on the Commission due to term expirations and resignations. Of the nine, 4 are recommended by the Commission for reappointment. They are Victor Begg, Julie Cummings, Eunice Myles, and Randall Neelis. In conjunction with Frank Dirks, I have interviewed candidates for the other five positions. The regularly scheduled meeting for February 23 was canceled and rescheduled for March 15. The MCSC would like to have the new commissioners in place for that meeting. Members Whose Term Expired/Resi.roed nomination date expires Victor Begg 4119/93 10/2/95 Indian/M/R Blmfd. Hls. represents a community-based agency in the state * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks �Julie Cummings 4/20/93 10/2/95 W/F/1 Blmfd. Hls. represents business * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks 3/23/94 Carol Dombrowski (resigned) W/F/1 Kalamazoo represents org. promoting involvement with people aged 55+ 10/2/96 David Fukuzawa (resigned) 7117/95 Asian/M/1 Detroit represents non-profit foundations; The Skillman Foundation 10/2/97 R . __, Henry Gaines ~ W/M/D e.S I CJn ~ Flint J represents local labor organizations 10/2/91 10/2/95 10/2/95 10/2/91 Terry Langston Af. Am./M/1 E. Lansing represents people aged 16-25 who are participants or supervisors of a campusbased or national service program for youth Eunice Myles 7/17/95 10/2/95 Af. Am./F/R Detroit represents business/youth organizations * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks Randall N eelis 11/18/91 10/2/95 W/M/R Menominee represents educators, including reps. from institutions of higher ed. or local agencies * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks Sarah Riley ~~~easant 4/19/93 10/2/95 ReSJ9na:;( represents people aged 16-25 who are participants or supervisors of a campusbased or national service program for youth �REMAINING MEMBERS nomination date expires Mary Ellen Brandell 10/2/91 10/2/97 W/F/R Mt. Pleasant represents educators, including reps. from institutions of higher ed. or local agencies 8/26/92 10/2/96 Beverly Drake Des' /qr; __ .-1 WIFIR t t ~ ./ C-<;.f Grand Rapids represents experts in the delivery of human, educational, environmental, or public safety services to communities and persons Michelle Engler Lansing Chairperson 10/2/91 10/2/97 Lisa Ilitch-Murray W/F/I Blmfd. Hls. represents business owners 10/2/91 10/2/97 Dorothy Johnson 10/30/91 W/F/R Grand Haven represents person involved with foundations in the state 10/2/97 10/2/96 10/28/93 Sister Mary Martinez F/D Livonia represents individuals with expertise in the educational, training, and development needs of disadvantaged youth Kathleen McCarthy W/F/R Plymouth represents local government 5/26/94 10/2/97 James Muir W/M/I Grand Rapids represents physically challenged population 3/23/94 10/2/97 LaVerne Nethercutt 10/2/91 10/2/96 W/F/R Alpena represents programs that are administered or receive assistance under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act, such VISTA, Senior Companions, or RSVP �Joel Orosz 10/2/91 Hisp./M/D Kalamazoo represents individuals involved with foundations in the state 10/2/97 Luterry Pruitt W/M/D Saginaw represents business 10/2/91 10/2/96 Judy Reidlinger-Dunn W/F/R Blmfd. Hls. represents business 10/2/91 10/2/96 Alton Shipstead 5/26/94 W/M/1 Traverse City represents individuals involved in a national service program 10/2/97 Michael Tate 1/20/93 10/2/96 W/M/1 E. Lansing represents individuals with expertise in the educational, training, and development needs of disadvantaged youth Matthew Wesaw Am. lndian/M/R Lansing represents Indian Tribes 7117/95 Geneva Williams 10/2/91 Af. Am./F/D Detroit represents a community-based agency or organization in the state 10/2/97 10/2/96 CANDIDATES ** Representing org. promoting involvement with people aged 55+ Carol Dombrowski (resigned) W/F/1 Kalamazoo Director, Kalamazoo RSVP She is no longer with the Retired Seniors Volunteer Program and chose to resign as that representative to the Commission. �Meg Smith W/F/I Lambertville She is currently the Executive Director for the RSVP program (Retired and Senior Volunteer Program) in Monroe County through the Bedford Public Schools. She coordinates over 1000 seniors who provided over 1 million dollars worth of services for the county in 1994. She is currently a member of the Michigan Offices of Services to the Aging Strategic Planning Committee and is serving on the Bedford Business Association. She still serves as president of the Michigan Association for RSVP Program Directors. Other civic activities include serving as Treasurer of the Child Advocacy Network, board member of the Monroe County American Heart Assoc., and the Monroe County Chamber of Commerce. She was recommended by Diane Braunstein on behalf of the Office of Services to the Aging before she left and also Sister Mary Martinez from Madonna University who is also a commission member. Kalamazoo For the past 17 years, she has been employed by Michigan National Bank. Currently, she is an Assistant Vice President/Community Reinvestment Officer. Her responsibilities include developing and implementing community reinvestment action plans and self assessments within a multi-county area. This work includes researching community needs and keeping in close contact with community leaders and organizations. She volunteers in a multitude of community-based organizations including Senior Services, Junior League, HOPE House of Kalamazoo (a program for pregnant and parenting teens), and Healthy Futures (an organization involved with child immunization). She is a board member and immediate past President for Senior Services and chairs the fundraising steering committee. Her awards include the Kalamazoo Gazette's Accolade award for outstanding community volunteerism and the Mich. Nat'l. Corp.'s Outstanding Volunteer Award. Also, through her involvement, Kalamazoo Junior League was the recipient of the Governor's Community Involvement Award for their HealthConnect Project in 1995. She received a B.B.A. from Western Michigan in 1978. Her supporters include Sheriff Thomas Edmonds, who knows her from their mutual with Senior Services, Bob Houtman, GOP Kalamazoo County Commissioner, Rep. Dale Shugars and Rep. Perricone. I talked to Tom Newman who says that she is not politically involved but knows of her work in the community. He says that he respects Sheriff Edmonds opinion of her. I recommend her for the appointment. * * representing people aged 16-25 who are participants or supervisors of a campus-based or national service program for youth Terry Langston Af. Am./M/I E. Lansing �He was a graduate student at Michigan State University at the time of his appointment. He is no longer a student and is over 25 at this time. He is not recommended for reappointment. Sarah Riley W/F/D Mt. Pleasant She was a high school student from Mt. Pleasant High School when she was first appointed. She has since gone on to college and is not able to make time for the Commission. She does not want to be reappointed. Kalamazoo She is currently a Junior at Western Michigan University with a 3.77 GPA and is employed as a student in the office of the Vice-President for Research. She assists in finding funding opportunities for service-learning grants and is working with faculty to implement service learning as a core requirement for all honors college students. Her main volunteer vehicle is the WMU Into the Streets program which coordinates student volunteer initiatives to assist low income individuals with food drives and community involvement. Also, she is a volunteer for Special Olympics, student volunteer with seniors at Ridgeview Manor and is a participant in church volunteer activities. As a WMU student, she is a member of the Lee Honors College, a board member of Student Volunteer Services and the National Collegiate Honors Council. During winter semester 1995, she was selected for and attended a national honors college program working with low income individuals in Appalachia. She co-published and edited a book detailing the experience entitled "Peak Experiences". Her supporters include Dr. Reish, Dean of the Honors College at WMU, Dr. Evans, Assoc. to the V.P. of Research at WMU and Keith Pretty. Recently, she was named a finalist for the Truman Foundation Scholarship award which pays for Senior year and grad. studies. She has a wide array of experience and is knowledgeable in grant writing and funding sources. I recommend her for this appointment. Karen Merrill W/F/1 E. Lansing She is a student at Michigan State and is a Junior in the James Madison College studying Social Relations. She is currently an Admin. Assistant at the Institute for Children, Youth and Families in E. Lansing. Her civic involvement includes being a Co-Director for the Into the Streets program at MSU, involved with the National Campus Outreach Opportunity League, a volunteer for the MSU Safe Place Domestic Violence Shelter, and a staff volunteer with Youth to Youth, a program which centers around preventing substance abuse among young people. She is a member of the MSU Synchronized Swimming club and serves as that groups fundraising chair. Karen also serves on the Student Senate for the James Madison College. She comes highly recommended by the Service- �Learning Center and Vice President of Governmental Mfairs office at Michigan State. Romulus He is currently a senior at Romulus High School and is the co-chair of the Michigan Youth Progressive Action Council (MYPAC). Prior to serving as cochair of MYPAC, he was a member of the youth advisory board. His other involvements with the MCSC include participating in the Quest Conference in Ann Arbor, co-authoring articles in the MCSC newsletter, and speaking to youth groups on behalf of the Commission. He is the President of the Student Government and also serves as senior class President. Other volunteer-oriented activities include membership in Project Serve, a group that plans and implements Community Service projects and is funded by Learn and Serve America, member of a Cross-Peer Tutoring group in the high school, and is a leader of the City-School Image Improvement Team in Romulus, a group which helps to improve the image of the community and the school. Frank Dirks suggested that a MYPAC representative occupy one of the youth positions on the MCSC. Sara Riley was the last MYPAC rep. Scott was recommended by Frank and the MCSC. Scott will be attending an instate university next year and will be able to commit to a 3 year term. ** representing local labor organizations Henry Gaines W/M/D Flint He serves as the Employee Assistance Representative and Coordinator for UAW Local 599. He has not been regularly attending meetings and is not recommended for reappointed by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks. Lake Orion Currently, he is employed as the Labor Coordinator for United Way Community Services in Detroit. This position is appointed in conjunction with the UAW, Detroit AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters unions. He has been a member of the Pipefitters Local 636 for 39 years and has previously served as that groups business agent. His civic involvement includes Project Ramp in which he organized material and volunteers to build ramps for handicapped individuals in conjunction with assistance from DSS . Also, he is involved with Boysville of Michigan, Camp Oakland for Boys, United Cerebral Palsy, and Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America. He was referred to us by Tom Story from Metro Detroit Plumbing and Mech. Contractors. Tom has given us good labor names in the past. In talking to Ray, I have found him to be very knowledgeable in regards to philanthropic initiatives and is very �involved with those type of activities. I think he would be a good labor rep. on the board and would not be a 'union-type' hinderance. ** representing non-profit foundations David Fukuzawa Asian/M/1 Detroit (resigned) He is a program officer with the Skillman Foundation. Formerly, he served as the Director for Human Need with New Detroit. He resigned due to time constraints. Karen Aldrid e Af. Am./F/1 Flint Since 1994, she has been employed by the Mott Foundation in Flint as a program officer. She is the coordinator for the team which reviews all grant proposals and monitors programs that are funded by the foundation which amounts to $10-12 million annually in the Flint area, $50-60 million statewide. Prior to 1994, she was Director of the Office of Health and Human Services with DMB for 2 years and was also a budget director for the city of Flint from 1988-1992. Her civic activities include being a member of the Board of Directors, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Greater Lansing; member, steering committee, Flint Youth Service Corp.; member, Assoc. of Black Foundation Execs. She has received awards for outstanding service to the State of Michigan, City of Flint and for service in the mission field. She lists Rep. Bankes and Mark Murray as supporters. Karen is very knowledgeable in the area of Foundation grants and would be a good MCSC member. Mark was her boss while he was Dep. Director. He says that she is a JME supporter and would recommend her for this appointment. ** representing a community-based agency in the state * self employed real estate developer; furniture retailer * titular head of the Muslim-American Alliance *served on Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Gaming * B.S. Chemistry; M.B.A. * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks �* representing business interests Blmfd. Hls. represents business * consultant who specializes in development and fundraising * co-founder, with Denise Ilitch-Lites, of Lovelight Foundation; involved with helping impoverished families with children * serves as Governor on the Cranbrook Schools board * formerly campaign chair for United Way in Florida 1988-1989 *recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks * State Farm Insurance, Senior Claims Rep. * active in the Urban Leadership Forum * ran as GOP candidate for State Senate, Dist. #4 * B.S., Fisk University * member, Frederick Douglas Society, Ronald McDonald House, Friends of African and African-Am. Art Council, Founder's Society DIA * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks ** representing educators. including reps. from institutions of higher ed. or local Menominee * Superintendent of Menominee Public Schools * formerly served as Superintendent at Rudyard schools * selected as Man of the Year by the Menominee Chamber of Commerce 1991 * State Class D football coach ofYear 1980 * member, Menominee Area Chamber of Commerce, Am. Assoc. of School Administrators * PhD., Western Michigan, 1993 * recommended for reappointment by Michelle Engler and Frank Dirks �ACTION ITEMS 1. Representing org. promoting involvement with people over age 55 (for remainder of Term Expiring 10/2/96) (Choose 1) _ _ _ Appoint Meg Smith _ _ _ Appoint Nancy Lenz 2. Representing age 16-25 involved in a campus-based youth program (Choose 2) _ _ _ Appoint Amber Pritchard _ _ _ Appoint Karen Merrill _ _ _ Appoint Scott Smith 3. Representing local labor organizations _ _ _ Appoint Ray West 4. Representing Non-profit foundations (for remainder of Term Expiring 10/2/97) _ _ _ Appoint Karen Aldridge 5. Representing a community-based org. _ _ _ Re-appoint Victor Begg 6. Representing business interests (choose 2) _ _ _ Re-appoint Julie Cummings _ _ _ Re-appoint Eunice Myles 7. Representing educators/superintendents _ _ _ Re-appoint Randy N eelis � 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_1996-03-15_New-Commissioners Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting new commissioners Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting new commissioners. 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, 49764 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/bdd11c55448410cd94b880bc65e238a1.pdf c1ede5e708d57aecd0da02b12ab0b729 PDF Text Text Michigan Youth Progressive Action Council (MYPAC) 1995-1996 Mr. Andrew Downs 351 Bruske Alma College Alma, MI 48801 (517) 463-7842 or 135 First Ave. ·Alpena, MI 49707 (517) 354-2471 Ms. Sara Scholefield 7350 Manitou Rogers City, MI 49779 (517) 734-2533 Ms. Kate Eklund 1609 Brooklyn Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 995-1663 Mr. Jeffrey Schulz 6066 French Rd. Unionville, MI 48767-9656 (517) 674-2435 Ms. Kimberly Fronsman 115 Keathley Dr. Battle Creek, MI 49017 (616) 968-1821 Ms. Dounia Senawi 4868 Quarton Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (810) 855-2189 Mr. Mario Henry 4591 Roosevelt Detroit, MI 48208 (313) 894-4490 Mr. Scott Smith 12849 Hannan Rd. Romulus, MI 4817 4 (313) 941-4499 Mr. Timothy Derwin 131 E. Peck St. Negaunee, MI 49866 (906) 475-5595 Mr. Dan Stump 1409 Tallman Rd. Fowler, MI 48835 (517) 593-2584 Ms. My Lien 558 Fremoont NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 (616) 735-9030 Ms.Ha Tran 3 251 Rice Ct. Lansing, MI 48911 (517) 394-5264 Ms. Beth Weber Eastern Michigan Univ. 425 Jones Hall Ypsilanti, MI 44060 (313) 487-0657 � 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_1996-03-15_MYPAC Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting MYPAC Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting MYPAC. 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, 49763 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/63a91740994d88cd7bef2aa508cbc485.pdf 77051faf5c283b76e54aa408dbf7ebc9 PDF Text Text REGISTRATION Name___________________ Title _____________ Organization.__________ Add~~·----------- City, State _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Zip____________ Business Phonel_j _________ Faxl_j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Special dietary needs :-:--c----:----=-------:--:-:--Speclal physical accomodations: . ·r '•:0:·.· Conference Location The Conference will be held at the Hold lay Inn West, 7501 W. Saginaw, Lansing, Michigan. The Holiday Inn West Is localed off 1-96, exit 93B, near the 1-96 and 496 Interc hange. • • I ·z; : ",. '!,' ' j l •s ; ·'1',· . . •• . .. . ._ ~,.. :, • ·- ~.. • *~~~ - -· .. . ~ · __ . ,,- .1.\-. ~--. ·-·-·---· . E. .;· •· '· •f I •· ··" . t ;:, JJ "!' _;.·· ... . ... ,;/ : . ... ~·:-:,,.;: r f:. ... ·, :··.: ~0 · -lt~:; ~·T.·F.E~· t~: - ·:;~ K E~T~· J.NI ;~~ . -;-{'-1~· ,"·,.. · I , .. . :~L~:;: ; .. ~~-: -··. . ··-_ . !':> r~~;.~c~,20:21, ltJ96 ': . :··}~ ... -~· .• -···· ,.,~_, ... . . _· .., "{'' HOLlDAY;.IIo(Nr::w:esT:LANSING( ~ '·:, . · :'f~~'r ·.;~· .,:·.;· 'i:! ·:~: . . ~,.~;. TAP-YoUth Service Is an ·inltio~ve- of .tne ,,; . ;;,,·~ ,... ~.; MichlgarY C$0rQn]UhltY.Servlce ,Corr:\ml~.s hi: and ..the~ Gomr'hdnity Fquric:JatlQI!·fqr . ·:· ,;!i ·.. h:;South,east~(n' Michigan;";tunded by th~·\~'.!Kn\ t'···. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. · · "' • There Is no fee for the conference, which will be held at the Holiday Inn West, Lansing, Michigan. • Overnight accomodallons will be provided at the Holiday Inn West. Registration for the conference Includes meals as listed In the agenda and accomodallons. There will be a $100.00 penalty fee If you cancel your hotel reglslrallon after 5:00 p.m. March 17, 1996. (.; . .. :, ·, ·"· '·<·-: \ ;,.; The goal ·of TAP-Youth Service Is to provide ·, grassroots, low-Income community . . . . · organizations with the. Information, . :'... :'. ,;:: ·f. . network, acce~1: and expertlsei t() more ~:~ <' efte.ct!y,,~ly· d~?.V~Iop, _~ operate ·an~j_: !X.::.cor:nmunlfy ser\t_lce an~;fyputh ;f.. . !' • You will share a room with another c onference participant. If you have a roomate preference, please Indicate that person's name here: Please return this form to the Michigan Community Service Commission by o Friday. March 11. 1996 o In one of the following ways: ;MIC-H IGAN.· · ··"·.:·,·~.:;··:=wzc ~" .· . ;,; .:::~r ~-. TA·P., ¥.QtJ · ~-..>:~'ll''"····;···.x:?""' •...,,,.,, .. S,.ER ·. . .:I·c·! ., .. ~ CHARLES STEWAHT MOTT FOUNDATION 1. Fax your registration form to MCSC: (517) 373-4977 ~:~~.:e~7;r;:i~l£:;~~·····, ·· .,, Conference Purpose . build a foundation for · ,··., .., developing CfYOUth pr,ogrc:lil1;_. '·"'H'•'•''-X recruit y9utn; _:-. . :: \ -:.· · · ·· · · · establis!'l a ·youth-<:friven plan . of action· . "'·. ,.. ·· , _ · ·· ' ·,.... :·'' · .' · sustain a~tlv~.: participdtion .•.,.;, ... · and membershlp·addresslng ' ~ .- soclal,academic :ahd :spiritual:- · ··.-needs. · · · · ··· ·· .:, '··'· · '· '. 2. Mail your completed form to MCSC: Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 41h Floor 111 Soulh Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 '· ·•·' ·!:; If you have any questions, contact Allyson Knox at MCSC at (517) 335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission ·· ' ·· . ·'·' • .... :>· ;\ 'I" '-' . �March 20 March 21 Noon - l :00 Lunch Lunch Program l :00 -- l :30 "TAP-Youth Service: Supporting Us As We Become Stronger Youth Leaders" Lunch Program Goals: Present the TAP-Youth Service Program model. TAP-Youth Service Manuals. and discuss th e positive Impact It has hod a t the Phoenix Multi-Cultural Academy In Detroit. Lunch Program Speaker: Charlotte Currier. Lead Teacher Generator School for Service Learnin g Project Phoenix Multi-Cultural Academy 8:00-9:00 !~ -. ~·~ f: •9:00 •• 10:15 ' ~.~ :30 •• 11:45 , • • \.•,: Session 2 ". . . . ··, ,'; · .• •I ·:· '• .. ' - ' ·, -~_-, .;;.<,.'.' ~- ,A.· ,, ,:· .. .. "" . ,. : _,,,::f' . ' ··• ·:· ·•''./?~F. ~{~.:. -... ~~- ',_._ · Spiritual Youth Development · /, . . " . .. ·• ·S/stsr Mary Clare, ~M ··. .,. · ' Alexander Monlaner. YouffrM/nfsler, St. Anne's .rout/1 Group S,l. Aime's Church, Dlilro/1 . . s ;?; •. .~:. : '. .,_ ..., ·..:: .J-; School-based Service Learning Curriculum · Charloffe Curlier, Lead Teachsr . ,, Pho11n!x Mu/H·Cul/uralAcademy, 'De troll • 5:00-6:00 6:00-7:00 7:00-9:00 :<.· ·... , . ·', , -~:..;,r., . JJ: . ·. ,,,,:,''·: ~ , •.---·'· · .. \ . . . ':.: -~: .•. i:.· :·.::,ffit.\i;· >'·'> Vlclo!faCroyle, Program Specialist ·· ·. . .. llnlltJd.Way comintinlly Sefllfces/Melro D91roiN · . ': ' ',_~ ;- ' ' . '~ " BoordDevelopment , . . . · :;.L.,·:·.•. ' ·.~•. · .' .. : Mautlce Wessen, S9,n(o( k{an(l{lsr of Votuqleer Services ·vnlled way coniiniml/YseJv/ces/Metro D9trolt • i'i . "'· · ·.· · /' .· I. ·· ' ;~. f ·: Evening Program Goal: This evening program will provide youth leaders the opportunity to better understand the Youth Leaders regional and sta te network. Participants will toke port In activities which will make the state of Michigan 's network a more vivid, working structure; one to be utilized readily. Evening Program Facilitator: Fronk Campagna joins us from Boston where he Is a Senior Consultant for 1-1-1 (Inspiration, Ideas, Innovation) Support. For the past decode. Fronk has worked extensively with some of the most Innovative social change organizations In America. especially In the areas of youth and notional service. AGENDA : ;'' ·{1:~ ·j·,;_. :-~ .. Noon -- 1.00 12:45 -- l :30 ·I ··'.:·.' • ". ' .,,. ,l· Lunch Lunc h Program "How Michigan Welfare Reform Impacts Michigan Youth " I Lunch Program Goal: To raise awareness about how state legislation can effect you th-driven Initiatives. Lunch Program Speaker: Stephanie Comai-Palge. Deputy Director of State Government Affairs Office of the Governor. State of Mlc!tlgan i ·.1 :I I 'I -~ , (~6~~:~~.~ ~3oai; T~ 1.45 •• 2.30 2:45··3:30 ~~rf~~. of·s~~C~S~~I ql~hlg~: ~outh pr?~~ms. / PfOVIde a Session 1 . · ., Sesslpn2 . '> .: .. · . .: · ·. · f~r each session ple'!s~ ~er~9/~~~'·p.rog~arri· fro~ the,~~llowlng: ·. Break Dinner Evening Program "Discovering Our Michigan Youth Development Network" ';- Evaluation •• How to Document Program Success ·. ;--;.• · Bruce Haas, Ph.D., Consultant .., ·•. Human Sgfllfce /?sst~arc/1 , ~~;;~,. . :; _,. ·. 'l ,n: :·;, .. voi~nteer Man~geme~t . ·Developing Cultural Identity · . . ·.i . · . · Jacinta Le9, 'Program Coordlti'alor ' Altlcan·Amerlcan Youlh.LtJ.ar;ter Project · .• Cat/10/lc:Youlh 'OrganlraHon, Detroit -~ ./ :: --- ' -·. ' ..:· ._.:;-: }'.:::~-"' '';; :Developing CulturolldenHtY t:. ·• · .,.. . . ... : . . ~ngls /?eyes, Prog{¢/in Coardlnalor Latino Family Ssrv/ces,.Dslro/1 . . : s.e~~lon ~,/ -~ , ., , - ANatfonoiYouthModeiModlfledtorlocaiNeeds Psnny Baller, ExgcuHvs Director, (Invited) . Michigan Mstro . Gifl.~cout Counc:f, Detroit •: Se~slon ·1 · . ', ' '' For each session please select one program !rom the. following • . , :;. r '\,. :·:<;. ;. : MaryAnn Plerc9, Dl~clor ·.. · . '· . Cooter,CIIn/c ,. . · ,• :; ·'· ( ,. · .. .. · · ·. · ''.,.·. F~. nd Raisin~ and,Grant W~ff~"g . Mary.MoomawGtii!, •DI"clor.o!FundD9ve/opmsnl6 , ·•' / · . M/c/1/rran NonproOI!Assoq/C,Hon (MNA) ,.';/<-, ..,.• ·. •'{:_ ', --:._·-_: __ --f'' -_ -· '-/_~-··:·0:""!\:;: '~· <~:·:'··~·;;.;.·::~-' •• '> ... . ; <fo<~~;.,;, \·},., II :·~~-r.~ac_~ _ses.slon,please·~e':fc:top.~P~~gram _trom.t~-~;'ollo.:>YI~r"" il{:.~);·:r.;:;p: L ·Underslandlng the legal Respo.nslblll~es. o.fa:. Nonpron.t Organization . < i.e' J.··.~ ·.::. ., .. !' Workshop #1 i "·' · '' .- Workshop Goal: To provide jhe,.~hgi,y to's" ot c.rEiotlng and sustal~.lng ' . a youth program. ~ ······ •· ·· ····, .. · . . . ·2··oo ~- 3'15. · Sesslon.. 1 · · • · ···• 3:3o •• 4:45 Contin ental Breakfast UrbanleagueYouth ·P.rograms . ,.:. ·, .•. . , Mel Brannon, E,Xe.cuHve. D..'/".'9CI¢ir l/tbanlgague .o !FIInl .• ~ . ·,:'. I, . , . .:... · . ·.. .'.. ·. • ..''.. :. ,· Corrimunlly-Based ~Leam and ·S · 'erve",Pro'gr·a ·" m .. I.. :. Manistee ·· ··· KqrenFrsdertckson; :YotilhAdvlsor ' · ·.. •. ·'' • · .· . , ·' ; 1 ( Councii~IM/c~/~n~~u'(dcn:ons . . I Muskegon Youth j ' r~\ ~V' • ~\ ). · ~ &~,cO-. ; ·~-.~ -· ~~· ~,: J · , C...V}~ V .1-1... -'"" ~~ ' ~- ~[~ ··~,X · > ~ · • . . 7 -:;J?r>.·.~:· ,,··; • . ·~ ~~.., ·: ;, : ·:·l.",· ·:... , .•:·.0j :, · :· ;;.,,. ·". Marlha~oHorptey,.:·Pr~gram._Direcfc?r ··l!F·,~·~~:;:~ l ,':, _ · i, V~lunteer: Corp:s ... · j @ : .j f · c~uncU· oi Mlcl)lgan· Fo~nda"9n;s:;vou.h·;Adv1$ory c~~~~rl:<?s': ~ ,, .....~;·, l ,.T9ny Langslotr, ·Youlh·P(ogram Managf!~ ·; ) , ..: : .. : · ·j , .... Youlh(.mploY.insn~.';~~ Tr/:Jin~g-~':'d(~mf;2::·;· !i' ~ .. , ··!·~!''i{~t;{·:::· 1 KtlsColle9,~m9i!Co,fP,~!tJ.eiribt~ft • YoulfJW~nteer,CotpsAfslstant .1 lln/ltJd Way of Muskegot1'Counly ""·- ·.:,:. >-; ... ~'. .j 3:30-4:00 Wrap Up Suzanne Heath. Director. Community Organization and Training Department Catholic Youth OrQanlzatl on There Is a space limitation, register as soon as possible 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_1996-03-15_MI-TAP-Youth-Service-Conference Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan TAP-Youth Service Conference Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan TAP-Youth Service Conference. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49762 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1bd2d7592ea245903041739d0e633f13.pdf cd49594f79bdaf84254c1b3f71e82923 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission March 15, 1996 Olds Plaza Building- Lansing 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Engler, Chair VictorBegg Mary Ellen Brandell Julie Cummings Judith Dunn Dorothy Johnson Terry Langston Kathleen McCarthy Jim Muir Vernie Nethercut Joel Orosz Terry Pruitt Frank Dirks, Ex Officio MEMBERS ABSENT: Sister Mary Martinez Lisa Ditch Murray Eunice Myles Randy Neelis Alton Shipstead Michael Tate Geneva Williams Matthew Wesaw OTHERS : Jennifer Babcock; Attending with Julie Cummings Barbara Bradford, Michigan Family Independence Agency Ross Dodge, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Dave Egner, Michigan Nonprofit Association Jennifer Epps, Michigan Community Service Commission Mary Estrada, Michigan Community Service Commission Bonnie Graham, Office on Services to the Aging Garry Gross, Michigan Community Service Commission Paula Kaiser, Michigan Community Service Commission Allyson Knox, Michigan Community Service Commission Tracy McCloskey, Michigan Community Service Commission Lisa McGettigan, Michigan Campus Compact Mary Pfeiler, Corporation for National Service- Detroit Lindy Reurink, Michigan Community Service Commission Sam Singh, Volunteer Centers of Michigan Angelia Salas, Michigan Community Service Commission Octavia Vaughn Wilson, on behalfofGeneva Williams-UWCS Carol Wolenberg, Michigan Department of Education �I. Welcome and Introduction - Chairperson Michelle Engler The meeting was called to order at 10:30 a.m. by Chaixye~son Engler. A brief ~~troduction of everyone attending and a special thank you to Comnusswner Johnson for chamng the last meeting. II. Review of Minutes from December 1, 1995 Commission Meeting - Chairperson Engler A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve the December 1, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Begg seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. Ill. Informational Items: a. Michigan CARES- Allyson Knox Ms. Knox explained to all attendees what the CARES program is presently doing and what they are planning to do in the future. Ms. Knox distributed two information sheets. The first being the agenda for the Michigan CARES Planning Retreat on March 19 & 20, 1996 and the second was a description sheet on the different CARES sites. b. Michigan's AmeriCorps- Paula Kaiser Ms. Kaiser explained that she had completed all site visits and presently all are accomplishing their goals. Ms. Kaiser informed the Commission that this year the programs have systems in place and are focusing on the overall impact of the program. The member training, supervision and service has significantly improved in the second year. Ms. Kaiser informed the Commission that there will be an AmeriCorps Retreat on March 29 & 30, 1996 in Flint. The main mission of the retreat will be education and training. Ms. Kaiser informed commissioners that AmeriCorps renewal applications are due to the Michigan Community Service Commission on April 12, 1996. Chairperson Engler asked Ms. Kaiser to give the name, a description of and the number of members for each AmeriCorps program. Commissioner Orosz asked about the budget rumors that are floating around. Mr. Dirks and Mary Pfeiler of the Michigan office of the Corporation for National Service explained where the Corporation stands on certain issues and what is presently being done to correct the situation. Commissioner Nethercut explained that she thought it might be helpful if all commissioners had a "fact" sheet on AmeriCorps so that when they are asked questions they can answer questions correctly. Chairperson Engler talked about the status in Washington with the Corporation for National Service and the funding level for next year. Mr. Dirks talked about Senator Grassley' s news conference and explained the paper's view and its ten points to improve AmeriCorps and cut costs. He also talked about the Corporation' s views and explained how everyone involved is coming together to compromise and make AmeriCorps a great program. 2 �Commissioner Johnson mentioned that Ross Dodge from Michigan Depanment of Natural Resources has been given an endowment of $20 million to support the Civilian Conservation Corps. The Conservation Corps employs 18-25 year olds for one year to do environmental projects. Mr. Dodge gave a detailed description of the Conservation Corps. c. Learn and Serve Michigan - Angelia Salas Ms. Salas gave an overview of the Learn and Serve programs in Michigan. Ms. Salas explained that she has been doing site visits to make sure that programs are meeting their goals and objectives. Ms. Salas told the Commission where each program is located and what activities are happening in each program. d. MYPAC Update - Angelia Salas Ms. Salas gave an update on MYP AC activities. She informed the Commission that MYPAC is going to be presenting a workshop at the National Service Learning Conference in Detroit on April 19, 1996. Ms. Salas informed the Commission that this year MYPAC established subcommittees. The Public Relations Committee is working to promote youth volunteerism and National Volunteer week by doing interview for radio and TV and is working on developing a public service announcement. The Conference and Ambassador committees are working to prepare workshop materials to present at the National Service Learning Conference and others. The Commission Outreach committee will work to increase youth voice at commission events. Ms. Salas noted that is it often difficult for MYPACers to attend functions because of school schedules but they will work to pull commissioners into their activities as well. Ms. Salas expressed MYP AC' s desire to continue the Panners in Service program. Commissioners will be kept informed of MYP AC activities. The next MYPAC meeting is Aprill3 & 14, 1996. e. Staff Advisory Council - Lindy Reurink Ms. Reurink gave an overview of the Staff Advisory Council. Ms. Reurink also informed the Commission that the Council would be having a retreat on April 1, 1996 to refocus on what and where the Council is headed and the plan of action for the future. There was some discussion on membership and Ms. Reurink listed the members. f. Governor's Community Service Awards - Lindy Reurink Ms. Reurink talked about the upcoming Governor's Community Service Awards Program on May 16, 1996. Ms. Reurink explained that the Commission received approximately two hundred nominations and that the Review Group had a very hard time but had chosen the five finalist in each group. On May 16, 1996 the fmalist will be honored at a reception and a dinner with the announcement of the winner in each group that evening. Ms. Reurink also asked the Commissioners to make sure to put that date on their calendar because they will also be invited to the Governor' s Community Service Awards Program on May 16, 1996 at the Lansing Center. 3 �,. g. Resource guides - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks talked about the different publications that the Commission is presently working on, especially the new publication called the "Investments in Service". Mr. Dirks explained that there were copies available for everyone and that we would be distributing copies to several locations across the state. h. TAP-Youth Service - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that the Commission has published a Resource Guide for TAP-Youth Service to be distributed at the TAP-Youth Service Training Conference. Mr. Dirks explained that this was made available through a grant from the Mott Foundation. 1. Administrative and Budget Status- Garry Gross Mr. Gross discussed the budget report that the Commissioners received in their meeting packet. Mr. Gross gave detailed information about each program' s budget and expenditures according to available information from the department's budget office. Mr. Gross also explained that he will be doing site visits with the AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve programs in the near future. IV. Executive Director's Report- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks talked about his report. Mr. Dirks pointed out three main issues which include the Legislative Outreach Group and what they have been working on. The members of this group are Chairperson Engler, Commissioner Orosz, Commissioner Tate and Commissioner Pruitt. The second issue was all the hard work that has been done at the National level on outreach. The third issue is the development of an Association of State Executive Commission Directors. Mr. Dirks explained that he has been working very hard to get the Ford Foundation to support this association. Mr. Dirks mentioned all the upcoming activities of the Commission in the next few months. Commissioner Pruitt asked if any Commissioners would be invited to these activities. Ms. Kaiser explained that all Commissioners are welcome to the AmeriCorps retreat and Mr. Dirks invited all to any and all events. V. Long Range Plan Issues a. Legislative Outreach- Michelle Engler, Joel Orosz, Mike Tate, Terry Pruitt Commissioner Orosz gave a brief overview of the legislative outreach. Commissioner Orosz informed Commissioners that they would be asked to contact their own state representative and state senator regarding the Commission. Commissioner Orosz also talked about the Legislative Community Service Awards which will allow legislators to nominate people in their community for these awards. The Commission will start this off by having a legislative breakfast to explain and inform legislators about these ideas. 4 �A motion was made to set up a Task Force to handle all the details and to write a proposal to submit to Kellogg Foundation for the Legislative program. Commissioner Muir proposed to move the motion and Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous. Commissioner Orosz made a motion to thank Chairperson Engler for all the hard work she has done for the Commission and Commissioner Begg seconded the motion. b. State Outreach and Promotion - Julie Cummings Commissioner Cummings gave an overview of the state outreach plan and ideas that she has collected. Commissioner Cummings passed out a one to three year plan on outreach. Commissioner Cummings read through the plan and different ideas were discussed. An outreach committee needs to be set up and volunteers will be needed to serve on this committee. Commissioner Begg asked if we were still using our poster that stated "Be a Volunteer" and it was discussed that this would be a more detailed effort of outreach. The following people volunteered to be on the committee: Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Dunn, Commissioner Brandell, Commissioner Begg, Commissioner Cummings, Sam Singh, Dave Egner and Commissioner Pruitt, who said he would check to see if Dow Corning would help in looking over a proposed plan. Chairperson Engler explained that the Commission has been working on an lntergenerational Poster contest. Ms. Reurink explained that four winning pictures would be designed in a collage and the poster will be ready for distribution in May. c. New Partnership Meeting Update - Michelle Engler Chairperson Engler explained that the meeting was held on February 12, 1996 and community leaders from all the sectors, including public, private, social and religious were in attendance. Chairperson Engler explained that the groups broke up into different sessions and there was much discussion and networking. The follow-up meeting will be held May 16 prior to the Governor's Community Service Awards. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the term "social sector" and who it includes. After some discussion it was decided that the term needs to be clarified. VI. New Business a. State Commission Network Mr. Dirks told the Commission that he had already covered the state commission network in his executive director's report. Mr. Dirks thanked Mary Pfeiler for all the work she has done for the Commission in networking with other state Commissions and other state offices on national service. b. New Grant Tirnelines Mr. Dirks informed the Commission that the AmeriCorps renewal application has to be submitted to the Corporation by May 1, 1996 and asked the Commission to empower the Executive Committee to review and approve the AmeriCorps packet. 5 �" Commissioner McCarthy proposed a motion to give the Executive Committee. the power to approve the AmeriCorps grant application and Commissioner Cummmgs seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. c. Legislative Service Awards See Section V(a). d. Learn & Serve K-12- Carol Wolenberg Chairperson Engler introduced Carol Wolenberg from the Michigan Department of Education. Ms. Wolenberg talked about the Learn & Serve K-12 programs under the Department of Education and their plans to send out Request for Proposals for the continuation of these programs. e. Governor's Innovative Grant Award Mr. Dirks explained that Michigan is one of eight states that received funding under the Governor's Innovative AmeriCorps grant. Mr. Dirks explained that the Commission worked with the Michigan Family Independence Agency on a very quick turnaround. Ms. Barbara Bradford explained to the Commission how they will do the recruitment process. Ms. Bradford also talked about five different health care issues that need to be discussed. Ms. Bradford thanked Ms. Reurink and Mr. Dirks for all their hard work and cooperation. VID. Public Comment Commissioner Pruitt asked to be included on the May agenda so he can lead a discussion on the upcoming Commissioner terms that will expire in October. Chairperson Engler also asked that we bring our Bylaws to the meeting so we can go over what areas of expertise our Commissioners specialize in and where and what areas need to be covered. Commissioner Brandell stated that she will host a meeting in May along with the United Way director. They will invite representatives from four-year institutions that are hosting United Way drives in the community. Local directors and students will come together to talk about the uniqueness of those particular fundraising activities. Commissioner Brandell explained that she would keep the Commission updated on this activity. Commissioner Langston informed the Commission that congratulations should go out to Commissioner Tate as he completed his dissertation today. Chairperson Engler mentioned that the next Commission meeting will be May 10, 1996, in Dearborn. It will be hosted by ACCESS and Commissioner Begg. Commissioner Cummings made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Langston seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m. 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1996-03-15_Minutes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting minutes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting minutes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49761 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7dfcfacf58ce6083c61e7bc70c94d2e9.pdf e024846e4ac3b87ad602dabf477e7ae0 PDF Text Text WHO CAN JOIN AMERICORPS? AmeriCorps members must be 17 years old or older, a U.S. citizen or legal resident, and have completed their high school diploma or be willing to work on completing it during their Michigan's AmeriCorps term of service. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF JOINING AMERICORPS? AmeriCorps members have the opportunity to give back to their communities and nation. They may serve either full-time (1700 hours over 1 year) or part-time (900 hours over 1-3 years). Each individual A.meriCorps program decides whether their members will be full or part-time. Full-time A.meriCorps members receive a minimum living allowance of $7,945 for 1700 hours of service and an educational award of $4,725 . Full-time members are eligible to receive health care insurance and may be eligible to receive child care benefits, if they meet certain income eligibility criteria. Part-time A.meriCorps members receive a minimum living allowance of $4,206 for 900 hours of service and an education award of $2,362. Part-time members are not eligible for health care insurance or child care benefits. The living allowance is distributed tq the member throughout the year. The education award is provided only after the member has successfully completed his/her term of service. How CAN I APPLY? Twelve AmeriCorps programs are currently operating in Michigan. If you wish to apply for a position as an AmeriCorps member, fill out the enclosed referral form and send it back to the Michigan Community Service Commission. Your form will then be forwarded to the program(s) · operating in your preferred geographic region. 1994/95 MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS PROGRAMS • AMERICORPS MILES: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to promote independent living of elderly and low-income citizens in Marquette county. The program focuses on meeting the needs of 300 residents by providing health care, personal care, chore and housing rehabilitation services. The members carry out this mission by assisting Health Department and Community Mental Health staff in conducting health assessments on clients. Corpsmembers will review the assessments and make appropriate referrals. In addition, corpsmembers will identify additional volunteers in the community who will provide direct services to the elderly. • AMERICORPS OAKLAND: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves part-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to reduce violence for 1,000 Pontiac youth by providiBg alternatives and academic support. _The members carry out this mission by focusing on two component areas. The education component works to reduce truancy in the Pontiac junior high schools, and deliver conflict resolution/peer mediation, tutoring, and educational enrichment programs. The recreation component will be delivered through Pontiac nonprofit community-based organizations using resources such as neighborhood parks and recreation centers, Boys and Girls Club, YMCA, Salvation Army, local schools, etc. �• CARING TOGETHER ELDERSERVE: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to institutionalize community-based volunteer care to the elderly within 10 distinct communities across Metro Detroit so that their elderly residents can remain living independently in dignity in the community and home of their choice. The members carry out this mission by acting as volunteer program coordinators working directly with elders, volunteers and community boards to provide informal services such as transportation, home maintenance, friendly visitation and personal advocacy. • CIRCLENET: MICIDGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to challenge and empower youth with developmental disabilities to move to new levels of community involvement. The members carry out this mission by focusing on developing a Circle of Friends and a Big Brother/Sister (who leads the Circle of Friends) for each of the youth. This Circle of Friends makes a one year commitment to work with the youth to develop an Action Plan that challenges the youth and the surrounding community to decrease the youths' social isolation while increasing his/her community involvement and independence skills. • DETROIT'S ACADEMIC SUCCESS PROJECT: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to improve the academic success and attainment of youth in Detroit' s federally-funded Empowerment Zone. The project will create a corps of service-learning coordinators, who will target all classes of one grade level in each of three schools. In teams of six, the AmeriCorps members will provide tutoring, parental enrichment activities, and the development of a service-learning curriculum in cooperation with teachers. Two AmeriCorps members will focus on youth and parents with special needs, such as those who face cognitive, linguistic, or physical obstacles. • EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, TEAMS FOR SCHOOL SUCCESS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time and part-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to promote school success for 1500 elementary and junior high youth in the Ypsilanti area. The members carry out this mission by creating and implementing 75 plus after-school clubs (language, drama, journalism, recreation, math, science, etc.) and tutorial groups. • ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM SOLVING iN LANSING: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time and part-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to address urban environmental problems by connecting community residents' initiative and students' applied science skills to make Lansing' s neighborhoods a better place to live for over 5,000 individuals. The members carry out this mission by partnering with local community members to "get things done" across Lansing. The work at these sites includes: creating community gardens, performing alley restoration, revitalizing dead end streets and river banks, and developing a High School Environmental Club. • GENESEE COUNTY AMERICORPS PROGRAM: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time and part-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to meet unmet community needs in the areas of education, environment, human needs, and public safety through a coordinated community collaborative. The members carry out this mission by working through community organizations to recruit volunteers to act as Girl Scout troop leaders, rehabilitate homes in the Genesee County area, create and carry out environmental and solid waste reduction presentations, expand two late-night/earlymorning activity programs for youth, and teach computer literacy skills to youth. �• GRAND RAPIDS SERVICE CORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to enable a group of young adults to enhance their self-worth, develop leadership skills, and practice good citizenship by actively meeting communitY needs in the areas of education, environment, human needs, and public safety. The members carry out this mission by developing and implementing after-school activities for youth, involving local residents in neighborhood environment service projects, and improving students math/reading skills through tutoring efforts. • MICHIGAN NEIGHBORHOOD AMERICORPS PROGRAM: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program inv-olves full-time and part-time AmeriCorps members to; strengthen communities, and develop member citizenship and skills in addressing specific education, human and environmental needs in the Detroit area. The members carry out this mission by involving youth in after-school tutoring, summer enrichment, and leadership programs, building community capacity for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and environmental projects, and assisting four community based organizations and community residents to increase affordable housing and (the accessibility of) public health. • RURAL STRATEGIC ACTION INITIATIVE: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program will involve full-time AmeriCorps members in three rural communities to promote community and team-oriented problem solving in the areas of human need and education. The members carry out this mission by refurbishing substandard homes, building one new home per county, creating two programs per county that will involve 2,700 youth and 900 families in after-school and enrichment programs, and recruiting 500 volunteers per county who will, in total, devote 30,000 hours of volunteer service to the AmeriCorps program. • SAGINAW 'AMERICORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves full-time and part-time AmeriCorps members in an effort to increase -the level of public safety in the City of Saginaw through collaborative efforts of public and private organizations, residents, and youth. The members carry out this mission by educating elementary school children about crime and safety, bridging the gap between law enforcement and young people, maintaining neighborhood watch programs, involving Saginaw youth in after-school enrichment, recreation, and education programs, and providing tutoring support to over 2,000 youth. � 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_1996-03-15_Michigans-AmeriCorps Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49760 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/982e8f7061791311022d905ef2e984f1.pdf 9f391738a4ad51c172c225019dd3cc8c PDF Text Text Alpena _ ·-c-o.o__.-.. .. _ --. a......... - ,...... . . . MSU £ - - . :::::.,.... . ..... -...... = ..._ .,_,_ Detroit •octro.I...-Joort• _._... . .. ,ottt ·)Mo.._.. .....,.. ......- ...._,.._ .-..-.. . .. CARES Coordinator - ....... Com'!nitv Foundation role l nvoiYe~ in p roYld lnalud~lp andd ludlDf' Muskegon Grand Rapids Estab lish Youth • Dn~lopment Network Community Foundation: C.,tt'r ~.ntW · u.~w ., _...,. Equal ,.rtici pant on Steains Comm ittuand • erves u MCSC liaison .. ~ -~ M . . . . . .'•Sen-ic. ._ ~ database Coordlnilte dty· wide youth conference CARES Steering-Committee~----....11 Ma Flint • Lead organization: Community Foundation • Solicited ideas from over thirty organizations • Implemented service programs in Phase I • Published Volunteerism Plan • Desired OtJtcome· Establish The Flint Nonprofi t Resource Center ~!li. ~~i~so;;;;J. oriented organizations) • Volunteer Center facilitates CARES Ste~g Committee Crute and au.uin a • Steering Committee composed of seven nonprofit agencies Center whert many of the: putidpatins !)rganiutions w ould sh ~ cominon 1pACe •Community Fo=dation serves as the fiduciary agent Original focus• Communi ty Raourcc New fnn,s • Promote voluntn rifl'll, M:rvi~a n d a aviu- lumi ng throuah muketi n& rrtorU ud ch.111nnrl fu.nd.s to oni..li.Asscrvice- proj""''-•--~-..11 �Michigan CARES definition: oatt'omes • Role of Coaununity Foundations a Overall CARES model • l.n dividual commuuity models • Ra.tion..Je for Servi.ceLeilming Focus • Collaboration: Lessons learned Connecting local service programs and agencies through collaboration CARES: Desired Outcomes • • • • Michigan CARES is a community planning model. • This model enables communities to engage in meaningful collaborations. • The collaborations' primary purpose is to unite service organizations. • The collaborations plan and implement service learning programs. CARES organizational chart Ia synchronize efforts among and between service, volunteer, and service-learning organizations Ia increase enthusiasm for oollaborative projects to increase knowledge base relating to service, volWlteerism, service-learning. and "how to" effectively collaborate • to meet locally-designed desired outcomes • to create a cadre of Michigan service leade.rs, willing to assist other communities in collaborative and service endeavors • sustained collaborative endeavors Phase II Direction: • program and model implementation • work to merge local focus with state-level Phase TI foundation • create appropriate measurement tools to document progress • work for sustainability Working in Collaborations: Lessons Learned • you can never communicate enough with each participating organization • the facilitator must possess a high level of community organizing and interpersonal relationship building skills a celebrate successes • first determine desired outcomes then create strategies • chase after enthusiasm • access existing and untapped resources � 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_1996-03-15_MI-CARES-PowerPoint Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES PowerPoint Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES PowerPoint. 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, 49759 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5394d20a2b6ade9d35f4860db8fddb89.pdf 7ab43659364960049709521095731744 PDF Text Text Michigan CARES Planning Retreat MARCH 19-20, 1996 HOLIDAY INN WEST, LANSING Welcome to the 1996 Michigan CARES Planning Retreat. With the help of noted experts in the nonprofit and business sectors, we will focus on the role of CARES in the community, the importance of service-learning, how to evaluate your program, and clarifying your CARES objectives. The goal of this retreat is to assist you and your partners in implementing Phase II objectives, developing innovative projects, and tools to sustain these projects. Your experience and discussion will prove invaluable to the learning experience. Feedback on the retreat is essential, so let MCSC know what you think! A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission �CARES AGENDA March 19 9:00-10:00 Registration - REGENCY A 10:00 - 10:30 Planning Retreat Commences: Welcome and Introductions 10:30- 12:00 Workshop #1- REGENCY A Louise Giugliano Ms. Giugliano is an independent school and professional development consultant who works nationally with schools, state departments of education, professional associations and community groups interested in improving teaching and learning. Objectives: • identify how service-learning already exists in CARES projects • • discuss why CARES needs to move into service-learning programs while acknowledging the importance of the "traditional volunteer" evaluate existing definitions of service-learning • generate concrete examples of how a community-based organization can create and sustain a service-learning project • develop an action plan for a service-learning project or conference 12:00- 1:00 Lunch - AMERICAN Room 1:00-2:30 Workshop #1 Continues in REGENCY A 2:45-4:00 Workshop #2 Joyce Griffith, Statewide Community-Business Director Electronic Data Systems Objectives: • distinguish communication techniques which can enhance or impede a collaborative process • discuss business ' role in a Michigan CARES project • share generated partnership ideas • discuss business constraints • identify the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce's Partnership Handbook as a model resource Workshop #3 - REGENCY A Karen Tice and John Seeley, Formative Evaluation Researc h Associates (FERA) Objectives: • present stakeholder-based evaluation • discuss FERA's history in relation to Michigan CARES, community foundations, and volunteer centers • outline CARES Phase II direction and purpose 6:00- 7:00 Dinner- AMERICAN Room �March 20 8:00-9:00 9:00-12:00 Continental Breakfast- Outside the MICHIGAN Room Workshop #4 - MICHIGAN Room Michelle Napier Dunnings, Project Innovations Objectives: • identify needed dynamics for an engaging presentation Breakout Rooms • clarify your CARES "story" Alpena- Waverly • develop a CARES timeline Flint- RegencY C Marquette - Regency D • develop a metaphor for your CARES project Muskegon -Ambassador • work on a Phase II objective by selecting an audience (business, Grand Rapids - Mackinac nonprofit, dissemination opportunity, educators, volunteers, etc.) Detroit- Regency A and creating an engaging presentation • present your developed program to the larger group • the larger group will identify trends and lessons learned after groups have presented � 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_1996-03-15_MI-CARES-Planning-Retreat Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: Planning Retreat Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: Planning Retreat. 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, 49758 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/268081481f676a8e12c6480ff21f18ab.pdf 2e969605970894ba7216060a4f4a002b PDF Text Text ... - ~ Michigan CARES: A First Year Evaluation funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service for the Michigan Community Service Commission December, 1995 •• sp E - . ~--, c :. '.:-.--:::_--~I Associates ® Social Program Evaluators and Consultants , Inc. One Kennedy Square· Swte 1230 • 719 Gn5wold • Oetro1t. M l 48226 • (313 ) 964 -0500 • Fa x f313 i 964 -0576 23 15 McClendon • Houston . TX 77030 • f71 3) 664 -7929 • (Phone and Fa x) �Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter Two: A Synthesis of the Six CARES Communities ...................................... 5 Chapter Three: Soutjlwest Detroit CARES: A Case Study ...................................... 20 . Chapter Four: Grand Rapids CARES: A ·Case Study ...............•............................ 33 Chapter Five: Muskegon CARES: A Case Study ................................................. 44 Chapter Six: Alpena CARES: Summary of Post Program Interviews ......................... 59 Chapter Seven: Flint CARES: Summary of Post Program Interviews ........................ 64 Chapter Eight: Marquette CARES: Summary of Post Program Interviews .................. 68 •• SPEC ADociate1 for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Finl Year EvaliUlrion �• ....... ·.· ·. •.·. Chapter One · Introduction and Metho~ology . ·.·.·.·.·.·······:•;;;:~;·;~]At~~~~~j~~~~:~=g,·" .· .. ·• . ..... \. ·: . :·: :~.·ijij§iiioJ tfil! r~J!(Jrt. . .; . . •• SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsl Y~ar Evaluarion . . . . . . : .:·:.: :. : : �Introduction Michigan Communities Accessing Resources to Engage in Service (CARES) is a national demonstration project intended to illustrate the effectiveness of a collaborative, community-based planning project for national and community service. Funded through a National Demonstration grant awarded by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and a grant from theW. K. Kellogg Foundation, this project is being implemented in six Michigan communities: Alpena, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Muskegon. The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) and the Michigan Community Service Commissiqn (MCSC) have collaborated on the development and implementation of this planning grant. Two third party evaluation firms have been hired to document the process. CMF contracted with FormativeEvaluation Research Associates (FERA) to evaluate the collaborative relationship between CMF and - ·· MCSC and the effects of the project on participating community foundations . MCSC contracted with SPEC Associates to evaluate the community collaboration process. The Community Collaboration Process Evaluation The evaluation goal of the community collaboration process was to advance knowledge in the field of community service/service learning. Evaluation by SPEC Associates involved three components: •• 1. Case Studies. Three site visits (preliminary, pre and post) to three CARES communities (Detroit, Grand Rapids, Muskegon) were conducted using face-to-face interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, including CARES Coordinators , local Community Foundation representatives, and local CARES Steering Committees. 1 2. Post-program On-Site Interviews. At the end of the grant year, face-to-face and focus group interviews were conducted with stakeholders in three CARES communities (Alpen~ , Flint, Marquette). 3. Synthesis of Results . In an attempt to identify patterns and trends in the community collaborative process , a synthesis of the data from the case studies and post-program interviews was conducted . The interviews focused on answering the follow ing questions: 1 o What is the history of collaboration/cooperation in your community? What other environmental factors impinge on the local CARES initiative? o Is this group seen as a legitimate body? Are political leaders , opinion-makers , represented on the committee? o How well does this group represent youth groups as stakeholders in the community? Although pre/post-site visits were planned , due to extraneous factors, pre-site visits occurred midway in the grant year. Thus interviewees answered questions at the pre-site visit retrospectively , which, to some extent, poses limitations on the study. Also , unlike Detroit or Grand Rapids , Muskegon had no preliminary site visit. SPEC Associa!es for MCSC Michigan CARES: A First Y~ar Evaluation 2 �o What is the relationship between community partners? Are members flexible? Able to compromise? Is there mutual respect, understanding, trust? Is there a feeling of ownership of the process and outcome? Is there open, frequent communication? How does it compare to other collaboratives you have been involved with? o How were community needs assessed? How does the Collaborative intertwine its vision with the principles of service-learning? What are the Collaborative's values? o How are decisions made? Who bas power in the group? Has power, representation or relationships shifted over time? o What implementation barriers/strengths occurred during the initiative's development? ·· o What lessons have been learned so far? o What outcomes do you expect to see? That is, how will the CARES' initiative impact the community? Long term? Short term? o Are service-learning practices integrated into the service and educational systems involved in the CARES' initiative? o What was the nature of technical support as provided by MCSC? o Are there any unanticipated consequences of the initiative? o What is your plan/vision for long term sustainment of the initiative? o Is there anything else you would like to say? Organization of this Report •• The results from this evaluation are presented in the remainder of this report. The report is organized in chapters .. Chapter 2 is a synthesis of data collected viz a viz the case studies and the post-program on...;site interviews . The attempt was to identify patterns and trends in the community collaborative process . The methodology consisted of content analysis and case-oriented comparative methods .2 Chapter 2 examines trends and patterns th-at emerged from the case studies and on-site post-program interviews of the six CARES initiatives . It also reviews the Michigan CARES grant criteria, and significant factors related to integrating service learning practices into other systems . Chapters 3, 4 , and 5 contain the case studies of Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Muskegon. Recall that these sites were visited three times (preliminary, pre, post). One-to-one interviews and focus groups were held with Community Foundation representatives , local CARES Coordinators , and CARES Steering Committee members. The interview data were content analyzed. 2 Ragin, C.C. (1989) . The Comparative Me thod Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. See chapter on Mill's method of agreement and indirect method of difference . SPEC Aaaociatcs for MCSC Michig011 CARES: A First Year Evaluation 3 �Chapters 6, 7, and 8 summarize the one day post-program site visits conducted with members of the Collaboratives in Alpena, Flint, and Marquette. Post program interviews and focus group questions were identical to those used in the case studies. Interpretations and recommendations are made throughout this report. Any conclusions or recommendations made in this report are those of SPEC Associates and are not meant to represent the opinions of any other individual or organization affiliated with this evaluation . •• SPEC A310Ciatea for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsl Year Evaluation 4 �Chapter Two · A Synthesis of the Six CARES_Communities This chapter contains a synthesis of the results gathered from the case studies and post-program on-site interviews _, · with the·six ·CARES communities. Contelil aiuilysts .and case comparative methodology was used. ·The chapter begins with the background of the six CARES · . •Communities. Next, results from the interview queStions are presented; the .Michigan CARES grant criteriti are discussed; and factors related to the integration of service learning are identified. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are offered. •• SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsr Y~ar Evaluarion �Background of the Michigan CARES Communities Michigan CARES grants were given to six communities in Michigan: Alpena, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Muskegon. Three were rural communities, and three were urban communities. Populations ranged from 30,000 to 200,000. Overwhelmingly, the six communities had been hit hard with economic troubles over the past twenty years. Some were further along than others with regard to economic re-development. To get a sense of similarities and differences across CARES Communities that would impact the implementation of the CARES grant, interviewees were asked about the history of collaboration in their community' and me factors they felt would impinge on the initiative. With the exception of one CARES community, historically little collaboration had taken place between social structures in the six communities. Even in the community where some collaboration had taken place, it was confined to the social services; government and other structures such as business and the unions, had not been involved. Characteristically, social structures, organizations, and agencies "did their own thing." If some joint endeavors took place, it was: o more cooperation than collaboration in the true sense of the word; 3 o around an issue, such as violence, rather than a broader vision, such as quality of life; o with the front line staff or lower level management rather than with the "movers and shakers;" and/or o within a social structure, such as among all the schools, rather than across social structures (e.g., schools, neighborhoods, religious organizations). CARES Communities reported that collaboration was not a concern in the past for reasons such as: turf issues; organizations focusing solely on survival ; fear that there would not be enough "clients" to go around; and lack of a common language. A more common reason cited by all organizations -- and perhaps the precursor to the reasons mentioned above-- was funding. A few years ago funding was based largely on a "competitive" process, where similar agencies had to compete against each other. •• Ironically, according to the CARES Communities, funding was also the catalyst that put collaboration . on the community agenda. Around the late eighties and early nineties, funders began to require "collaboration" as a pre-requisite to funding, concerned that they were funding duplicative efforts. Across all CARES Communities, interviewees reported that collaboration in the non-profit community was funder-driven . Simultaneously to this change in funding , there was a change in the community zeitgeist. Acknowledging the hard economic times , people began to see the benefits of sharing resources and ideas. Collaboration .. . "is a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals .. . The relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards. • Mattessich, P. W. & Monsey, B. R. (1992) . Collaborarion: Whar Makes ir Work. A Review of Research Lirerarure on Facrors Influencing Successful Collaboration . St. Paul , Minnesota: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A First Y~ar Evaluation 6 �Many external factors that impinged upon the six CARES initiatives were indigenous to their own communities. One CARES Collaborative cited "a strict conservative atmosphere" as an external factor that impinged upon their efforts, setting the stage for posturing between social structures. Another CARES Collaborative reported that poor transportation made it difficult for stakeholders to meet and organize. Not surprisingly, rural CARES communities cited geography as an infringement. Isolation spawned bureaucratic challenges such as dealing with several dispersed independent districts. Also, large geographic areas posed transportation challenges to these rural communities. Results from the Interviews What is tlu vision of the CARES Collaborative? Can you articulDte tlu Colloborative 's vDiues? How does tlu Collaborative intertwine its vision with the principles of service-learning? Are practices integrated into the service and educational systems involved in the CARES' irntWtiv~? CARES Communities envisioned strengthening existing and/or creating new local efforts in volunteerism, ultimately to enhance the community's quality of life. The most common way communities implemented this vision was to create (or strengthen) an "entity" that would support or promote volunteerism. In two CARES Communities, the entities were a physical structure: a volunteer center and a community resource center. In three CARES Communities, the entities were more interpersonal networking: an ongoing community-wide sounding board , a youth development network, and an ongoing formal CARES committee. One CARES initiative implemented its vision by creating a volunteer planning document from a broad-based needs assessment. Ideally, these entities were envisioned to provide services to the community such as information, training or matching volunteers with projects; and/or they were envisioned to be a catalyst for community problem solving, networking, etc. They were also to promote volunteerism in their communities , create opportunities, and in some cases implement projects. A major assumption for most of the CARES Communities was that the "entity" would embrace and provide support for community service/service learning -- where both the community and the volunteer would benefit from the service. In fact , four of the six communities implemented service learning projects over the grant year. These included college students visiting nursing homes; teen activities ; beautification projects; neighborhood clean-ups; water testing, and so on. •• During the grant year, only two communities went beyond the vision and the project, and actually integrated service learning practices into other systems . Both managed to institute new practices and new relationships within and across institutions . For example, one Collaborative piloted a job shadowing program for ninth graders involving both the teachers and students within the schools , and mentors from local businesses. This model is being adopted by the school , as a new community "school to work " initiative. This Collaborative was also lobbying for changes in city ordinances so that youth were permitted to skateboard in the city. Similarly. one Collaborative organized a foliage beautification project in the community. This project has since been routin ized in the schools , in concert with support from a local non-profit. They are also in the process of instituting ongoing peer mentoring and tutoring in the schools which would involve another community non-profit. In addition to creating new relationships and practices, both of these Collaboratives reported utilizing the principles of service-learning within their own planning and implementation efforts . This included reflection time at the end of Collaborative meetings or at the end of a service learning project; reevaluation of an adult/youth committee structure to ensure representation of the youth voice: and celebration of volunteer efforts such as breaking bread together and writing press releases . SPEC Associat.:s for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Finl r.,ar E valuation 7 �How were community needs assessed? Overwhelmingly, community needs were assessed by relying on input from the Steering Committee members, recent related documents, and/or input from the community at large. Most CARES communities narrowed the scope of the needs assessment to the concept ofvolunteerism . They asked about needs in the volunteer community: What kind of volunteers does your organization need? What volunteer support services would benefit your organization? Does your organization train volunteers? How? What interventions would best strengthen the volunteer initiatives in the community? From this information, most began to create a structure or entity to meet these volunteer needs. Two communities took a different tactic. They asked the community to identify and prioritize local problems. From these prioritized problems, they created a volunteer entity and/or service learning project(s) to address these identified community problems, which resulted in strengthening volunteerism in the community ~tself. Interestingly, these two CARES communities were the sanie two that managed to integrate service learning practiceS into other systems. Is the Steering Committee seen as a legitinwle body? Are political leaders, and/or opinion-makers, represenJed? How weU does iJ represenJ youth groups, stakeholders in the community? With the exception of one CARES initiative that did not have a committee, CARES Communities brought together a Steering Committee of stakeholders from the volunteer community. According to interviewees, each community represented a legitimate body: collaboratives were a mixture of leaders, middle management and line staff from non-profits, youth organizations, and schools. However, political leaders, opinion-makers, other "movers and shakers" were not necessarily part of the group . As a representative body, Steering Committees weighed heavily on the side of tradition. The schools, social service non-profits, volunteer non-profits, youth groups, etc. were well represented. Most Collaboratives were less representative of the non-traditional : community-based and/or neighborhood organizations , religious groups , minority groups , the business community, and/or the volunteers, adults and youth, themselves. This is not to say the Collaboratives did not try to solicit these groups, or that they did not get some input from these groups . Many lacked strong linkages or a heritage to these non-traditional groups , which made it difficult to gain their involvement . •• .What is the relationship between community partners? Are members flexible? Able to. compromise? 1s there mutual respect, understanding, trust? Is there a feeling of ownership of the process and outcome? Is there open, frequenJ communication? How does iJ compare to other collaboratives you have been involved with? Partnerships formed within five of the Collaboratives involved the local Community Foundation, the CARES Coordinator and a Steering Committee (recall that one Collaborative did not form a Steering Committee) . Partnerships varied from four to over thirty people . Regardless of numbers , only two of the five CARES Communities reported no real problems with partnerships over time. This was not to say that these two collaboratives did not experience some tension (as was the norm for CARES Communities), but, it did not dominate the process. nor did it last long. According to these interviewees , mutual respect, understanding , trust, and ownership were high from beginning to end. The other partnerships - while feeling there was respect --experienced major tensions , lack of understanding , varying perceptions of group processes, lack of trust, and varying levels of ownership. These perceptions changed little over time . Dynamics were usually divided along the lines of roles, SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsi Year Evaluation 8 �., e.g., between the local foundation and CARES coordinator, or between the Steering Committee and the local foundation, or among all three. All of the Collaboratives reported similar communication structures. There was formal communication: meetings, minutes of those meetings, information packages, etc. However, collaboratives seemed to differ on quality and quantity of communication over time. For the two collaboratives where tension was at a minimum or absent, there was ongoing, formal communication among all parties involved. Meetings, for example, were a priority. They were scheduled frequently, (i.e., once a week), and/or members understood that meetings would be on demand.• One Collaborative, in particular, reported that they were constantly re-visiting their mission so that communication problems were kept at a minimum. Members of these two Collaboratives were well · informed, and unconcerned about communication protocol. For the other CARES Collaboratives, where real tensions existed between partners - while reportedly having similar communication strUctures - there was less communication between groups, and invariably there were communication problems of some kind between partners. One bone of contention was communication protocol. Who was to communicate to whom? There were problems with clarity, mixed messages, and differing perceptions. In one Collaborative, the CARES Coordinator was perceived as a "great" facilitator by the Steering Committee members, but a "poor" one by the local foundation. Some felt uninformed. Some members of one Collaborative had never seen or endorsed the initiative's strategic plan. Meetings were less frequent in comparison to the two aforementioned Collaboratives; in fact, in one collaborative. a formal meeting had not been called since February 1995. These communication processes and perceptions did not shift much over time. How are decisions made? Who has power in the group? Has power, representation or relationships shifted over time? Characteristically, most CARES Collaboratives reported that they made decisions through a democratic process . Processes ranged from -- formal, ongoing re-visiting of the mission until consensus was reached - to a majority vote - to informal discussions whereupon partners just naturally fell into agreement. In one Collaborative, however , according to the Steering Committee, this democratic process did not . _apply. -Steering Committee members felt they were utilized in an advisory capacity. Actu.al decision•• making was limited to the local foundation and the CARES Coordinator. Inasmuch as this particular scenario seems a deviant case compared to the democratic processes reported by the others, a constant theme rang throughout most of the CARES Collaboratives: most perceived that the local foundation held the purse strings not only to the CARES initiative, but other initiatives as well. To members, this meant clout and final decision-making power. Ironically , while typically it appeared that the local foundation's clout brought people to the table, it also appeared to inhibit the openness of the process . This "authority" played out in three ways . In some situations the local foundation took a hands off approach ; Collaborative members barely had contact with them, and did not feel inhibited to make their own decisions . In most situations though , the local foundation took a hands on approach and/or was more visible. Typically, members did not feel that the local foundation wielded their power, but members were sensitive to it, conveying that they did not want to "burn their bridges" with the local As one collaborative member reiterated, "We had a rule. If you could not go yourself. send someone else . · SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firs/ Year Evaluation 9 �foundation. In the situation were the CARES Steering Committee was used only in an advisory capacity, however, members felt intimidated by the local foundation's clout, were anxious not to cross them, and hence kept much of their thoughts to themselves. These perceptions remained over time. What implementation barriers/strengths were identified during the developmenJ of CARES? Collaborative members were asked about barriers and strengths that influenced the implementation of CARES. As expected, some barriers and strengths were indigenous to the Collaborative itself. For example, one Collaborative mentioned a rift between two major stakeholders as a barrier; and two Collaboratives spoke about liability issues that bogged down their process . Rural co~unities perceived their small community as a strength to implementation because everyone knew everyone else. Common strengths and barriers across CARES Collaboratives included: Strengths: o The design of the grant allowed for flexibility and financial support. MCSC gave communities a "blank sheet," and a sense of safe environment in which to plan and act without fear of reprisal. A planning grant where communities were able to hire a CARES Coordinator took the burden off of staff who might otherwise have to take on CARES work along with their other duties. o The design of the grant also legitimized the opportunity to bring people together across lines that usually do not - or might never - cross. It created a legitimate opportunity to learn about each other and build relationships for collaboration. o Collaborative members learned a great deal about each other, other stakeholders in the community, and other organizational cultures. Barriers: •• o There was ambiguity surrounding the mission of the Michigan CARES initiative and what grantees were supposed to be doing. Overwhelming, Collaboratives felt that it was unclear as to what MCSC wanted or expected of them. 0 · There was a lack of linkages and/or common understandings among partners, including MCSC. MCSC , though well intended, did not seem to understand the nature of community organizing or the role and culture of community foundations. This impeded general communication and sensitivity to community issues such as a small organization's limited ability to participate without being compensated . In addition. many "traditional" stakeholders lacked linkages to minority or church groups , or non-traditional groups such as community-based neighborhood associations. This impacted member outreach . Also , Collaboratives reported spending time on issues of "political correctness, " (e .g ., being sensitive to racial/ethnic terms) . o Collaboratives perceived the CARES ' time line as too short. Starting collaborations from the "ground up " is very time and energy consuming . o Collaboration was a more difficult process for smaller organizations, who could not often afford to lend their staff without some compensation. SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsl Y<'ar E valuation 10 �o During implementation, core members or groups changed composition. Collaboratives reported that this slowed down the process. As a result, Collaboratives spent a lot of time re~rienting and re-focusing members. o Lack of a common definition or vision of "service learning" and "volunteerism" bogged down the process. Members, stakeholders, and the community at large, often had different pictures of what service learning was. Some stakeholders or potential stakeholders saw the concept as narrow, (e.g., tied to the schools). Others saw it as a broad concept, (e.g., helping clean up a neighborhood). One Collaborative struggled with whether adjudicated youth, who were required to do community service, fell into the definition of "service learning" or "volunteer." Some envisioned volunteetism as requiring a lot of administrative money. Some had a stereotype of the volunteer: "someone who goes into the Red Cross and stuffs envelopes." Typically, . this lack of a common vision or language impacted support and buy-in, impairing outreach to minority groups ~ community-based organizations, and potential funders. o Communication was a barrier. Unclear lines of communication, e.g., not knowing the proper communication protocol (between MCSC, CARES Coordinator and the local foundations) was cited as a problem in the majority of CARES communities. o Turf issues were a barrier. Almost all of the Collaboratives had to work through (or were still working through) turf issues. What lessons have been learned so far? Collaborative interviewees were asked to share with other potential CARES communities, lessons from their own experience. Common lessons included: o Building a sense of purpose that is owned takes time. It requires a substantial investment in relationsh ip building . 0 Do your homework up front. Get clarity about the grant's purpose the funders. Most Collaboratives felt they wasted time trying to figure out and clarify expectations from MCSC . This only served to frustrate players and bog down the process . As a solution, one CARES Coordinator interviewed MCSC to clarify the CARES' mission. Also , Collaboratives mentioned the need to try to anticipate unexpected outcomes or problems with the projects . For example, one Collaborative set up a mural painting project for a day only to find out later that an extra day was needed for primer. o A full-time person is needed for CARES. This person not only needs time to do outreach , organize and implement, but also to provide continuity and build a history. o People need to go into CARES with an open mind . Representatives need to be open to sharing information , state their agendas up front , and be able to listen to others ' needs and problems without judgement. o Do not try to do too many service learning projects at the same time. In most instances , Collaboratives either felt inhibited by the projects themselves -- believing them to be secondary to their CARES initiative -- or they became overwhelmed trying to implement too many projects at once. - SPEC Associates for MCSC Mich igan CARES: A First Y~ar Evaluarion 11 �, Whot outcomes do you aped to see, that is lww will the CARES' initUJtive impad the communityt Long tenn? Slwl1 tenn? CARES Collaboratives anticipated many outcomes over the grant year. Many were specific, applying only to their own service learning projects or collaborative vision. One Collaborative wanted to see a community-wide volunteer center up and running; another Collaborative wanted to see cleaner neighborhoods and less gang violence. Common anticipated outcomes across most CARES Collaboratives included: o o o o O· o o o o Widespread awareness of volunteerism/service learning. Less tension and more cohesion among community players. New partnerships, new doors opened, new paths created. Increased collaboration. Teams of volunteers to work on a project. Increased participation of youth and adults in volunteer/service learning efforts. Increase in learning and understanding of others. Collaboration between non-profits and schools. Enhanced quality of life in the community. Not surprisingly, Collaboratives had difficulty accomplishing all envisioned outcomes within the grant year. Generally, relationship outcomes such as less tension between partners, new contacts with the community, and learning about other stakeholders were achieved by all Collaboratives. Half of the Collaboratives accomplished their major goal: creating an entity to support volunteerism; facilitating the adoption of service learning projects into other organizations; or creating a planning document. Half of the Collaboratives accomplished some intermediary steps towards their major goal, such as procuring a joint funding venture for a volunteer center; organizing a kickoff conference for a youth development network; or beginning renovations of a physical space for a community resource center. Are there any unanticipated consequences of the initilJtive? Collaborative members were asked about unanticipated consequences of the initiative, that is, outcomes that were a surprise to them. Two common unanticipated outcomes were gleaned: •• o Collaboration takes much more than a year . 0 There were many people from outside of the initiative who wanted to connect with the Collaborative. For example, Collaboratives received unexpected help with their service learning projects from others in the community, and/or they were asked to participate in other community projects or with others on a grant. What was the nature of technical support as provided by MCSC? When asked about the provision of technical suppon by MCSC , three common themes emerged : o MCSC staff were accessible and very willing to help . MCSC staff readily visited the communities. and were helpful in providing key resources for projects . o Although well intentioned , MCSC staff were naive about community and foundation roles and processes . SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firs/ Y~!ar E valuation 12 �o When communicating with the Collaboratives, MCSC staff were ambiguous about the purpose of the CARES grant and what they expected of the Collaboratives. What is your plan/vision for long tenn sustainment of tlu initiative? Based on Collaborative interviews, three patterns of sustainment emerged. Collaboratives envisioned relying on: o Member organizations to provide resources and in-kind support; o Payment for services provided to the community, e.g., rent money, buying package; and/or 0 The institutionalization of the "concept" within other organizations, e.g. , service learning project becomes part of the school's usual activities. a training Summary of CARES Communities Table 1 summarizes the state of the CARES Communities at the end of the grant year viz a viz their structures and outcomes. An "X" denotes the presence of the characteristic, a blank denotes absence. TABLE 1: Structures and Outcomes Across CARES Communities Characteristics 1 2 3 4 Steering Committee X X X X Service Learning Projects X X Formal Communication Links X X Hands-on Role by Foundation - 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Achieved Relational Outcomes X X Achieved Non-relational Outcomes X X 6 X X X As Table 1 shows, common characteristics of the collaboratives were formal communication links and achievement of relational outcomes . Collaboratives differed in whether they had a Steering Committee, the extent to which they implemented service learning projects , and the extent to which the foundations played a hands-on role in the process . SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsr Year Evaluarion 13 �Michigan CARES Grant Criteria A checklist of criteria for Michigan CARES grant applicants included the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) replicable model, measurability, reliance of volunteers of all ages, collaboration, community-based planning, service-learning, sustainability, and youth involvement. Examination of the CARES grant criteria indicates that Collaboratives were successful , for the most part, incorporating the CARES criteria into their initiatives. Endeavors were replicable -replicable in the sense that a process could be reproduced, an organizational structure could be replicated, and/or projects could be mimicked in other communities . Similarly, each CARES community had measurable outcomes , (e.g., relational outcomes, service-learning projects, new structures in place, etc.). Most focused on service of both youth and adult volunteers. All CARES Communities had some form of collaboration with member(s) in the community. In some instances collaboration was limited to two players, in other instances it involved a broad-base of traditional volunteer stakeholders (e.g ., the school systems and non-profits). Still in other instances , collaboration involved traditional and non-traditional sectors such as the business community. Community-based planning occurred in all CARES Communities. For example, all CARES Communities sought some kind of input from the community, in the form of focus groups , sitting on committees, open community forums and so on. Actual community-based decision-making in the planning process occurred in four CARES Communities. With the exception of one community , service-learning was integrated in one way or another into the initiative. Albeit, there were qualitative differences. Most CARES Communities built, or were building, an entity to help nunure service-learning in their community (e.g ., creation of a volunteer center to ·match students and projects, or the creation of a youth development network to· strengthen •• ·youth resources, training and networking). Most did projects that were of a service-learning nature, such as college students working with the aged in .nursing homes ; or beautification projects implemented by youth. While initiatives clearly valued service-learning, nonetheless , most service learning projects were single events and/or the Collaborative was in the beginning stages of creating a supportive structure that would bring service-learning to the forefront. Only two CARES Communities managed to make actual changes in institutional practices and relationships that reflected service learning. One community created a job shadowing project for ninth graders to be adopted by the schools in their "school to work " initiative . Another CARES Community created a beautification service-learning project that was adopted by a local school in concert with a non-profit organization. Sustainability was formally attained by only three Collaboratives. They had in place written agreements of commitment by organizations to sustain the initiative. One Collaborative procured a joint funding venture with another stakeholder so that a volunteer center could be funded for three years . Another Collaborative had agreements from two organizations to provide administrative support to the CARES Steering and Advisory Committee. The third Collaborative had a service learning project integrated into the school system. CARES Communities which had no formal SPEC Asso.:iates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firsl Yt>ar Evaluation 14 �commitments in place envisioned member organizations donating staff and resources; and/or sustainability through services rendered to the community, such as volunteer training. Youth involvement seemed to be the least well met criteria. In general, most of the CARES initiatives had indirect involvement from youth viz a viz youth groups. However, only half of the Collaboratives had youth attend meetings, and only two had youth involved in the actual planning. Table 2 summarizes the implementation of the Michigan CARES grant criteria according to each CARES site. An "X" in the box denotes presence of the criteria, a blank denotes absence. TABLE 2: Michigan CARES Criteria According to CARES Communities CARES Communities s 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Service-learning X X X X X Community-based Planning X X X X X 3 Criteria 1 2 Youth X X Replicable X X X Sustainability X X X Collaboration X X Measurability X All Ages 4 X X Factors Related to the Integration of Service Learning •• - Recall that the vision of the CARES Collaboratives was to strengthen volunteerism/service learning in these communities in order to improve the quality of life. Of import to MCSC was the extent to which Collaboratives integrated service learning pr.actices into other systems such as the service and school systems. As mentioned earlier, only two Collaboratives achieved this goal during the grant year . An important question is why these two Collaboratives and not the others? What factors were key in facilitating this integration? Utilizing a case comparative method , Collaboratives were divided into two groups : those that were successful at integrating service learning practices and those that were not. Next, a list of factors was gleaned from the interview data presented above. Finally , Collaboratives were assessed individually according to the presence or absence of these factors. The assumption was that only those factors that were present in the "successful" Collaboratives and absent in the "unsuccessful" Collaboratives were key to the outcome of integrating service learning practices into other systems. Thus , if one factor was present in the two "successful" Collaboratives , and present in only one "unsuccessful" Collaborative. this factor was ruled out as a predictor of success. SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firs/ Yt>ar Evaluation 15 �Table 3 below, displays the loading of the factors. It appears that five factors are key in successful integration of service learning into other systems. These are: (1) relationships in the community already built prior to the CARES process; (2) a prior history with MCSC; (3) good communication between all players involved in the Collaborative; (4) mutual understanding, respect and trust among partners; and (5) a needs assessment that focused on community problems rather than the needs of the volunteer community. TABLE 3: Relationship of Factors to Integration of Service Learning Practices CARES Communities s s u u u u No history of collaboration. X x . X X X X Bridges already built prior to CARES . X X Prior relationship with MCSC. X X Shared decision-making. X X X n.a. X Good communication. X X Community-based input into planning. X X Community-based planning. X X Service Learning incorporated into vision . X X Needs Assessment based on Community Problems. X X Mutual respect, trust, and understanding. X X FACTORS: S U n.a. - n.a. X X X X X X n.a . X X X X n.a. = Successful at integrating service learning practices into other ·systems . = Not successful at integrating service learning practices into other systems . = Not applicable . .Summary and Recommendations Over the grant year the six Michigan CARES communities made significant inroads in enhancing volunteerism in their communities for the purpose of strengthening their community. Relationship outcomes such as less tension between partners , new contacts with the community, and learning about other stakeholders were achieved by all Collaboratives. Half of the Collaboratives accomplished their major goal. such as creating an entity to support volunteerism; integrating service learning projects into other organizations; or creating a planning document . Half of the Collaboratives accomplished some intermediary steps towards accomplishing their major goal , such as procuring joint funding for a volunteer center; organizing a kickoff conference for a youth development network; and beginning renovations for a physical space for a community resource center. In general, Collaboratives were successful in meeting most or the CARES criteria established by MCSC for grant applicants. Collaboratives were replicable, measurable, and focused on all ages for the most part. All sought planning input from the community. Collaboration occurred in all .commul}ities , albeit with variation: some with only two partners , others with over thirty. Youth involvement occurred in half of the Collaboratives, but only two of these involved the youth in actual SPEC Associales for MCSC Michigan CARES: A First Y~ar Evaluation 16 �.. • decision-making. All Collaboratives had plans for sustainability through member organizations donating staff and resources, services rendered to the community, and/or institutionalizing the "concept" within other organizations. Half of the Collaboratives managed to secure sustainment. With the exception of one community, service-learning was integrated in one way or another into the initiative. Albeit, there were qualitative differences . Most CARES Communities built an entity to help nurture service-learning in their community, such as the creation of a volunteer center to match students and projects, or the creation of a youth development network to strengthen youth resources, training and networking. Most did projects that were of a service-learning nature (e.g., college students working with the aged in nursing homes; beautification projects implemented by youth) . While initiatives clearly valued service-learning, nonetheless, most service learning projects were single events and/or the Collaborative was in the beginning stages of creating a supportive structure that would bring service-learning to the forefront. Only two CARES Communities managed to make actual changes in institutional practices and relationships that reflected service learning. · One : community created a job shadowing program for ninth graders involving business mentors. It is being adopted by the school in a "school to work" initiative. Another CARES Community created a beautification service-learning project that was adopted by a local school in concert with a non-profit. Based on comparative case methodology, factors that appear to be related to the integration of service learning practices are: (1) relationships in the community already built prior to the CARES process (including a prior history with MCSC); (2) good communication between all players involved in the Collaborative; (3) mutual understanding, respect and trust among partners; and (4) needs assessments focused on community problems rather than needs of volunteers . Collaboratives were well represented in the traditional sense of the volunteer community. Steering Committees were made up of social service and volunteer non-profits , youth organizations, and the schools. They often lacked representation from the more non-traditional groups such as community-based and/or neighborhood organizations, religious and minority groups, the business community , the youth and volunteers themselves , and "movers and shakers" in the community. Lack of strong linkages to these non-traditional groups appeared to be a theme across all sites. -- With one exception, Collaborative decision-making was shared. No one dominated the process -although Collaboratives were aware that the Community Foundation held the purse strings to the CARES initiatives and others they might be involved in. Some expressed not wanting to "burn their ·bridges" with the local foundation. This perceived clout reportedly inhibited the openness of the process in one Collaborative. Members were unwilling to disclose their feelings for fear of reprisal. Examination of group processes such as trust, understanding, and open communication suggested that difficulty in this area was more the norm than the exception. Only two CARES Collaboratives reported no real problems communicating with partners; trust and ownership was high among members . Other Collaboratives reported ongoing turf issues , tensions between partners , Jack of trust and understanding, and /or poor communication. Group processes changed little over time. Common barriers of the six Collaboratives included : (1) ambiguity of the mission of Michigan CARES ; (2) lack of linkages and/or common understandings among partners; (3) the time the process consumed; (4) the changing composition of core groups ; (5) lack of a common definition or vision of service learning; (6) communication and (7) turf issues . Strengths included : (1 ) the grant design which allowed for flexibility ; (2) the legitimate opportunity to tiring people across lines that may not otherwise be crossed; and (3) the learning about each other. SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A First Year Evaluation 17 �I 4 Collaboratives felt that although MCSC staff were well intentioned, available, and resourceful, they were not clear communicating their expectations to the CARES grantees, nor were they well versed in community and foundation roles and cultures. Collaboratives were asked about lessons they could share with other potential CARES grantees. Common lessons included: (1) building a sense of purpose takes time; (2) it is important to do your homework up front by clarifying expectations of funders and anticipating unexpected problems with service learning projects; (3) not to do too many projects at once; (4) a full time person is needed for CARES; and (5) people need to go into the process with an open mind. In summary, all six Collaboratives made significant inroads in enhancing volunteerism/service learning for the purpose of strengthening their community. All Collaboratives achieved relational outcomes. Half of the Collaboratives achieved their (non-relational) anticipated outcomes within the year . Most Collaboratives managed to infuse service learning into their missions and/or complete service learning projects. Only two, however, managed to integrate serv.ice learning practices into other systems, and within their own processes. This significant outcome appeared to be related to (1 ) pre-existing relationships ; (2) good communication; (3) mutual understanding, respect and trust among partners; and (4) needs assessments focused on community issues rather than volunteer issues. Interestingly, such factors as prior relationships , good communication, mutual respect, understanding, and trust have also been identified as key factors in the research literature on collaboration.5 - Since relationships (past and current) appear to be central for CARES and other collaboratives to be successful, relationship outcomes should not be minimized. In fact, perhaps outcomes from the different Collaboratives should be viewed within the context of the stage of their relationships. For example, Dr. Scott Peck (1987) , in his book A Different Drum, Community Making and Peace, suggests that there are four stages that groups go through to become a community: Stage I where people are polite, but not necessarily honest; Stage II where people are honest, but try to influence others to their point of view; Stage Ill where people go inward and question their values , their need to control , etc. ; and Stage IV where people just listen and share without judgement or agendas. Using this context, one might say that two of the Collaboratives were at Stages III or IV ; the others at Stages I and II prior to CARES . Different outcomes might be postulated according to the stage of the community. For example, if the CARES Community has no prior relationships, then this might be an intermediate outcome that needs to be achieved before service learning can be integrated into other systems. Hence, legitimate success for this Collaborative, in Stage I or II might be simply relationship building. As one interviewee stated intuitively: "Is there enough legacy out there for other communities to build a CARES initiative? " Based on the evaluation findings , the following recommendations are offered: o Utilize community issues as a means to strengthen volunteerism/community service. While most CARES communities started life with a focus on volunteer issues , intending to create mechanisms to address these issues , the most successful CARES communities began with identified community problems and then created (or strengthened) volunteer mechanisms to address these community issues . 5 Mattessich, P. W. & Monsey, B. R. ( 1992). Collaboration: Mar Makes it Work. A Review of Rl?Search Lirerarure on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration . St. Paul , Minnesota: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation . SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A First Y<'ar Evaluation 18 �...., . - o Funders should value relationship outcomes. Data suggests that relational outcomes are key to the success of CARES and other collaboratives. However, building bridges takes time. CARES relationships did not shift over a period of three to four months. In the most successful Collaboratives, relationships had been long established between the local Community Foundation, the CARES Coordinator, and MCSC . o CARES success might best be interpreted within the context or an incremental (or a spiraling up) process. Research suggests that certain relational legacies, external factors such as political favorableness, good communication, etc. need to be in place before other outcomes can occur. Thus, success for one CARES initiative might be defined differently from success for another, depending .upon the ini~ial situation. o Players who have clout, in particular the local Community Foundation, ·need to ·_ · be sensitive to their influence on the _collaborative process. Although most decision-making was shared, §Eill CARES members were aware of who held the power in the group, and somtA.vere wary of it. In some situations, this had no impact, in other situations members were mindful not to bum bridges with the powers that be, and still in another community, members were not willing to disclose their concerns for fear of reprisal . Interestingly, problems of power differential in groups have been documented in the literature. Research suggests that training partners to heighten their awareness of this issue and to heighten the "assertiveness" of less powerful partners can be a viable solution to the perceived lack of equality.6 o To do technical assistance, MCSC staff need to orient themselves to the cultures and processes associated with the partnerships. Members rarely used MCSC for technical assistance because members felt MCSC lacked understanding of the local Community Foundation culture and community organizing. o Most Collaboratives could benefit rrom training or technical assistance in managing conflict. Relationship is a key factor in the collaborative process; most collaboratives had difficulty with tensions between stakeholders. Conflict management skill building could help the Collaboratives to develop more quickly or more solidly . 0 Collaboratives need to rocus on building linkages to non-traditional entities . Typically, Collaboratives lacked representation from religious groups, communitybased and neighborhood organizations, minority groups , the business community, unions, etc. To be truly community-owned , these groups should be represented . Collaboratives are not easy . Regardless of how much or how little history communities have building relationships , there are always snags , misunderstandings , new situations to contend with , and ambiguity . A few of the members who had experience in building collaboration seem to accept, more so than others , that building sustainable relationships involves hard work and some level of discomfort and ambiguity . The CARES Collaboratives are to be commended for embarking on such a difficult and worthwhile task. After only one year , it may be too soon to estimate the impact of their efforts. Given the time it takes to build true collaboration, the outcomes of Michigan CARES may not be apparent for years to come. 6 Beck, A . (1985). Dissertlltion Abstracts. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. SPEC Associates for MCSC Michigan CARES: A Firs/ Year Evaluation 19 � 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_1996-03-15_MI-CARES-A-First-Year-Evaluation Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: A First Year Evaluation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: A First Year Evaluation. 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, 49757 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 1996-03-15 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1a998cbec0823ecae5570eef2ed31c12.pdf 127b177e42ea4b8c834310954686a629 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN CARES A FINAL EVALUATION REPORT November 1994 to December 1995 • Submitted by: Karin E . Tice, Ph.D. Senior Associate FERA Formative Evaluation Research Associates 6111 Jackson Road, Suite 124-5 Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 31 3/994-9060 FAX: 313/994-9088 �! TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .... .... ... ... .... .. ........ ... .................... ..... .. ....... .... .............. .. .. .. ... ..... ....... .. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..... .. .... ........... .. .............. .. ......... .·.. .... ... ...... .......... ....... ...... ... . 2 EVALUATION PURPOSES, QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES .... .. ..... .. ........ ... ..... _....... 3 Purposes .. .... .... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ....... .... .... ........ .. ... ... .. .. .. ..... .. ... ..:... ... ..... ...... ,.... ....... ... .. ... . 3 Questions .. .... ..... .. ... ... .. .. .... .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. ..... ... ... ..... .. .. ... ........................ ....... ... .... ..... ... .. 4 Activities ... ... .. ....... .. .. ...... ..... .......... .... ..... ... ."... ... .... .... ..... .. .. ... .... ...... ............. ... ... ... .. .... 4 PROJECT STRENGTHS .. .... .. ... ... .. ........... .. .. ... ..... .. ..... ... .. ..... ... .. ...... ... .... ............ .... ..... . 5 PROJECT DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES .. ... ... .... .... ........ ... ......... .... .... ........ .... .. 6 IMP ACTS ON COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS .... ....... .. ............... ... ... .... ..... .. ..... .... ..... 7 COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS AS FACILITATORS AND CONVENORS .... ........ ... 8 Implementing CARES ... ... .... .. ............ ........... ... ... ...... .... ... ..... ... ... .... ....... ... ... ..... ... .... ... 8 Facilitator/Convenor Role ... ...... .. .......... ...... .... ... .. .. .... ... .............. ..... .... .......... ...... .. .... .. 9 Lessons Learned ....... ........ .. ................ ... .... ........... .. ............... ... .. ... .. .. ....... ..... ............ 10 Technical Assistance Needs .. .. ........ .... .. .. ... ..... ... .... .. ... .... .. ............... .. ...... ... .... .... ... .... 11 ISSUES ....... .... :... ... ... ..... ... ...... ... ..... ........ .... ... ..... .......... ... .... .. ... ..... ...... .. ..... ....... .... .... ... 13 REC01\1MENDATIONS ... ..... ... .......... ...... ... ... ........ .. ... ....... ......... .... ... ..... .... ..... .. ..... .... 15 COLLABORATION BETWEEN MCSC AND CMF .... ... ..... ...... ...... .... ...... ...... ... ... .. .... 16 • SUMMAR¥ .... ......... ......... ... ........... ..... ... .. ... .. ..... ............. ... .. ....... ..... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ........ 17 Project Strengths and Difficulties .. .... .... ....... ...... .. .... .. .. ... ... ..... .... .......... .... .... ..... ........ 17 Community Foundations as Facilitators and Convenors ........ ... ... ...... ............ ......... .... . 18 MCSC and CMF Collaborate .... ......... ........ .......... ... ........ .... ....... .................. .... .. ...... .. 20 Project Impacts ............. ...... ........... .. ..... .... ......... ...... ...... .... ... ..... ...... .... ... ... ... ...... ... ... . 20 APPENDIX A: Program Strengths Difficulties and Challenges APPENDIXB : Issues Inventory APPENDIXC: Recommendations �Fonnarive Evaluation Research Associates ~ INTRODUCTION Michigan CARES (Communities Accessing Resources to Engage in Service) serves as a national demonstration project to test the effectiveness of a collaborative, community-based planning process for national and community service. The project is a partnership between the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Council of Michigan Foundations (C:MF). Funded by federal dollars secured through a National Demonstration grant awarded by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and a $495,000 grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation this project is being implemented in six Michigan communities (Alpena, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Muskegon). The community foundation in each of these communities received CARES monies and hired a community coordinator to work with them on this project. If successful, the project could serve as a model that could be replicated around the state and throughout the nation. Two evaluation firms have been contracted to provide evaluation services. CMF contracted with FERA (Formative Evaluation Research Associates) to evaluate the collaborative relationship between CMF and MCSC and the effects of the project on • participating community foundations. MCSC contracted with SPEC Associates to evaluate the community collaboration process. This report first describes the Michigan CARES project and FERA's evaluation purposes, questions and activities. Next, project strengths, obstacles and issues are presented. Finally, recommendations for project improvement are offered and the collaborative relationship between MCSC and CMF is reviewed. This document combines evaluation information from an interim evaluation report, providing formative feedback to the project, with findings related to the impact of the project. Five sections were written mid-project and provided feedback to project staff participants and funders when they were developing a proposal to MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 1 �FEJtA Formative Evaluation Rtu110rch Associates fund a second phase of the project. These sections are based on formative data collection activities (see Activities in Evaluation Purposes, Questions and Activities section). They are: Project Strengths, Project Difficulties and Challenges, Issues, Recommendations and Collaboration between MCSC and CMF. The sections on Impacts on Community Foundations and Community Foundations as Facilitators and Convenors are based on follow-up interviews. PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1988 and subsequently in 1991 the Council of Michigan Foundations received two challenge grants ($2 million and $35 million respectively) from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to implement the Community Foundation Youth Project. The specific purposes of these challenge grants were to develop community foundations and to promote the involvement of youth in philanthropy and volunteerism. Part of the original vision for this project was to strengthen community foundations to the point that they could serve as vehicles for convening community leaders to address regional problems at the grassroots level. The hope was that larger funders could collaborate with this strong network of community foundations on a wide-range of issues. The Michigan CARES project has been the first opportunity to implement such a collaboration. Indeed, the Michigan CARES • project is a "first" in a number of ways. It was the first time that: 1. An organization like the Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) has collaborated with governmental organizations, the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC), the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), and a private foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, to fund and implement a project; 2. MCSC has funded and implemented a primarily process-based as opposed to a primarily outcomes-centered project. This has required people at all levels of the project to make a paradigm shift; 3. A project has allowed participating communities to bring key players in the service-learning field together to create an overall strategic plan for institutionalizing service-learning in their communities. Page 2 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates FEJtA Michigan CARES is designed to: 1. Spark the spread of innovative and self-sustaining programs; 2. Build strong community partnerships to support proven programs; 3. Foster the development of comprehensive community plans for service and volunteerism that meet community needs; and 4. Integrate the best practices of service and service learning into community-based programs. The CARES project had two-phases. In Phase I (November, 1994 to December, 1994), community foundations hired a community coordinator. Key players in each community were invited to the table. This phase was extended to February, 1995. Community needs related to service and volunteerism were assessed. Then, collaborators developed: 1) a long-range plan for institutionalizing service and volunteerism in their community and 2) a proposal for a specific shortterm project. Phase ll (March, 1995 to August, 1995) involves implementing the short-term project. State-wide CARES meetings are being held throughout the duration of the project. These meetings facilitate networking and problem solving among the project facilitators in each of the six communities. Two state-wide conferences were held (one in 1994, the other in the fall of 1995) where all community collaborators as well as project staff are invited to attend. Community • Foundation staff, community coordinators, and key stakeholders who would be part of the collaboration process were invited to ·attend the first conference. EVALUATION PURPOSES, QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES Purposes The purposes of FERA's portion of the evaluation were to : 1) capture lessons learned related to the process of collaboration; 2) .assess the impact of the project on community foundations; 3) understand how the involvement of community foundations affected the project; and 4) provide feedback to CMF and to MCSC for purposes of improving future collaborative programs. MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page3 �~ Formative Evahlation Research Associares Questions The questions to be answered by this evaluation were: 1. How did the Michigan CARES project affect the participating community foundations? 2. How did involving community foundations affect the Michigan _CARES project? 3. What have community foundations learned from the Michigan CARES . project about being collaboration facilitators within their communities? 4. Is acting as facilitator of a collaborative process in a community a useful role for community foundations? Why or why not? 5. If collaboration facilitator is a useful role for community foundations, what types of support (e.g., technical assistance) do they need to become increasingly effective in this role? 6. How did the collaborative process between CMF and MCSC work and how could this relationship be improved for future projects? ' . Activities FERA's evaluation activities for the project included: + Collecting formative information about the CARES project This has been done through in-person and telephone interviews in February and March, 1995 with CARES and community foundation staff. Telephone interviews were conducted with two community foundation Executive Directors, five community foundation Program Officers, two CMF staff members and three MCSC staff members. Information was also collected at two of the Michigan CARES state-wide meetings (January 10 and 11 , 1995 and March 29, 1995). At the second meeting FERA Project strengths, conducted a data interpretation workshop. weaknesses, issues and recommendations were identified prior to the workshop (see Appendices A, Band C). Workshop attendees (CARES staff, community foundation representatives, CARES community coordinators, and a representative from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation) were asked to prioritize these findings based on their own experiences. Then, participants had an opportunity to find out how their experiences compared with other communities' experiences and to discuss these observations. An interim report presented the findings from this first evaluation phase. • + Collecting impact information about the CARES project FERA conducted a second set of interviews during the summer of 1995 with Page 4 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associares ~ CARES and community foundation staff Site visits to three community foundations provided additional infonnation about the impact of the CARES project on community foundations . This report combines data from this second set of interviews with the infonnation presented in the interim report. PROJECT STRENGTHS From an evaluator's perspective, based on participation m CARES meetings and a review of background materials, project strengths include: 1. Engaging participating community foundations and their communities around the issue of service learning. 2. Identifying needs, existing resources, and gaps m the infrastructure supporting service learning in each community. 3. Providing community foundations with an opportunity to convene, facilitate and learn from a collaborative process. In most cases this strengthened the community foundation's image and role in the community. 4. Providing an opportunity to have a long tenn impact on communities by facilitating collaboration and by encouraging communities to plan for, coordinate, and institutionalize service learning opportunities in their communities. 5. Creating solid collaborative relationships between CMF and MCSC. • 6. Being willing to work with a process, to evaluate the process and to learn from past mistakes. Interviewees also identified a wide range of project strengths. When the data interpretation workshop attendees were asked to prioritize them, five key strengths clearly emerged. (Other project strengths can be found in Appendix A.) + MCARES provides community foundations with an opportunity to facilitate a collaborative process and be community convenors to develop local solutions to problems. + Money was available to hire a consultant. + Project participants were willing to talk honestly with MCSC and CMF staff about and to deal with problems related to this project. MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 PageS �~ Formative Evohlation Research Associates + CARES provides an opportunity to have a long term impact on communities by facilitating collaboration and by . encouraging communities to plan for, coordinate, and institutionalize service learning opportunities in their communities. + CMF and MCSC were willing to learn from their mistakes. PROJECT DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES The Michigan CARES project has had a bumpy start. Everyone interviewed expressed strong feelings of fiustration and identified a wide range of project difficulties and challenges they had had implementing this project. Most of the project's obstacles were related to the logistics for implementing the project. They included: the process for selecting participating community foundations; project time-line; staffing issues; communication logistics among CMF, MCSC and the communities; unclear expectations; learning to trust the process; poor working relationships at the community level (in two communities); and establishing trust with a governmental agency. These obstacles have been identified, ways to overcome them have been created, and, in many cases, implemented. When asked to prioritize these obstacles at the March 29th meeting four key highly significant obstacles clearly emerged. (Other project difficulties can be found after the section on project strengths in Appendix A.) These were: • + Unclear project goals and expectations. + The relationship between the long-term strategic plan and the shortterm project was unclear. + Communication (not everyone got the same information). + The project timeline is too short. Interestingly, many of the most highly significant problems and almost all of the difficulties rated as moderately significant were viewed by most individuals as having been solved. The key exceptions were: 1) Project goals and expectations remain unclear; and Page 6 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates 2) FEJtA The project timeline is still too short. When follow-up interviews were conducted with community foundation representatives in the summer of 1995, everyone thought that most of the early problems had been solved. Overall, frustration levels had dropped. Interviewees commented: "things have gotten better, "we have stopped spinning our wheels," · "the Commission has backed off but is still willing to be supportive--good." No · new obstacles were identified. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS Each of the community foundations participating in the CARES project was affected by the project somewhat differently. However, six impacts were experienced in common, although to differing degrees, by all of the participating community foundations. Community foundation interviewees said that the CARES project: + Strengthened our relationships with community-based organizations. + Encouraged us to develop relationships with a new set of organizations and movers and shakers within our community. • + Enhanced our role as community leaders . + Increased level of work for foundation staff + Increased levels of frustration and stress for staff especially early in the project. + Increased our visibility. Gave us the chance to explain who we are and why we exist. Other impacts were community foundation specific. Community foundation interviewees said that the CARES project: + Provided an opportunity to work with a consultant. This was a new model for us. We will use this model again. + Provided a vehicle for working out a relationship with our new United Way Director. MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 7 �~ - Formative Evaluation Research Associates • Helped us learn about taking a leadership role in our community. • Forced other board issues to surface and be worked through (e.g., accountability). + Challenged our fiscal accounting procedures. • Helped us get a "pulse on our community." + Provided a vehicle for getting our community foundation involved in coordinating volunteer services. • Strengthened and broadened our community foundation's image. Helped community-based organizations better understand the range of roles that community foundations can play. • Increased the extent to which we collaborated with other organizations. • Engaged our community foundation with a topic that had not been on our priority list. • Made more individuals aware of the community foundation's role working with youth and service learning. • Helped facilitate a new program that we did not have to implement ourselves. • Required more time on the board's agenda than anticipated. • Increased our administrative burden. • Required us to dev~lop new administrative procedures for working with an outside consultant. • Made our relationship with United Way more difficult. COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS AS FACILITATORS AND CONVENORS Implementing CARES Community foundations were chosen as the community level vehicle for implementing the CARES project. How did this choice affect the Michigan CARES project? Community foundations were involved in the implementation of the CARES project in different ways in each of the communities. The common Page 8 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates ~ thread that all of the community foundations provided was that of being a politically neutral organization in their community. Overall, interviewees thought that community foundations were a good choice for implementing the CARES project. One interviewee commented "community foundations are established, well connected and are well respected convenors in many communities." Another individual noted, "community foundations have a broader perspective and interact more broadly in a community than any other group." Yet another interviewee said "we weren1t those things in our community (in a leadership role, well respected, established, connected) ... we are more so now." Facilitator/Convenor Role CARES was designed with the hope that community foundations would be strengthened and that the field would learn about using community foundations as a vehicle for implementing region-wide projects at the local level. Is acting as facilitator of a collaborative process in a community a valuable role for community foundations? Why or why not? The Michigan CARES project was designed to place community foundations in a leadership role serving as facilitators and convenors of a collaborative process. Community foundations 1 experiences serving • in this type of role ranged from years of convening experience to no experience . All interviewees (n=9) (coinmunity foundation representatives and CARES project staff) agreed that in general facilitating a collaborative process in the community is either a "highly valuable (n=7)" or a "quite valuable (n=2)" role for community foundations to play. As discussed in the previous section, community foundations are viewed as neutral. They are in a unique position to convene diverse groups of players for the purpose of collaborating to solve a social problem or issue. One interviewee commented "community foundations are the only white space left in a community. When community foundations serve as facilitators, people can check agendas at the door and work together." Serving in the facilitator role: MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page9 �fEJtA Formative Evaluation Research Associates • Helps to educate the public about the community foundation. People are often surprised and pleased when they learn about what foundations have already done and are doing in the community. + Demonstrates that foundations are not just about giving away money but are about serving the community. It helps build an image of care and concern about community problems. + Provides community foundations opportunities to use their money more effectively. Duplicative efforts can be eliminated, resources can be combined. • Is the role that gives community foundations the most influence on facilitating positive social change in their community. Helping a community solve problems takes more than money. + Helps community foundations develop important relationships with non-profits to jointly work on solving community issues. + Makes people pay attention. Community foundations have money and usually have access to other key players in a community. + Allows community foundations with few unrestricted dollars to be more creative in their grantmaking and fundraising strategies. + Can get donors to think more broadly. + Creates broad linkages-between large and small organizations, urban and rural areas . • Lessons Learned What did participating community foundation staff learn about being community collaboration facilitators from their involvement with the CARES project? Four community foundation interviewees did not learn much new from participating in the CARES project. Working as collaboration facilitators in their communities was not a new experience for them. One person commented: "We do a lot of this (collaborative efforts) ... to us this is business as usual." Another individual explained, "It didn't add to our knowledge about being collaboration facilitators. We have six years experience with community collaboration. It is the Page 10 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates fEitA 12th collaborative project we have done in the past two years... A third person commented. 11 True collaboration is not easy ...it is a pain in the ! ! ! We already knew this ... The two community foundation interviewees who had learned from their involvement in the project commented: + Collaboration takes a lot of time. It requires commitment from . the entire community foundation board and staff + Good process is so important. + It is not easy ...you have to let go and take a leap of faith. + When you want to control the process you need to step back. Technical Assistance Needs Interviewees were asked: If collaboration facilitator is a useful role for community foundations, what types of support (e.g. technical assistance) do they need to become increasingly effective in this role? With the exception of one foundation that has its own in-house technical expertise and was creating a manual to share with others, all expressed a need for additional technical assistance with the following: * • Acquiring new skills + Learning group consensus building skills + Guidelines for deciding who should be at table + Learning good group facilitation skills * Learning about public policy + Gaining broader experience on policy Issues at the state/federal levels + Learning how to be proactive at the state and national levels on policy issues that we are addressing locally + Gaining greater sophistication about how policy is made * Defining collaboration MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 11 �~ Formative Eva/Marion Research Associates + How is collaboration defined? What is the nature of collaboration? + What does collaboration mean in different situations? + Learning how to convey these definitions and understandings to players at the table locally + Opportunities to share stories and training materials * Selecting a facilitator + Guidelines for selecting a faCilitator + * Access to pool of facilitators (smaller communities may not have anyone to act as facilitator locally) Working with volunteers + How to work with volunteers + Definitions of volunteerism and service learning * Working with donors • * Different approaches to working with donors Financial support + Additional technical assistance money to support local training semmars • + Include TAP as part of CARES - can support local organizational development as part of the collaborative process. * More direction from CARES + Additional direction, more specifics + Help recognizing the range of potential/vision for the CARES project + Help thinking about the community foundation's role in the project + Knowledge about service learning (role for someone from the commission?) * Page 12 Other MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evahlation Research A:t:tociate:t FEJtA + Ready access to quality information about other collaborative models that have worked (names to call) • Resources especially for small communities (e.g., consultants, national thinking) + Hold a conference at the beginning of the project to talk about/learn about the process .ISSUES The next two sections focus on issues and recommendations for Michigan CARES if it is expanded or replicated. These sections answer the question-Where do we go from here? There was strong consensus among March 29th meeting participants that the three most important issues related to the project's future are: 1. Should the Michigan CARES project be expanded in the six pilot sites? Community foundations have had different experiences with the Michigan CARES project. Community foundations also differ with regard to whether or not they want to continue the project in their own community or to assist with the expansion of the project into neighboring communities. Discussion of this issue at the March 29 meeting revealed that some of the community foundations are both eager to continue with the project and to assist with its replication and expansion. At the other extreme, one community foundation is seriou~ly considering whether to continue at all. Everyone agreed that the six pilot sites should be given the option of deciding how they want to be involved, if at all, in any future CARES project. • 2. What should be the level of community foundation involvement in the CARES? -or- Is acting as facilitator of a collaborative process in a community a useful role for community foundations? Everyone interviewed thought that this was an essential role for community foundations . Community foundations are viewed as neutral. Indeed, they are sometimes the only neutral organization in a community that can serve in a convenor role. Community foundations' credibility and knowledge of the players in a community also support their acting as facilitators . However, several people raised the issue ofwhether there is a point when a community foundation is too small, too new or not credible enough to MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 13 �FEJtA Formative Evaluation Research Associates serve as a community convenor. Each of the community foundations brought different levels of past experience serving as facilitators of collaborative processes in their communities. Interviewees stressed the importance of on-going community foundation involvement in the CARES project. How much to be involved and at what level was an on-going issue with which all CARES community foundation staff had struggled. Further discussion of this issue would be useful to community foundation staff 3. Should the Michigan CARES project be replicated in other Michigan communities? Given all of the challenges and frustrations that the initial phase of this project has encountered, does it make sense to replicate the CARES project? Discussion of this issue at the CARES meeting revealed that current participants think that CARES should be replicated and anticipate that it's implementation should be much smoother in the future. Indeed, participants felt that many of the problems causing frustration had already been solved and could easily be avoided in the future. Some frustrations and challenges, however, were viewed as a normal part of any true collaborative process. These challenges cannot, and perhaps, should not be eliminated. For example, when a diverse group of individuals sit at the same table it is probable that there will be disagreements. Most of the operational problems the Michigan CARES project experienced were logistical and operational as opposed to conceptual. Given their response to this issue, the next question is--What supports will be needed to continue this project? and What could be done differently that would strengthen the project if it is replicated elsewhere? The next section of this report presents recommendations that address these questions . • The next set of issues were also viewed as important, however, there was somewhat less consensus as to how important they were (see Appendix B). + How can individuals who are used to working with programs learn to work with process, e.g. , facilitating collaboration, community planning? Community foundation program officers are used to working with programs. The CARES project was different than what they were used to because it involved so much process. Many interviewees said that it was hard to trust the process and they were uncomfortable. They needed to learn how to better work with these feelings and to know when to step back and "trust the process" and when to step in and provide leadership. Page 14 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates ~ + How can the CARES community selection process be strengthened? Because community foundations participating in the CARES project had been selected by C.MF and a personal invitation to participate had been extended, several of the community foundations felt pressured to become involved. Discussion of this issue at the CARES meeting revealed that participants disagreed about whether an open application process would be helpful. Several individuals said that their community foundations would definitely not have applied if there had been an application process. They explained that they would not have had enough confidence in their community leadership abilities to submit an application. They were very pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in the CARES project. + Who has control over the strategic planning process and over implementing the project? Community foundation staff noted that they were responsible for the project and yet they had to respect what the collaborative effort produced. Concerns about how the community foundation would be viewed if the plan that process produced was not high quality were expressed. + At what point(s) should MCSC and CMF turn the project over to local communities? This is an issue for both MCSC and C.MF as well as the local commurut1es. For the present, almost everyone thought that the financial, technical assistance, and administrative support provided by MCSC and C.MF was very useful. Eventually, local communities will have to continue with the CARES project without support from MCSC and CMF. • RECOMMENDATIONS Participants at the March 29th CARES meeting were asked to rate previously-identified recommendations as either "critical," "important," "nice, but not necessary," or "not important."I Most of the suggested recommendations were thought to be important by most of the respondents. The full list of 1 There was not sufficient time for participants to complete their recommendations' ratings form during the workshop. They were asked to take the form horne, complete it, and return it to FERA. A total of nine out of 15 individuals returned their recommendation forms to FERA. MCARES Final Evaluation Report Novemberl994 to December1995 Page 15 �~ Formative Evaluation Research Associates recommendations can be found in Appendix C. If the MCARES project ts expanded or replicated, almost everyone (n=8) viewed the following two recommendations as "critical:" + Involve community foundations in the decision about whether or not to begin, continue or expand a project like MI CARES • Clearly communicate the goals and vision for the project to everyone involved Other recommendations that were also viewed as critical by most people were: + Ensure that community foundations who might participate feel ownership ofthe project. + Clarify community foundation staff and project consultant' s roles early in the project. + Hire a state-level staff person who has previous experience with community organizing or with community foundations and community convening. If this person has expertise in only one area, create opportunities for him or her to learn about the other area. + Discuss and agree upon who has authority to make decisions about Be clear about how various aspects of the CARES project. community-level project staff will be involved in decision making . Involve key people in the decision-making process. • + When selecting a community coordinator, select an organization/ individual that is well respected in your community COLLABORATION BETWEEN MCSC AND CMF The CARES project provided a unique opportunity for a governmental organization (MCSC) and a non-profit association (CMF) to collaborate. The collaborative role between MCSC and CMF was viewed as a project strength by each of these organizations as well as by the community foundations participating in the CARES project. Both CMF and MCSC staff thought that they had developed an excellent collaborative working relationship based on mutual trust, Page 16 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates respect and willingness to work things out. ~ With all of the frustration and operational difficulties encountered during the implementation phase of this project, this relationship was tested frequently. It has not only withstood difficult moments, a solid base has been built for engaging in future collaborative efforts. Neither MCSC nor CMF staff could identify any ways that the relationship could be improved. SUMMARY This report has identified project strengths, difficulties and challenges. It has described the impacts of the project on community foundations and has discussed the role of community foundations as collaboration facilitators. Community foundations' technical assistance needs related to their facilitation and convening roles were identified. This report has also presented issues for consideration and presented recommendations for project improvement. Finally, the collaborative relationship between CMF and MCSC was reviewed. This summary first presents projects strengths and difficulties. The remainder of the summary is organized by the six key evaluation questions. The issues and recommendations which were developed mid-project are not reviewed in this summary. Project Strengths and Difficulties. • Strengths Project strengths included the way CARES was designed to support a collaborative process, facilitated by community foundations, to help communities develop and begin to implement plans for institutionalizing servicelearning in their communities. Project staffs willingness to work with a primarily process-based project, as opposed to a primarily outcomes-centered project and their openness to feedback were also viewed as key strengths. Because of the staffs willingness, most of the problems that created frustration during this project's initial phase have been solved. Difficulties. Most of the project's obstacles were related to the logistics for implementing the project. participating community They included: foundations; MCARES Final Evaluation Report project the process for selecting time-line; November 1994 to December 1995 staffing tssues; Page 17 �~ Formative Evaluation Research Associates communication logistics among CMF, MCSC and the communities; unclear expectations; learning to trust the process; poor working relationships at the community level (in two communities); and establishing trust with a governmental agency. These obstacles have been identified, ways to overcome them have been created and in many cases implemented. Community Foundations as Facilitators and Convenors How did involving community foundations affect the Michigan CARES project? Community foundations were involved in the implementation of the CARES project in different ways in each of the communities. The common thread that all of the community foundations provided was that of being a politically neutral organization in their community. Overall, interviewees thought that community foundations were a good choice for implementing the CARES project. Is acting as facilitator of a collaborative process in a community a useful role for community foundations? Why or why not? All interviewees (community foundation representatives and CARES project staff) agreed that in general facilitating a collaborative process in the community is either "highly valuable (n=7)" or a "quite valuable (n=2)" role for community foundations to • play . Page 18 • Helps to educate the public about the community foundation. People are often surprised and pleased when they learn about what foundations have already done and are doing in the community. • Demonstrates that foundations are not just about giving away money but are about serving the community. It helps build an image of care and concern about community problems. • Provides community foundation 1s opportunities to use their money more effectively. Duplicative efforts can be eliminated, resources can be combined. MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �~ Formative Evaluation Research Associates + Is the role that gives community foundations the most influence on facilitating positive social change in their community. community solve problems takes more than money. Helping a + Helps community foundations develop important relationships with non-profits to jointly work on solving community issues. + Makes people pay attention. Community foundations have money and usually have access to other key players in a community. + Allows community foundations with few unrestricted dollars to be more creative in their grantmaking and fundraising strategies. + Can get donors to think more broadly. + Creates broad linkages--between large and small organizations, urban and rural areas. What have community foundations learned from the Michigan CARES project about being collaboration facilitators within their communities? The four community foundations with experience serving as collaboration facilitators in their communities did not learn much, if anything new. The other two community foundations learned about their role in the collaborative process and about the amount oftime required for working collaboratively. What types of support (e.g., technical assistance) do they need to become • increasingly effective in this role? CARES participants requested technical assistance in the following areas: + Acquiring skills (consensus building, group facilitation) + Learning about public policy issues and how to be proactive at the state and national levels. + Defining collaboration + Selecting a facilitator (guidelines, a resource pool of consultants) + Learning how to work with volunteers and how to access donors + Financial support for local level technical assistance seminars MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 19 �~ Formative Evaluation Research Associates They would also like information about other collaborative models that have worked. MCSC and CMF Collaborate. How did the collaborative process between CMF and MCSC work and how could this relationship be improved for future projects? The CARES · project provided a unique opportunity for a governmental organization (MCSC) and a non-profit association (CMF) to collaborate. The collaborative role between MCSC and CMF was viewed as a project strength by each of these organizations as well as by the community foundations participating in CARES. This relationship has withstood difficult moments in the early stages of the project and has a solid base for engaging in future collaborative efforts. Project Impacts. How did the Michigan CARES project affect the participating community foundations? Six key impacts were identified that were experienced by all six participating community foundations. Community foundations said that participating in CARES : • + Strengthened our rela!ionships with community-based organizations. + Encouraged us to develop relationships with a new set of organizations and movers and shakers within our community. + Enhanced our role as community leaders. + Increased level of work for foundation staff + Increased levels of frustration and stress for staff especially early in the project. + Increased our visibility. Gave us the chance to explain who we are and why we are. Page 20 MCARES Final Evaluation Report- November 1994 to December 1995 �Formative Evaluation Research Associates ~ Additional community foundation-specific impacts were identified in the report. This project provides a model for future collaborative relationships among large funders, governmental organizations (at the state and national levels), community foundations and citizens. This model, could serve as a vehicle for addressing regional problems at the grassroots level. However the outcomes of this model are still not clear. In its first year, the project has concentrated on working out implementation issues and on planning. As a result, its impact on the role of the community foundations and on the citizens of the six communities is just beginning to become apparent . • MCARES Final Evaluation Report November 1994 to December 1995 Page 21 �. Appendix A PROGRAM STRENGTHS DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES - �STRENGTHS, DIFFICULTIES/CHALLENGES INVENTORY Michigan CARES Meeting March 29th, 1995 FERA (Formative Evaluation Research Associates) Data Summary (N=15) STRENGTHS 1. In your opinion, how significant are/were each of the following Michigan CARES project strengths? Highly Significant Moderately Significant Not Too Significant a) The concept. Providing community foundations with an opportunity to facilitate a collaborative process and be community convenors to develop local solutions to problems. 15 0 0 b) Bringing together organizations that do not usually work together (CMF and MCSC). 10 5 0 c) CMF and MCSC's shared vision and past history working together. 4 7 2 d) Bringing together organizations that do not usually work together (within communities). 11 4 0 e) CMF and MCSC's willingness to assist with conflict resolution and anything else that · communities needed 5 8 2 f) Money for the short-term project was available up-front. 10 3 2 g) Money was available to hire a consultant. 12 3 0 h) Community foundation's credibility in the community. 10 5 0 i) Community Coordinator's credibility in the community. 11 4 0 j) MCSC's willingness to do all of the federal grant reporting that community foundations are not used to doing. 8 5 2 k) Participating community foundations were linked with state and federal resources. 5 8 I • Appendix A Page 1 �(Continued) In your opmwn, how significant are/were each of the following Michigan CARES project strengths? 1. Highly Significant Moderately Significant Not Too Significant have a long term impact on communities 12 3 0 develop new relationships with non-profits 9 6 0 explain what a community foundation is and cando 6 8 1' increase the community foundation's visibility 9 6 0 m) CMF's role as community foundation convenor. 6 9 0 n) CMF's support of the project. 6 9 0 o) MCSC's support of the project (willingness to fund a process project). 8 7 0 p) CMF and MCSC's willingness to learn from their mistakes. 13 2 0 q) Communities understood that the timeline was short and yet were willing to work within it. 9 5 1 r) The state-wide conferences. 5 8 2 s) Community foundations being perceived as neutral in their communities. 9 5 1 t) Project participants willingness to talk honestly about and to deal with problems related to this project. 14 1 0 u) Other (please describe): Flexibility of project (n=2) Bringing coordinators together (n=3) Replicability Community strengthening Basic process Document for community strengthening and development WKKF support and flexibility Window of opportunity to "ride" federal interest Possibility of AmeriCorps $ Willingness to let each community develop own process Communities enthusiasm Community buy-in CMF and MCSC allowing us to take stock OK to have communities all being different Grassroots potential (community driven) I) • Page 2 CARES provides an opportunity to: Appendix A �DIFFICULTIES/CHALLENGES (N=14) 2. In your experience, how significant were each of the following CARES difficulties or challenges? For each, please also check whether it is still a problem or challenge or has been solved. Highly Significant Moderately Significant Not Too Significant Solved/ Still a · ProbNot a Current Iem Issue a) Previous expectations about this project existed at the community level before community foundations became involved. 0 0 13 7 2 b) Project goals and expectations unclear. 8 6 1 8 5 c) Flexibility on the part ofMCSC was viewed as ambiguity and was confusing. 4 5 6 8 1 d) Communication. 5 5 5 6 3 e) Mixed messages about project requirements and expectations. 7 5 3 7 3 f) Communication of the difference and the relationship between the longterm strategic plan and the shortterm project. 5 7 3 9 0 g) Not everyone got the same information. 5 2 8 7 2 h) Trouble defining what infrastructure means . 1 4 10 9 0 i) Project timeline was too short. 6 4 5 5 5 j) Having two new staff people involved neither of whom had strong backgrounds in community organizing or community foundations. 7 7 7 2 k) Project required more community foundation staff time than anticipated. 1 5 9 7 4 l) Project was viewed initially as duplicating efforts at the local level. 1 2 12 9 2 m) Unclear expectations. 4 7 4 4 5 n) 4 8 3 5 3 • The rules and requirements kept changing. Appendix A Page 3 �(Continued) In your experience, how significant were each of the following CARES difficulties or challenges? For each, please also check whether it is still a problem or challenge or has been solved. 2. • Highly Significant Moderately Significant Not Too Significant Solved/ Not a Current Issue Still a ProbI em 0 o) CMF's and MCSC's roles were unclear. 1 4 10 8 p) Community foundation staff and community coordinators roles were unclear. 3 2 10 8 q) Level of community foundation involvement. 5 1 9 5 r) Letting go of the process and allowing the consultant and community representatives develop and own the strategic plan. 4 2 9 6 s) Not all the key players were at the table. 1 5 7 4 3 t) Conflict among the players who were at the table. 1 4 9 7 2 u) Community foundation was not yet perceived as a leader in the community. 1 4 9 8 2 v) Concern that the community driven ·planning process would not yield a high quality strategic plan. 1 5 9 7 2 4 4 7 2 4 w) Mixed messages. 3 x) Local politics. 3 6 6 3 5 y) Making community believe that anything will happen as a result of this project. Other (please describe): 1 5 7 4 3 z) Not enough$ (n=4) Time to implement 2nd year $ for follow-up Horne meetings to develop [MEFG??] 3. Are you: (Please check one.) A community coordinator A community foundation staff member A state-level staff member (CMF or MCSC) Page 4 Appendix A �' L f Appendix B ISSUES INVENTORY - �. ' . ISSUES INVENTORY Michigan CARES Meeting March 29th, 1995 FERA (Formative Evaluation Research Associates) Data Summary and Verbatim Responses (N=15) 1. Given your experience with the Michigan CARES project, how important do you view each of the following issues? a) How communities are selected to be part of the CARES project b) The level of community foundation involvement in CARES c) Who has control over the strategic planning~ocess d) Who has control over implementing the project e) Is there a point when a community foundation is too small, too new, or not credible enough to serve as a convenor? f) Should the Michigan CARES project be replicated in other Michigan communities • g) Should the Michigan CARES project be expanded in the six pilot sites h) How individuals who are used to working with programs learn to work with process? i) At what point(s) should MCSC and CMF tum the project over to local communities. AppendixB Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Not At All Important 7 5 2 1 0 12 2 0 1 0 7 2 2 3 0 4 5 3 3 0 4 4 6 0 0 11 2 0 1 0 12 1 0 1 0 7 5 3 0 0 4 7 4 0 0 Page 1 �• , . !.(Continued) Given your experience with the Michigan CARES project, how important do you view each of the following issues? Very Important j) Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Not At All Important Other (please describe): • • • • Refer to Lamont's notes on "lessons learned" and gems from community coordination discussion Tuesday, March 28, 1995. Sustained support with money, people and resources. Role of community consultant and level of relationship w/CFs. Public relations/media relations with state and local levels. (N=4) 1a.F or any issue that you rated as "Very Important," do you have any comments that would help us understand why this/these issue(s) is/are important to you? !.Selection of communities: Think it would have been beneficial to pilot a MiCARES project in a true rural area-which was not done. I feel these areas are often left out of innovative solutions/process and have significant unaddressed needs. Planning Process: Believe it is essential that local communities have ownership over process which will determine their future. Duplication of MiCARES; Feel its extremely important that models appropriate to other cities have the visibility and opportunity to be duplicated. This has been a goal of most community based efforts for as long as I have been in the field-but have never had the right mechanisms to implement. 2.a). • Broad selection-large communities and smaller commuruues is important to gain a meaningful understanding of what can be accomplished. f). Yes, it is an important method to have a community go through. g). Yes it should be developed to a grated degree now that it has been launched. 3.Letter a) The community should have some sense as to their own readiness/need to be involved in something like this. 4.Neutral community foundation involvement and credibility ? "something would happen" important. Important not to drop it now in pilot communities, or credibility of participating in such projects at local level damaged. 5.g). Page 2 Expanding would give communities more time to build solid programs-it builds credibility. Appendix B �I I 6.The process of strategic planning-lead by an effective facilitator-is critical to the long-term success of communities and for community-based organizations. A significant benefit of MI CARES is the establishment of a work-able/sustainable planning process with the community foundation positioned in a leadership role in that process. Not all community foundations are ready to assume that role. Some are very ready. For others this offers the opportunity to assume a more significant role in the development of the community. 7.See notes above. These are important issues-not to be solved but to be recognized, nurtured and investigated. Planning for replication needs to take into account all "process" issues and strengths so the communication can clearly reflect flexibility not ambiguity, ceaseless change, mixed messages, or unclear expectation. • Appendix B Page3 �.. '' . Appendix C RECOMMENDATIONS • �~ .' TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT Michigan CARES Meeting March 29th, 1995 FERA (Formative Evaluation Research Associates) Data Summary (N=9) This document lists tentative recommendations. These recommendations are based on the telephone interviews conducted with community foundation staff in March, 1995 and on the issues community coordinators raised at the January 1995 CARES meeting. 1.Please rate each of the following tentative recommendations: Critical Important Nice, But Not Necessarv Not Important 1) Involve community foundations in the decision about whether or not to begin, continue or expand a project like MI CARES. 8 0 1 0 2) Ensure that community foundations who might participate feel ownership of the project. 7 2 0 0 3) Create an RFP process so that community foundations feel they can choose to participate or not in the project. 1 3 2 3 4) Clearly communicate the goals and vision for the proposed project. 8 1 0 0 5) Communicate with other W.K. Kellogg Foundation or other collaborative efforts in communities before initiating a collaborative project. Involve them in the initial decision to take on the project. 4 4 0 1 6) Clarify collaborating organizations' (CMF and MCSC) roles and responsibilities before starting a collaborative project. 5 2 1 0 7) Clarify community foundation staff and project consultant's roles. 6 3 0 0 8) Offer a CARES project for small and newer community foundations that is smaller in scope. 5 3 9) Carefully review how this project fits with your community foundation's mission and priorities before committing to the CARES project. 5 0 • Appendix C 4 0 Page 1 �.. ' !.(Continued) Please rate each of the following tentative recommendations: • Critical lmportant Nice, But Not Necessa 10) Carefully review your community foundation's strengths, weaknesses and other priorities in relation to this project before committing to the CARES project. 4 4 1 0. 11) Include in the planning process those who will benefit from the development and implementation of the project (e.g. , the youth) . 5 -3 1 0 12) Hire a staff person who has previous experience with community organizing or with community foundations and community convening. Create opportunities for this person to be enculturated and to learn about the area they do not have previous experience with. 6 3 0 0 13) Clearly communicate the goals and vision for the project to everyone involved. 8 1 0 0 14) Provide an opportunity for clarification of project goals and vision and for community foundation staff and community coordinators to practice communicating their understanding of the project with each other before returning to their communities to share that information with others. 5 3 0 1 15) Expand the timeline for the project. Do not rush a collaborative process . 3 4 2 0 16) Allow communities to propose their own timelines for the completion of this project. 1 3 4 1 17) Clarify the roles of community foundation staff and those of the community coordinator early on. 6 2 1 0 18) Discuss and agree upon who has control over the process, plan and project. If these need to change during the project involve key people in the decision making process. Communicate clearly the reasons behind any changes 7 2 0 0 Page 2 Not Important Appendix C �.. . \ 1. (Continued) Please rate each of the following tentative recommendations: Critical lmportant Nice, But Not Necessarv 19) Respect the process and plans that communities develop as long as it falls within the general project guidelines. Otherwise tell communities specifically what you want them to do. 3 6 0 0 20) Ask communities to conduct a study of their community's volunteer system and to identify the gaps and the needs. Then, based on that information have them address these needs with a collaborative project. 2 5 2 0 Different community planning models' 1 7 0 0 The role of a facilitator 5 4 0 0 Process steps for facilitating community collaboration 4 5 0 0 Conducting needs assessments 3 4 2 0 What has worked well or not in other communities 3 3 3 0 How to work with community politics 4 4 1 0 22) Make a grant similar to the TAP grant, a grant which provides opportunities for technical assistance to community-based organizations an integral part of the CARES project. 2 3 2 2 23) Provide opportunities for exchange of ideas. Continue to hold state-wide conferences. 6 2 1 0 24) Continue to allow community coordinators to attend state-wide meetings and to involve community foundation staff members only at critical points 4 3 2 0 25) Clearly understand the role of a facilitator 4 5 0 0 Not Important 21) Hold a technical assistance workshop where community foundation staff and/or community coordinators can learn about: • Appendix C Page.3 �!.(Continued) Please rate each of the following tentative recommendations: Critical Imp ortant Nice, But Not Necessary 1 7 1 0 2 3 3 0 6 3 0 0 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 27) Collaborating participants must leave their personal and organizational agendas at the door 3 3 1 2 28) Collaborating participants must bring their personal and organizational agendas to the table and clarify them early on 5 4 0 0 29) Commit to staying with the project until the · collaborators have the capacity to move forward without you. 4 5 0 0 30) MCSC/CMF staff must spend more time in local communities 1 4 2 1 31) Spend time early on making developing a common language 4 4 0 1 32) The agenda must come from the local level 5 4 0 0 33) Don' t be afraid to get messy. Collaboration can be uncomfortable ... when issues arise talk about them and deal with them. 4 5 0 0 34) Facilitator should be perceived as neutral, willing to focus on community needs (vs. personal agenda) 8 1 0 0 35) Time 5 4 0 0 Not Important 26) When selecting a community coordinator: build on past relationships select an organization/individual that knows about your community foundation select an organization/individual that is well respected in your community select an organization/individual that can benefit from being situated in a leadership position select an organization/individual that brings new players to the table • Page 4 AppendixC �!.(Continued) Please rate each of the following tentative recommendations: Critical lrnportant Nice, But Not Necessa 36) Keep a diverse group of players involved in this project(e.g., funders, state gov. and non-profits, community groups) 3 5 1 0 37) Community foundations should not hand over the leadership of this project 2 1 3 3 Not Important 38) Other (please describe) : Critical- Don't forget to celebrate-acknowledge humps and bumps ... but do celebrate with each other! Critical- Work on openness and trust Critical- Continue to lay out few rules or boundaries Important - Be patient with the process 2.Are you: (Please check one.) I A community coordinator ~ A community foundation staff member J. A state-level staff member (CMF or MCSC) • Appendix C Page5 � 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_1996-03-15_MI-CARES-A-Final-Evaluation-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: A Final Evaluation Report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting Michigan CARES: A Final Evaluation 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, 49756 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 1996-03-15