559 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4dc30d9649d2d6a8237f113e1b551943.pdf 1f2051614c906f9e2d1709f9a9be7cc4 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Agenda March 15, 1996 Olds Plaza Building, Lansing 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m I. Welcome and Introductions- Michelle Engler IT. Review of Minutes of December 1, 1995 - Michelle Engler ill. Informational Items a. Michigan CARES - Allyson Knox b. Michigan's AmeriCorps- Paula Kaiser c. Learn and Serve Michigan - Angelia Salas d. MYPAC Update- Angelia Salas e. Staff Advisory Council - Lindy Reurink f. Governor's Community Service Awards- Lindy Reurink g. Resource guides - Frank Dirks h. TAP-Youth Service - Frank Dirks i. Administrative and Budget Status - Garry Gross IV. Executive Director's Report- Frank Dirks V. Long Range Plan Issues a. Legislative Outreach- Michelle Engler, Joel Orosz, Mike Tate, Terry Pruitt b. State Outreach and Promotion- Julie Cummings c. New Partnership Meeting Update- Michelle Engler VI. New a. b. c. d. e. VII. Public Comment Business State Commission Network New Grant Timelines Legislative Service Awards Learn & Service K-12 Governor's Innovative Grant Award Next Commission meeting will be May 10,1996 hosted by Commissioner Victor Begg and ACCESS in Dearborn. � 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_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 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 1996-03-15 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, 49745 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/74dd454bb550711f895ca12a17dd8b25.pdf bf4ddffa4ebeade13fcb3edf79296ff9 PDF Text Text 03 114 196 18:16 ti'202 565 2787 CJKCS ONSP 9th Fl il!00 41010 Page 1 • Note tor Wa»er, Eric ***URGENT•n From: Toscano, J Date: Wed. Mar 13, 1996 10:58 PM SubJect: News conference transcript To: _CNCSALLEMPLOYEES David Premo was kind enough to provide this transcript of the as-delivered statements by Harris Wofford and Senator Chuck Grassley at today's news conference. Transcript of Press Conference March 13, 1996,3 pm Senator Chuck Orassley: As many of you know, during the last year and-a-half, I have raised some very serious concerns about the costs and management of the AmeriCorps program. At my request last summer, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report that I feel verified my concerns. The GAO found that on average, the cost to field an AmeriCorps participant is almost $27,000. And another point that I wanted investigated was the amount coming from the private scctor... as it turns out eight percent was. There's no question that these measwements are not consistent with the goals and vision of AmeriCorps originally expressed by President Clinton. Just the same, I have stated that I would be willing to support funding for the AmeriCorps program if the administration would commit to several meaningful program reforms. Many of those changes have been advocated by Congressman Pete Hoekstra, of Michigan. Most importantly was to get the cost per participant down, sharply reduced, and the private sector contribution must be dramatically increased. In fact, 1think you could sum this up by my statement that the administration must reinvent AmeriCorps, or if not risk losing the program. My goal all along has been to ensure that the taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent wisely, and most importantly to increase the nwnber of young people receiving money for college. In other words, to get more bang for the AmeriCorps buck. I met several weeks ago with Senator Wofford. Since then, we have been negotiating over how to improve and reinvent the AmeriCorps program. These discussions have been very productive and very constructive and I appreciate Senator Harris Wofford's leadership, and I am impressed with his sincere efforts to reform the program. There is no question that the COrporation has benefitted from his commitment, and from the fresh perspective he has brought to it as chief executive officer. Under his watch, we've seen some real progress. So today we are here to announce a strategy for reform. Now while there miaht still be some points for him to discuss, Senator Wofford has pledged to end all AmeriCorps grants to other federal agencies. Instead, all money will be directed outside of the federal bureaucracy. Control costs and get the cost per participant closer in line with the President's promised $17,000 rather than the $27,000 per participant. And his pledge that private sector match and to establish a true private-public partnership. What's more, the Corporation has agreed to dramatically expand a program I have advocated to help more young people get to college. It recognizes students for successful service to their communities. This will help even more kids get to colle&e, and it will directly reward volunteerism. The program works by directing Corporation dollars to nonprofit service �03! 14 / 96 18 : 17 '5'202 565 2787 CNCS O~SP 9th Fl [4] 0051010 Page 2 groups and state governments to make Education Awards' that recognize outstanding community service. The only money that the federal government puts into this is for the award. It is critical, in my view, that the Corporation cooperate with the well-respected non-profit volunteer organizations that have done (so much) over a long period of time so much to help so many. Now looking ahead, I will continue ...! pledge to all of you concerned that maybe Chuck Grassley is changing ...that I will continue aggressive oversight regarding the fmancial management of AmeriCorps. as I do with the Defense Department. In fact, I would like to see a chief fmancial officer for the Corporation put in place immediately. So I thank you now, Hams, for your commitment to meaningful reform. Now the hard work really begins. But in the fmal analysis working together we can achieve a fisc:ally responsible program that is going to help more young Americans get a college education. [applause] Harris Wofford: Chuck... Senator Grassley, Congressman Hoekstra is also someone who has invested a tremendous amount of time and lead~p in looking at AmcriCorps critically and helpfully. a process which has to continue with tbe other body at least as seriously as the process with the Senate. fve long admired and appreciated Senator Gr~sley's work as a watchdog -- of other government agencies. But it is, I have to admit, a test of that appreciation when we are the agency being watched. I believe we are meeting that test, and we will continue to meet that test. I think that this is, I believe, a good day. maybe even a historic day, for national service and to people working to get things done. Thanks to the leadership of Sen. Orassley, we have taken a quantum leap toward making national sorviee truly bipartisan - as it has been in the past. and as it must be in the future. Throughout much of the twentieth century, the idea of civilian national service has drawn support from across the political spectrum. The ranks of national service supporters have included William F. Buckley and Robert F. Kennedy; Sam Nunn and Barbara Mikulski; Gov. John Engler and Bill Clinton; Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf. The Peace Corps, which I was privileged to be in at the creation, has for years had bipartisan support By the way, I believe a Imijority of members of Congress over the years who served in the Peace Corps, by my count, are Republicans. Nancy Reagan wrote a book praising the Foster Grandparents program, one of the key programs now run by the Corporation for National Service. George Bush signed into law the National Community Service Act of 1990- which passed tbe Senate 75-21. That law formed the basis of the currentAmeriCoxps program. Bob Dole in 1992 helped usher through tbe law creating the National Civilian Community Corps, a program based on downsi2ed military bases - and which is now part of AmeriCorps. And Bill Clinton proposed Am:riCorps, a chance for tens of thousands of young Americans to serve their communities in exchange for help in paying for education or vocational training. Americans want Republicans and Democrats to work together when the goals are worthwhile. And today, rm delighted to say, we are demonstrating anew that national service is bipartisan. On the floor of the Senate today is a continuing resolution that reinforces this point. Senators Hatfield and Bond, working with Sen. Mikulski, the godmother of national service, have put real money in to fund AlneriCorps. We're still discussing the actual level, but it is good that these thoughtful Republicans are ready to support substantial funding for national service. In an era of downsizing government, national service can be a non-bureaucratic way to solve �03 114 / 96 18 : 18 'C202 565 2787 CNC S ONSP 9th Fl [4] 006 1010 Page 3 some of society's most critical problems. This becomes obvious to anyone who has seen AmeriCorps members dramatically raising reading scores of disadvantaged students, hauling garbage from polluted rivers or helping Habitat for Humanity to lead thousands of unpaid volunteers to build low income housing. If done properly, it is not wasteful government spending but precisely the opposite - an antidote to bureaucracy. It asks people to give to their country instead of just getting benefits. It asks Americans to give, not just to receive. Sen. Grassley, as you know. has been a tough critic of AmeriCorps - a very tough critic and a relentless foe of government inefficiency. With the steps we have taken, and will take, we will live up to Senator Grassley's highest expectations. That's our determination. Let me also add that all of the steps that improve AineriCotps program and are steps we should be taking even without his challenge, but I welcome his challenge and appreciate it. I'm delighted that, having taken these steps and pledged to do more, we have now met one of the tou2hest rests I know, the Orassley Test. We are on the way to showing a tough critic can become a good working partner. We know full well that be will be back with us again and a~ suggesting, prodding, criticizing, and questioning. We welcome that We also know we will only retain his support if we do what we say we are going to do. This is about reinventing government, not so much about paperwork or regulations. but listening, learning, and changing. Too few government proarams do that. We have listened to Sen. Grassley, learned from him, and changed. Let me particularly thank Sen. Grassley for the special push he is giving to the idea of expanding the numbers of educational service scholarships, without other program support from the Corporation, to those who serve a year, or more for some sustained period of time, in non-profit organizations not in an AmeriCorps grant program. This should enable religious organizations, higher education institutions and other non-profits with alternative funding sources to increase opportunities for service. If this education-award-only approach proves as successful as I think it will be in multiplying the numbers of those who serve and cutting federal costs, you, Sc:n. Grassley, will long be remembered for your creative role with us. Let me also emphasize that the progress we have made is not all just my doing. It happened because most of the staff at the Corporation for National Service, people who have been fiibting to make Am.eriCo:rps succeed since its inception, have been working tirelessly to improve the program. So thank you Sen. Grassley. I look forward to working with you to make Ameri.Corps a program in which all Americans can take pride in. ### �03 / 14 / 96 18 : 15 'a202 565 278 7 CNC S ONSP 9th Fl ~ 002101 0 Page 1 Note fa Waxler, Eric *** URGENT *"* From: Toscano, J Date: Wed, Mar 13, 199611:15 PM Subject: 10 step agreement To: _CNCSALLEMPLOYEES This is a summary of the 10 steps that the Corporation is taking to improve A.meriCorps and cut costs, the subject of today's news conference with Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) lOSTEPSTO IMPROVE AMERICORPS & A Briefer cur COSTS 1. Reduce Per-Member Costs The Corporation has already reduced costs from the start-up year to the se-.cond. Per member costs in the A.meriCorps stare grant program represent an average real reduction of about 7 percent per member. Grantees with above-average costs will be asked to cut costs by 10 percent in the next grant cycle. The Am.eriCorps*National Civilian Community Cmps has closed one base. cut living allowances by half, and cut HQ staff by 25 percent and campus staff by 30 percent The Corporation will develop additional cost-cutting targets and timetables in the next 60 days. 2. Eliminate Grants to Fed Agencies The Corporation bas notified federal agency grantees that grants will no longer be made to fedetal agencies. Local nonprofits who had been affiliated with federal agency programs will be free to apply for funding on their own to sponsor AmeriCorps membe.rs utilized by those nonprofits. 3.Further Steps to Prohibit Lobbying The Corporation has addressed conccms by again requesting that state commissions and national direct grantees fUillly remind AmeriCorps sponson of all prohibited activities, including lobbying and partisan political activities. Programs must delineate specific actions they will take to ensure that AmeriCorps members do not engage in improper political activities. The Coxporation will continue to investigate, on a priority basis, every allegation brought to its attention and take quick decisive action. 4. Decrease Reliance on Federal Funding AmeriCorps programs exceeded goals foe private sector fundmising, raising more than $41 million last year. In the next grant cycle, the Corpoxation will raise the matching requirement for program support from 25 percent to 33 percent. S. lncrease ..Special National Service Scholarships" The Corporation is developing a plan to expand substantially the number of sponsors who rccejve no direct funding from the Corporation, but whoso members earn education awards from the National Servia'! Trust This arrangement may enable religious organi2atlons. higher education institutions, and other organizations with alteroative funding sources to expand. 6. Increase Collaboration with National Non-Profit Organizations The Corporation is strengthening and increasing collaboration with national nonprofit service �• 03 114 ; 96 18 : 16 'a'202 565 2787 CNC S ONSP 9th Fl 14100 31010 Page 2 organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the American Red Cross, and with a growing number of religious organizations such as Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur and the National Council of Churches. 7. Increase State Autonomy The Corporation was established as a partnership between the Federal Government and the states. Governor-appointed national service commissions in each state have been informed that if they have instituted appropriate peer review processes, the Corporation will no longer review their formula grant selections. As the states enhance their capacity, fultber devolution will occur. 8. Improve Grant Review The Inspector General has identified areas to strengthen grant comJK:titions. The Corporation is reviewing the draft recommendations and plans to implement qwckly those that are workable, as well as other measures to improve this critical process. 9. :Expand Efforts in Evaluation The Coxporation's goal is to develop evaluation systems that m.akc increasing use of our network of service programs and their expertise, and encourage private sector and independent sector efforts to evaluate service programs. 10. Increase and Strengthen Occasional (unpaid) Volunteers The Corporation is committed to emphasizing the role of AmeriCorps members as reciUiters, organizers, and leaders of traditional oocasional volunteers. Volunteer generation is now a priority in the 1997 competition for project renewals. In the fourth quarter of the first year, over three additional community volunteers were rccxuited for every AmeriCorps member serving. From July 1, 1995 through September 30, 1995, it is estimated that AmeriCorps members recruited at least 73.000 volunteers who contributed over 700,000 hours of service to their communities. By further emphasizing this role, the C01p0ration will increase the value added by each AmeriCorps member and by each federal dollar invested in national service. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1996-03-15_AmeriCorps-Emails Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting AmeriCorps emails 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 AmeriCorps emails. 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, 49746 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/b8f22df3b6f76974fb7a0b03a74764de.pdf f35cd09c5dcf1a840b3456246ca2c3f8 PDF Text Text Frank's . copy . �' !. SUBTITLE HTITLE PAGE Please type or print in black ink. 1 Grant type ~ ·. Governor's Innovative Program 0 National Nonprofit Demonstration 0 Disability Demonstration 2 Program name C i t i zen ' Am e r i Corps He a 1 t h Service Corps : Mi chi g a ns LegalApplicant Michigan Community Service Commission Organization name ______________________________________________________________ Conmctperson __~F~r~a~n~k~D~i~r~k~s~~--~~--~~--~~~~--~----------------­ This penon must have authority to commit and receive funds on behalf of the legal applicant. Address 111 S o u t h Ca p i t o 1 Av e n u e , 0 1 ds P1 a z a B u i 1 d i n g , 4 t h F1 o o r P.O. Bor users should include both P.O. Bor and strut address. City Phone 3 5 La n s i n g Smte Mi 517 335- 4295 Fax 5 1 7 3 7 3- 4 9 7 7 Institution Information Zip:_4_8_9_1_3_ _ _ __ Program Director Ba r b a r a B r a d f o r d 0 Public, Nonprofit Organization Narne De p a r t me n t 0 Private, Nonprofit Address 2 3 5 S • Gr a n d Av e n u e , S u i t e 4 1 5 ~ Smte Government City 0 Smte Commission Sm~ 0 Institution of Higher Education Phone 5 1 7 3 7 3- 9 2 1 0 Fax 0 Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Employer ID number_.:....:A..::;1---'5'-4'-'9:.....6.::.....=..1_ _ _ _ _ __ S a c i a 1 Servi c es af La n s i n g ~p48913 517 241- 7045 Priorities/Needs to be Met 0 Public Safety 0 After School and Summer Childcare 0 Early Childhood Development "0 Independent Living 0 Teen Pregnancy Prevention ;a Other Ga v e r n a r • s Pr i o r i t i e s .. �l t 6 Program Summary The Citizen Health Service Corps: Michigan AmeriCorps program will enroll 30 full-time AmeriCorps members to "g e t things done" in their communities. The members will supp o rt Michigan's welfare reform efforts by serving to improve · children and family health. AmeriCorps members will faci l ita e client participation in early and periodic health screeni n gs, coordinate child immunization outreach, and enroll client s in Managed Care. This service will be provided through f a ce~ to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transport~tion . to medi c·al appointments, etc. The AmeriCorps members will serve 1700 hours over a one-y ear time period (4/96-4/97). They will receive a living allowancE of $7,945 and an education award of $4,725. At least 75 % of t he Am e r i Co r ps me mbe r s wi 1 1 , b e,1 P, SS c 1 i e n t s • Th e me mbe r s wi 1 1 serve in AmeriCorps and take part in several member devel o pment activities that complement their Employability plan a nd prepare them for employment after their year of service t o AmeriCorps. The program will operate out of four DSS · county offices: Wayne (urban), Mackinac (rural), Berrian and Kalamazoo (geographically diverse). en :E c::::z:: a: c:.:J C) 7 8 Budget Corporation Funds Requested a: Total Budget Amount c... $2 9 5 • 2 6 0 $ 4 7- 0 , 3 q 1 Program Duration Start Date End Date _!--C) 6 4 ( t e nt a t i ve ) 97 ---------------------- ::::;;:::= C) ~ - 1-- c::::z:: a: t-- en ::::;;:::= 9 Members Number of Stipended Members __3>L.!.I. O_______ 10 Number of Non-Stipended Members_ _ __ C) :E Education Awards Number of Full-time Awards_-""-3..>.<0_____ Number of Part-time Awards _ _ __ LLI c:::::a :I: ___, LLI t-t-- CQ ::::::> en 11 Certification The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge that the data in this application are tr ue and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant and that the applicant will comply with the assurances required of applicants if the application is approved. LLI ~ . c:.:J ~ c... N arne ___, Title LLI t-t-- Fran k 0 i r k s Exec u t i v e · Di r e c to r Stgnature Phone -~----'--'------..,L-~~---t....,:._:=~'f------- 5 1 7- 3 3 5- 4 2 9 5 Date 1 - 6- 9 5 �, ;TJI,~ P,i#ze~· He,fZ.ltli·~~ijic!f (CorpsT.~MJC,~iga'f.~~, Aif!iriCo.rp8,_ 1Jf9~t'tlftwY~ ~~:._~g4f thi.n~((l~~e ". in .Michigan by r -:-t"-f·, ·:re~sJ~~I]lg 60-70~~ Pf '~he t_ar~eted; chi!!lyen ~foF;~-~~~~~!~OJl.s' . ,. • ..,,, ,: . :· - .: ,. ~ . I• .>.h /. ass1st~ng -· -40;.69~ ·· qf . !~~ ·:.target_~d.. _children ~)n . ;P_~u:!•~•p~tmg . I.~ : :Early and Periodic .· · Screenlitgs, Diagnosis,_': and J'reatment, and .· ·, ~- -tri' ~~'~::· -· . ·· · · . t:n}_·t?I~J!!g .!§·9~ o/~~ o( _t~f? o:ta~:geted_;,fai:nili~s- for...::_Man_;tged~_<;a_r.~~... _:_ · . . . ... -· NEED: In an effort to address the health care issues in Michigan and in order to ensure the well-being of Michigan' s children and families, Governor John Engler, in 1992, outlined his plan To Strengthen Michigan Families. The plan is built around four principles: I. ~trengthen families by encouragin_g employment, II. Strengthen families by targeting support, III. Strengthen families by increasing responsibility, IV. Strengthen families by involving communities. Principle II focuses on targeting support to improve the health of Michigan's children, senior citizens, and (individuals who are) disabled populations through EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment) participation, immunizations, and the use of Managed Care. Although roughl y 90% of clients are enrolled in Managed Care and have an assigned medical provider, many clients lack the knowledge of how to access medical care. Only 20-30% of children have participated in EPSDT screenings. According to the Children's Defense Fund, Michigan has the lowest rate of immunized children in the country. In children ages 0-5 it is estimated at 40%. In addition, the CDC's 1994 National Immunization Survey to estimate vaccination coverage levels of the nation's two year olds shows Michigan as having the lowest levels in the country. Nationally, 75% of two year olds _are up to date on MMR, DTP, and OPV. Michigan has a poor showing at 61%. Michigan also ranks high in its infant mortality rate. In 1991, the infant mortality rate of 10.4 deaths per 1,000 live births exceeded the national rate of 8.9 and was worse than many poorer countries. In Michigan, the Department of Social Services has been given the charge of carrying out the To Strengthen Michigan Families plan, through the services that the Department provides at each of its 83 county offices. In keeping with the Governor's plan and the county's most immediate needs, each county has developed a Health Care Outreach Plan that details the specific To Strengthen Michigan Families initiatives that will be addressed. Through this AmeriCorps program four counties will provide a concentrated Health Care Outreach effort utilizing 30 full-time AmeriCorps members. This will occur through children being immunized and participating in EPSDT screenings, individuals and families being registered for Managed Care, individuals being assisted by AmeriCorps members to break through the barriers that prevent them from receiving proper medical preventative care, etc. 1 �Ptinciple I in Governor Engler' s plan is To Strengthen Michigan Families by encouraging employment. In addition to meeting important health care needs, this AmeriCorps program will enroll current Department of Social Services (DSS) clients as AmeriCorps members. These individuals will engage in direct service to the community while improving their skill, experience, and education levels. It is planned that this year of service, coupled with the planned Member Development activities, will lead to future employment for all of the AmeriCorps members. This will decrease the number of citizens on public assistance by 30 individuals. 2 �SERVICE ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTIVES: The members will participate in service activities including: face-to-face and telephone contacts with clients, follow-up contacts, educational outreach, assisting clients with completing Health Care questionnaires, completing immunization logs, providing transportation to medical appointments, completing medical/dental records for clients, etc. Although each member's service activities will be designed to meet the specific needs of the population that they -are working with, the following represents a typical day in the life of an ArneriCorps merriber. 8:00a.m. Arrive at office and make five follow-up phone calls to previous day contact.s. 10:00 a.m. Provide transportation for mom and children to primary care physician so that children may receive immunizations. 12:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. Prepare for a health care outreach presentation that will take place that evening at the Neighborhood Center's Health Fair. 2:30p.m. Leave office to do home visits at three homes. Will conduct face-to-face contacts with parents to provide them with health care information and to encourage them to set an appointment for their children to be immunized. On the following pages, you will find each county's objectives. They have been developed to correspond to the most immediate health care needs of the county. In regard to carrying out the objectives, each county supervisor will be responsible for creating an overall work plan that details the progress toward each objective that will occur each month. The overall workplan will serve as a timeline, so that both members and supervisors are able to track where · the program is in regard to carrying out the proposed service activities. In addition to the overall workplan, each member will create a personal _workplan. This personal workplan will detail each member's objectives and the service activities that will occur each month. To monitor and evaluate the success of the workplan, objectives, and overall program, AmeriCorps members will be responsible for daily documentation of their specific outreach efforts. The statewide Program Coordinator will be responsible for creating forms that will be used for daily documentation. In addition, each month, the four county AmeriCorps supervisors will be responsible for collecting the daily documentation and evaluating progress toward each objective based on the provided baseline statistics. This information will be accumulated by the Program Coordinator and provided to the Corporation for National Service and the Michigan Community Service Commission in Quarterly Reports. 3 �OBJECTIVES: Berrien: This county will have a five person AmeriCorps team in which each individual will work toward the same objectives. The objectives are: 75% of Medicaid clients with children under the age of six (5,706) will be educated/informed as to the importance of immunization. 40% of the 13,798 EPSDT eligible children will be registered for EPSDT services for an increase from the current 20.8% registered. 85% of the 17,539 Medicaid eligible recipients will be enrolled in Managed Care, as measured against initial baseline statistics for an increase from the current 77.3%. - - Kalamazoo: This county will have five AmeriCorps members. Each member will work toward similar objectives, however because each member will be working with a different population (children in general, children in foster care, senior citizens, etc.), you will note that each members' set of objectives are slightly different. MEMBER 1: General Health Care Outreach To provide educational health care information to 25 Medicaid recipients each month, for an increase of 150% from the current ten recipients currently provided educational information, per month. To refer five Medicaid recipients with children whose immunizations are incomplete to free clinics/primary care physicians each month. To provide follow-up contact and services to the five Medicaid recipients to assist them with immunizing their children. MEMBER 2: Children's Foster Care Health Care Outreach To complete medical/dental report cards for ten children in foster care each month. To refer five Medicaid recipients with children whose immunizations are incomplete to free clinics/ primary care physicians each month. To provide transportation to scheduled medical and dental appointment for ten children in foster care, each month. MEMBER 3: Prevention/Ongoing Children's Protective Services Outreach To provide educational health care information to 25 Medicaid recipients each month, for an increase of 150% from the current 10 recipients currently provided educational information, per month. To refer five Medicaid recipients with children whose immunizations are incomplete to free clinics/ primary care physicians each month. To provide follow-up contact and services to the five Medicaid recipients to assist them with immunizing their children. 4 �MEMBER 4: Adult Services (for Senior Citizens and Citizens with Disabilities) Health Care Outreach To provide transportation to medical appointments to ten Medicaid recipients each month, an increase from the current zero individuals who receive transportation. To assist with medical certification for Home Help for five clients each month. To provide health care outreach information/education on Medicaid spend-down to five medicaid recipients, per month. MEMBER 5: Edison School Health Program Outreach (the Edison neighborhood has a · high percentage of children at the poverty level and on Public Assistance). To provide educational health care information to 25 Medicaid recipients each month, for an inc;rease of 150% from the current ten recipients currently provided educational infortnatiQn, per month. To refer five Medicaid recipients with children whose immunizations are incomplete to free clinics/ primary care physicians each month. To provide follow-up contact and services to the five Medicaid recipients to assist them with immunizing their children. Mackinac: This county will have a five person AmeriCorps team in which each individual will work toward the same objectives. 98% of all Medicaid recipients will be enrolled in Managed Care, as measured against initial baseline statistics for an increase from the current 85% enrolled. 70% of children on Medicaid will be immunized, as measured against the baseline statistics compiled during the AmeriCorps year of service. 60% of Medicaid eligible children will participate in EPSDT as measured against initial baseline statistics, for an increase from the current 42% participating. Wayne: This county will have a 15 member team. geographical zones of the county. The team will be assigned to four Sixty-three percent of children between the ages of birth to four years will be immunized as measured against the baseline statistics compiled during the AmeriCorps year of service. Forty-three percent of Medicaid eligible children will participate in EPSDT, for an increase from the current 29%. Enroll in Managed Care 10% of the 16,900 families who are currently not enrolled. 5 �P•ROGRAM DESIGN: The program is based on the four Health Care Outreach Plans devised by each of the four counties. The Health Care Outreach Plan details each county's objectives for carrying out the To Strengthen Michigan Families plan. Each county will have a team of AmeriCorps Members (Berrien: 5, Kalamazoo: 5, Mackinac: 5, Wayne: 15). There will be a total of 30 full-time members. The members will serVe out of the county's DSS office. DSS will provide each member with a desk, phone, and access to a computer and fax machine: -The members will' be · supervised by the county's DSS Volunteer Coordinator: Laurena Smith, Wayne; Linda Kekic, Kalamazoo ~ · Carolyn Frank, Berrien; Ken Mellon, Mackinac (for more information, please see Staffing Section). :ORIENTATION The-·3omembers will be brought together for a one-day orientation that will be provided by the statewide Program Coordinator. The orientation will include: * * * * * an overview of AmeriCorps on the national, state, and local levels, the TSMF plan, the concept of the Health Care Outreach Plan, data collection procedures and the overall monitoring plan, how this program will look in each county The orientation will also allow for each county's team to meet individually to discuss: * * * the county's AmeriCorps workplan, specific information on the program's objectives and the service activities that the members will be responsible for, and the county's Health Care Outreach Plan ONGOING TRAINING Each county's.monthly meeting will include a training component. This training will include a variety of skill and content-based information including: the TSMF plan, the county's Health Care Outreach Plan, accessing community resources, communication skills, time management, empathetic listening techniques, and Managed Care policy and procedure. MEMBER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Members will take part in at least.four member development activities throughout the year. These activities will take place at the monthly meetings. Each DSS client is required by DSS to complete an Employability Plan. This Plan details the steps the individual will take in order to become employed and eventually self-sufficient. The 6 �member development activities will concentrate on activities that correspond to the members Employability Plan that details their strategy to reach permanent employment following their AmeriCorps term-of-service. The member development activities may include: resume writing, creating portfolios, public speaking, team building activities, or discussions on career opportunities after AmeriCorps. STATEWIDE.CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS 'The,AmeriCoq)s.m embers .(and Supervisors & Program Coordinator as appropriate) will also take part in all of the statewide, Michigan Community Service Commission sponsored, training and member development activities. · . These include, but are not limited to, the Opening Ceremony, the Signature Service Project, trainings , and the Closing Ceremony. These activities are expected to introduce the program' s members to other AmeriCorps members from around the state and the service activities others are involved with. These statewide activities provide the opportunity for networking, sharing resources, and renewing enthusiasm. The statewide activities will also provide four additional opportunities (in addition to the initial orientation) for the members to meet as the Citizen Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps team to renew their spirit of teamwork, focus , and service. In addition, the AmeriCotps members will attend and participate in the August 20-22, 1996 DSS statewide volunteer services conference. The members will be asked to give presentations at the conference as well. SUPERVISION AmeriCorps members will meet with their county supervisor at least once per week to review their progress toward reaching their objectives and to receive support and direction. OTHER Each county will be responsible for partnering with local schools, Volunteer Centers, neighborhood centers, Department of Public Health, etc. The partnerships are tools for collaboration, allowing these organizations to combine resources , staff activity, outreach efforts, etc. to better serve the community and its individuals in a combined health care outreach effort. These partnerships will include the following: 7 . �* Partners will participate in member trainings, provide information on their organization, review their current outreach efforts, and discuss ways that the organizations can collaborate to provide services. * AmeriCorps members will provide educational outreach once per quarter in conjunction with the partner organizations. This may occur by participating in the partners' outreach activities, attending partners' board meetings, etc. · * As the partners combine efforts, throughout the year, with the Citizen Health Service Corps : Michigan's AmeriCorps program they will be seen as resources and informational sources in evaluating the progress the program makes. Each AmeriCorps member will be responsible for generating a minimum of two additional volunteers, for a total of 60 non-stipended volunteers. The volunteers may supplement the service being provided by the AmeriCorps members in regard to the Health Care Outreach Plan and the service activities, or they may be provide service in other need areas. As each county DSS office maintains a staff person who acts as the county Volunteer Coordinator (responsible for acquiring, orienting, and training all DSS volunteers), the volunteers will be supervised and their service monitored by the Volunteer Coordinator. 8 �MEMBERS/PARTICIPANTS: There will be a total of 30 full-time AmeriCorps members across four counties. All interested applicants will be required to complete a Michigan's AmeriCorps application in addition to the Corporation for National Service application. The members will be recruited by each DSS office. The DSS office will recruit from the local community and the . applications that have been submitted at the state and national Conup.ission/Corporation offices. Each applicant will undergo an interview that will be held at the county DSS office and will involve the DSS county supervisor, other staff at the DSS office, and a member of the partner organization. The DSS office will be responsible for . . . ' screening the applicants and the applications. The DSS office will make the final selection of all AmeriCorps members. As part of the AmeriCorps grant contract, each county will need to adhere to EEO Benchmarks in bringing on AmeriCorps Members. Thereby, each county is encouraged to select a team that represents the diversity of their community. At least 75% of the AmeriCorps members selected will be current DSS clients. It is felt that the program will be made strong by utilizing clients, as their experience as clients has given them firsthand knowledge of the health care system, Medicaid, problems individuals and families encounter in the immunization process, etc. In addition, as stated earlier in the proposal, the members will take part in several member development activities that are planned, specifically to provide information, exposure, and education that will assist clients in acquiring job skills and lead to employment and self-sufficiency. Each ArrieriCorps Member will serve full-time for a one-year period. They will receive a living allowance of $7,945 that will be distributed across the entire year. Each member will receive an educational award of $4,725 at the end of their successful term-of-service. Each member will be enrolled for the AmeriCorps health insurance plan, and each will have access to child care benefits, based on the eligibility criteria. 9 �SlfAFFING: Each county will employ an AmeriCorps county supervisor. This individual, in each case, will be the county's Volunteer Coordinator. Please note that in Wayne county there are three additional "zone" supervisors. This added supervision is necessary because of the number of AmeriCorps members involved and the vast size and population of the county. The Supervisor will be responsible for day-to-day supervision, training, member development, monitoring, and evaluation. As supervisors, they will possess quality supervision, planning, employee management, and service delivery. skills. The following are the names of thesupervisors: Laurena Smith, Wayne; Linda Kekic, Kalamazoo; Carolyn Frank, 13errien; Ken Mellon, Mackinac. At the state level there will be an overall Program Coordinator. The Director of the Volunteer Services Division for the Department of Social Services, Barbara Bradford, will serve as the AmeriCorps Program Coordinator. The Program Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating and carrying out an initial orientation and training for the four county supervisors. As with the initial member orientation, the supervisor orientation will include an overview of AmeriCorps on the national, state, and local levels, the overall program goals, the individual county's AmeriCorps workplans, specific information on each county's objectives and the service activities that each county will be responsible for, data collection procedures, and the overall monitoring/evaluation plan. Following the initial member orientation, the_Program Coordinator will assist each county in developing their trainipg plan, provide .county Supervisors with training and member development resources, establish evaluation guidelines and procedures, gather the monitoring/evaluation information from each county and put it into the . . Quarterly Report format for the Corporation for National Service, and conduct site visits to each county to monitor their progress toward completing their workplans. The Program Coordinator will also serve as the liaison for the Michigan Community Service Commission. They will supply their Quarterly Reports to the Commission. They will also attend the monthly AmeriCorps Program Directors Meetings, hosted by the Commission. By acting in this capacity, MCSC and DSS will continue to improve on their current relationship. 10 �PARTNERS: This proposal has been developed through a partnership between the Michigan Community Service Commission and the Department of Social Services. Although the program will be coordinated and carried out through the Department of Social Services, MCSC will serve in the same administrative capacity as it does with its AmeriCorps*USA programs. MCSC's mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. The mission of the Department of Social Services is to help meet the fin ancial, medical, and social needs of individuals and families living in Michigan who are unable to provide for themselves; to assist those who are capable to become self-sufficient through skill building, opportunity enhancement, and family-focused services; and to help protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and endangerment. As state agencies, both of these offices are concerned with the well-being of Michigan's citizens, specifically the increase in well-being that can occur through volunteer activity. MCSC and DSS have a history of collaboration and connectidness. Barbara Bradford of DSS (the proposal ' s Program Coordinator) has been a long time participant of the quarterly MCSC Commission meetings. She and other DSS staff have also been vital members of the MCSC Staff Advisory Council. The DSS County offices of Lake, Mason, and Oceana counties are partner§ with the Rural Strategic Action Initiative: Michigan's AmeriCorps program (an AmeriCorps*USA program). MCSC staff actively participated in the 1995 DSS annual conference, "Volunteers Strengthen Michigan Families." This proposal marks another concerted effort for the two agencies to actively collaborate on a major proposaVprogram dedicated to increasing the wellbeing of Michigan's citizens through a concentrated health care outreach. In terms of the organization, management, and operation of the specific program, there are no organizations outside of DSS that will be responsible. However, each county will be responsible for partnering with local schools, Volunteer Centers, neighborhood centers, the Department of Public Health, etc. as detailed in the Program Design Section. 11 �E¥ALUATION: To monitor and evaluate the success of the workplan, objectives, and overall program, AmeriCorps members will be responsible for daily documentation of their specific outreach efforts. The Program Coordinator will be responsible for creating the daily documentation forms that the AmeriCorps members will utilize. In addition, each month, the four county AmeriCorps Supervisors will be responsible for collecting the daily documentation and evaluating progress toward each objective based on the provided baseline statistics . .This information will be accumulated by the Program Coordinator and provided to the Corporation for National Service and the Michigan Community Service Commission in Quarterly Reports. In addition to compiling the evaluation data for the Quarterly Reports, the Program Coordinator will be responsible for conducting two on-site monitoring visits to access the program. The site visits will evaluate the progress being made toward completion of the service objectives, the member development activities that have taken place, the status of the partnerships each county has engaged in, etc. Basic demographic data will be collected on the AmeriCorps members through the information provided on their application. To ensure that the AmeriCorps team is diverse, the counties will select DSS clients (at least 75 %) and others. It should also be noted that the four counties r~present an urban county (Wayne), a rural Upper Peninsula county (Mackinac), and two very geographically diverse counties (Kalamazoo and Berrien). 12 �ORGANIZATIONAL AND STAFF CAPACITY: The Michigan Department of Social Services officially began its Volunteer Services Program in 1967 when a state level volunteer services director was hired and the family-to-family program began. Today there are 85 DSS Volunteer Coordinators located in Michigan' s 83 counties as well as a state level Division Director. Last year (93/94), through the Department of Social Services Volunteer Program, 8,567 individual volunteers and 1,483 groups provided 1,349,407 hours of service and 46,069 donors gave $7,079,173 in materials. Each county DSS Volunteer Coordinator is responsible for working with staff members and the cornrr1unity to . · define the community needs that the volunteers will work towards. They work with the media, local partnering organizations, and Volunteer Centers to recruit volunteers. They interview and screen perspective volunteers, then work cooperatively with staff to place them appropriately. The Volunteer Coordinators provide an initial orientation to each volunteer. They are also responsible for the direct supervision of volunteers, assuring that volunteer activities are tracked and reported accurately. The Volunteer Coordinators are responsible for submitting monthly reports (see page 7 of Appendices) that detail the county' s number of volunteers, number of service hours provided, number of donors, amount of donations, clients served, and reimburs·ement monies expended. These reports are substantiated by written and oral reports by individualvolunteers. Each quarter a statewide report is issued. Periodic local audits are conducted to assure •the authenticity of the statistics reported. The Director of the Volunteer Services Division (Barbara Bradford) provides statewide direction for the Volunteer Services Program. This involves the development of standards and policy, preparation of budget requests, and monitoring of program performance. Based on the strength of the overall program and the individual staff, it is believed that the Volunteer Services Program through its Director (Program Coordinator) and Volunteer Coordinators (county Supervisors) is well equipped to administer and operate this AmeriCorps program. 13 �FUNDRAISING: As described in the Program Design Section, the Citizen Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps program will partner with local schools, Volunteer Centers, neighborhood centers, Department of Public Health, etc. The partnerships are tools for collaboration, allowing these organizations to combine resources, staff activity, outreach efforts, etc. to better serve the community and its individuals in a combined health care outreach effort. The partnerships will also be utilized to build community support for the program and the collaborations that result will provide sustainable results in the community. In addition, ,volunteers will be generated to build a support-base for the program. Each AmeriCorps me.mber.will be responsible for generating a minimum of two additional volunteers, for a total of 60 volunteers. The volunteers will supplement the service being provided by the AmeriCorps members in regard to the Health Care Outreach Plan and the service activities, or they may provide service in other need areas. As each county DSS office maintains a staff person who acts as the county Volunteer Coordinator (responsible for acquiring, orienting, training all DSS volunteers), the volunteers will be supervised and their service monitored by the Volunteer Coordinator. The Department of Social Services is providing a considerable match contribution. These dollars are just another indication of the support this proposal has received from the State of Michigan. Throughout and long after the year of AmeriCorps the Department will continue to generate dollars for volunteer Healthcare Outreach projects. 14 �SUBTITLE HDEMONSTRATION Michigan Community Service Commission Legal a p p l i c a n t : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Health Corps: Progamname _Citizen _____ _ _ _Service _____ _ _ _michigan's _ _ _ _ _ _AmeriCorps _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Corporation Funds + Matching Funds = Total Program Cost Member 1Costs Support Living Allowance $238,350 Benefits (FICA,Workers' Compensation) Health Care $238,350 $22,381 $ 22,381 $ 36,000 $ 36 000 Other Member Support Costs {Please -= -= c 2 specify in Budget Narrative) $ 2,910 $ 2,910 c c c c c.: :::;;: c .... ....c c ~ 3staff :::;;: c Salaries Benefits $37.200 (cash) $12,648 (cash) Training $ 300 Other. (Please specify in Budget Narrative) $ 900 $ 37.200 $ 12,64 8 300 $ 900 -= -= Ll c: :X Ll .... ....cr: ~ Subtotal ..•. ::::..· -= ..:::: c c Ll ILl. c.: c: a �SUBTITLE HDEMONSTRATION Corporation Funds Matching Funds + = Total Program Cost · 4operational . TraveVfransportation $18,000 $18,000, Honorarium/Consultants Technical Assistance Materials $ Conferences 210 $ 210 $ 3,450 (cash) s 3,4 5 0 ~79,650 $70,650 Printing/Publishing Other: (Please specify in Budget Narrative) $101,3 10 5Administration 6TOTAL: · Amount Percentages (Corporation%+ Match%· 100%) $18,392 (cash $18 ,3 92 except for $605) $2 95.260 63 % maximum 80% $175,131 $470,391 37 % 100 % minimum 20% 100% �jBudget Narrativ~ 1. Member Support Costs Living Allowance: Total: 30 full-time AmeriCorps members X $7,945 = $238,350 Corporatlon:. 100% = $238,350 Grantee: Benefits: Total: *FICA (7.65% X $238,350) = $18,234 *Workers Comp. (1.74% X $238,350) = $4,147 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $22,381 Health Care: Total: 30 full-time AmeriCorps members X $1200 = $36,000 Corporation: 100% = $36,000 Grantee: 2. Other Member Support Costs Uniforms: Total: 30 members X $32 = $960 · Corporation: 100% = $960 Grantee: Statewide Activities: Total: $65 X 30= $1,950 Corporation : 100% = $1,950 Grantee: 3. Staff: Total: $37,200 (as derived through the calculations below) Wayne County Supervisor: Total: $40,000 X 15%(FTE) X 3 (at 15% FTE) = $18,000 Corporation: Grantee: 100%= $18,000 �.' ' Kalamazoo County Supervisor: Total: $44,000 X 15% (FTE) = $6,600 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $6,600 Mackinac County Supervisor: Total: $44,000 X 15% FTE = $6,600 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $6,600 Berrien County Supervisor: Total: $40,000 X 15% FTE = $6,000 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $6,000 Benefits: Total: $37,200 total salary X 34% = $12,648 Corporation: Grantee: 100%= $12,648 Training: Total: 1 day long meeting includes mileage and lunches *840 miles X $.25/mile = $210 *$90 for lunches = $9 0 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $300 Other: Staff Travel Total: 50 miles X $.25/mile X 6 staff X 12 months = $900 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $900 �.' ' 4. Operational Travel/Transportation: Total: 200 miles X $.25/mile X 12 months X 30 members = $18,000 Corporation: 100% = $18,000 Grantee: Technical Assistance: Health Care Outreach Notebooks· for 30 members Total: $7/notebook X 30 members = $210 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $210 Conferences: Each member will attend the three-day DSS Volunteer Conference in August of 1996 Total: $115 registration fee X 30 members = $3,450 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $3,450 Other: Office Space Total: $12/sq. foot X 200 sq. feet X 30 members = $72,000 Corporati~n: Grantee: 100% = $72,000 Other: Office Supplies . ·Total: $75/year X $30 members Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $2,250 = $2,250 Other: Phone Total: $15/month X 12 months X 30 members Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $5,400 = $5,400 �.. ' 5. Administration Program Coordinator Salary $48,500 X 15% FTE = $ 7, 2 7 5 Wayne County Supervisor Salary $40,000 X 15% FTE = $6,000 Benefits for Coordinator and Supervisor= $13,275 X 34%= $4,514 Corporation: Grantee: 100% = $17,789 Travel: 2 site visits conducted by Program Coordinator inc-ludes *mileage 840 miles X $.25/mile X 2 site visits = · $420 *lodging for 2 nights in Mackinac X $45/night = $90 *meals = $93 Corporation = Grantee = $603 �STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE O F THE GOVERNOR LANSING JOHN ENGLER GOVE R N OR November 6, 1995 Mr. Harris Wofford Chief Executive Officer Corporation for National Service 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear Mr. Wofford: I am pleased to express my support for the Citizen Health Service Corps: Michigan' s AmeriCorps proposal. The Citizen Health Service Corps will support Michigan' s welfare reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. AmeriCorps members will facilitate social service client participation in early and periodic health screening, coordinate child immunization outreach, and enroll social service clients in managed health care programs. The Citizen Health Service Corps will be an important complement to our efforts to strengthen Michigan ' s families . We believe this project will be a good investment in our state, and we are committing notable match support to see that it succeeds. Michigan enjoys a proud tradition of volunteer citizen service that government could and .should never attempt to replace. However, government may work in partnership with the voluntary sector to help communities help themselves. I believe that the Citizen Health Service Corps captures the best of the volunteer tradition while helping communities meet some of their most pressing needs . I believe you will find our proposal to be both compelling and practical, and I hope you will consider it favorably . Please contact Frank Dirks, Executive Director of the Michigan Community Service Commission, at (517)335-4295 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, �APPENDICES �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Ave . Olds Plaza Bldg ., 4th . Floor Lansing , Mich igan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Executive Director Frank Dirks November 3, 1995 Ms. Margaret Rosenberry Director of Planning and Program Development Corporation for National Service 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear Ms. Rosenberry: The Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) is dedicated to enabling all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. Citizen Health Service Corps: Michigan' s AmeriCorps will bring MCSC together with a long-time partner, the Department of Social Services. The project will make a valuable contribution to Michigan's welfare reform initiatives. I believe that you will find this to be a strong proposal that fits well with Michigan 's State Plan. As with all of Michigan's Corporation-funded programs, this project emphasizes outcome-based service, thorough evaluation, and attention to member development. If you have any questions, please contact me at 517-335-4295. 0~ Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission --, A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission 0 - N ! [OU•• "[ ~L [ O • ~ HOI �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor DEPARTM ENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 235 S CESAR CHAVEZ AVE, PO BOX 30037, LANSING Ml 48909 GERALD H. MILLER, Director November 3, 1995 Ms. Margaret Rosenberry Corporation for National Service 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear Ms. Rosenberry: The Michigan Department of Social Services is eager to expand t he services it provides to our clients through the use of Americo r p volunteers. The Department of Soc i al Services is very proud of its volunte e r program which has existed since 1967. We currently have eight y six paid volunteer services staff members and over 10,0 0 0 volunteers and groups tha t are working to support our mission To Strengthen Michigan Fam i lies. · We see our request for 30 Americorp members as strengthening o u r community involvement effort. We propose filling these Americo r p positions with clients who will use this experience and t he educational grant to increase their employability. The Americo r p members would focus their efforts to meet Health Care Outreac h objectives, another important Michigan Welfare Reform effort. The Michigan Department of Social Services would be delighted t o serve as a site for thirty Arnericorp volunteers. We will assur e that their efforts are carefully directed and that both t h e volunteers and the citizens of Michigan receive the optimum benefit from this important program. Gerald H. Mil ler �, , q:>UNTY BOARD Dr. Bartlara Rider Mrs. Behy Ongley Mr. Arthur Washingtion STATE OF MICHIGAN • KALAMAZOO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 322 STOCKBRIDGE KALAMAZOO Ml 49001 JOHN ENGLER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES GERALD H. MILLER, Director November 2, 1995 Greetings : I am writing this letter in support of the Michigan AmeriCorps Program being initiated in Kalamazoo county. The Kalamazoo County staff have selected five projects where AmeriCorps members could provide a significant service to the community. This service will include Medicaid, Managed Care Outreach, Health Care of Foster Children, Health Care of Children experiencing Abuse or Neglect and the Elderly population. In addition, the Edison Neighborhood School, which has the highest transient and homeless student population in the county strongly supports this project and will include AmeriCorps volunteers on its Health Care T earn. We believe that with the above positions in place, that the AmeriCorps Program can impact on both children and the elderly in this community. With those thoughts in mind, we endorse this AmeriCorps project.SiJerely, 1 (}-UNi/ Verne H. Robbert, Director Kalamazoo County Dept. of Social Services VHR/mmm �.' . STATE OF MICHIGAN • BE~RJEN COUNlY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 401 EIGHTH ST PO BOX 1407 BENTON HARBOR Ml ~9023-1407 JOHN ENGLER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES GERALD H. MILLER, DirectOf November 6, 1995 Margaret Rosenberry 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear Ms. Rosenberry, This letter is written in support of the grant application for the Governor's Innovative Program Subtitle H, Michigan Americorps Proposal, submitted by the Michigan Department of Social Services, Volunteer Services DiviEion. As Berrien County moves forward with To Strengthen Michigan Families, we must increase our outreach and teaching of basic healtli care practices to promote the overall medical well being of Berrien County residents. The assistance of Americorps Members will allow us to perform county-wide education on the importance of Managed Care, Immunizations and Well Child Check-ups. Poor health care for many residents of Berrien County has lead to high incidents of infant mortality, low immunization rate a!ld lack of a medical home. Amen corps Members will work tQ alleviate these problems bY. assisting with Managed Care enrollment and ·education· with regards to Well Child Check Ups and Immunizations. We look forward to your favorable consideration and working with Americorps Members in Berrien County, Michigan. ~~ Jerry S. rank, Director BERRIEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES JSF/jac �1t ' ' STATE OF MICHIGAN COUmYBOAAD Sally Repeck Elo~ Culmer Whitten • KevinF~ WAYNECOUmY OEPARTME:NT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 1200 SIXTH ST OETROIT Ml 48225 JOHN ENGLER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Oa:tAl..D H. MILLER, DirKtor November 6, 1995 Ms. Margaret Rosenberry 1201 New York Ave. N.W. Washington D.C. 20525 This is to confirm the Wayne County Department of Social Services' support for the assistance of the fifteen (15) AmeriCorps Members that are the be ·assigned to aid in Wayne County's Health Care Outreach Program. The addition of AmeriCoprs Members will permit us to provide a more concentrated and directed Health Care Outreach of the specific TSMF initiatives Wayne County's plan addresses. Further, WCDSS agrees to place Americorps Members in accordance with Americorps stipulations of its program. ! V . - r /• ..-l,Y ·~f;2n~----. l -~. uel Chambers, Jr., Direct r Wayne County Department of Social Services Michigan Plaza Building 1200 Sixth Street, suite 902 Detroit, Michigan 48226 --, 0 ""~ �- 1'l • • ZolmaStrom Audtey Flaher - v- ~ STATE OF MICHIGAN COVNTY BOARD H~n .Johrwon MACKINAC coUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES POBOX155 ST IGNACE t.AI 49781 . JOHN ENGLER, Qov.mor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES GERALD H. MilLER, Dlr.otor 11/6/95 Michigan Community Service Commission 111 s. Capitol Ave. Olds Plaza Bldg., 4th. Floor Lansing, Michigan 48913 To whom it may concern; Please consider this a letter of support for the Michigan's Americorps Subtitle H proposal project in Mackinac County. The service this program would provide is greatly needed and long overdue in our county. A program of this nature seems to be ideally suited to meet the challenging issues in Health Care that the Michigan Department of Social Services is currently addressing with its "To Strengthen Michigan Families" initiatives. our commitment to vol~nteerism in Mackinac County has enabled us to develop successful - and innovative volunteer programs. We have been ~ble to develop new resources in the area of Human Services and expand others. The Michigan's Americorpe Proposal would be a tremendous asset to our community. We look forward to being part of this exciting project. ose Salbert, Director Mackinac County DSS by:km ~· �t"• \ . , YEAR· TO-OATE VOLUNTE:R RE"'ORT VOLUNTEERS DATA THROUGH REGISTERED Y·T·D JUNE, 1995 HOURS AVERAGE OF CLIENT SE.tMCE INDIVIDUALS GROUPS DONATED OF SERVICES HOURS 1085 194 112402 53!58 ZONE2 1179 492 140816 114139 ZONE3 1102 168 110235 8150 ZONE4 1850 311 140949 g595 ZONES 1166 400 138629 827S ZONES 1190 62 15-'7""' 10798 OUTSTATE 7S72 1627 79783.5 53765 1 a 3557 888 TOTAL PROGRAM (MATERIAL WITH OLJTPVT GOODS) OONATlONS 2..735.078 s -461 .993 24996 3.424.648 s s s s s 1.389.297 383a9 542,746 40622 993.742 34737 s 2.680.909 s 3.4:.!7,880 s : 3.371,450 13 0 3203 0 374 0 175400 6716 s 4,265.727 7960 1635 979995 61369 s 23.84".647 jwAYNE STATE s s s s s s CENTRAl. OF:=ICE CUENTS SE..~VED PER MONTH DONA1:::.0 ZONE 1 RCO TOTAL DONATION VALUE 3,763,37i 19,403.3-'2 97.681 s s 1..2s1.n6 66.200 815.966 39842 5.495,499 1,680 n .as1 s s s - -- s s s s s s ADULTSERV. CH!LD se.:w. EMPLOYMENT AP VOLSE.=!V. 99,361 s s 4,292.on 0 5,523.529 254857 MUI.TI 34.0~.{, 22.1% 16.8% 1.0% 13.0% 13.2% 27.3% 7.3% 0.4% 2.1% 8.8% 54.0% ZONE3 12.~.4 2.3% 5.6°!. " ·7"/o 13.6% 61.0% ZONE4 16.8% 15.~% 1.5•.<. 10.0°.4 11.6% 44.8% ZONE5 15.2% 16.1% 1.0~~ 13.6% 11 .6% 42.5% ZONES 5.6% 35.5% 1.3% 7.5% 14.3% 35.8% 45.0% 16.4% 16.4% 1.7% 8.4% 12.1% RCO o.o•A. 92.4% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% CENTRAL OFi=iCE 5.2% 61.a% 0.0% 0.0~{, 0.0~~ 27.0% WAYNE 7.5% 8.0% 0.0% 11.3% 8.2% 65.0% 14. 7"/o 15.3% 1.4% 8.9% 11 .4% 48.4% OLTTSTATE SlATE Y-T-Q EXPENDS FY 9.4195 PER VS REPORT ALLOCATION % OFALLDC. COST PER REMAINING VOL HOUR 0.41 64.1% s s s s 221.678 59.8% s O.S4 $ 291,272 72.5% s 0 .~2 $ 1,334,982 65.4% s s 0.58 ZONE 1 $ 45,660 $ 151.573 S9.9% ZONE2 s 80,493 $ 197,172 59.2% ZONE3 $ 66.196 $ 194.012 65.9% ZONE4 $ 100,164 $ 279.275 ZONES $ 89.021 s ZONES $ 80.127 OLJTSTATE s 461,663 RCO s - s WAYNE $ 248.733 s s STATE $ 710.396 s CENTRAL OFFICE - 0.57 0.60 0.71 - 62.700 512.018 51 ,4% 1,909.700 62.8% s s 4.663.226 4,579,342· 24,898.841 8871 ZONE 1 3.223.635 4 , 42 1,62~ s s .1000 2S,350 ZONE2 4.813.945 24MJ86 $ PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL VOLUNTEER HOURS BY CUE;NT/STAFF TARGET GROUP PROGRAM PROFiLE 3,1 97,071 1.42 0.72 SAMPLE OF MONTHLY VOLUNTEER STATISTICS REPORT n .as1 29.368.175 �Taken from Michigan Department of Social Services 1993-92 Bi-Annual Report Volunteer Services More than·B,OOO individual volunteers and 1,500 groups of volunteers recruited by J)SS provide 1.4 million hours of service annually to recipients in over 500 different roles, such as: • Transporting recipients for medical purposes. • Friendly visiting, telephone reassurance, and socialization program to alleviate social isolation of the elderly and disabled. • Tutoring, providing child care, and being a youth companion. • Being a friend and role model as a parent aide. Volunteers also help DSS staff with clerical support, serve as case aides, provide child care in DSS offices for recipi~nts, and encourage client participation in the Social Contract by providing and assisting with orientation sessions, one-to-one follow-up contacts, assisting with mailings, and supervising of other volunteers who are clients. In FY 93 and 94, individuals and groups donated a total of $14.2 million in food, money, holiday gifts, camperships, furniture, appliances, household goods, scholarships, and other items to meet special recipient needs. Health Care Outreach In 1994, Berrien County Social Contract volunteers were recruited to enroll Medicaid recipients in managed care plans. Twenty-five hundred (2,500) clients were enrolled in three months. The initiative won national recognition when it recei~ed the Beneficiary Services Certificate of Merit from the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). As a result of this successful project, Volunteer Services was asked to develop hea,lth care outreach plans to assist the department in meeting To . . Strengthen Michigan _FamLlL~S initiatives related to rmmunizations, family planning, EPSDT, health screening, and Maternal and Infant Support Services. Health Care Outreach will be a major focus statewide during the next two fiscal years. � 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_AmeriCorps-Subtitle-H-Proposal Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting AmeriCorps Subtitle H proposal 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 AmeriCorps Subtitle H proposal. 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, 49747 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/43db48c8c454a940fe772423b78c59f9.pdf 8b4e5bb9b1b9333a9f4616e31786f9cb PDF Text Text A TIME FOR NEW PARTNERSHIPS Written by Frank Dirks, Michigan Community Service Commission 12118/95 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to argue that the time is right for the formation of new partnerships among the nonprofit, public, and private sectors. Against a backdrop of change greater than any single political party or sector of society can produce alone, this paper considers the inter-relationship of these sectors in addressing social . problems. Organized around the ideas of leading social observers, the paper calls for a new way of doing business. Specifically, the paper affirms the vital role of the nonprofit voluntary social sector in supporting democratic and civil institutions, engaging citizens in positive community involvement, and meeting pressing social and community needs. It considers the effects of societal change on the nonprofit voluntary sector and the sector's relationship with government and business. Finally, it outlines recommended elements for a new partnership among the sectors. Change will always bring a degree of uncertainty and anxiety, but it never comes without opportunity. Societal chanee has created new opportunities for innovation in the states. It is not possible for a society to de-massify economic activity, communications and many other crucial processes without also, sooner or later, being compelled to decentralize government decision-making as wei~ Alvin and Heidi Tofler (Creating a New Civilization, 1995) The American Republic is undergoing a provocative, once-a-generation transformation of economic, social, and political affairs. Re-engineering, reinvention, and reform are terms that have come to describe the social consciousness as much as the decision processes in business, administration, and policy. Corporate restructuring, the rise of the service economy, the shift from low-skill manufacturing jobs to high-skill technology jobs, job insecurity, and middle-class anxiety are all manifestations of change. The effects of this societal transformation are reflected in today ' s public policy debates and the substantial reassessment of longstanding policy assumptions. For almost a year, public attention has been concentrated on the ideas coming from the state and federal leadership of the new political majority. Yet, what has generally divided policy-makers is not whether 1 �to respond to societal change, but how. Many of the goals of the new majority, such as fiscal responsibility, welfare reform, flexible state administration of programs, government reinvention, local empowerment, and civic responsibility, are more intensified and elaborated versions of themes espoused in the winning campaign of the once governor and now sitting president. Everyone is being swept by the tide of change, the only question is where we stand in the flow. The recent attention given to the concept of "devolution" follows two decades of efforts by the leaders of both parties to transfer greater responsibility to state and local governments. Throughout this period, the size of the federal government workforce has seen a modest decline while states have assumed a larger role in supporting social programs. As federal policy-makers have struggled to develop a consensus response to the societal changes of the last quarter century, states have been left to act on their own. Despite having to do increasingly more, states, in recent years, have achieved efficiencies in their operations by streamlining and reducing the size of their governments. As in the progressive era, states have functioned as incubators of public policy innovation and reform. The principled call by governors of both parties for more autonomy and flexibility is simply grounded in the assertion that the increasing state responsibility for operating programs should be accompanied with the authority to set policies that be_st meet state needs. As Governor John Engler recently wrote in the National Review, "the fifty states are extremely competitive with one another. If they are allowed to experiment, the competition among them will create what is tantamount to market forces for reform. " • Regardless of one 's opinion of the effects of these changes, three things are certain. First, consequential societal transformation will accelerate, and policy-makers will have to plan for a world vastly different from the one that launched many of our current public programs. Second, states will continue to play an expanding role in governing the nation, and states will continue to serve as the laboratories for public policy innovation. Third, dramatic changes in technology, communication, and the marketplace combined with the increasing interdependence of institutions will confirm that solutions to our pressing social problems will not come from a single source. Innovative solutions to social problems will come through new partnerships and flexible collaboration among the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. 2 �The health of the republic will depend on three stron~: sectors of society. [The new high technology] society has to be a society of three sectors: a public sector of government, a private sector of business, and a social sector... It is becoming increasingly clear that through the social sector a modern developed society can again create responsible and achieving citizenship, and can again give individuals--especially knowledge workers--a sphere in which they can make a difference in society and recreate community. Peter Drucker (Atlantic Monthly, 1994) Within the sector that includes nonprofit, voluntary, charitable, and philanthropic organizations, there is frequent debate-over the best designation for the s~ctor. This paper argues for the adoption of Drucker' s term--the·Social Sector. It is simple, clear, and captures the essence of the sector's function. Social capital is formed in the social sector, and the social sector has become the source of most of the mediating institutions that function in society today. The three sectors must become facilitators of responsible citizenship by promoting citizen-driven solutions, not professionally prescribed solutions. The social sector will assume greater responsibilities in directly meeting social needs as government downsizes and society moves to de-centralized business and industry models. Accordingly, the Social Sector must become an equal contributor to social policy-making. The social sector has historically served as a pillar in American democracy. [The United States is the] one country on the face of the earth where the citizens enjoy unlimited freedom of • ·association.. .. This same c_ountry is the only one in the world where the continual exercise of the right of association has been introduced into civil life and where all advantages which civilization can confer are procured by means of it... The more (government) stands in place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance. .. Alexis de Tocqueville Americans ' proclivity to form associations, organize committees, and initiate independent action has long been recognized by social observers as one of the more important distinguishing characteristics of democracy in America. As first noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, and most recently reaffirmed by Harvard University Professor, Robert Putnam, voluntary networks, civic and religious associations, and philanthropic organizations serve to reinforce the formal civic and governmental institutions of democracy. The standards and 3 �norms that are formed through these self-regulating voluntary associations support the practices that are necessary for self-government. People learn to be responsible citizens by participating in the activities of these associations. At the same time, the associations themselves serve as mediating institutions linking individual citizens to the formal institutions of government. However, since these associations are most predominant in the social sector . they also provide citizens with a mechanism to take action on issues important to themselves and their community independent of government institutions. America's rich history of philanthropy and volunteerism grows out of this tradition of freedom of association. No · nation on earth enjoys a stronger social sector than the United States. For two-thirds of it's history the nation relied on volunteer, philanthropic, and religious associations to deliver most of what are now considered social services. Only in the last sixty-five years, in response to the enormous demands and effects of a highly centralized and industrialized economy, has government, particularly the federal government, served as the principal agent for social services. With the changes brought on by the new high technology society the pendulum is now swinging away from centralized service delivery. How far the pendulum swings back will depend on the scope and creativity of the new partnerships formed by the social and public sectors. Humanly successful societies are those in which the path to individual fulfillment lies through the enlargement . of perspective and heightening of responsibility which come from participation in the life of civi~ democracy. William Sullivan (Work and Integrity, 1995) The voluntary and philanthropic, civic and religious associations of the social sector not only mediate among citizens and government, they sustain responsible democratic citizenship. Democracy will only survive if free citizens continue to rise above their immediate interests and volunteer to serve their community or country for an hour or a year or a life-time. The organizations and associations of the social sector are America's teachers of volunteerism. It is the practice of volunteer community service that binds democratic communities. The ethic of service reconciles the paradoxical American traditions of individualism and community. The spirit of volunteerism links the frontier individualist with the community bam-raiser. When people help people they discover common ground. Through the practice of service, people of diverse backgrounds and interests afflnn shared values, and 4 �lay the foundation of a strong and healthy community. One of the most troubling characteristics of this era of change has been the decline of public confidence in public institutions. For the last twenty-five years, when consensus on many issues has been difficult to achieve, most Americans have shared the opinion that their faith in government, business, charities, the future , and even themselves is diminishing. Americans' declining regard for their government is so well known it has become a disturbing cliche. Much has been made of public frustration, but even more troubling is the public· s growing sense of its own powerlessness. A 1994 study, conducted for the National Civic League, found that not only large majorities doubted government's ability at every level to solve the problems of their communities, but that roughly half doubted even their own ability and their neighbors ability to solve problems. The health of democracy is most threatened when citizens no longer believe in the power of individual action. The public. private. and social sectors must become social capital investors. Social capital is critical to prosperity and to what has come to be called competitiveness, but its more important consequences may not be felt in the economy so much as in social and political life... The concept of social capital makes clear why capitalism and democracy are so closely related. A healthy capitalist economy is one in which there will be sufficient social capital in the underlying society to permit businesses, corporations, networks and the like to be self organizing.... That self-organizing proclivity is exactly what is necessa.ry to ·make democratic political institutions work as well. • Francis Fukuyama (Trust, 1995 ) Social capital is an amalgam of voluntary associations, standards, and practices that is created through public, private, and citizen involvement and investment in the social sector. Service and volunteerism are its essential ingredients. Social capitd generates what Fukuyama calls trust-- the public ' s confidence in themselves and their public and private institutions to work fairly and appropriately. Every citizen is an investor in social capital formation, and it is very much in the interest of government and business to invest as well. Without social capital and the trust it generates, democratic and market institutions will break apart and collapse. In the face of growing public cynicism and its deleterious effect on social capital and public trust, government and 5 �business must become the chief investors in social capital formation. Such investment comes not only through financial support, but also moral support. Government and business must demonstrate responsible behavior and accountability to the community. They must restore their connections to citizens by strengthening and empowering the voluntary, civic, and religious associations that give people faith in their communities. Most · importantly, for government and business to responsibly invest in social capital formation, they must treat the social sector with the respect of an equal partner. No longer should citizens and their associations be viewed as passive clients. Instead they must be accorded the respect due to co-investors in the public trust. The public and private sector must learn to listen to the social sector. Community-based organizations will increasingly act as arbiters and ombudsmen with the larger forces of the marketplace and government, serving as the primary advocates for social and political reform. [Social] sector organizations are also likely to take up the task of providing more and more basic services in the wake of cutbacks in government aid and assistance to persons and neighborhoods in need. Jeremy Rifkin (The End of Work, 1994) The social sector must assert itself as an organized, active, and equal partner with the public and private sectors. For too long, the social sector has allowed the public and private sectors to make sweeping assumptions about its needs, capacities, and resources. For too long, the social sector has grudgingly accepted the inexorable pace of change. The social sector must willfully confront and accept the challenges posed by the societal transformations of o~r age. Social sector organizations must reassess their operations. They must be willing to move away from the centralized administrative structures that are being rejected by the public and private sectors. As client serving bureaucracies are giving way to customer driven organizations, the social sector has the opportunity to become the principal facilitator of citizen empowerment. The social sector must conceive of itself as an agent of change rather than a bulwark against the effects of change. The social sector must take its expanding role seriously enough to challenge the old assumptions of the public and private sectors. If the social sector vigorously pursues a broader role, then it will be in the position to insist the government and business meet their obligations as co-investors in social capital. If the social sector tackles social 6 �problems, mediates among institutions, and empowers citizens through service and volunteerism then the public and private sectors will be forced by the court of public opinion to live up to their part of the bargain. Since social capital investment requires more than a transitory offering, business will be challenged to sustain the obligations of good corporate citizenship. Since innovation and creativity in the operation of social service programs will require administrative flexibility, government will have to demonstrate the depth of its commitment to give the social sector control of, as well as responsibility for, these programs. All three sectors need to learn to do business differently. Social problems must no longer be trivialized and compartmentalized for partisan political advantage. All three sectors can help restore public trust by promoting problem-solving, not problem-labelling. If the social sector is to rise to the challenge, it cannot be shackled for narrow political advantage by its own interests or those of government or business. Government and business in their reaffirmation of the historic role of the social sector in making healthy communities and sustaining democratic citizenship must accept its leadership. When they challenge the social sector to step up to the role of principal social problem-solver, government and business must then listen to what the social sector has to say about social problems. An equal and assertive social sector will stimulate innovative. new partnerships. Creative partnerships between government and nonprofit organizations--with government providing fintMcing and appropriate oversight to grassroots organizations providing competent, caring services at the local level--may offer a road map back to a healthy American Society... attention to the outstanding ideas coming from grassroots geniuses. It is time for government to pay Robin Garr (Reinvesting in America, 1995) With increasing frequency, the public and private sectors are looking to the social sector as a source of ideas for promoting citizen problem-solving. Government and business have launched new public-private partnerships to enhance service and volunteerism in the social sector. Nationally, the initiatives of two successive presidents have demonstrated bi-partisan support for service and volunteerism in the social sector. First, George Bush's Points of Light Foundation and now Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps National Service program represent similarly conceived public-private partnerships in support of social sector through service and volunteerism. States are also seeking, 7 �as Governor Engler wrote in the National Review, "public/private partnerships, such as Michigan's with the Salvation Army, to confront the challenge of poverty. [States] will invite private charities to resume the historically important role they have played in bettering the lives of the poor." To fully assume the mantle of leadership and accept the challenge of the times; the social sector should concern itself with the larger task of community building, not just providing support for the poor. However, in order for this to occur, agencies of the social sector and funders from government, business, and philanthropic institutions need to come together to improve the systems of soci3.1 service delivery. Public and private grant makers and grant seekers can enhance their partnerships by seeking comprehensive and collaborative approaches to community renewal. Grant makers and grant seekers need to develop non-threatening ways to challenge each other to overcome the barriers to collaboration. All must recognize that they can no longer seek singularly conceived solutions. Each should be open to doing business in different ways. In order to discover new ways of doing business, public and private funders should collaboratively develop consistent systems for effective communication about strategic funding decisions. Improved communication and shared decision making among the sectors will improve the prospects of nonprofits sustaining their activities. Working together, public and private grant makers can offer nonprofit agencies the flexibility to respond to changing conditions in communities. Grant makers can provide the resources and rewards to create efficiencies in senrice delivery. Collaboration is the key to efficient service delivery and funders must be willing to support more . of it. Nonprofit agencies need steady incentives to collaborate, partner, and merge. Through consistent collaboration among themselves, public, private, and philanthropic funders will more effectively support collaboration and new partnerships among the programs they fund. Comprehensive solutions to deeply rooted community problems will only come through the innovation found in new partnerships. Volunteers in service to the community will become a nexus for new partnerships. Community problem-solving activities build community. A healthy community will provide ample opportunities for individuals to participate in community efforts..... Perhaps the most important 8 �requirement for effective leadership is the continuous collaboration between... government and all the segments of private sector leadership, profit and nonprofit. John Gardner (Building Community , 1991 ) The singular goal of community problem-solving must become the galvanizing force that shapes the new partnerships with the social sector. The degree to which community problems are solved should be the standard measure of success for the agencies and associations of the social sector. The language of community problem-. solving should become the unifying language of the three sectors. The promotion of community service and the involvement of volunteers should become the shared practice of the three sectors. Citizen volunteers are £!le fu el that drives community problem-solving. Volunteers serve as a conduit of communication and a source of · understanding among agencies. The sectors need new ways to coordinate their volunteer activities in order to maximize the impact of their service. There is no better investment than an investment in voluntary service. Volunteer programs are not costless, and they are not self-managing. Despite the popular belief to th e contrary, these programs necessitate expenditures .... and supervision by agency staff. Jeffery Brudney (Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector, 1990) Without volunteers community problems will never be solved, but volunteers do not come free. They require an investment. Volunteers must be recruited, trained, transported, and in some cases fed. Their times of service must be coordinated, their activities supervised, and in some cases, when they commit their full time to serve, they must be reimbursed for that commitment in order to live. Like all things of value, volunteerism does not come • without a commitment of .effort and resources .. If a community of volunteers makes for a healthy community, then it is a worthy public investment. The overwhelming majority of citizens who volunteer in their retirement report that they have done so because of a volunteer experience in their youth. Yet the majority of youth say that if they do not volunteer it is because they are not asked. If we do not invest in efforts to support and promote service and volunteerism now, we will not be able to count on these same individuals to volunteer later in life when they have more disposable time to do so. The only way we will solve our country s social problems is through citizen action, by people helping people, by community helping community. George Romney 9 �Change has presented Michigan with a unique opportunity to renew and create the means by which government, business, and the nonprofit sector can work together to address our communities ' social problems. This is an opportunity for the sectors to come together to tap the energy of collaboration and empower communities with the fuel of citizen-driven solutions. Few American leaders remain as steadfastly convinced of the positive power of citizen action as George Romney did throughout his life. His boundless devotion to volunteerism and his energetic determination to see it rooted in every aspect of America's communities are the inspiration for this paper. We would do well to seek the idealism of his faith by making this a time for new partnerships . • 10 �A Framework for New Partnerships Beyond consideration of the ideas contained in the New Partnerships paper, there are a number of near-term steps that may move the social sector forward in Michigan. The items listed below are only intended to serve as starting points for discussion. There are certainly other steps that may be taken. Some of the points may already be underway in some form. If so, use this as an opportunity to increase broader awareness, participation, and endorsement of such activities. Refine, revise, and alter these points as needed, but keep in mind that everyone at the table will be involved in some endeavor in which others may benefit from participating. 1. Establish a statewide public/social sector infrastructure that ensures that every community has a functioning voluntary action center. (Publicly endorse this as a principal goal of this the new partnerships initiatives.) 2. Designate an agency to establish a forum for regular communication and discussion among the three sectors. (The Michigan Community Service Commission would enhance it' s current role as a facilitator of communication among the sectors.) 3. Support a funders' forum that brings together public, private, and philanthropic gnint makers to explore opportunities for improved collaboration. (Recommend that the Council of Michigan Foundations regularly convene a meeting of public, private, and philanthropic funders in order to facilitate communication and coordinated collaborative strategic planning.) 4. Establish an annual statewide collaborative social sector conference involving key networks and organizations. (State networks of social and public sector programs and agencies would be invited to collaborate in the planning and implementation of the superconference. The super-conference would draw practitioners and policy makers to promote communication and collaboration.) 5. Launch and sustain a campaign to promote volunteer community problem-solving. (Encourage the media to support the effort in collaboration with the state and regional public and volunteer social sector agencies. The campaign should emphasize serious problem solving by volunteers.) 6. Designate and support a single agency to coordinate volunteer and service activities among state agencies. (The Michigan Community Service Commission would be designated to facilitate communication and coordination among state agencies and among state agencies and nonprofit volunteer organizations.) 7. Designate a state nonprofit entity to promote and coordinate corporate volunteer goals. (Recognize and support the work of the Michigan Nonprofit Forum and the Volunteer Centers of Michigan to promote corporate volunteerism. Encourage and promote corporate volunteer programs as one indication of good corporate citizenship.) 8. Change the judicial designation of court ordered "community service" to court ordered "community restitution." (Develop consensus endorsement for the necessary legislative and technical changes to accomplish this.) 9. Promote the establishment of a pool of public, private, and philanthropic funds to provide incentives for social sector agencies to initiate sustainable interagency partnerships that meet community determined needs. (Encourage the coordination of the grant makers communication forum and the state's human service Systems Reform for Children and Their Families initiative, particularly its collaborative governance effort.) • �10. Develop a common statewide database on service and volunteerism that is shared by public, private, and social sector agencies. (Support the development of an inter-networking system that links multi-agency public and private volunteer agencies.) 11. Support efforts by schools and youth agencies to involve young people in volunteer community service. (Endorse a public/private outreach campaign to encourage youth service and communities of the value of youth as volunteer resources.) Support stipended and non-stipended service and volunteer programs. Their test should not be oxymoronic, but rather how effectively they meet community needs. (Develop a consensus position that supports the role of socio-economically diverse stipended volunteers as multipliers of non-stipended volunteers.) 12. • 13. End the programmatic segregation of youth and senior volunteer programs. (Promote and support in.tergenerational service and volunteer programs-- emphasizing that youth and seniors should serve their communit~es together and not simply serve each other. 14. Coordinate state-wide service and volunteer recognition activities. (Conduct the Governor's Community Service Awards program and dinner in conjunction with the Council of Michigan Foundations' and the Michigan Nonprofit Forum' s Grant Maker/Grant Seeker Conference.) 15. Involve state agencies in state-wide volunteer promotion activities such as "Make a Difference Day" and "National Volunteer Week". (Endorse the Michigan Community Service Commission, the Volunteer Centers of Michigan, and United Way Community Services of Southeast Michigan as the principal facilitators for annual statewide volunteer special events.) � 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_A-Time-for-New-Partnerships Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting A Time for New Partnerships 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 A Time for New Partnerships. 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, 49748 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/815b160a79b2c35b85db6908cb3ae0c1.pdf d628fe2fb5d2c25aa506e6a10fdfc169 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michig an 48913 (5 17) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commis RE: Commission meetings DATE: February 13, 1996 The February 23, 1996 meeting has been canceled and rescheduled for March 15, 1996. The meeting will be from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m . and will be held in the Michigan Room, Olds Plaza Building, 111 S. Capitol Avenue, Lansing. Also attached is a copy of the meeting dates for the Commission in 1996. I will be sending meeting materials at a later date. Should you have any questions, please call me or Mary Estrada at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission ....., v' �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR 1996 10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. Friday, February 23, 1996 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Location: Lansing Friday, March 15, 1996 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Location: Lansing FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1996 Host: Victor Begg Location: ACCESS in Dearborn FRIDAY, August 23, 1996 Host: Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell Location: Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1996 Host: Sister Mary Martinez Location: Madonna University in Livonia MCSC - Executive Committee Meetings 9:00 a.m. - Noon Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan Friday, January 26, 1996 Friday, April26, 1996 Friday, July 9, 1996 Friday, November 15, 1996 � 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_Commission-Meetings Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting commission meetings 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 commission meetings. 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, 49749 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/e6b93e43b13ee12f6275aa9cec86eb25.pdf dfc0c819964da4d12787a859dc76d0cc PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION · Chairperson Mic;helle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service C~~ RE: Executive Director's Report DATE: March 8, 1996 111 Olds Plaza Lans ing . Te lephone FAX S. Cap1tol Ave . Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517 ) _373-4977. 7 ~-~~ --?)-:l~­ In my last report to you I outlined the following three priorities for our strategic development. 1) Seek an increase of state appropriations for Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) to support administration and operation. MCSC has currently requested an FY97 appropriation of $350,00, which is double our current appropriation. 2) Provide support to efforts to reauthorize National Community Service Trust Act (NCSTA). 3) Initiate efforts to secure a visible, sustainable, and funded role for MCSC beyond the current administration. These are the steps we have taken since our last meeting to achieve these objectives. 1) Joel Orosz, Mike Tate, Terry Pruitt, and Michelle Engler have formed a Commission committee to coordinate in-state legislative outreach. The committee has outlined a plan for outreach and information to the legislature. We have developed a contact list for Commissioners as well as contact sheets and talking points for coordinating information. We will distribute these for your review at the Commission Meeting. The committee has also developed a proposal for MCSC to organize a Legislature Community Service A wards program. The program would enable each state representative and Senator to nominate a constituent who has modelled outstanding community service. The legislators and nominees would be honored at an awards breakfast in the fall. A nonpartisan selection committee would select a single awardee for the highest honor. Joel has indicated that the Kellogg Foundation is willing to receive a proposal to support the first year breakfast and awards . We will need Commission approval before we go forward. A Divisi on of the Michi gan Jobs Comm ission 0' ~ �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Two 2) In early February, Ms. Engler met with Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Chair of the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which will oversee reauthorization of the NCST A. Ms. Engler expressed her support for national service and offered to help in the reauthorization effort in any way the Chair thought best. The Chair indicated that she hoped to hold hearings in late April, but also expressed concern over a very tight legislative calendar in a presidential election year. At the National Governors' Association Winter meeting, Ms. Engler led a group of governors' spouses to an AmeriCorps site in Washington. Ms. Engler followed up the meeting by sending a copy of the MCSC Annual Report to all of the governors' spouses. Since joining the Points of Light Foundation Board, Ms. Engler has also spoken out on behalf of service and volunteerism. Since December, I have served on a Corporation for National Service (CNS) work group composed of state commission executive directors and CNS state office directors to attempt to hammer out reauthorization proposals for alternative administrative structures. I have also worked with my commission director colleagues to develop a viable association of state commission directors to advocate from the state perspective. We submitted comments for reauthorization in January and held our first independent meeting earlier this week. We are working to achieve greater state flexibility in the administration of national service funds while reaffirming state support for the field. 3) In February, the Governor and First Lady convened a meeting for New Partnerships in Michigan. Co-sponsored by MCSC, Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), and Council of Michigan Foundation (CMF) the meeting was intended to initiate a state-wide dialogue on the roles that government, business, and nonprofits can play collaboratively in meeting social needs and building stronger communities. Leaders from across the sectors attended the meeting. Their response was very positive. (The white paper, draft recommendations, an agenda, and participant list is enclosed.) We will hold a follow-up meeting at the Grantmakers/Grantseekers conference in May. Also, at the Grantmakers/Grantseekers conference, we will hold the Third Annual Governor's Community Service Awards. Placement at this event will further elevate its visibility and increase broader public interest in the awards. These two efforts will help to strategically place MCSC in the role of a visible and important institution alongside its partners CMF and MNA. Since last year Julie Cummings has been energetically working to develop an MCSC outreach and communications plan that will increase our visibility and public recognition. She has brought in a former Little Caesar' s executive as a consultant. She has also worked with a Detroit Communications firm. She has dedicated not only her time and resources, but her staff's as well. I have had a chance to review an early draft of her proposal and it shows great promise. I hope that those of you whom have expressed interest in assisting in MCSC communication and outreach will be able to join her for a committee meeting immediately prior to the Commission meeting. She has identified a number of important opportunities before us, and your help will assure that we will achieve them. �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Three In an effort to develop operational connections to the Department of Social Services (DSS) county volunteer coordinators, MCSC worked with Barbara Bradford of DSS to develop an AmeriCorps proposal under the CNS Governors' Innovative Program grants. CNS notified us in January that the Michigan proposal was approved and funded. We were told informally that it was one of the strongest they received. At the December Commission meeting we discussed MCSC' s fmancial situation in light of uncertain Federal funding. Since the meeting, CNS has provided us with our FY96 funding levels under the Continuing Resolution. Funding is capped at FY95 levels. Since we sought and budgeted less that our total formula allotment, the reductions will have no effect on our operations. Also at the meeting, Dottie Johnson expressed concern that Commissioners were not receiving written financial reports. Enclosed in your packet is a Comparative Financial Statement (CFS) for MCSC through 2/29/96. The CFS will be a regular part of all future Commission meeting reports. As I reported at the last meeting, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation awarded MCSC a Phase II grant for Michigan CARES. Since then we have received evaluator reports for Phase I. I have included them in your packet for review. Overall, they confmn the wisdom Kellogg's decision to fund Phase II. Further evidence can be found in the Kellogg Youth Initiate Program (KYIP) of Calhoun County. The KYIP director has set aside $100,000 to enable Calhoun County to become a part of the CARES project. We can thank our program officer, Chris Kwak, for her advocacy efforts on our behalf. In early February we began discussion with the leadership of MDE regarding the possible transfer of Learn and Serve school-base program administrative responsibility from MDE to MCSC. This was sparked by MDE's internal reassessment of its priorities and focus. Should the transfer occur, we will know in February. The details still need to be negotiated, but we would receive a level of ·administrative support to supplement our current staff. The program currently has an $812,000 . budget. .Transferring it to MCSC will secure it and enable MCSC to improve coordinations of state and local Learn and Serve activities. UPDATES AmeriCor:ps In the last quarter that programs reported, Michigan's AmeriCorps involved 1,315 nonstipended volunteers who provided in service hours nearly three years of full time service to their communities. The 247 active members gave 76,398 hours of service in the last quarter. In December, members volunteered to help out at Saint Vincent De Paul after their terrible fire. In the last month and a half we conducted intensive site visits to the programs. We have also brought in specialized technical assistance providers for specific program needs. Overall, our programs are performing as intended. We will summarize site visit findings at the meeting. Our renewal application is due to CNS May 1. The timeline is short and we will put forth no new programs. Accordingly, I am requesting that the executive committee be empowered to approve our package rather than reschedule the full Commission meeting. �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Four Michigan CARES We will be holding a state-wide CARES meeting in Lansing in late March. The purpose of the meeting is to refine community plans and promote cross-community collaboration. We expect _ roughly 50-60 people to attend the two-day meeting. TAP-Youth Service Also in March we will hold a two-day state-wide training conference as part of the TAP-YS program. At the meeting we will highlight the work done in Detroit and make available the TAPYS resource guide. The conference is offered to low income community-based organizations. There is no registration fee. More than 150 people have already registered. (See enclosed brochure.) Investments in Volunteerism The result of the CMF/WKK hosted meeting in February of 1995 is finally at hand. This guide (enclosed) will be distributed to our network, CMF' s network, and libraries across the state. PROGRESS REPORT ON SECOND YEAR OBJECTIVES In the three-year State Plan that we submitted to CNS in 1994 we enumerated our annual objectives. This summary Year Two objectives reflects our year-to-date accomplishments. In partnership with the Staff Advisory Committee and drawing ·on the results of the Year One inventory, identify, evaluate, and document model Kindergarten-Retiree service and volunteer programs and practitioners. The collaboration resource guide is still in development. We have scheduled a retreat for the advisory council in April. We intend for the retreat to identify and clarify roles for the council so that it may serve as both a resource for MCSC and the organizations involved. Among the recommendations discussed at the New Partnerships Meeting in February was the formal endorsement of the council as a regular collaboration and networking meeting for state and nonprofit agencies. The recently published "Investments in Volunteerism" identifies a number of service and volunteer programs that were deemed models by their funders. In cooperation with MYPAC and the Michigan Nonprofit Association, develop a state recruitment campaign for AmeriCorps and youth service volunteers. In cooperation with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan and the Points of Light Foundation, MCSC registered more than 80 Make a Difference Day projects that involved more than 12,000 volunteers. An information booklet is enclosed. �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Five MCSC mailed 2,000 post cards to individuals interested in becoming involved in AmeriCorps. Respondents will be sent an application, which, when returned, will forwarded to Michigan ' s AmeriCorps programs. MCSC is working in cooperation with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan and the Council of Michigan Foundations' Youth in Philanthropy Project to promote and coordinate April' s National · Youth Service Day activities in Michigan. Facilitate the development of at least two quality AmeriCorps proposals from neighborhood and community-based organizations. Through TAP-Youth Service, MCSC's partner, the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) of Metropolitan Detroit is providing intensive technical assistance and training workshops to neighborhood and community-based nonprofits in topics necessary for any successful ArneriCorps applicant. The Continuing Resolution that has funded the Corporation for National Service is based on an agreement between the White House and the Congressional Leadership that reduces overall funding levels by 25%. CNS has administered these reductions in a way that maintains state formula funding and competitive program funding at FY95 levels. This means that MCSC will not be able to issue a new ArneriCorps program application process. Develop, with private sector support, an MCSC state service newsletter. MCSC has already published four newsletters with support from its CNS administrative grant. MCSC will begin a plan to develop private sector support this fiscal year. MCSC will disseminate a reader survey to the 3,334 mailing list recipients in order to assess marketability . . Establish a Task Force on intergenerational service program development. MCSC will hold its first meeting of the Senior Advisory Council in April. Members of the Council will also serve as reviewers for the Intergenerational poster contest that we launched in December. The winning poster will be printed and distributed across that state like Youth Volunteer Poster. Establish a Task Force on developing model national and community service programs that link Community Action Programs, Area Agencies on Aging, Headstart, school-readiness, and schoolto-work transition. Since January, MCSC has conducted a series of trainings that have drawn 250 people from ArneriCorps, Learn and Serve, VISTA, RSVP, Foster Grandparents, and traditional volunteer organizations. MCSC offered the trainings free of charge. Topics were Fundraising, presented by the Indiana University School of Philanthropy; ArneriCorps Program Leaders Training, presented by a former City Year founding staffer; Youth Development, presented by Detroit's CYO; and Service Learning, presented by a Coalition for Essential Schools. The Fundraising and Leaders trainings were held in Lansing. The Youth Development and Service Learning were held in Traverse City, Kalamazoo, Flint, and Detroit. Overall, the participant evaluations rated the trainings as useful and efficacious. �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Six Based on the participant evaluations, MCSC will modify the regional trainings and conduct at least tWo more this year. The objectives of the trainings are to provide valuable information, develop important skills, and facilitate cross-program communications and collaboration. · Produce and disseminate, with private sector support, MCSC posters for recruiting school-age youth to participate in service and volunteer activities. MCSC disseminated the posters to all of Michigan's public schools and volunteer centers in September as part of the Make a Difference Day outreach effort. Double the number of citizen respondents to the Community Service Awards Program and create a category for model community service partnerships. Despite an improved data base, and a distribution of 4,000 award applications, MCSC fell well short of its goal to double the number of applications received. MCSC got only 220 applications. MCSC will assess its outreach strategy as well as the structure and presentation of the application over the summer. Identify the five strongest Michigan CARES communities to be Lab Communities for promoting continued community generated private sector support. MCSC has anchored its regional collaboration meetings in CARES communities. With the Kellogg Foundation's funding for CARES Phase IT, MCSC will have three years to strengthen collaboration in these communities. Based on practitioner critique, revise the state AmeriCorps training and technical assistance. MCSC has already revised the framework for AmeriCorps training. In August, MCSC brought new and renewal program staff together for a two-day training led by a founding member of the City Year program·staff. In November, MCSC revised its AmeriCorps contractor's notebook and renamed it the Michigan's AmeriCorps Policy and Procedures Guide. MCSC will do the same for the Learn and Serve Michigan program materials. In January, MCSC conducted a statewide AmeriCorps Leaders training. In late March, MCSC will conduct a state-wide training of all Michigan AmeriCorps members and staff in Flint. Integrate state peer technical assistance consultants into AmeriCorps training and program development. MCSC has identified leaders among first year programs to serve as peer technical assistance providers. MCSC' s training plan calls for these peer T A providers to play a more central role in the second year. Michigan's AmeriCorps sites have already begun to host monthly program directors meetings. The Leaders and All Program Trainings are intended to develop stronger peer support · relationships. �Michigan Community Service Commission March 8, 1996 Page Seven In partnership with MDE leverage at least one school/community partnership by targeting School and Community-Based Learn and Service grants. MCSC' s Quest International and its summer phase Learn and Serve grants have been based on the goal of forging school-community partnerships. MCSC has built into its year two Learn and Serve Michigan funding renewal package a strong emphasis on school/community partnerships. MCSC has recently engaged in discussions with the MDE leadership over the possible transfer of administrative responsibility for K-12 school-based Learn and Serve programs from MDE to MCSC. The current budget for these programs is $812,000. Integrate AmeriCorps peer technical assistance consultants into Michigan Service-Learning Leadership Council and revise common training elements as needed. MCSC and the Council have established a common definition for service-learning. AmeriCorps program staff are currently members of the Council. MCSC printed a draft service learning principles and practices guide in time for the Quest conference. MCSC began dissemination of the Michigan Service Learning Principles and Practices Guide in January. The guide will also be distributed at the National Service Learning Conference in Detroit in April. Develop partnerships among community service youth action councils and local government youth councils in select communities. The printing of the results from the Youth Action Forums has been delayed until May. Initiate efforts to establish MCSC as an endowed public/private authority. Long range planning continues. MCSC must set final action plans by the first of the year. The New Partnerships meeting in February served as an important step in the strategic positioning of MCSC. · MCSC will initiate state legislative outreach in March. TheW. K. Kellogg Foundation has expressed an interest in supporting a legislative community service awards breakfast in the early fall. The service awards would be offered to a constituent per district nominated by every legislator. The awards recognize an outstanding commitment to service. A nonpartisan review panel will select a single awardee from all the nominees. � 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_Executive-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting executive director's report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting executive director's report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49750 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/71cef0c3b7c33bfed31576a0d7992768.pdf 3f04e6a768b9e894a21898ec5da666b6 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 Olds Plaza Lansing , Telephone FAX Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM a TO: Frank Dirks, Executive Director FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Administration @~ RE: Financial Statement DATE: March 8, 1996 Enclosed is a copy of the comparative financial statement for the Michigan Community Service Commission as of February 29, 1996. After review of the YTD actual spending, I see no areas of concern. One area that we can look at adjusting is the salaries and benefits under Federal Funds, Operational. This amount was based on two limited term positions being funded for the fiscal year. As of this date, both these positions remain unfilled. Therefore, this amount can be reviewed and excess funds should be transferred into other line items. With over 40% of the current fiscal year complete, we have expended roughly 21% of the budgeted funds for administrative and program training. This gap between budgeted and actual expenditure will close considerably as this month will have our two major training/conferences; the CARES!fAP-Youth Service conference, and the Michigan's AmeriCorps Retreat. We look like we will have excess funds left in many of the line items to be carried into the next fiscal year to help soften the loss if the Federal Government does cut National Service. We will be able to get a better picture of forecasted unspent funds around the end of the third quarter, June 30, 1996. . A Division of the Michigan Jobs Comm ission ~, Q -~ ... MC'I'Cli'DIAI'tll �MCSC Michigan Community Selrvice Commission Comparative Financial Statement As of February 29, 19B6 STATE FUNDS GF/GP Budget YTD Actual Operational Budget YTD Actual FEDERAL FUNDS P·DAT AmeriCorps Budget YTD Actual Budget YTD Actual Current Year Income Prior Year Carryover 175,000 0 175 ,000 0 350 ,000 100,000 350 ,000 100,000 80 ,000 55,000 80 ,000 55 ,000 3 ,050,087 3 ,050 ,087 Total Revenues 175 ,000 175,000 450 ,000 450,000 135,000 Program Sub-Grants Operations Sub-Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sub-Grants 0 0 0 Salaries & Benefits Admin Consultants Evaluation Training Travel Computer/Off Equip. Meetings Wkshps/Conferences Materials/Guides Printing/Mailing 144 ,550 0 0 0 0 8,000 22,450 0 0 0 0 49 ,2 10 0 0 0 0 1,049 17,013 0 0 0 0 Total Admin Expenses 175 ,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 175,000 TOTALS Learn & Serve Budget YTD Actual PRIVATE & FOUNDATION FUNDS Michigan CARES TAP-Youth Service Budget YTD Actual Budget YTD Actual 0 163,000 12,000 163 ,000 12,000 325 ,000 103,011 325,000 103,011 0 34 ,000 0 34,000 4 ,143,087 304 ,011 4,143 ,087 304 ,011 135,000 3 ,050 ,087 3,050,087 175 ,000 175,000 428,011 428,011 34,000 34 ,000 4,447 ,098 4,447 ,098 0 0 0 0 3 ,050,087 3,050 ,087 0 10 121 ,890 0 121,890 0 0 245 ,000 0 245,000 0 0 0 0 3 , 171 ,977 245,000 3, 171,977 245,000 0 0 0 3 ,050 ,087 3,050 ,087 121 ,890 121,890 245 ,000 245,000 0 0 3,416 ,977 3,416 ,977 92,435 10,000 168,600 30,000 8,000 20,000 0 10 ,000 35,000 20,000 55,965 0 5,477 64 ,790 30,000 474 1,217 0 0 1,008 126 12,589 0 0 49,300 0 24 ,482 7,904 2 ,000 11 ,282 30 , 938 9,094 0 0 0 1,610 0 1,347 3,955 2,000 81 9,533 1,691 0 ------~0________10 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 12 ,500 20 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,094 37,000 0 21 ,375 32 ,784 0 4 ,008 50 ,000 27 ,750 0 0 2,9 58 0 0 114 2,532 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ,000 4 ,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 12 ,000 8 ,000 0 0 340 0 0 0 720 0 0 0 6 ,977 0 236,985 24,094 258,900 30,000 73,857 74 ,688 24 ,450 37,790 147 ,938 64,844 55 ,965 49,210 8 ,775 66,400 30 ,000 1,935 9,473 19 ,013 81 10 ,541 8 ,794 12 ,589 67 ,272 450 ,000 115,681 135 ,000 20 ,217 ________::.0_______;10 52 ,500 0 183 ,011 5,604 34,000 8 ,037 1,029,511 216,811 67 ,272 450,000 115 ,681 135,000 20 ,217 3 ,050,087 3 ,050,087 174 ,390 121 ,890 428,011 250,60 4 34,000 8,037 4,446 ,488 3,633 ,788 0 Budget YTD Actuals SUB-BRANTS ADMIN. EXPENSES REMAINING FUNDS 107,728 334 ,319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 114,783 53,110 177,407 25,963 Federal Operations and P·DAT funds are estimates, final amounts are contingent upon the final federal budget. M.C.S.C., in cooperation with the Capital Area Community Foundation, also receives additional support from private sources to help offset the cost of the Governor's Community Service Awards Program and the AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. Page 1 813 ,310 � 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_Financial-Statement Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting financial statement 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 financial statement. 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, 49751 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/c15be34734d7869bb00c755e7fd20348.pdf 2ff0b197ec819b2c3eab5cde97541131 PDF Text Text .. . Office of The First Lady Event Information Form Please complete the following information regarding your event and return this form, along with a complete agenda and additional information for the event to: Michelle Engler 2520 Oxford Lansing, Michigan 48911 Attn: Allyson Tighe or FAX to (517) 335-1999 Hry . 1- Lu.w;A at f/pde!lCe- Name of Event: Event Sponsor: Date: \S~ Starting time: Ending time: -H · Event Location: Phone at event: Directions: :535-l/-29!} O{ds Fax at event: Pta-xi 373-'-/977 dtJ~ (attach map if av ailable) Contact Person: Ma!!J ~cia._ Phone: Location where contact will meet the First Lady: ~~~~==~~~~~----- PROGRAM INFORMATION: Number of people attending: Proper attire: Preferred topic of the First Lady's speech (if applicable): ------------------ Length of First Lady's speech: Podium/Microphone available: Yes I No �. ~ - 4avch 15 (2) The First Lady's Introduction will be made by: Time that the First Lady is expected to participate: _ _____;3=-h__..Y.....;;;.._• S _ _ _ _ __ Special presentations that will be made during the event, either to the First Lady, or others present (if applicable): Seating arrangements for the First Lady: (head table, etc.) The First Lady will be seated with (please include names and titles): - - - - - Please list any media that will be present: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !his ;S' a rescheM iecL comm/&1 ~ p.u fYl£ a¥Jd r. birk-£. Additional comments: mfJ For your information, the First Lady is accompanied to events by one security person and one staff person. We will be in contact with you the week of the event to finalize details. Please feel free to contact Allyson Tighe at (517) 335-4049, should you have any questions or concerns. � 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_First-Lady-Event-Information-Form Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting First Lady event information form 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 First Lady event information form. 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, 49752 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/8321e9202506a4c1107432e786ca25ac.pdf 33d640fb3a5e92ea96d82a9a851d01fb PDF Text Text LEGISLATIVE CONTACT SHEET MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Please complete this form after you have spoken with a legislator and return the completed form to the Michigan Community Service Commission. 1. Legislator (first name) (last name) 0 U.S. Senator 0 U.S. Representative 2. 0 Michigan Senator 0 Michigan Representative 3. Type of contact: 4. Date that contact took place: 5• Content of the contact: 6• Follow-up needed by MCSC Staff: 7. Commissioner's name: 8. Phone number: 0 in person 0 faxed correspondence 0 phone call Fax number: DATE: RECEIVED BY: (to be fill~d out b MCSC staff member) � 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_Legislative-Contact-Sheet Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting legislative contact sheet 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 legislative contact sheet. 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, 49753 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/3647d47d44294152671a79590a08a877.pdf 9112ceba66198647a4fcedb975ef80a7 PDF Text Text A.Rm communications MCSC Proposed 1-3 Year Marketing Action Plan In order to begin promoting the MCSC - it is critical to identify its mission; determine exactly what niche MCSC is intending to fill (positioning); and who the MCSC will be targeting. MCSC goals: •Create and develop an image and identity that is familiar and known by target audience. recommend: review logo and slogan •Promote concept of service and volunteerism in Michigan •Support state-wide and local agencies that offer community service and volunteer opportunities (creating a partnership) •Create a 1-800 (888) number which promotes volunteerism and offers a link to local community agencies/organizations •The MCSC should be positioned as the state-wide coordinator of the community service/volunteerism. Desired outcome: Target audience develops recognition with MCSC and its message - to promote public service/volunteerism; provide access to state-wide and local agencies; and move your public/target audience to action. Target audience: general public (demographics 16 yrs. and up) This in itself is a huge segment; therefore, it is important to stay focused as not to create mixed messages to several audiences. ("If you chase more than one rabbit at a time, you catch none." Bovee/Arens .contemporary Advertising) Media Campaign: (Cause-related) •Create a persuasive campaign that is appealing. recommend: (Michelle Engler and the triplets or other Michigan related celebrities , such as Grant Hill, Robin Williams, Anita Baker, Magic Johnson, etc.) •Create a logo that provides quick recognition . recommend: (Michigan/hand logo) �MCSC Proposed 1-3 Year Marketing Action Plan pg. 2 •Use a slogan that provides continuity for the campaign. recommend: (Give Michigan A Hand) •Create a resource that is accessible to the public, i.e. where to find local volunteer agency, find out about local and state-wide awards . recommend: phone number 1-888-MICHand Vehicles to promote, advertise and communicate MCSC's message. MCSC should create strategic alliances with corporat_ions and other agencies to support the following: •Psa's •Bus signs •Brach u res • Television, radio, print - advertising •Billboards •Local govt. agencies •Community resource guides ·State-Wide conferences •Check "flaps" •Tray liners •Pizza boxes •Real estate packages, etc. Events Marketing: ·Create annual state-wide awards/ceremony to recognize and promote outstanding volunteers, organizations, businesses, etc. suggestion: ("Give Michigan Volunteers A Hand Award") •Utilize 1-800 (888) number to further promote MCSC's awards and other local volunteer and service awards (Clearing House for awards) •Develop and present a state-wide conference, with other agencies, local organizations and businesses, advocating community service and volunteerism �MCSC Proposed 1-3 Year Marketing Action Plan Pg. 3 Public Relations: •Implement a public relations strategy to support the marketing initiative through media relations, press conference, and press releases to publicize the MCSC. Other suggestions ..... Merchandising/ •Develop. · ~o-op opportunities with local agencies, i.e. mugs, shirts, etc. (MCSC could solicit corporations, businesses, and non-profits to sponsor the merchandise along with the MCSC.) Focus Group/ •It may be necessary to study people's opinions about volunteering; therefore, you may find it useful to conduct group sessions to discuss your publics/target audience attitudes and beliefs regarding community service. �. . A.Rill communications ACTION PLAN 1. Adopt Campaign Slogan 2. Ado_pt Logo 3. Upgrade a. b. c. d. e. 4. Form partnerships/alliances with other agencies and corporations 5. Institute 1-800 (888) phone number 6. Develop brochure with new slogan and logo and then thoroughly disseminate 7. Develop merchandising campaign/ catalog 8. Develop and implement PR campaign 9. Create PSA's and other promotional vehicles (billboards , tray liners, etc.) from marketing plan Awards Ceremony make it more prestigious make it more of an "event" bring in entertainment and/or emcee change , possibly, to a program/presentation format get corporate sponsors/underwriters 1. for event 2. for each award f. create identity for event g. get media sponsor h. create a video presentation i. get a notable emcee � 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_Marketing-Action-Plan Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting marketing action plan 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 marketing action plan. 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, 49754 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/9661bb51667c3308da41640340a8d39d.pdf 002480d3a1b6635651c43599efcf9caf PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR 1996 10:00 A.M.- 1:00 P.M. Friday, February 23, 1996 10:00 a.m.- 1:00 p.m Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Location: Lansing Friday, March 15, 1996 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Location: Lansing FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1996 Host: Victor Begg Location: ACCESS in Dearborn FRIDAY, August 23, 1996 Host: Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell Location: Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1996 Host: Sister Mary Martinez Location: Madonna University in Livonia MCSC - Executive Committee Meetings 9:00 a.m. - Noon Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan Friday, January 26, 1996 Friday, April26, 1996 Tuesday, July 9, 1996 Friday, November 15, 1996 � 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_Meeting-Dates-for-1996 Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1996-03-15 commission meeting meeting dates for 1996 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 meeting dates for 1996. 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, 49755 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 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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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