564 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/fcd800863c7a6eb347fb03b32433f176.pdf 1860025f619dd52b384afb55a3041b33 PDF Text Text AMERICORPS FY97 AVAiLABLE FORMULA FUNDS Revised 3/24/97 + Estimated FY96 Formula Unspent Michigan's FY97 Formula Amount $2,564,671 $ 32 1.368 Total Formula Available for FY97 $2,886,039 Less: Marquette County Health Dept. Project S.A.V.E. Family Independence Agency Fitzgerald Public Schools American Youth Foundation Volunteer Centers of Michigan $156,000 $252,000 $288 ,000 $136,000 $246,000 " $183 ,000 Total Subtractions C$1.261.000) TOTALFORMULAAV~ABLEFORNEWPROGRAMS $1,625,039 (if Marquette County does not reapply) $1,781,039 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_AmeriCorps-Available-Funds Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps Available Formula Funds Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting AmeriCorps Available Formula Funds. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49865 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/77ecef1ba47d6425ec069ea211369e62.pdf 6a01022b2bae3e8e2789a5e0c1766f18 PDF Text Text AN OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS (12/4/96) MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS VISTA Education Award Only Administered by MCSC Administered by CNS/MI Administered by MCSC Provides direct community service with demonstrable and measurable impact. Can include, but must not be limited to support for and/or coordination of direct community service projects. Mobilizes human and other community resources to increase the capacity of low income communities to solve their own problems. Does not provide direct service or administrative support. Provides direct community service with demonstrable and measurable impact. Can include, but must not be limited to support for and/or coordination of direct community service projects. Priority placed in four issue areas: education, public safety, environment and human needs. Capacity building emphasis: employment training, literacy, public safety, health, housing, and revitalization programs. Priority placed in four issue areas : education, public safety, environment and human needs. Selected competitively. Grants provide 85% of member support and 67% of operational costs. Selected competitively. Administered through memo of understanding. No funds change hands. Selected competitively. Programs fund member support & operational costs . Programs may receive up to S1,000 per FTE member tor operations. AmeriCorps member support requires a cash match and operational support requires cash or in-kind match . No cash match, however sponsors must provide operational support to accomplish tasks. Except for education awards and S1,000/FTE operational allowance, programs provide full support. FT and PT members serve 1, 700 or 900 hours per year. Full-time only . Forty hours per week preferred. FT and PT members serve 1, 700 or 900 hours per year. Open to U.S. citizens 17 years or older with or working for a H.S. d iploma . Open to U.S. Citizens 18 years or older. Open to U.S. citizens 17 years or older with or working for a H.S. diploma . Member support may include child and health care. Members receive a post service education award of $4,725 for full-time or $2,362 for part-time service . Member support may include child/health care. Members may receive a FT education award or waive it for a S100 monthly stipend over and above the living allowance. Member support determined by program . Members receive a post service education award of $2,362 for 900 hours of part-time service. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with MCSC and CNS. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with CNS. Programs select members and coordinate their recruitment with MCSC and CNS. Program disburses member living allowance and benefits. CNS disburses member living allowance and benefits. Living allowance and benefits determined by program. Members may have up to 20% of their service time dedicated to training and development. CNS provides a three-day orientation for members, sponsors provide other training . Program determines training and member development up to 20% of service time . Minimum program size of 10 FTE members. Minimum program size of four members. Minimum program size of 10 PT members . Quarterly reports to MCSC . Quarterly reports to CNS/MI. Quarterly reports to MCSC. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_An-Overview-of-National-Service-Programs Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting An Overview of National Service Programs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting An Overview of National Service Programs. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49866 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/adf9c20c12c0900f40a666e642eb8d99.pdf 2db502f8e6402ac57d547363998a344e PDF Text Text Michigan's AmeriCorps Year One '94-'95 Attrition of Program Members April 7, 1997 Report prepared by Tracy McCloskey, MCSC The February, 1997 the GAO issued its Report to the Congress on the Role of State Commissions in Implementing the AmeriCorps Program. That report broke down the attrition of AmeriCorps members into two categories: compelling personal circumstances, which includes illness or critical family matters, for which members who have served at least 15% of their service will receive a prorated educational award; and for cause, which includes being convicted of a felony, chronic truancy, and consistent failure to follow directions, for which members did not receive any educational award. It also included in the "for cause" category, however, members who left a project early to take advantage of significant opportunities for personal development or growth, such as educational or professional advancement. The report stated that of the projects they reviewed, "outputs and characteristics varied extensively." The report calculated attrition rates on two bases: (1) the number of participants who ended service early for cause, and (2) the combined total of participants who ended service for cause and for compelling personal circumstances. It found that the attrition for participants who ended service early for cause ranged from 3 to 58 percent. The median attrition rate was 22 percent. The overall attrition rate -participants who ended service early for either cause or compelling personal circumstances -ranged from 9 to 95 percent, and the median was 39 percent. The report stated that the "results cannot be generalized beyond the commissions and programs studied." Michigan was not one of the seven commissions studied for the report. However, many Michigan's AmeriCorps programs fall at or very near to the median attrition rates for the seven commissions studied in the report. In order to address the issues raised in the GAO' s report, this report and accompanying graph illustrate the attrition of members for Year One '94-'95 of the Michigan's AmeriCorps program. Seven of nine Year One programs are highlighted. One program, Environmental Problem Solving: Michigan's AmeriCorps, a two-year AmeriCorps had insufficient Year One reporting data. That program will be analyzed in the Year Two attrition report. Another program, Rural Strategic Action Initiative (RSAI) had a planning grant for Year One, so they did not enroll any members. Programs operating in Year One enrolled members on a rolling basis, so some members did not begin and/or complete the year with their "class." Also, if a member left for cause within the fust weeks of the program, and that same position was filled by another person, it was counted as one member enrolled, and not two. While the person who left would be included for purposes of attrition, the spot that they occupied would still be available for a member to fill and still be eligible to receive an education award. For that reason, the attrition rates are not as accurate for Year One as they will be for Year Two, when the programs were advised not to allow rolling admissions. This report takes into consideration the individual decisions made by the AmeriCorps program directors in granting their members prorated education awards. As such, there may be inconsistencies with one program director granting a prorated, or partial award for a member who left a program for a job, while another director considered leaving for a job a "for cause" reason and did not allow a prorated education award. �AmeriCorps Oakland: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members are students at Oakland University who work with Pontiac-area youth in schools and nonprofits to decrease the level of violence through mediation and alternative activities. Part-time members 40, all enrolled on 1111/94 First Quarter Report October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 attrition of 1 member due to "a difficult family circumstance," but she was replaced Second Quarter-Report January 1, 1994-- March 31, 1995 attrition of 4 members, two were "at-risk youth who experienced difficulties and dropped from the University" Third Quarter Report April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 3 members, all for "compelling reasons - they left school" Fourth Quarter Report July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 attrition of 2 members due to "extenuating circumstances, both took prorated stipends." 21 members completed their 900 hours and earned their educational stipend. 5 members continued to volunteer and complete their term of service in the fall. Of 31 members, 29 served the entire 4th quarter. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have received) the full education award: 26 part-time members Total number of education awards issued= 29 (26 full awards, 3 partial awards) Attrition of 14 members. 11 for cause, not eligible for partial award 3 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 35% Attrition rate of those for cause = 27% Overall, Oakland AmeriCorps fell below the median overall attrition rate of 39% for the seven commissions studied in the GAO's report. It was slightly above the 22% rate of "for cause" attrition. Attrition of Oakland AmeriCorps individual members (data from the files and the members' forms): Q. Baffield Exit date: 3/31195 left school; not eligible for education award, 63 hrs. J. Baumgarten Exit date: 1131196 got a job; eligible for partial education award, 734 hrs. C. Blair Exit date: 8/18/95 moved away; eligible for partial education award, 788 hrs. �K. Deroche Exit date: 1/20/95 left at parent's request, not enough time for school/grades; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. J. Franchi Exit date: 1/20/95 low school grades; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. M. Gueits Exit date: 1111/94 no exit form, no explanation given; no education award, 233 hrs. M. Hairston Exit date: 2/24/95 . removed by program manager, no participation; not eligible for education award, 0 hrs. D. Hickson Exit date: 3/20/95 left for health reasons; not eligible for education award, 113 hrs. C. Newton Exit date: 3/28/94 dissatisfied with assigned tasks and ArneriCorps experience; no education award, 0 hrs. K. Payne Exit date: 9/6/95 left for health reasons; eligible for partial education award, 650 hrs. S. Putrus Exit date: 2/8/95 student refused to complete paper work; not eligible for education award, 5 hrs. J. Robinson Exit date: 5/12/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 158 hrs. L. Rowland Exit date: 9/22/95 no exit form, student would not sign it; not eligible for education award, 348 hrs. M. Smith Exit date: 3113/95 left for personal reasons, dissatisfied w/program; not eligible for education award, 11 hrs. CircleNet: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members aid Big Brothers/Big Sisters in the placement of volunteers with developmentally disabled children in Southfield/Oakland County. The nature of this program, which deals with developmentally disabled youth, posed an initial unique challenge in hiring, training, and retaining corpsmembers. Full-time members 20 members granted to the program, start date December 10, 1995 First Quarter Report October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 Recruitment and member selection -- 20 members selected Second Quarter Report January 1, 1995 -- March 31, 1995 attrition of 4 members who "dropped out." One was replaced, so at the end of the quarter 17 members remained. �Third Quarter Report April1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 1 member, who resigned from the program; 16 members served the entire 3rd quarter and 16 members were enrolled on the last day of the 3rd quarter. Fourth Quarter Report July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 brought on one member in July and one already completed the 1700 service hours, so 16 members were active this quarter. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 15 full-time members Total number of education awards issued= 17 (15 full awards, 2 partial awards) Attrition of 8 members. 6 for cause, not eligible for education award 2 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 40% Attrition rate of those for cause = 30% Overall, CircleNet fell just above the median overall attrition rate of 39%. It was also above the median attrition rate of 22% of "for cause" attrition. Attrition of members: D. Elliott Exit date: 1/28/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 150 hrs. J. Ingrao Exit date: 1120/95 no exit form; not eligible for educational award, 60 hrs. S. Johnson Exit date: 7/5/95 member refused to sign exit form, no explanation given, no hours. M. Kleino Exit date: 2/10/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 150 hrs. S. Kromberg Exit date: 3/9/95 no exit form; not eligible for education award, 269 hrs. T. Nelson Exit date: 12/14/95 no exit form; eligible for partial education award, 61 hrs. R. Riley Exit date: 4/17/95 no exit form, left program with no notice; not eligible for education award, 555 hrs. T. Kish Enrollment date: 7/24/95 Exit date: 3/15/96 no explanation; eligible for partial education award, 1432 hrs. �Genesee County AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members work through community organizations to recruit volunteers to act as Girl Scout troop leaders; develop service-learning workshops and activities for youth, rehabilitate homes; educate citizens about Medicaid and new health care options; offer safe haven for at-risk youth and neighborhoods set up block clubs. 25 full-time members allocated, 23 started service on 10112/94. As noted below, this program enrolled members on a rolling admission basis. 5 members were enrolled after the start of the program. And 5 members continued their service into the next program year. Therefore, the numbers used to calculate the attrition rates are not consistent with a program that did not enroll members on a rolling admission basis. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 attrition of 2 members who were not fulfllling their participant requirements; they were replaced Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 attrition of 2 members, one resigned in January, one was released in February 20 members started the quarter, 18 finished Third Quarter April 1, 1995 -- June 30, 1995 attrition of 2 members during the third quarter 3 members enrolled to replace terminated members 21 active members as of June 30. Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 of 21 members, 7 completed their service by September 30, 4 will complete by October 11, resulting in 11 receiving a full education award, and 4 receiving a partial award due to compelling circumstances, 1 not receiving an education award, and 5 continuing their term of service in the next program year. Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) 13 full-time members the full education award: Total number of education awards issued= 19 (13 full awards and 6 partial awards) Attrition of 20 members 14 for cause, not eligible for partial award 6 received partial awards Overall attrition rate = 86% Attrition rate of those for cause = 60% These overall attrition rates are high due to the rolling admissions of this program. Because 19 education awards were issued, out of 23 spots allocated to the program, the true rate is only 14%, which is below the median. Attrition of individual members: start date 10112/94 unless otherwise noted M . Hairston Start date: 217/95 Exit date: 2/6/96 didn't get the required hours in, not eligible for ed award, 1690 hrs. �A. White Start date: 8/16/95 Exit date: 1/2/96 dismissed for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award, 1292 hrs. S. Dunigan Start date: 1127/95 Exit date: 5/13/95 left to take another job, not eligible for education award, 405 hrs. L. Cancel No start date Exit date: 1126/96 NO FILE-- not eligible for education award, 215 hrs. G. Aldridge Exit date: 5/24/95 resigned because of her daughter's ill health, eligible for partial ed award, 1091 hrs. H. Alford Exit date: 3/3/95 dismissed for cause, not eligible for education award, 366 hrs. J. Bielert Exit date: 10/11/95 compelling personal reasons, eligible for partial ed award, 1575 hrs. T. Brown Exit date: 12/23/94 quit, dissatisfied w/program-staff, not eligible for education award, 251 hrs. R. Douglas Exit date: 2/14/95 early term. for cause, dissatisfied w/program staff, enrolled in a job training program; not eligible for education award, 430 hrs. S. Garza Exit date: 1112/94 left to take a job; not eligible for education award, 49 hrs. L. Grier Exit date: 911195 dissatisfied w/program staff; not eligible for education award, 1070 hrs. M. Howell Exit date: 11/8/94 dissatisfied w/program staff; not eligible for education award, 46 hrs. S. Johnson Start date: 10/3/94 Exit date: 9/23/94 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1583 hrs. S. Packnett Exit date: 10114/94 left for personal reasons; not eligible for education award, 13 hrs. A. Snell Start date: 11115/94 left for a job, very dissatisfied w/program, compelling personal reasons; eligible for partial education award, 1196 hrs. C. Taylor Exit date: 1113/95 got a job, not eligible for education award, 340 hrs. T. Wagenheim Exit date: 10/11/95 compel. pers. circumstances, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1668 hrs. �D. Williams Exit date: 2/4/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 611 hrs. M. Winters Exit date: 10/12/95 no explanation; eligible for partial education award, 1563 hrs. G. Woodberry Exit date: 1127/95 was asked to leave the program; not eligible for education award, 628 hrs. Grand Rapids Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members served full-time starting 10/3/94 unless otherwise noted. 33 members for full enrollment. Members volunteer as mentors, tutors and teaching assistants in various elementary schools across Grand Rapids. They are also involved with neighborhood revitalization projects through neighborhood associations and Habitat for Humanity. The program had a rolling admissions policy, so attrition rates are higher than a program that did not offer rolling admissions. Five corpsmembers were added in the third quarter. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 27 full-time members enrolled on 10/3/94 attrition of 9 members Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 Report focused on the problem of attrition in the corps ranks. There are currently 23 full-time members enrolled, after having started the program with 32 (first quarter report states 27, question where the five people came from). 3 members were asked to leave for disciplinary reasons; 4left on their own when they were one step away from a formal disciplinary action; 2 left on their own for personal reasons. The major reason for attrition, according to the report, was poor attendance and repeated failure to call in to report lateness or absence. There are 3 members "hanging on by a thread." · Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 five members were added to the corps (member list only has 4) report lists this as a "second class" of one team facilitator and 4 corps members who will receive a prorated educational award based on number of hours served through August 11, 1995, the program end date. All five will continue in to Year 2 in September as full time corpsmembers. 24 members were enrolled at the end of the quarter. Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 no changes in membership -- winding up of the program year, etc. Began recruiting for Year 2 of the program. �Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 11 for sure, possibly 13 full-time members (incomplete records) Attrition of 20 members 20 for cause Total number of education awards issued: 13 Overall attrition rate = 74% Attrition of those for cause = 74% The Grand Rapids Service Corps dealt with a high rate of attrition early on in their program year. They also offered rolling admissions, and enrolled a second "class" of members in the third quarter. Their attrition rates are higher than the median average of 39%. However, they issued 13 education awards based on 33 enrolled members, which is only a 39% attrition rate. That rate is at the median average. Individual member attrition: (start date is 10/3/94 unless otherwise noted) M. Bell Exit date: 6/18/95 moved away, not eligible for education award, 1180 hrs. M. Brown Start date: 9/27/94 Exit date: 11/10/95 no exit form, not eligible for education award, 138 hrs. W. Bryant Exit date: 1/5/95 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 371 hrs. A. Elamin Exit date: 11110/95 asked to leave by program manager, not eligible for education award, 1119 hrs. S. Gillespie Exit date: 6/26/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave by program manager, not eligible for education award, 156 hrs. L. Kolthoff Exit date: 8/11/95 early termination for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award, 1396 hrs. M.Mendez Exit date: 4/2/95 early termination for cause, got a job; not eligible for education award, 880 hrs. D. Morales Exit date: 8/11195 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 1346 hrs. A. Pagan Exit date: 11110/95 got a job; not eligible for education award, 156 hrs. J. Pena Exit date: 12115/94 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 278 hrs. �S. Rider Exit date: 2/24/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 356 hrs. L. Rincones Exit date: 1/12/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 364 hrs. J. Sommerville Exit date: 6/20/95 asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 1136 hrs. T. Tapely Exit date: 911/95 early termination for cause, asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 965 hrs. E. Thomas Start date: 11/10/94 Exit date: 11/4/95 left for health reasons; not eligible for education award, 94 hrs. I. Villa Exit date: 8111/95 early termination for cause; not eligible for education award, 1652 hrs. A. Wyant Start date: lin/94 Exit date: 6/20/96 early termination for cause, moved away; not eligible for education award, 98 hrs. H. Williams Exit date: 2/28/94 asked to leave; not eligible for education award, 411 hrs. A. Hinton Start date: 6/1195 Exit date: 8/10/95 no forms, not eligible for education award, 1321 hrs. C. Carpenter Start date: 611/95 Exit date: 8111195 termination for cause, no explanation; not eligible for educational award, · 286 hrs. Michigan Neighborhood: Michigan's AmeriCorps Launched January 20, 1995, and based out of the University of Michigan, this program will addresses the specific educational, economic, environmental, public safety, and human needs in the Detroit area. Program allocated 20 full-time and 20 part-time members. Enrolled only 22 members at the start, and added 7 more in the third quarter and 5 in the fourth quarter. Rolling admissions for this program, and a late start date, make for inconsistent reporting and incomplete files, as many members fulfilled their term of service over the summer or in Year 2. - First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 program in its infancy; established process for recruiting members Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 program launched January 20 with 10 full-time and 12 part-time members. �Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 2 full-time members added 7 part-time and 6 full-time members Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 --September 30, 1995 attrition of 3 members added 5 members (no additional information was provided) Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 11 Attrition of 4 members 3 for cause, not eligible for education award 1 eligible for partial award Overall attrition rate = 18% Attrition rate of those for cause = 13% Overall, the attrition for this program is much lower than the median average of 39%. It is also lower than the "for cause" attrition rate of 22%. The part-time corpsmembers are graduate students at the University of Michigan, which may account for the high rate of retention, and- low attrition. Individual members: The member files are missing numerous forms. There is a possibility that the members have continued on to a second year of service, and that is why the files are incomplete. E. Avery Start date: 6/6/95 Exit date: 6/11/96 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award, 311 hfs. C. Grose Start date: 1/18/95 Exit date: 6/96 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation, eligible for ed award, 729 hrs. M. Morse Start date: 5/8/95 Exit date: 8/19/95 no explanation, (summer only possibly) not eligible for education award, 518 hrs. M. Stein Start date: 5/8/95 Exit date: 8/5/95 no explanation, not eligible for education award, 502 hrs. Saginaw AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps United Way of Saginaw County was awarded 41 members, 14 full-time and 27 part-time. They work with the Saginaw Police, the school district, the YMCA, and other community groups on community policing, urban issues, youth violence, and neighborhood safety, among other issues. First Quarter October 1, 1994 --December 31, 1994 Hired 41 members by November 14. Replaced 4 out of 41 members within the 6 week grace period. 14 full-time members 26 part-time members at the end of the quarter �Second Quarter January 1, 1995 --March 31, 1995 3 new members added Third Quarter April 1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 7 members, 1 full-time and 6 part-time added 2 part-time members, for a total of 23 part-time and 13 full-time Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 attrition of 2 full-time members who were terminated Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 27 Total number of education awards given =37 Attrition of 20 members 10 for cause 10 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = 50% Attrition rate "for cause" = 25% Overall, the Saginaw AmeriCorps program had a higher rate of total attrition than the median average of 39%. The rate of ''for cause" attrition was just above the median of 22%. This program had a rolling admission policy and added 3 new members in the second quarter and 2 in the third quarter. Member attrition: Members enrolled in October/November unless otherwise noted. The launch was on November 14. K. Bond Exit date: 4/16/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 227 hrs. R. Brown Start date: 12/23/94 Exit date: 5/20/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 445 hrs. D. Burch Exit date: 11/4/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award, 75 hrs. J. Ervin Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 664 hrs. R. Johnson Exit date: 11116/94 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 24 hrs. 0. Lopez Exit date: 8/16/95 Full-time for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award; 1259 hrs. E. McKenzie Exit date: 6/9/95 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for ed award, 1014 hrs. J. Nettles Exit date: 5/15/95 for cause, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award; 428 hrs. �A. Omar Exit date: 8/18/95 for.cause, no exit form; not eligible for an education award; 1257 hrs. W. Parks Exit date: 6/19/95 compel. pers. reasons, sick mother, moved away; eligible for partial ed award~ 561 hrs. B. Patrick Exit date: 1114/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for education award; 120 hrs. L. Pierson Exit date: 7/28/95 for cause, no exit form, not eligible for ed award, 558 hrs. Exit date: 1/14/97 exit form says he completed 1700 hours T. Robinson Exit date: 4/27/95 for cause, got a job; not eligible for award, 416 hrs. T. Smith Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 727 hrs. D. Soza Exit date: 7/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 631 hrs. F. Thomas Exit date: 8/25/95 for cause, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award; 630 hrs. T. Warren-Bennett Exit date: 12/20/94 for cause, no exit form; not eligible for award, 40 hrs. J. Weinrauch Exit date: 4/1/95 compel. pers. reason, no exit form; eligible for partial ed award, 387 hrs. M. Welch Exit date: 8/25/95 compel. pers. reason, got a job; eligible for partial ed award-, 271 hrs. J. Thompson Start date: 5/29/95 Exit date: 8/25/95 conflicting reports: one report says compel. pers. reasons, one report says for cause, there is no explanation on either form, report says he is eligible for a partial ed award, 239 hrs. Eastern Michigan University, Teams for School Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps Members work with students to provide meaningful activities through numerous after-school clubs and tutorial programs around Ypsilanti. Allocated 8 full-time and 24 part-time members. Rolling admissions and the nature of the program account for an inaccurate attrition rate. First Quarter October 1, 1994 -- December 31, 1994 24 part-time and 2 full-time members joined on 10/17. attrition of 3 part-time members, replaced them after 10/17. added 5 full-time members at end of quarter, 8 full-time (where did the extra 1 come from?) and 24 part-time members enrolled �January 1, 1995 --March 30, 1995 recruited 1 part-time member and 1 full-time member attrition of 1 full-time member attrition of 2 part-time member, will NOT replace one member at end of quarter, 8 full-time and 23 full-time Second Quarter Third Quarter April1, 1995 --June 30, 1995 attrition of 4 full-time and 11 part-time members 2 graduated from school and left, most left "permanently" because of school commitments, which means they weren't going to remain members for the - nextschoolyear 4 full-time and 5 part-time members remained to work over the summer Fourth Quarter July 1, 1995 -- September 30, 1995 July and August, 4 full-time and 5 part-time members served "those who resigned without completing their term of service did so for a variety of reasons. Most left permanently because their academic programs require clinics or student teaching during our second year and time commitments precluded continuing in the program. Two graduated. One did not return to the university." Year 2 began in September, with 2 full-time and 10 part-time members Number of members for whom we have forms and are eligible to receive (or have already received) the full education award: 5 Total number of education awards= 28 (out of 32 allocated spots) Attrition of 30 members 7 for cause 23 received partial education awards Overall attrition rate = undeterminable Attrition rate "for cause" = 26% See below for an explanation of the attrition rates of this program. Overall, the "for cause" attrition rate is just above the median. Individual members: Start date was 10117/95 unless otherwise noted. Because of the nature of the program, and the program year conflicting with the school year, many of the partial awards are considered as full completion of the term of service, even if the member did not complete the full number of hours, and so should not really be considered "attrition" in a negative manner. Also, many exit forms are missing or not filled out completely. K. Amos Start date: 12/14/95 Exit date: 6/16/96 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award, 126 hrs. J. Banks Exit date: 7/20/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 346 hrs. �J. Bannick Exit date: 9/20/95 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 309 hrs. J. Bird Exit Date: 12/31/95 for cause, no explanation; not eligible for education award; 681 hrs. M. Chmura Exit date: 6/16/96 compel. pers. reason, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 329 hrs. T. Daniel Exit date: 6/30/95 compel. pers. reason, student teaching; eligible for partial ed award; 476 hrs. P. deHart Exit date: 511/95 no explanation; not eligible for education award, 144 hrs. K. Eagle Exit date: 8/31/95 compel. pers. reasons, "not the right fit;" eligible for partial ed award; 293 hrs. N. Faust Exit date: 4/28/95 Full-time no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 1197 hrs. J. Gilbert Exit date: 12/31195 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 598 hrs. S. Jackson Exit date: 5/4/95 for cause, no explanation, 147 hrs. Exit date: 8/31/95 left for personal reasons, eligible for partial education award; 218 hrs. A. Johnson Exit date: 6/16/96 no exit forms, eligible for partial education award; 349 hrs. D. Johnson Exit date: 6/16/96 no explanation; eligible for partial ed award; 349 hrs. J. Little Start date: 12/1/94 Exit date: 4/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 243 hrs. M. Little Exit date: 4/28/95 compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 563 hrs. J. Lott Start date: 2/13/95 Exit date: 2/14/96 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1214 hrs. K. Logan Exit date: 8/31195 compel. pers. reasons, no explanation; eligible for partial ed award, 1230 hrs. �C. Martin Exit date: 8/31/95 no explanation, eligible for partial ed award, 1676 hrs. G. McKinney Start date: 3/13/95 Exit date: 8/31/95 Exit form 8/31/95 says compelling personal reasons, partial ed award, 722 hrs. Report says NOT eligible for education award 562 hrs. Suspended 12/22/95 Terminated 1119/96, no exit form. J. Mierzwa Exit date: no exit form no explanation, eligible for partial ed award, no hours D. Moore Exit date: 11115/94 for cause, no explanation, not eligible for ed award, 20 hrs. S.Motley Exit date: 6/15/95 compel. pers. reasons, student teaching; eligible for partial ed award, 440 hrs. W. Patterson Exit date: 8/31/95 compel. pers. reasons, enrolled in school; eligible for partial award, 202 hrs. - K. Rice Exit date: 6/28/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, got a job; eligible for partial ed award, 747 hrs. D. Roberts Exit date: 5/30/95 compel. pers. reasons, looking for full-time job wlbenefits, car problems; eligible for partial ed award, 343 hrs. D. Rougeau Exit date: 2/11195 compel. pers. reasons, got a job, dissatisfied w/program staff, left for other personal reasons; eligible for partial ed award, 107 hrs. S. Sanbum Exit date: 8/31/95 Full-time compel. pers. reasons, school; eligible for partial ed award, 906 hrs. K. Skinner Exit date: 6116/96 (1 year, 7 mo.) for cause, no explanation; not eligible for award, 91 hrs. R. Souza Exit date: 8/31195 compel. pers. reasons, school; eligible for partial ed award, 302 hrs. D. Walton Start date: 1211/94 Exit date: 2/13/95 Full-time for cause, no explanation; not eligible for ed award; 56 hrs. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Attrition-of-Program-Members Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Attrition of AmeriCorps Program Members Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Attrition of AmeriCorps Program Members. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49867 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ae0390563ae6a2cb85897c16e8828587.pdf d76d4276d7d080c525e625c87ce01a81 PDF Text Text MEETING OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS ON NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Midland, Michigan May 15-17, 1997 Sponsored by the Ford Foundation through a grant to the State Commission Coordinating Group. Hosted by the Michigan Community Service Commission, the State Commission Coordinating Group, and Aguirre International DRAFT AGENDA Thursday. May 15 6:00 Reception and Informal Networking Friday. May 16 7:00 BREAKFAST 8:00 Welcome First Lady Michelle Engler Chair, Michigan Community Service Commission Meeting Overview Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission 8:45 Post President's Summit: Follow-up Strategies This plenary will present the ideas and comments of commissioners from three states who attended the President's Summit for America's Future. 9:30 Plenary Session: The Challenge to Commissions A panel of commission chairs and executive directors will discuss the role of community service commissions in igniting citizen service, commission identity beyond CNS programming, and possibilities for reaching commissions' fullest potential. 10:30 Break 10:45 Stability, Autonomy, Innovation, and Sustainability Caucuses Commission executive directors and chairs will separate and break into small groups to discuss a range of issues, such as visibility in states, institutionalization, bipartisan support, match, administrative structure, constituencies, and competition. DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 1 of 4 �12:15 LUNCH Governor John Engler, State of Michigan Following his luncheon address, the Governor will respond questions from state commission chairs on concerns such as strategies for obtaining governor support for commission and service related activities. 2:00 How Do We Get to the Future Together? Building Consensus on the Future Direction of a State Commission Network/Association This session will introduce the question regarding the merits and feasibility of establishing a formal national association or network of state service commission. Options for creating an association and information about other associations will be presented. 2:30 What Do We Want and What Will It Take? Participants will break into small groups to discuss specific recommendations for developing an ongoing network or association. 4:00 Report from Small Groups and Next Steps This process will synthesize the recommendations of the small groups, designate a representative small group to develop a proposal for the large group, and make recommendations regarding next steps (development of by-laws, structure and functions of commission, calendar, and fundraising, etc.). 6:30 Reception 7:30 DINNER Future of Service and .Volunteerism The dinner address will feature a panel of representatives from national and regional foundations and Grantmakers Forums from the Council on Foundations who will share insights on investing in national and community service. Evening Evening activities may include network and policy development work groups as needed. DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 2 of 4 �Saturday, May 18 7:00 BREAKFAST Breakfast will provide an opportunity for issue caucuses and work groups as requested. 8:15 Implementing "Option 3" Presentation and discussion with Deb Jospin of CNS regarding plans for testing six to seven options or models for coordinating the delivery system at the state level. This will be followed by small group discussions. Deb Jospin, Corporation for National Service 9:45 Break 10:00 Plenary Panel: Gaining State Support and Funding for Service Kate Mehr, along with a panel from three selected states, will present a policy paper which addresses community development and obtaining state support for service initiatives. Kate Mehr, Executive Director, Massachusetts National and Community Service Commission 11: 15 Strengthening State Commission Capacity Concurrent sessions are offered, geared to the different needs of executive directors and commissioners. 1. Application of Monitoring Guide. An update on the monitoring guide, featuring discussion of strengths and weakn~sses of different monitoring techniques and strategies will be presented (small group session for EDs). Bea Boccalandro, Aguirre International 2. ED Refbook. This session provides a presentation of progress to date on the ED Reference . Book (small group session for EDs). Bill Cole, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3. Commissioner Handbook. This session provides a presentation of progress to date on the Commissioner Handbook (small group session for Commissioners and EDs). Janis Glenn, Project TASC, Aguirre International 4. Redesigning Your Commission. Alternative structures that promote autonomy and accountability will be considered. What do commissions look like now and are these structures designed to meet the demands of the future? Frank Slobig, Project TASC, Aguirre International 5. Gaining State Support and Funding for Service. Executive directors from two states with different types of state support will present their strategies. 12:30 LUNCH Research: What is it trying to tell us and how are local voices being heard? Gary Walker, President, Public/Private Ventures DRAFf AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 3 of 4 �1:30 Concurrent sessions continued: 1. Taming the Task - Analysis of Management Roles, Part II. This session offers task management strategies from scheduling to doing and revising requirements (small group session for Commissioners and EDs). JoAn Intilli and Ed Kissam, Project TASC, Aguirre International 2. Leadership Training for Commissioners. What and who are we in charge of? How are we to lead the charge? Strategic grantmaking to leverage the field: What can we learn from major philanthropies? Who sustains the effort? Marvin Kaiser, Ida Jeter and Sue Hyatt, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3. Contributing to a National Framework for Research. This forum informs executive directors and commissioners about ways to contribute to the national research framework Gary Walker and Kathryn Furano, Public/Private Ventures 4. Gaining State Support and Funding for Service. Executive directors from two states with different types of state support will present their strategies. 5. Redesigning Your Commission. Alternative structures that promote autonomy and accountability will be considered. What do commissions look like now and are these structures designed to meet the demands of the future? Frank Slobig, Project TASC, Aguirre International 3:00 Break 3:15 Presentation, discussion, and vote on network/association direction proposed by work group The outcome will set the direction for State Commission Coordinating Group and Chair Work Group for future meetings or result in the end of these groups in order to form a new associative group which represents commissions. 4:30 Informal discussion regarding directions of CNS and State Commissions on National and Community Service Deb Jospin, Corporation for National Service 6:30 Closing Dinner DRAFT AGENDA 4/9/97 Page 4 of 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Draft-Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting draft agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting draft agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49868 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f04afbaba66ba8a1d05d26cf1bbda3fd.pdf 598b8404bf27f98854e686f4a4b75fdf PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Capitol Ave . Olds Plaza Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: The Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service C;~n RE: Executive Director' s Special Meeting Report DATE: April 7, 1997 ~ APPROVAL ITEMS Michigan's AmeriCorps New Program Application Package The staff is presenting for your approval a package of 18 new AmeriCorps programs, one competitive renewal program, and one innovative grant reassigned to competitive. Enclosed you will find: 1) individual program recommendation sheets; 2) a chart presenting the current and proposed Michigan's AmeriCorps program portfolio; 3) a breakdown of the proposal package by program applicant, funding request, and FTE rate; and 4) the application process time-line. As you know, the MCSC proposal package represents a combination of state formula funds and national competitive program funds. This new program year will be the fourth year that AmeriCorps has been in operation. All current AmeriCorps programs in their third year of operation must re-compete as new. Therefore, we have a large package of programs to present. Michigan is permitted to submit 12 new national competitive applications. Michigan also has $1.6 million in formula funding available as a result of the reapplication of third year programs, program completion, and unspent carryover funds from the past fiscal year. The package we are recommending includes one second-year renewing competitive program, seven new competitive programs, five competitive programs that are current, reapplying state formula programs, five new formula funded programs and one current, reapplying formula funded program. The total of formula funds that would be expended is $791 ,866, leaving $994,173. The remaining formula funds will be directed to support competitive programs that MCSC submits, but which are not approved by the Corporation for National Service. As you are aware, it is unlikely that the Corporation will fund all of the programs in the competitive package. Having a flexible pool of formula funds will enable MCSC to support the strongest remaining competitive submissions. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission 0' ~ �MCSC April 7, 1997 Page Two MCSC will submit the new and renewal competitive package on April 11. The Corporation will notify MCSC of its funding decision in late June. At that time, MCSC will have to decide which of the unfunded competitive submissions it will support with formula funding. The staff requests that the Commission pre-approve the selection of unfunded competitive programs for formula funding in the order of their proposal score rankings and geographic distribution. MCSC will then submit a final comprehensive new and renewal formula package to the Corporation on June 30. If · there are any changes to the new formula programs or·the amounts requested under renewal formula funding vary, the staff will submit a revised formula package at the June 6 meeting. One final note. At the Corporation's request, MCSC is resubmitting the recently approved second year innovative grant for the FIA Citizen's Health Service Corps as a national competitive program grant. This is an accounting shift for the Corporation. It will not count against the competitive package. State Service Commission Meeting Reception As you know, MCSC will be hosting a meeting of state service commissions from across the country on May 16-17, in Midland. This meeting is an important part of the Ford Foundation grant that is supporting state commission development. Commission chairs, members, and directors from forty-five states and Puerto Rico will be attending. Governor Engler will also attend part of the meeting. Terry Pruitt has arranged for Dow Corning to sponsor a lunch. MCSC has been recognized nationally as a leader among the states. This meeting is the most compelling symbol of your leadership. With that in mind, I would like to propose that the Commission sponsor a reception at the meeting before dinner on Friday, May 16. This will be an excellent opportunity for you meet and share your vision with commission members from other states. INFORMATION UPDATES Jim Muir Get well Jim! You remain in our thoughts and prayers. Volunteer Investment Grants Appropriations The House Appropriations Subcommittee will take up the Jobs Commission budget at a hearing on May 7. As with any new appropriations request, MCSC can expect the scrutiny of law makers over the Volunteer Investment Grants proposal. Keep in mind that this request includes additional support for Commission operations. The recent controversy over the Corporation' s policy toward national service in the states may intensify this scrutiny. Terry Pruitt and Mike Tate have taken the lead in building support for MCSC' s work, but they cannot do it alone. Every member of the commission must be prepared to step forward if we are to succeed in advancing our mission. We have much to be proud of, much more to share with others, and much, much more to do. With your help we can make a real difference in Michigan. �MCSC April 7, 1997 Page Three Commission Information Gathering Meeting Materials Because of the controversy over proposals for restructuring the national service system, MCSC held an information gathering meeting with programs from the service field. The Commission was represented by Michelle Engler, Dorothy Johnson, Kathleen Keen McCarthy, Matt Wesaw, and Ray West. I am sure that your colleagues will share their insights .from the meeting. We will schedule time for a discussion at our June meeting. For your review, we have included the written materials that were presented to the Commission during the meeting. Michigan's AmeriCm:ps Retention We have continued with our efforts to better understand the problems of AmeriCorps member attrition, its impact on the programs, and what we can do about it. Enclosed you will find our analysis of the actual cost of the Year 1 program with attrition rates factored in. The actual average FTE rates are higher than budgeted, but not above the Corporation's Year 1 average. Of some concern should be the number of education awards issued. We have now taken steps to control education award issuance. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Executive-Directors-Special-Meeting-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting executive director's special meeting report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting executive director's special meeting report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49869 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/dfec6ad87970d29128e6f3dcb6e14778.pdf b20f936105dbf227e581ae1f949f6813 PDF Text Text Testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission : ·~-'. ·> March 25, 1997 Mrs. Engler, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission. Thank you for inviting me to comment on the topic before us today. The views that I will express today are my own and perhaps no one else's; they are not to be construed as representing the views of the Corporation as a whole or any other persons within the Corporation. Even with as many views as are represented here today, all of us together represent only a small fraction of the people who are involved in and interested in community service and volunteerism. I read the Lansing Journal these days (since the Detroit papers have been first on strike and now in a lock-out situation) and I noticed on Thursday a small headline that read "A celebration of Community Service." "How wonderful ," I thought . "Maybe I'll see some names I know. Maybe Janet Clark has a new project she hasq't told me about yet." As I read the clip it turned out to be a notice about the Delta Sigma Theta Sororjt}: celebrating 37 years of community service. Delta Sigma Theta is a sorority of African-American women formed in 1913 at Howard University. The Lansing alumnae chapter was formed in 1960 and has several community service programs in the local area. A reminder that there are many more of us than we sometimes remember. Those of us here today will give you an interesting but small sampling of opinion on the topics proposed; it is a good start, however. One of those topics concerns the "strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan Community Service Commission as presently constituted and as currently involved. There are of course strengths and weaknesses of any organization ..... The purpose, mission, and goals as outlined in the OPERATING PROCEDURES for the Commission do not appear to need any revision. They outline a wide range of activities and communications in support of community service and volunteerism involving residents from all ages and backgrounds serving in all areas of life in Michigan. These are indeed the mission and goals I would propose for a Commission if they had not atready been devised. What I believe can come from this mission is a broad evocation of service in Michigan and one which helps to ensure that programs and resources are widely spread and geographically balanced, facilitates the formation and growth of local collaborative efforts reinforces priority consideration to Michigan ' s needs and wishes, and smooths the way, especially within State Government, for getting things done. But let's be honest. This meeting today is about something else. Underlying this meeting today is the continuing jostling for power over the community service programs funded by the federal government. The proposed or threatened "takeover" of all the funding by either the State Commissions or by the State Offices of the Corporation has generated considerable heat and rather little understanding and absolutely no benefit to any of our combined constituency. Nationally, and here in Michigan, some people fear the so-called takeover of all the programs by the State Commissions (didn't know you were such a threatening bunch, did you?). Nationally and here in Michigan, Commissions and their staffs are maligned as upstart, inexperienced, and incompetent. Fears are raised that tried-and-true programs will be indiscriminately destroyed and that rules protecting vulnerable populations will be abolished. �Nationally and here in Michigan, some people resent that the devol~tio~ of powers to the States has not included devolution of all the money and all the community serviCe programs. Nationally and here in Michigan the federal employees of the Corporation are maligned as rigid, obsolete, and incompetent. Accusations are made that new service programs will be squeezed with rules and overlaid with hidebound bureaucracy. Much criticism is raised and many potential disasters are predicted if one side should prevail over the other. It seems to me unfair and insulting to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Commission- or any other Commission - could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the VISTA and Senior Corps programs. It is equally unfair and absurd to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Corporation for National Service office could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the AmeriCorps programs and the Learn and Serve programs. Of course, this would not be '· . true. ~ .; ' ..; This whole issue of who's going to be IN CHARGE, I thought, was set aside last year after a group of Executive Directors and CNS State Directors came to consensus over how to overcome some of the difficulties and obstacles. The consensus was to encourage each state to determine its own way of working together- with Commission, Corporation, and Departments of Education coming to their own individualized plans of action. The idea of a "unified plan" came out of these discussions. All the parties took this agreement seriously and were working to address it locally. The good-faith efforts of all the states who took this agreement seriously were undermined -betrayed I must say- by some people in Washington for whatever their reasons might have been. The events and recriminations of the last few months can be explained ad nauseam, but after Washington's so-called "accidental emission," every constituency of the Corporation began firing weapons. What minimal trust that had developed among the parties was destroyed. Now we find ourselves here today in the aftermath of that debacle. So what is all the fuss about over the structure of how the federal money for community service programs comes to Michigan: Who is complaining about the way things are done now? Who is unhappy and wants so desperately to make things different? Is it the public at large; is it disappointed applicants; is it successful project operators? I think it is none of these. If it is none of these, why would we want to reinvent what already exists. The problem really is that we've gotten ourselves trapped in a focus on FIXING a few flaws when we should just get busy and work smarter. The human impulse to tinker and fix things up is well known to all of us. We also know how most "new and improved" products on the market are only repackaged and more expensive than the originals. In most areas of life, after we reach a certain level of functioning, the payback of additional "improvements" is relatively limited. The cost of such relatively small improvements can be very high and in the end counterproductive to the larger enterprise. There is the additional risk of negative unintended consequences which are worse than the thing we started out to fix. �We- you as Commissioners and the rest of us as staff and other benefiCi'aries of the federally-funded community service and volunteer programs - must acknowledge the flaws in our systems and work to minimize their effect, but I must emphasize that none of the flaws are fatal and none are serious enough to warrant the kind of time and tempest that has consumed so many of us for the last year and a half We all may have different views of what would be the "IDEAL" arrangement. I know that Frank Dirks and I have different views on many things, but we had begun to work quite productively together and had been able to bring some things of value to the state and to individual programs and participants by doing so. We've come to understand different points of view; different approaches to problems; and different styles of work. Interagency collaboration is not easy, as all of you know. '· But in the end the cooperation and the learning environment have benefited both our operations and our imrnedl'hte constituencies. We have made mistakes- separately and together- and will again, I'm sure- separately and together. Were there to be someone else in my place and someone other than Frank at the helm of the Commission, there might be different mistakes, but there definitely \Vould be mistakes and missed opportunities and misunderstandings. That's life. We all like our own ideas best usually. If you must know my opinion on the IDEAL way to channel Corporation for National Service programs into Michigan communities I'll tell you, but I prefer to leave well enough alone. And to stop talking about changing the way it is now. If I had the power to go across the street today and start over again, I would create a different structure. The federal funding through the Corporation for National Service is for NATIONAL SERVICE, not simply community service. The programs are envisioned as nationwide in scope, nationwide in interest, and derive their participants from the nation as a whole. Not FEDERAL, necessarily, but definitely NATIONAL. There must remain a national focus and identity. Otherwise we devolve into 48,49, or 50 state service programs. The "national" in national service is best preserved through a workforce network that is state-based and nationally-connected, and is positioned to respond to and be held accountable for local and national initiatives alike. The Corporation State Offices have that workforce. In my opinion, all Corporation for National Service funding and program decisions should flow through the Corporation State Offices. For more than 20 years, federal employees in these offices have successfully balanced the rules and priorities of national program designs with specific local needs and requirements. What would happen to the Commissions in my personally-designed world across the street? I would have a Commission for all of the purposes that are currently in your OPERATING PROCEDURES. Your function as Commissioners would not change. You would be the functional and influential link between State government and federal programs. But hey we ' re not going across the street. We're right here. What do we do? What should you~ �I encourage you to become as involved as you can in meeting and obsen;ing the participants in all kinds of community service and volunteer programs in your areas. Consider how insights from these efforts might be publicized and shared with others. Encourage a learning environment within the Commission. Encourage staff to provide you with opportunities to publicize your support for community service among all ages and in all areas of the state. Continue to provide public recognition for voluntary efforts of all kinds. Seek ways to ensure that Michigan law and policy places a value on volunteer service, in areas such as liability insurance and others. Help to bring additional partners into the community service arena. Play an active and assertive role in establishing state and statewide priorities and focus areas for community service. Seek out, analyze, and help all of us to learn from successful collaborative ventures. Keep your mission and goals as they are stated already. Nowhere do they seem to call for you to OPERATE, DIRECT or ADMINISTER community service programs; 'they call for facilitating; they call for encouraging; they call for promoting and recognizing. I urge yop io stay focused on those functions. No one that I know of has proposed that State Commissions take ov~r the roles of the private Volunteer Centers; why should it seem logical to propose taking over administration of VISTA or the Senior Volunteer programs? No one would seriously entertain the Commissions taking control of civic and service clubs and sororities; why would the Commission envision taking control of VISTA and the Senior Volunteer programs? Obviously the lines of control will be drawn somewhere; I suggest you leave them where they are .. and work toward a COORDINATED PLURALITY of organizations in this field . And lastly, continue to propose Michigan ideas for Michigan people. The federal government should not be the only or even the largest player in community service in Michigan. Let Michigan devise and find funding for its own community service innovations on a variety of levels and from various sources as I know you are already beginning to do. What can work for us in the way of structure is a collaborative partnership such as the one which has flourished between the Feds and the State regarding Senior Volunteer programs. This 20-year-old working relationship provides benefits to communities and seniors alike; safeguards taxpayer interest; maintains the integrity of programmatic intent; results in a balanced response to local needs within a framework of STATE and National priorities. This partnership has simplified life for grantees and project staff, and provided coherent direction and support. It didn 't start out that way, however. No one would guess from observing our two organizations today that the relationship actually began in hostility, suspicion, acrimony, and a power struggle for control. The partnership is under considerable strain these days but the difficulties for us are not "made in Michigan." They come from outside Michigan, and we are doing everything we can to prevent those influences from destroying what has been built over 20 years. I direct your attention at length to this example as I think it gives us hope that we could get beyond the current acrimony and suspicion in the community service arena and begin to work toward a new era of close cooperation. If we do care about providing good programs to the people of Michigan, and if we care about the longterm survival of the current program designs and funding, then we had better get to work and put an end to this power struggle. The damage of the last 2 years---- most especially the damage of the last few months --- cannot be undone, but it can perhaps be overcome. �MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DIRECfORS 9851 Hamilton, Detroit, Michigan 48202 + (313)883-7764 + FAX 883-3957 ·- ... . Joy Graves President Wayne County Linda Lark Vice President Kent County Gloria Sanderson Secretary Crawford and Roscommon Counties Kathy Herrala Treasurer Marquette County CarlaBufe Charlevoix and Emmet Counties Janet Clark Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties Sandra Dalrymple '1ecosta and ,ceola Lake Counties BethDebano Macomb County Wilma Kahn Kalamazoo County Jill Kind Washtenaw County RSVP Director Grand Traverse Bay Area Hersh ell Masten Oakland County Pam McCrum Jackson County Theresa Nelson Delta, Menominee & Schoolcraft Counties Karen Reid Genesee and Shiawassee Counties Susan Smethurst Otsego County Meg Smith Monroe County March 17, 1997- Michigan Community Service Commission Public Hearing Mrs. Engler, Mr. Dirks, members of the Community Service Commission. Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak with you today. It is very important that we can meet together to discuss these very important issues. My name is Joy Graves. I have been the Director of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Wayne County for nine years. Two of our RSVP volunteers, Warren Black and Ann Evans, serve on the Senior Advisory Council for the Commission. I am also President of the Michigan Association of RSVP Directors. It is in that capacity that I come before you today. Let me briefly tell you about RSVP. RSVP is the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Please note the words "senior volunteer" in our designation. Each year in Michigan, nearly 10,000 volunteers, ages 55 and older, spend 18 hundred thousand. ...nearly two million hours.... meeting a variety of human and community needs which touch all generations. We are not a service program. We are a senior volunteer program which enriches the lives of seniors by enabling them as volunteers to provide service. The legislated purpose of our program is to "empower older individuals to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the volunteers and those whom they serve .... " Notice that the person comes first, their service second. When we received funding for our programs from the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging, they also emphasized the importance of the benefit !O the seniors by saying that these programs are "designed to address the needs of the older volunteer, first, and then to serve the needs .... " What are the strengths and weaknesses ofthe way national and community service programs are supported in Michigan? We look to our state office and to OSA for our support. The Corporation for National Service in Washington has been, and continues to be, primarily interested in Americorp and Americorp' s survival. We are deeply concerned that the support that we once received from Washington, before coming to the Corporation has, indeed, been eroded. The Commission' s focus primarily involves youth in the field of service both as participants and as recipients. For 26 years, our state office, however, has been readily available to answer our questions and to help us find new and creative solutions to our community' s problems. They support the mission ofbeing senior programs, first, service programs second. The state office understands that, by supporting and encouraging seniors, the community will also be served. The state director and staff are the experts that guide our programs. They also work in partnership with OSA staff; our local sponsors; �\ ,1ARSVPD Testimony - page 2 community nonprofits ; and other organizations to support senior volunteers v;hile they meet community needs . n -rhe ideal, what is the besT 1my rhat national and community service and mlunteerism should be supported in .\fichigan? Our mission is senior volunteerism, so I will address that issue. Ideally, our state office will continue to be a viable and reliable source of support. The partnerships formed, and the 26 years of experience in administering our programs should continue. The current system allows for flexibility in identifying the needs of the indiYidual communities, as well as, addressing the needs designated by the Corporation in Washington. There have been proposals to eliminate our state offices. We question the wisdom of such a decision. \Vhy change a system that so ideally meets the needs of our programs, our volunteers and our communities? \Vhat efficiency can be gained by stripping our programs and the communities they serve of experienced, dedicated support and damaging effectiYe partnerships that make our programs the low cost, creative solutions to many of our communities ' problems? If the detern1ined anempts to eliminate our state offices do ultimately succeed, then there is only one clear choice for the administrative and funding control of our programs. The Michigan Offices of Services to the Aging has provided firm leadership and support for our programs and oversight for our state funding for 14 years. They are already part of the partnership, I speak of, and are experienced and creative in recommending appropriate ways for senior Yolunteers to aid in solving community problems. Because they already provide support and administer funding for programs for seniors throughout the state, including all of the senior volunteer programs, OSA has the knowledge needed to carry out our stated purpose. What should the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in Michigan ? Again, -will address senior volunteerism because ours is a senior volunteer program. We appreciate the Commission' s .. ccision to establish a Senior Advisory CounciL This demonstrated an appreciation for the expertise and value of the seniors in our state. We hope that they will continue to look upon the seniors in Michigan as a source of wisdom , experience and an example of productive aging. We would hope that the Commission could be more creative in the membership of the Council by including a broader cross-section of senior representation such as AARP, religious leaders, and collaborations with retired professionals, i.e. , retired nurses and teachers. The Advisory Council needs to become a more functioning body with goals and objectives. The momentUD1 of the Council seems to be waning. Ti1wt can the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in ~Michigan ? We hope that the Commission will , basically, leave the senior volunteer programs alone. W_e provide seniors with the framev,rork to improve their ovm lives while serving others. The Commission should recognize the strength of seni or Yolunteers without exploiting seniors as cheap labor. To try to dictate what a volunteer will choose to do is an oxymoron. Senior volunteers, actually volunteers of any age, cannot be forced to provide service for free . Sen·ice and volunteerism are not synonymous. To be an effective RSVP volunteer, there must be benefit to the senior first. and service to the community, second. Otherwise, volunteerism becomes exploitative. The Commission must recognize this subtle, yet vital, difference between service and volunteerism. The Commission' s programs are predominately service programs for youth. We are volunteer programs for seniors. There is a vast difference. Again, thank you very much for providing this opportunity to express our views . We look forward to working r01laboratively with the Commission on projects in the future thus puning to good use the strengths of each entit)~ �MCSC TESTIMONY . .._. ·:. MARCH 25, 1997 HEARING TESTIMONY OF LINDA LARK, RSVP DIRECTOR (Note: Topics in italics are those Frank Dirks stated I should address in his letter to me of March 20, 1997.) 1. Name, Position, & Program Description: I am Linda Lark, Director of the Retired & Senior Volunteer Program of Kent County. First, I thank the First Lady and Commission for the opportunity to address the actions of the Community Services Commission and the older American programs. RSVP was authorized by Congress 25 years ago under the Older Americans Volunteer Act. Our purpose is to provide challenging and meaningful volunteer opportunities for residents aged 55 and over. These opportunities give them a chance to serve their communities, explore new interests, remain active, & avoid isolation so common with older Americans. With the help of RSVP, non-profit organizations are able to enhance and expand the services they provide. RSVP volunteers serve without compensation. Those who would find volunteering a fmancial hardship can request assistance with transportation and meals. Volunteers also receive training and insurance protection while volunteering. During 1996, 1,036 RSVP volunteers of Kent County provided 252,000 hours of their expertise , skill , and time to private and public non-profits or proprietary health care organizations. About 50% of Michigan' s RSVP volunteers serve older people in their homes & communities. They deliver meals and provide essential services such as transportation, shopping assistance, respite care, friendly visiting, telephone reassurance, home repair, tax preparation, You Are Not Alone reassurance visits and more. Many congregate nutrition programs, senior centers and nursing homes would find it difficult to operate without RSVP. Our volunteers are found in a multitude of programs developed to benefit the environment, local neighborhoods , children, low-income, homeless or disabled persons . We actively support collaborative initiatives such as Strong Families/Safe Children and Systems Reform by promoting the services of older volunteers as a resource in meeting the needs of families and developing programs which support childhood immunization initiatives and relative caregivers. 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the way CNS programs are supported in Michigan: We are, and have been since our conception, an older American program. We are here to benefit the senior and as a second benefit, we benefit the community. We are not about service. We are about seniors. Since we were put under the Corporation for National Service, we find ourselves being �the National Senior Service Corps. Our senior programs are .~tilized to validate new volunteer initiatives and then efforts are put in place to change ·us·: into a service organization; deemphasizing the senior's needs, talents, and contributions. Studies have proven that older people who volunteer have more positive attitudes, higher self-esteem, better health and live longer lives. Healthy, active older people cost society less than frail, sick older persons. Clearly, it is a weakness of the Corporation and consequently the Commission to change us into yet another "SERVICE" Corps. We provide service to our communities now. They recognize that service with their dollars. My project's budget is over $174,000 a year. $56,000 comes from the Corporation. Over $100,000 comes from the community because they know we get the job done. get it done well and cost-effectively. Incidentally, my annual salary as Director of the RSVP Project is less than the cost of one AmeriCorps Volunteer. The Ideal, What is the best way that National and Community Service and Volunteerism should be supported in Michigan? Stop trying to change the Older American Programs. We aren't broke. Please stop trying to "fix" us. We are not service-first programs. We are senior-first programs. This single comment addresses all of the questions in your letter regarding today's hearing. I would like to give you an example of what I am talking about by telling you about one of the over 1,000 volunteers in my project: Volunteer's Story here .... Jim Muir's Stozy Jim's contribution to his community will benefit future generations and communities beyond this state. Talk about Impact!! Jim gave me permission to share his story today and stated, "You have to leave the freedom of choice in RSVP. Without it I won't stay there and neither will other seniors. Emphasizing service could be the end of the program." RSVP's focus on the senior helped Jim Muir "handle living" and as a result look what we have gained! Can this country afford to lose even one caring, talented senior? What arrogance to assume a Corporation or Commission knows best what the communities' needs are or what gifts we will allow the seniors to share! �11r1a L~r') MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY MARCH 25, 1997 ARIA LARSEN, DIRECTOR SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY 202 E. BOULEY ARD DRIVE STE. II 0 FLINT, Ml 48503 810-257-3769 I have been asked to represent our Senior Companion Program in Lapeer and Genesee Counties as well as the eight other Senior Companion Programs in Michigan. I have been the Director of our Senior Companion Pro!:,rram since it was started 13 years ago. Prior to the creation of our Senior Companion Pro!:,rram, I was the Director of the Foster Grandparent Program in our area for two years and then assigned joint directorships ofboth Programs for two years for a total of 15 years as a Director of National Senior Service Corps Programs in Michigan. The Senior Companion Pro!:,rram recruits, trains, assigns and supervises seniors who wish to be a volunteer in their community and are 60 years of age and older and meet income guidelines ( 125% of poverty). Staff of the Senior Companion Program support the senior volunteer in their volunteer efforts and provide advocacy for their volunteers in needs they may have outside of their volunteering experience. An annual physical is provided for the senior as \veil as a daily meal allowance and travel reimbursement. An hourly stipend ofS245 for a maximum of 20 hours \\eek of volunteering in the community is also provided for the senior volunteer. These benefits help support the effort and costs of volunteering for the volunteer and improves their qua lity of life. Our Senior Companion volunteers visit and help special needs adults, 21 years of age and older in Lapeer and Genesee Counties who are living independently or \vith their families or in foster care homes. group homes. adult day care centers, adult education programs, day treatment programs and nursing homes. These special needs adults are referred by community agencies who have written abrreements v,:ith the SCP to be matched with senior volunteers by the Program staff. The community referral agencies are there for the needs of their adult clients and the Senior Companion Pro!:,rram is there for their Senior volunteer. By \VOrking together the Pro!:,rram and the referral agencies work together to meet the needs of the volunteers and the clients. The special needs these adults may have are : developmental disabilities, mental illness, frail health, dementia and physical handicaps. The goal of the senior volunteers' efforts with their assigned clients is to allow the clients to live as independently as possible by providing companionship, advocacy. respite. and social activities to their assigned clients and their families �The senior volunteer is served by enabling them to remain independent and active in their community by being part of the Senior Companion Program. · The relationships they build with their assi!:,'Tled clients benefits both the Senior volunteers and the referred adults. Two special !:,'TOups of individuals, the low income senior volunteer and the special needs adult are served for the cost of one, making the SCP very cost efficient In Lapeer and Genesee Counties we have 45 volunteers actively serving 248 clients in the community through 21 community referral sources. The State of Michigan began funding National Senior Service Corps Pro!:,rrams (NSSC) 20 years ago . The funds came from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Office on Aging (OSA) through OSA to local sponsor agencies across the State. When the State began funding NSSC Programs there was only one Senior Companion Pro!:,rram. Now there are nine Programs with only two of the SCP funded primarily by the Corporation for National Service (CNS). The State of Michigan has funding in all the SCP, FGP and RSVP in Michigan except one Senior Companion Program. There are more state funds in the NSSC Programs in Michigan than federal funds. Our Program is a state funded program with a small federal PNS grant that supports three additional Senior Companion volunteers. O ur Programs are very fortunate in Michigan to have the state funds and the full support of OSA in administering them . OSA ' s priority is the well being of seniors in Michigan. It understands the needs of seniors and the problems that confront them . The extra bonus is that OSA recob'Tlizes the NSSC Prot,rrams as volunteer prot,rrams for seniors and promotes them as a service to senior volunteers as well as the volunteers ' community. This was the purpose of the NSSC Probrrams when they began thirty years ago through the federal agency (ACTION) under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. Before the Corporation was formed and our name was changed to the NSSC our Pro!:,rrams were known as the Older American Volunteer Programs (0 A VP ). The name supported the original purpose of the Probrrams ofthe emphasis being placed on the senior volunteer over any community service they provided. The Corporation is changing the purpose of the NSSC Programs to have the emphasis on the service the senior volunteers provide the community over the service to the senior volunteer to tit in with the service orientation of the Corporation and its other Programs such as AMERICORPS and LEARN AND SERVE. In Michigan the Corporation ·s State office is required to adopt this same emphasis. However, the state office has monitored and funded the NSSC Pro!:,rrams, tirst as the ACTION state office and nO\v as the Corporation state office since these Pro!:,rrams began thirty years ago. The Programs are comfortable with the state oftice as a known entity and the Corporation State O ffice works .... ell with OSA giving a solid base to all the NSSC Pro!:,rrams in Michigan. Unfortunately, not all the states which have NSSC Programs across the country have state offices on aging or even Community Service Commissions like we have in Michigan. What the NSSC Program s nationall y do have in common is the Corporation State Offices. What has made the �NSSC Programs successful and so long-standing with bipartis~n .support is the consistent fiscal and programmatic oversight and structure nationally with the Co-rporation State Offices. The fiscal and programmatic structure for the NSSC Programs in Michigan currently meets the needs of the Programs through the oversight of OSA and the Corporation State Office. It is a system that has worked for over twenty years and has made the Michigan NSSC Programs some of the best in the country. Our Programs have been able to meet the needs of our senior volunteers and enable them to be part of the their local community support systems that works toward meeting the needs identified by their own local community. The Michigan Community Service Commission can support our NSSC Programs by facilitating information about the NSSC Programs in Michigan to their AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve Programs in the state. The Commission also needs to promote older adult service as part of AmeriCorps. Individuals who attend college later in life would appreciate an opportunity to get tuition assistance by providing community service. I have not seen or heard of any older adults being AmeriCorps service providers in Michigan and it is my understanding AmeriCorps was open to all ages of qualified Americans. Because the Michigan NSSC Programs promote the senior over service, we feel we are not a good fit with the service oriented and youth oriented AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve prot,rrams nationally and in Michigan. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICIDGAN Presented by: Bradley J. Johnson, Executive Director Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan Thank you for the opportunity to share my organizations views of service and volunteerism in Michigan. The Volunteer Center ofMid-Michigan, formerly known as the Voluntary Action Center has a long 45 year history of connecting people and resources in the Capitol Community. The Volunteer Center is aligned and affiliated with the Capital Area United Way, Volunteer Centers of Michigan (VCM is the state association representing over 27 volunteer centers), Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Points of Light Foundation (supporting over 500 national volunteer centers). It is through these connections that we, as community practitioners ofvolunteerism, are able to forge ahead in an ever changing nonprofit dynamic. Much like that of our statewide network of Volunteer Centers, the Volunteer Center of MidMichigan is positioned within the greater Lansing community to respond quickly to community needs. To accomplish this we are tasked as the community volunteer clearinghouse to over 300 nonprofit organizations. In addition, our mission is to promote and develop volunteerism, match volunteers with nonprofit organizations, and address select unmet community needs. It is only by following our vision of "mobilizing people and resources to deliver creative solutions to community problems" that we are able to accomplish our mission. The Volunteer Center has had the opportunity to become involved with the Michigan Community Service Commission on a number of levels: As an VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps grant recipient, through community outreach during the numerous volunteer mobilizations (ie: Day of Caring) where staff joined in the celebration of volunteerism, as a judge for the Governors Service Award, and though the use of the numerous publications produced through the Commission. During the Volunteer Centers 45 year history we have had the opportunity to observe numerous national and community service initiatives. As an organization typically outside the normal realm of these programs, the Volunteer Center has had the occasional opportunity to observe, and in other cases became intimately involved within, the operations of those national and community service programs. The Volunteer Center's experience with the operations, efficiency and overall impact in community by these national and community service initiatives or programs unfortunately range from poor to excellent. I believe that many of the problems that our organization faced were a direct result of national level involvement in program management and the inherent flaw in program organization. However, in contrast, our experience with the Michigan Community Service Commission and the national service programs that they oversee have been superior to those programs implemented from the national level organization. �I believe that President Clinton stated it clearly when he said "much of the work of America cannot be done by government, much other work cannot be ·d(jfi.~ by government alone. The solution must be the American people through voluntary service to others." We often hear of collaboration. It is truly an impressive buzz-word. Collaboration. Just the sound of it impresses me. It must impress a lot of others as well. Because nearly every nonprofit and governmental organization is claiming to be collaborator. Too often we are positioning our organization to be the power broker, instead of working together for a common good. A recent example of a statewide collaboration worth mentioning is that of the Presidents' Summit. The Michigan Community Service Commission, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, Council of Michigan Foundations and United Way of Michigan came together, took off their institutional hats and said "lets work together for the children of Michigan." Get this .. .it's working! But, we must remember that we need to work with the existing state organizations, not reinvent or absorb them. True collaboration will benefit the citizens of Michigan. We would encourage the continued exploration and growth of the VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps youth volunteerism initiative. This type of collaboration not only strengthens local nonprofit infrastructure, but it also addresses a serious social problem -- declining youth volunteerism. The Michigan Community Servic~ Commission and the Volunteer Centers of Michigan are pioneers in this statewide approach to engage youth in service. This innovative model of youth service will no doubt lead to its duplication across the country as a national model. The reason for success? Governmental guidance and organizational management. The Michigan Community Service Commission will serve the citizens of Michigan best as they continue to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. It is through this open exchange of information and dialogue that our Commission is most successful. Governor George Romney said "The magnitude of our social problems will require that all citizens and institutions make a commitment to volunteering as a way of life and as a primary opportunity to create needed change." The State of Michigan has already distinguished itself as a leader in volunteerism across the country through the establishment of a Community Service Commission. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to the people of Michigan by listening to what the people really want and need. Now is the time to reaffirm ow commitment to community by becoming the catalyst for positive community change, by stimulating innovative programs that meet real community needs through service. By becoming the convener of diverse individuals and groups, building community through shared efforts towards common goals. Now is the time to become that broker of ideas and resources and to encourage collaboration; not just talk about collaboration, but become the leader and follow your vision to engage entrepreneurial approaches to service and volunteer program development. In closing, the Michigan Community Service Commission will best serve the citizens ofthe State of Michigan by continuing their fine work in support national level opportunities, by acting as a facilitator and a collaborator, in support of statewide opportunities, and by supporting and enhancing statewide nonprofit initiatives. It is also critical that the Michigan Community Service Commission work diligently to recognize, support, and work with existing networks in Michigan. �MICIDGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICIDGAN Presented by: Bradley J. Johnson, Executive Director Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan Thank you for the opportunity to share my organizations views of service and volunteerism in Michigan. The Volunteer Center ofMid-Michigan, formerly known as the Voluntary Action Center has a long 45 year history of connecting people and resources in the Capitol Community. The Volunteer Center is aligned and affiliated with the Capital Area United Way, Volunteer Centers of Michigan (VCM is the state association representing over 27 volunteer centers), Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Points of Light Foundation (supporting over 500 national volunteer centers). It is through these connections that we, as community practitioners ofvolunteerism, are able to forge ahead in an ever changing nonprofit dynamic. Much like that of our statewide network of Volunteer Centers, the Volunteer Center of MidMichigan is positioned within the greater Lansing community to respond quickly to community needs. To accomplish this we are tasked as the community volunteer clearinghouse to over 300 nonprofit organizations. In addition, our mission is to promote and develop volunteerism, match volunteers with nonprofit organizations, and address select unmet community needs. It is only by following our vision of "mobilizing people and resources to deliver creative solutions to community problems" that we are able to accomplish our mission. The Volunteer Center has had the opportunity to become involved with the Michigan Community Service Commission on a number of levels: As an VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps grant recipient, through community outreach during the numerous volunteer mobilizations (ie: Day of Caring) where staff joined in the celebration of volunteerism, as a judge for the Governors Service Award, and though the use of the numerous publications produced through the Commission. During the Volunteer Centers 45 year history we have had the opportunity to observe numerous national and community service initiatives. As an organization typically outside the normal realm of these programs, the Volunteer Center has had the occasional opportunity to observe, and in other cases became intimately involved within, the operations of those national and community service programs. The Volunteer Center's experience with the operations, efficiency and overall impact in community by these national and community service initiatives or programs unfortunately range from poor to excellent. I believe that many of the problems that our organization faced were a direct result of national level involvement in program management and the inherent flaw in program organization. However, in contrast, our experience with the Michigan Community Service Commission and the national service programs that they oversee have been superior to those programs implemented from the national level organization. �I believe that President Clinton stated it clearly when he said "much of the work of America cannot be done by government, much other work cannot be ·d(jfi.~ by government alone. The solution must be the American people through voluntary service to others." We often hear of collaboration. It is truly an impressive buzz-word. Collaboration. Just the sound of it impresses me. It must impress a lot of others as well. Because nearly every nonprofit and governmental organization is claiming to be collaborator. Too often we are positioning our organization to be the power broker, instead of working together for a common good. A recent example of a statewide collaboration worth mentioning is that of the Presidents' Summit. The Michigan Community Service Commission, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, Council of Michigan Foundations and United Way of Michigan came together, took off their institutional hats and said "lets work together for the children of Michigan." Get this .. .it's working! But, we must remember that we need to work with the existing state organizations, not reinvent or absorb them. True collaboration will benefit the citizens of Michigan. We would encourage the continued exploration and growth of the VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps youth volunteerism initiative. This type of collaboration not only strengthens local nonprofit infrastructure, but it also addresses a serious social problem -- declining youth volunteerism. The Michigan Community Servic~ Commission and the Volunteer Centers of Michigan are pioneers in this statewide approach to engage youth in service. This innovative model of youth service will no doubt lead to its duplication across the country as a national model. The reason for success? Governmental guidance and organizational management. The Michigan Community Service Commission will serve the citizens of Michigan best as they continue to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. It is through this open exchange of information and dialogue that our Commission is most successful. Governor George Romney said "The magnitude of our social problems will require that all citizens and institutions make a commitment to volunteering as a way of life and as a primary opportunity to create needed change." The State of Michigan has already distinguished itself as a leader in volunteerism across the country through the establishment of a Community Service Commission. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to the people of Michigan by listening to what the people really want and need. Now is the time to reaffirm ow commitment to community by becoming the catalyst for positive community change, by stimulating innovative programs that meet real community needs through service. By becoming the convener of diverse individuals and groups, building community through shared efforts towards common goals. Now is the time to become that broker of ideas and resources and to encourage collaboration; not just talk about collaboration, but become the leader and follow your vision to engage entrepreneurial approaches to service and volunteer program development. In closing, the Michigan Community Service Commission will best serve the citizens ofthe State of Michigan by continuing their fine work in support national level opportunities, by acting as a facilitator and a collaborator, in support of statewide opportunities, and by supporting and enhancing statewide nonprofit initiatives. It is also critical that the Michigan Community Service Commission work diligently to recognize, support, and work with existing networks in Michigan. �A part ofyour lift ...ali_J'Ottr lit~. MARCH 25, 1997 PRESENTATION TO MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION RE THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES AND OTHER CYO/CO&T DEPARTMENT PROJECTS EFFECTED BY FUNDING THROUGH THE COMMISSION. BY: SHARON CAMPBELL, PROGRAM MANAGER GOOD AFTERNOON , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . I AM SHARON CAMPBELL. I AM EMPLOYED BY THE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION OF DETROIT , AND I ADD , PARENTHETICALLY , WE ARE NOT PART OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT . I AM HONORED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETH ING REALLY GOOD THAT'S HAPPENING WITH AND FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA. I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO BE A PART OF THIS EFFORT . T HE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION HAS A LONG STANDING HISTOR Y OF " GETTING KIDS AND COMMUNITIES INTO SOMETHING GOOD" , AS A MATTER OF FACT THE IMPACT THIS AGENCY HAS MADE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CYO ACTIVITIES IS OFTEN SO STRONG THAT OUR MOTTO IS " CYO .. . A PART OF YOUR LIFE , ALL OF YOUR LIFE. • • ~ I .. • ... c. r - : l ., •• l • . �IN ADDITION TO THE COMMONLY KNOWN CYO P~Q_GRAMS SUCH AS, CAMPS , ATHLETICS AND YOUTH TRAINING DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP , THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS , CHURCHES , PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS , SCHOOLS , GOVERNMENT AGENCIES , HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES, AND BUSINESSES TO CREATE HEAL THY ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH YOUNG PEOPLE IN SIX COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN, CAN LIVE, LEARN, AND PROSPER. THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT STAFF SERVES TO STRENGTHEN AND REVITALIZE COMMUNITIES BY GETTING PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THEIR OWN NEEDS AND TRAINING THEM TO REACH THEIR COMMON GOALS THROUGH GROUP ACTION AND SELF-HELP EFFORTS . THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION HAS SUPPORTED THE MISSION OF THE CYO COMMUNITY ORGANIZING & TRAINING DEPARTMENT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS BY GRANTING FUNDS AND ACCESS TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. AS A RESULT , THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES OF THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA EXISTS TO ADDRESS THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF YOUTH THROUGH ADVOCACY , COLLABORATION , AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ; TO MOBILIZE HUMAN AND ALL OTHER AVAILABLE RESOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THIS 2 �MISSION ; AND TO SERVE AS A PRIMARY COMMUNITY RESOURCE FOR YOUTH ·- ·" . SERVICES AND INFORMATION . JUST WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?? FOR MANY YEARS , THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES WAS A GROUP OF EXECUTIVES WHO MET AMONG THEMSELVES, WITHOUT A SPECIFIC MISSION , TO SHARE RESOURCES AND INFORMATION. BECAUSE THE MCSC AND CYO JOINED FORCES, THROUGH A MYSAM GRANT, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THAT GROUP OF EXECUTIVES TO RE-ORGANIZE , RE- STRUCTURE, AND RE-BUILD THE COALITION. GOALS WERE ESTABLISHED WHICH INCLUDE COLLABORATING WITH ESTABLISHED AND EMERGING ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , EXPLORE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING POSSIBILITIES , AND SHARE RESOURCES. MEMBERSHIP WAS EX PANDED TO INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS, CHURCHES , COALITIONS , NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND OTHERS WHOSE PURPOSE INCLUDES PROVIDING SERVICES TO YOUTH . THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES , NOW , AS A RESULT OF THE MCSC / CYO COLLABORATION, PROVIDES INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO APPROXIMATELY 250 YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS. THESE ORGANIZATIONS VARY IN SIZE, STRENGTH, BUDGET AND ARENA . THEY INCLUDE NOT ONLY LONG 3 �STANDING, FAMILIAR ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE GIRLS SCOUTS, BOYS SCOUTS, Y'S, BUT ALSO, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, COMMUNITY GROUPS , THE CITY OF DETROIT, AGENCIES, NATIONALLY AFFILIATED HEALTH NEIGHBORHOOD AGENCIES , GROUPS, LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS , HUMAN SERVICES AND -BUSINESSES. AGENCIES , MANY SERVICE EMERGING PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEGUN TO GEL AS A RESULT OF THE INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SHARING AVAILABLE TO CYSA MEMBERS. LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST QUARTER ACTIVITY. A TWO-DAY CONFERENCE WAS SPONSORED BY THE COALITION, FOR ADULTS WHO WORK CONFERENCE WITH WAS YOUTH . ATTENDED THE "NURTURING BY ALMOST FUTURE 200 ADULTS GENERATIONS" WHO RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ; PARTICIPATED IN NETWORKING ACTIVITIES ; HEARD FROM SPEAKERS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD , WHO WORK IN THE TRENCHES TO IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE STATE-OF-THE-ART INFORMATION AND RESOURCES FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS. FOR ABOUT 50 OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE, IT WAS THEIR FIRST TIME PARTICIPATING IN A CYSA ACTIVITY. TWENTY-EIGHT AGENCIES ENROLLED AS PAID MEMBERS OF THE COALITION AS A RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE. 4 �THE CONFERENCE WAS PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED AS A COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICE LEARNING PROJECT. TWENTY-FIVE YOUTH, AGES 14-21, REPRESENTING A VARIETY OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA PARTICIPATED BY OFFERING INVOCATIONS, INTRODUCING EACH KEYNOTE AND WORKSHOP PRESENTERS, FACILITATING WORKSHOP AND OVERALL CONFERENCE EVALUATION PROCESSES , AND PARTICIPATING IN ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTION EXERCISES AT THE END OF EACH DAY . IN ADDITION TO DEVELOPING AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, A COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED TO DEFINE AND DEVE-LOP A "PILOT" COMPREHENSIVE YOUTH SERVICES PROJECT . AT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT AN INITIATIVE TO MOBILIZE AND TRAIN YOUTH IN LEADERSHIP SKILLS . THIS WILL BE DONE THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DETROIT URBAN LEAGUE . PRESENTATIONS WERE ALSO MADE BY THE MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR HUMAN SERVICES ABOUT THE 1996 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK AND THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA AND HOW GROUPS CAN USE THOSE DOCUMENTS AS A TOOL TO INCREASE THEIR SERVICE CAPACITY. 5 �THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHER BENEFITS TO YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE DETROIT AREA, THROUGH THE CYSA , AND I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DISCUSS THEM ALL. I DO , HOWEVER , WANT TO TELL YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PLANS DEVELOPING FOR THE SUMMER. THE COALITION IS GEARING UP FOR A COLLABORATIVE SERVICE-LEARNING ACTIVITY FOR YOUTH. THROUGH THE YOUTHMAPPING PROJECT, YOUNG PEOPLE WILL CANVASS NEIGHBORHOODS, BLOCK-BY-BLOCK, GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN THEIR COMMUNITY FOR THEM AND THEIR PEERS. ONE OF THE PREMISES OF THE YOUTHMAPPING APPROACH IS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO IDENTIFY RESOURCES THAT ARE USEFUL TO THEM . RESOURCES, NOT ONLY INCLUDE SERVICES , THEY ALSO INVOLVE OPPORTUNITIES , PLACES TO GO, AND CARING ADULTS . THIS PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP , LIFE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IS UNDERWAY TO SEEK A GRANT TO STIPEND THE YOUTH. AS YOU CAN TELL I AM VERY EXCITED BY THIS WORK. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TELL YOU A BIT ABOUT THE WORK OTHER CO& T DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN AND ARE ENGAGED IN . 6 �THROUGH A MICHIGAN CARES GRANT THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COLLABORATIVE WAS DEVELOPED. THIS IS A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN, YOUTH CENTERED COLLABORATIVE THAT PROVIDES SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO RESIDENTS OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT TO BUILD A SAFE AND HEAL THY ENVIRONMENT WHERE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERISM ARE PRESENT, WHILE CELEBRATING THE STRENGTHS AND MUL TI-CUL TURISM OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT. YOUTH AND ADULTS CAME TOGETHER TO TRAIN THE YOUTH TO PLAN AND FACILITATE A WEEKEND CONFERENCE. TWO ADOPT-A-STREET PROJECTS WERE ORGANIZED ON A STREET IN THE COMMUNITY . OVER 35 YOUTH AND 1 5 ADULTS WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH LOCAL INDUSTRIES TO CLEAR AWAY 200 TONS OF GARBAGE, 700 TIRES AND 90 GAS TANKS. TWENTY-FIVE JUNIOR HIGH AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YOUTH PARTICIPATE IN A TUTORING AND MENTORING PROGRAM. YOUTH FROM MIDPLE SCHOOL VOLUNTEER TO BE A PART OF THE GROUP WHO DESIGN THE "LESSON" FOR THE KINDERGARTNERS, AND ACTUALLY FACILITATE THE TEACHING OF THE LESSON, GUIDED BY A TEACHER. 7 �A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY BASED RECREATION LEAGUE WAS FUNDED. BUILDING DEVELOPMENT OF UPON THE THE MICARES BASE COMMUNITY IN THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION LEAGUE HAS THE BEEN FAC ILITATED BY RECRUITING AND TRAINING VOLUNTEERS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY, COACHES , REFEREES , AND PLAYERS. THE COMMUNITY RECREATION LEAGUE INCREASES COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERISM : MORE PARENTS , MORE LOCAL BUSINESSES , MORE CHURCHES , MORE AGENCIES , MORE SCHOOLS ARE INVOLVED . THE LEAGUE WILL IMPROVE AND PUT TO USE UNDERUTILIZED AND POORLY MAINTAINED FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY. WHEN A COMMUNITY'S PHYSICAL CONDITION IS IMPROVED THERE IS AN INCREASE OF PRIDE AND SENSE OF OWNERSHIP , WHICH RESULTS IN A REDUCTION OF CRIME . EACH OF THE FINANCIALLY PROGRAMS AND / OR WITH I HAVE MENTIONED TECHNICAL HAVE ASSISTANCE BEEN BY THE SUPPORTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION . THAT SUPPORT HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS . MOST OF WHICH ARE THOSE GROWING PAINS OF ANY NEW IN ITIATIVE , SUCH AS , ON-GOING EVALUATION AND PROGRAM CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION AS NEW IDEAS ARE FORMULATED. THE COMMUNICATION OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND REPORTING PROCEDURES HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF SOME CONSTERNATION. 8 �DESPITE THE LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES , THE BENEFITS FAR OUTW EIGH THE PROBLEMS . ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PLANNING GRANT WHERE THEY IDENTIFY THEIR OWN ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THOSE ISSUES. THIS HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE EXPERIENCE. IT EXEMPLIFIES THE ESSENCE OF COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-HELP. THE MYSAM GRANT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ORGANIZATION, THEREBY INCREASING THE VOLUNTEERISM OF MEMBER AGENCIES. THE VISTA PROGRAM HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL RESOURCE TO CYO AND ITS CLIENT GROUPS . THE REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES , WORKSHOPS , CONFERENCES , N ETW ORKING ACTIVITIES COORDINATED AND FACILITATED BY THE MCSC HAS SERVED TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF OUR CLIENT GROUPS , BY FOSTERING COLLABORATION, SHARING RESOURCES , AND PROMOTING REPLICATION AND CROSS - FERTILIZATION OF PROGRAMS , NOT DUPLICATION. 9 �WHAT CAN THE MCSC DO TO SUPPORT THE WORK THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY? PRESENT GRANTEES OF THE MCSC CAN CONTINUE TO GROW IN SIZE AND CAPACITY IF MCSC CONTINUES TO OFFER REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE TRAINING AND NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , WHILE MAKING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO EMERGING GROUPS, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR FUTURE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES . CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE EMERGING GROUPS TO NETWORK WITH CURRENT GRANTEES WILL ALSO FOSTER CROSSFERTILIZATION AND REPLICATION INSTEAD OF DUPLICATION. FOR EXAMPLE: A THREE TIERED STRUCTURE CAN BE DEVELOPED , AKIN TO THE LOCAL- , COUNTY- , STATE- GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, WHERE NETWORKING CAN OCCUR IN A LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS , REGIONALLY, AND STATEWIDE. T HE MCSC IS IN A POSITION TO ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND FUTURE GRANTEES HAVE CUTTING-EDGE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. A CONSORTIUM OF ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITH FUNDS AND / OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVELY BE ESTABLISHED AND FACILITATED BY THE MCSC . 10 CAN �IN CONCLUSION, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MCSC , THROUGH THE MYSAM GRANT, Ml CARES FUNDING, AND WITH THE VISTA VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM HAS INCREASED OUR CAPACITY TO SERVE THE EMPOWERMENT OF YOUTH AND ADULTS, ENABLED US TO FOSTER INCREASING CAPACITY OF YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS, AND OVERALL, TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS . WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED OPPORTUNITES TO MAINTAIN A PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. 11 �MCSC PUBLIC HEARING Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bob Parks. I am the Program Director ofthe Family Independence Agency's Americorps program: the Citizens' Health Service Corps. I come here with less experience with Americorps and the Commission than any other presenter speaking here today. I've been with the program since January 2nd ofthis year. This is a very sophisticated audience and I don't come with any great insights that are going to be new to you . But I bring what I hope is a balanced perspective to the issues. Where my perspective maybe different is that for 7 years I was responsible for the contract management and oversight of36 non-profit agencies providing Runaway and Homeless Youth services in Mic~igan . The total annual dollar amount ofthose contracts was about$ 6 million dollars. Many of my responsibilities were similar to those of the Commission. I bring an understanding and appreciation of the needs of the Commission in relationship to the programs being funded . A couple of examples: There are differences in the way data collection is perceived. Programs want to use data to make their programs look good and to be refunded. Data collection is seen as hard work and a burden. Unmet program goals are perceived as threatening the continuation of the program. While everyone recognizes that data is useful and can be used for continuous improvement; most of the time it is seen as an obligation required by the funding source. The Commission wants data to determine whether their money is being spent well and wisely. The Commission needs to ensure that programs are achieving their mission and to know whether programs are meeting their obligations that are included in the grant. The Commission and the Grantees have different customers, stakeholders and interest groups. As a result, there may be competing priorities and objectives. Often, there is a lack of appreciation of each other' s priorities and objectives Prior to becoming the Americorps Program Director, the office where I worked for two and a half years was involved, as an Internal Consultant to FIA, in areas of Total Quality Management, Teamwork and Customer Service. My comments will lean on my background as an Internal Consultant. �In the time that I have I would like to focus on what can be..done to create a sense ofPartnership and Collaboration between the Com.riiission and the programs under the aegis of the Commission. Discussing in a public forum what can be improved isn't easy. All of us were taught by our parents not to raise concerns that may appear critical of others. Nobody wants to criticize anyone in front of their bosses. And raising concerns that may appear to be critical of a funding source is seldom a good idea. But I have an advantage. Last week, I discussed these themes with Frank Dirks and, afterwards, he still invited me to speak at this public hearing. The major perception that I have is that the Commission sees its role primarily in terms of management and oversight and not from a customer-service focus . In my judgment, this mindset affects the way the Commission communicates and relates with programs. It hinders an openness which is so necessary for Partnership _and Collaboration. The examples that I will use do not occur all the time. In some cases, the examples, by themselves, mean very little. But collectively, these examples foster an attitude that is, in my view, counter-productive. Information is not always shared in a timely way . I received a call on March 7, 1997 inviting Americorps Members and staff to be a part of Emergency Based Response Team. An organizational meeting was scheduled for March 20, 1997. But the information regarding the meeting was not faxed to me until March 13 , 1997. Telephone calls are not always returned in a timely manner. It is at the point where I don ' t expect to have my calls returned promptly. There are times when the Commission does not create an atmosphere of partnership. As an example: It was announced at the last Commission meeting that there may be $ 1 million dollars available in the FY -98 Appropriation Bill to help local communities to raise endowment funds . It was suggested that FIA Volunteer Coordinators may have a role in this effort. But this issue was never discussed with FIA prior to the announcement at the Commission meeting. Meetings are called without clear or complete agendas . Often, there is a notation in the notice that the meeting is "mandatory". The Commission has a paternalistic attitude toward programs. In the registration materials to Americorps programs for the SuperConference there was a notation that said, "Two persons to a room Same sex roommates onlv!" I found this to be condescending. If the target audience for the registration materials had been the this Board of Commissioners, would that language have been the same? �Requests for information often come with very abbrevi~~e_d deadlines. As an example, the request to submit names for the Americorps*Vista "National Service Hero" award allowed very little time to pull the information together; particularly when our site supervisors have many other Volunteer Service responsibilities. This may not be a good example because the short timeframes probably came from the Corporation for National Service and not the Commission. There is a sense that the Commission does not want programs to call the Corporation for National Service in Washington. In truth, I'm not sure why I have this perception. The Corporation for National Service has a poor track record for returning calls promptly. Frequently what I end up doing is call both the Commission and CNS when I am requesting information. To add balance, let me give a couple of examples of outstanding customer service. Just prior to the SuperConference one of the workshop presenters wanted to have an Americorps Member make a presentation at her workshop. The site supervisor called me to ask if the registration for the Americorps Member could be paid by the Commission. I called Lindy Reurink. Within 5 minutes she called me back to tell me everything was all set. One week after I became the Americorps Program Director I found out I was responsible to write the Year Two Renewal Application; which was due in Washington, DC on February 11th. I submitted my draft to Frank Dirks. On three occasions, he thoroughly reviewed the drafts, met with me to discuss the drafts, and made specific and important recommendations to improve the application. The result was that a quality Renewal Application was submitted . We were one of only eleven programs, out of the 28 original grants, that was approved for renewal. In closing, it is sometimes true that perception becomes reality. If my perceptions are shared by others they can have a stifling impact on communication and collaboration. �1787 Manchester Dr. Ypsilanti, MI 48198 313-487-0717 smsdas@ aol.com March 23, 1997 One Project: One Reason Not to Merge I take this opportunity to share my concerns in writing about the transference of CNS programs to the state commissions. I served as the state director for CNS and its predecessor agency ACTION for 23 years in Michigan. In addition, I served as a VISTA volunteer for two years from 1967 to 1969. I have a long history of involvement with poverty programs as well as senior programs. During the period of 1984 to 1986. I was detailed to the Michigan Department of Social Services to serve as a special assistant to the director. My experiences are many and varied relative to project development and social programming. It is based on that background that leads me to vigorously object to the merger of CNS and the state commission in Michigan. I have included the position paper of the National Senior Service Corps Directors Associations stating their objections to senior programs being transferred to commissions. This paper gives my objections to the transference of the VISTA sponsor approval process to the state commission. The state commissions· emphasis is on service and volunteerism. VISTA ·s mission is on poverty related issues. There is a major difference between the two. VISTA was created in 1964 as part of the War on Poverty effort. The emphasis for VISTA has been and still is the eradication and/or amelioration of poverty. Recruiting volunteers for community agencies is not necessarily a poverty related activity and is a function that is most often done by a volunteer action type agency , whose mission is the promotion of volunteerism. In my 23 years in Michigan, I did not, nor would I have. approved a project like the one that was approved for 18 VISTA volunteers in Michigan this past year by the Michigan CNS office in conjunction with the state commission. The sponsor of that project is the Michigan Nonprofit Association. The project was submitted to the Michigan CNS office by Frank Dirks, Executive Director of the Michigan Community Service Commission, on �behalf of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative and its collaborating partners , the Council of Michigan Foundations and the Michigan Nonprofit Association. All fine organizations, but none that have a history in Michigan of working on poverty related issues. "The principle purpose of this project is to support the continuation of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative to facilitate communication, citizen action, community problem solving through service and volunteerism." That is a direct quote from the application. Absent is any mention of poverty, disadvantaged , handicapped or any other word that might describe some of our more vulnerable individuals. The goals of this project are an example of what will happen to VISTA if the state commission has a role in determining emphasis areas and project sponsors. Some of the goals of this project are: 1. Link organizations 2. Promote new collaborative partnerships 3. Recruit volunteers 4. Gather community agency information 5. Support collaborati ve service projects 6. Promote '·one stop shopping" models There are seven other goals that are all volunteer coordinator functions that are to be assumed by the VISTAs. No where in the goals is poverty , low income, children or the elderl y mentioned. This project is totall y out of compliance with the intent of VISTA. It is a project that more likely should be a function of the state commission and not CNS. Having a state entity whose purpose is the promotion of volunteerism as the developer of VISTA projects will be disastrous for low income communities in ·this state. There are six sub-grantees in this project that have significantl y different miSSIOnS. The Jackson County Community Transformation Projects mission is to create a community where citizens individually and collectivel y increase their desire and ability to meet their own needs, the needs of the community , and the needs of the larger en vironment. The Catholic Youth Organization strives to respond to the current and changing needs of the youth community of Metropolitan Detroit. They seek to enable volunteers to meet expressed needs through recreational. spiritual , and leadership programs. I never considered CYO a possible entity for VISTA resources in Detroit. Their mission was too religious for VISTA. �The mission of the Kirkland Community College Volunteer Center is to serve as a clearinghouse and to operate as part of a local , state, and national network which encourages and enables persons from all walks of life and age groups to perform constructive community service. I am glad that they are not promoting destructive community service. Kirkland was a horrible RSVP sponsor. We removed the program from them: The purpose of the Muskegon County Community Foundation is to assist worthwhile projects for the betterment of Muskegon County, with some emphasis on the arts , education , youth , human services, and community development. At least they are addressing some of the areas that VISTAs should be working in. TO BE DETERMINED is a project that will operate in Marquette. Never did I approve a ghost sponsor. Saginaw Bay Watershed Council serves as an advocate for local communities on water quality issues and initiates proactive educational and hands-on activities within a 22 county area of the watershed. It is interesting that. even though they have significantly different missions. the goals and objectives are the same for all the projects. Those of us in the trade call that procedure Xerox programming: write one goal , copy it for all components. New specific objectives were to be determined by each by September 15 , 1996. I can find no record that they have done so. In addition to CNS approving this ghost project, they gave Michigan Nonprofit Association $26,000 to supervise it. I guess that if you have the right friends in the right places one can do most anything without an yone challenging those outlandish actions. I know that there are a lot of VISTA sponsors that would love a little money for supervision or that the VISTAs would love a little help with transportation ; I bet they didn ' t get any. I have been unable to find any resources that the state or Michigan Nonprofit contributed to this project. One would think that a project of this size would require some contribution from the sponsor or the state. I heard that the supervision grant was amended to include $17,000 for in-service training. What a sham. A reverse Robin Hood seems to be the operative methodology that created this project: take resources from those small agencies working with the poor and give them to state coordinating bodies who are promoting a thing called service. The collusion between the state CNS office and the state commission is not good for the poor and disadvantaged in Michigan. A preoccupation with process over results is a major flaw in the merger plan presented by Frank Dirks. One of the challenges that I had when I worked in Lansing for MOSS was convincing them that not all knowledge resided there. I had to �fight many battles to get funding for community based organizations. It appears that with the proposed merger plan that small agencies need not apply for resources. In another, separate piece, I will comment on the awarding of VISTAs to the state welfare agency. Suffice it to say that CNS giving VISTAs to FIA is like me giving money to Bill Gates. It just doesn't make sense no matter how worthy the project. If FIA wants VISTAs, then let them buy them. Over 30 per cent of the state allocation for VISTA is now committed to two projects. The state commission is better suited for a role as a promoter of volunteerism and not as a grantor. I am still amazed that it takes a staff of ten to monitor fewer than twenty projects. The staffing and the budget for the commission are obscene. It is one of the reasons that the cost for an AmeriCorps member exceeds $20,000 per year. The state commission needs to be rerationalized. It will not always have a first lady as the chair and there will be a change in governors if not in 1998. then in 2002 because of term limits. With a new gov_e rnor there will be new staff for the commission. It is important that there be a permanent entity in Michigan that will monitor and support programs for those who have been left out and left behind. The commission is not set up to fulfill that function. It is important to remember that a former state volunteer commission (VIM) was closed because of state budget problems. A viable state CNS office is the answer and one that is not a puppet of the state. Finally. I would like to ask commission members what value do they think is added to the delivery of service by the existence of a state commission. I believe that there are cheaper and more efficient ways to administer AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve. This proposed merger plan is riot one of them. I hope that in the near future that we are able to sit down and develop a more suitable plan. Respectfull y submitted: Stanley M. Stewart �D ~bra t-tD I('fVJf:- b3rn so Yl Michigan Community Service Commission Public Information Gathering Meet~g: 3/25/97 -Michigan Communities In Schools, Inc. (MCIS) is our state's affiliate of Communities In Schools, Inc. As you may know, Communities In Schools, Inc., fonnerly Cities In Schools (CIS), is the nation's largest stayin-school network with programs operating in over 200 urban and rural communities in 28 states. Formerly incorporated in 1977, CIS pioneered the concept of coordinating and delivering existing, already funded health and human services, and other resources, at public school sites. Today, CIS, at the national level, exists to help local communities establish and maintain a fonnal process for pooling their resources and delivering these resources to children and families in need at the central location of the school. For the tremendous number of students and families who are living life on the edge, having better access to services which are delivered in a caring, accountable, and coordinated fashion, is often the first step towards ending their cycle of failure. Over the years, this approach has proven to be cost-effective and successful in helping to "tum around" the lives of young people who were considered on the brink of dropping out of school or having the risk factors that would eventually lead to dropping out In community after community, evaluations and outside studies are consistently showing that this approach not only produces cost savings in the criminal justice system, school district, and social welfare system, but also leads to higher attendance, improved academic performance, and reduced behavioral problems and criminal activity. At the core ofthis innovative movement are the four CIS basics, recently adopted as values for the upcoming Presidents' Summit: • • • • All children need and deserve: a personal, one-on-one relationship with a caring adult; a safe place to learn and grow; a marketable skill to use upon graduation; and a chance to give back to peers and community. The Michigan Communities In Schools (MCIS) office, located in Grand Rapids, was established in early 1994 and works with as a public/private partnership to champion the connection of needed community resources, parent and schools to help young people succes~fully learn, stay in school and prepare for Iife. The primary function of MCIS is to develop and support local CIS initiatives across the state, as accomplished through the following activities: * assisting new communities adopt the CIS process, * arranging and/or delivering training and technical assistance for new and existing CIS communities, * linking local CIS communities with state, regional and national resources, and * advocating for children and their families through statewide partnerships. In Michigan, we are presently working with 20 communities at varying levels of interested, implementing and operational status. Operational CIS pro~:,rrarns currently serve youth and families in Tecumseh, Detroit, Branch, Ottawa, Calhoun and Lenawee Counties representing daily service coordination in 48 schools, and growing rapidly. My experience with community service programs includes working with a variety of Learn & Serve initiatives, school based Service-Learning efforts, Youth Engaged in Service and Youth Initiative pro~:,rrams over the past ten years. While vice president for Heart of West Michigan United Way, I supervised the �Volunteer Center, Project Blueprint, and other youth and adult volunteer efforts, in addition to my other responsibilities. I have also administered a VISTA grant for the l~ttwo and a half years through MCIS, and have recently applied for an AmeriCorps grant that could benefit our programs statewide. I have been honored to participate in the varied initiatives granted, and still maintain that the opportunity to 'give back' is as beneficial to the provider as to the recipient. As MCIS is both a provider and recipient itself when it comes to community service programs, I am glad to be able to respond to the Commission's questions. 1) The value of service programs for our community based organizations, and the individuals they serve, is irrefutable, and likewise their strengths are many. They supply direct and quality staffing resources for many worthy programs, while providing real-life experience and skill-building for the individuals that volunteer. They also provide meaningful positive interaction, engender strong citizenship, and assist in often dramatic and measurable outcomes. Strengths (ofMichigan's system of support): -the open, competitive nature of application process; -support and encouragement for high standards of accountability & impact; -inclusive recruiting and placement efforts: Weaknesses -lack of coordination of efforts ~ -need for clear and consistent (yet comprehensive) communications; -complexity of application process and stafftime required. 2) Depending on the variety of offerings planned for the future, and their complimentary or supporting natures, one central coordinating agency (or one central, with sub-sites) may be more useful and efficient. Reporting, monitoring, training, and communications could be more effectively coordinated and disseminated; while maximizing staffing and fiscal responsibilities. Similarly, all proposal timelines and processes could be streamlined and coordinated to provide less burden on the granting agency, as well as the grantees. 3) The Commission should continue advocating for: -sufficient resources to provide community service options warranted; to include staffing, training, and supplemental budgets; -increased technology to enhance efficiency (wherever appropriate), as well as the training, equipment, and expertise to facilitate such activities; and -setting, and demonstrating, a high standard of quality, accountability, and outcomes; while providing the technical expertise to make it happen! I thank you again for this opportunity to share my views and experience, and look forward to many years of continued collaboration for the benefit of organizations, communities, and the individuals involved in both. son State Director/President attachment � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MCSC-Testimonies Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission testimonies Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission testimonies. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49870 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/301087e9076e33967197884999b4786c.pdf 9cbd82d8a2ff5db8095ba21c6e30001d PDF Text Text Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Applications Recommended for Funding Proposal Name Legal Applicant Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Peer Review Concept Paper COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS Genesee County AmeriCorps Program United Way of Genesee/Lapeer Co 88.75 82 Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program University of Michigan 84.76 80.8 CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success Eastern Michigan University 83.75 89 AmeriCorps Oakland Oakland' University 80.25 63 Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun Co. Olivet College 78.5 66 Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps Young Detroit Builders 77.5 66 Michigan Communities in Schools MI Communities in Schools 77.25 57 Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services 73 81.1 AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) American Red Cross 73 79.5 Nonviolence KOPS New Detroit, Inc. 68.25 63.8 Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program MI Department of Agriculture 67.5 70 Saginaw AmeriCorps School District, City of Saginaw 63.3 53 FORMULA APPLICATIONS Washtenaw Family Support Network SOS Crisis Center 79 85.8 Copper Country AmeriCorps BHK Child Development 78 88 Van Buren Public Health Department Van Buren Public Health 71.5 67 Northern Michigan Community Mental Health Northern MI Comm. Mental Health 65 68.3 Volunteer Muskegon! YVC Muskegon 54.75 67.4 Grand Rapids Service Corps Grand Rapids Service Corps 50 32 �Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Programs Not Funded Proposal N arne Legal Applicant Big Brothers/BigSisters: CircleNet Big Brothers/Big Sisters n/a 93 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Wayne State University Wayne State University 53 67.5 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center 55.5 67 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Expanding Horizons Youth Volunteer Corps YMCA n/a 66 Concept Paper not approved AmeriCorps Program of Volunteer Impact Volunteer Impact n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved School Based AmeriCorps Project Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved Focus HOPE, Inc. Focus HOPE, Inc. n/a 55 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity n/a 44 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted One Family for Success IMPEL Individual/Family Growth, Inc. n/a 41 Concept Paper not approved Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Peer Review Concept Paper Reason for Not Funding � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Apps-Recommended-for-Funding Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49871 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5ac6eb2a455d94dd2566640c68d3028a.pdf d35ae2aea7f66b2f4e0ff9af75390fb9 PDF Text Text ( Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Applications Recommended for Funding Proposal Narne Legal Applicant COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS I Genesee County AmeriCorps Prograrr(t.A o"'-t:} - " -,-p~ V\.lltD Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program {) )6 88.75 82 University of Michigan o._\1 o ddt!~S 84.76 80.8 83.75 89 80.25 63 78.5 66 Young Detroit Builders 77.5 66 MI Communities in Schools 77.25 57 Oakland' U ni versi ty Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun Colll/: ::Olivet College -rP MT Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps R Michigan Communities in Schoo(s - U)E'o't Peer Review Concept Paper United Way of Genesee/Lapeer Co CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success ~ ~astern Michigan University ~~ ~ ~~~AmeriCorps Oakland Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal Wayne County Neighborhood Le'gal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program r;,'vJ Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services 73 81.1 AmeriCorps Youth E~cellence in Service (YES) ~b American Red Cross 73 79.5 68.25 63.8 MI Department of Agriculture 67.5 70 School District, City of Saginaw 63.3 53 Nonviolence KOPS Michigan Groundwat §(.Stewar~ship Program Saginaw AmeriCorp~ kA /RJ ~ew Detroit, Inc. vJeo.Wh6 ~~ / -rP etA-+:) FORMULA APPL'icATIONS \. ..1b /M'T 115)& I DS" /[(N Copper Country AmeriCorps ~-i~ h..m. ""' Van Buren Public Health Department Mlku+~J M~• SOS Crisis Center 79 85.8 BHK Child Development 78 88 Van Buren Public Health 71.5 67 Northern Michigan Community Mental Health/ Northern MI Cornm. Mental Health 65 68.3 54.75 67.4 50 32 Washtenaw Family Support Network Volunteer Muskegon! Grand Rapids Service Corps ( I YVC Muskegon Grand Rapids Service Corps �Michigan's AmeriCorps 1997-98 Programs Not Funded Peer Review Concept Paper Reason for Not Funding Proposal N arne Legal Applicant Big Brothers/BigSisters: CircleNet Big Brothers/Big Sisters n/a 93 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Wayne State University Wayne State University 53 67.5 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center 55.5 67 Comprehensive Proposal not approved Expanding Horizons Youth Volunteer Corps YMCA n/a 66 Concept Paper not approved AmeriCorps Program of Volunteer Impact Volunteer Impact n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved School Based AmeriCorps Project Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency n/a 55.4 Concept Paper not approved Focus HOPE, Inc. Focus HOPE, Inc. n/a 55 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity n/a 44 Comprehensive Proposal not submitted One Family for Success IMPEL Individual/Family Growth, Inc. n/a 41 Concept Paper not approved Staff Review Comprehensive Proposal � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Apps-Recommended-for-Funding-with-Notes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding with notes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps applications recommended for funding with notes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49872 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d299a3a2cd0e96188330a1b22f586b14.pdf 7be298aac29d0a6c25d7e7de928f26b2 PDF Text Text II GRANTE E/ PROGRAM NAME Con t rac t Start I I FT Mem bers I PT Members I 95-96 Funding I I 95 -96 FTE FTE Difference 1. 1996 $ 156.604 $13.050 12 0 $169, 145 $ 14,095 • 1,045 Oaklan d Unlverslly AmertCorps Oakland Sepl. 1. 1996 $241.704 $ 12,085 0 40 $241,350 $12 .068 + 17 Ecumenclal Project S .AV.E. Caring Togeth er Elderserve Nov. 1. 1996 $251.591 $ 11.436 22 0 $24 1. 000 $ 12 .050 . 614 Big B rothers Big Sis ters Circle Net Ocl. I. 1996 $ 151.800 $ 13.800 I I 0 $25 1, 947 $15 ,934 • 2, 134 30 11 995-96) 0 (1 995-96) $295,260 ~9.842 $26 1.66 1 $ 13,083 , Marquette County Health Depl. ' AmeriCorps MILES , I YEAR T HREE F UNDING MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS I 96-97 Funding 9 6 -97 FTE F anu l~ Independence Agen cy Citizen 's Heal t Servi ce Corps Nov. Apr. 10, 1995 Gov. program • 243 FLA (expansion gran l) Dec. 29, 1996 $287 ,966 $9.599 25 10 UnJted Way Community S ervi ces Detroit's Acad emic S uccess Nov. I. 1996 $265.308 $13 .265 20 0 $48.57 1 $9.7 14 5 0 Eastern Mic hlgan Univers ity Teams for School Success Sep . I. 1996 $25 1. 759 $ 10.805 0 66 l27-2yr: 39- l yr) $222.005 $ 11. 385 . 580 Fitzgerald Pu blic School Fi tzge rald's Ameri Corps Jan. I. 1997 $ 135.6 12 $13,56 1 10 0 na na na Unl ted Way of Genesee County Genesee County AmeriCo rps Sep. 22, 1996 $330.703 $ 11. 023 23 14 $320.099 $ 11.432 . 409 Grand Rap ids Service Corps Sep. I. 1996 $280, 129 $8 ,489 33 0 $222.039 $8 .540 -5 1 Unlvers it y of Michigan Mic h . Neigh borh ood Ameri Corps J an. I. 1997 $343.299 $10 ,728 22 20 $349,2 16 $ i 0 ,91 3 . 185 American Yo uth Founda ti on Ru ral S tra tegic Acti on inJUalive Sep. 16. 1996 $ 2 45, 475 $13 ,638 18 0 $305.863 $ 14.565 . 92 7 Boy's & Girl's Club of Saginaw Saginaw Am eriCorps Program S ep . I. 1996 $289.382 $ 1 1,348 15 21 $283,679 $ i0,316 + 1032 Volun teer Centers of Michigan VCM AmeriCorps J an. $182,633 $6,088 15 30 na na na 261 201 $ 3 , 163,264 DASP (expansion gran l) 1. 1997 TOTAL $ 3,462,536 • 528 Year Three FTE Cost $11,027 Year Two FTE Cost $ 12 ,488 Year One FTE Cost $ 11,244 Year Three Formula FTE Cost $10,916 Year Two Formula FTE Cost $ 12,586 Year One Formula FTE Co• t $11,284 Year Three Comp. FTE Cost $11 ,529 Year Two Competitive FTE Cost $11,998 Year One Competitive FTE Cost $ 1 1,40 1 �YEAR FOUR FUNDING -MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS (revised 4-9-97) Legal Applicant/ Program Name Funding Request FfEcost Ff Pf B-H-K Child Development Board: Copper Country AmeriCorps $ 226,661 $11,333 18 4 Grand Rapids Service Corps $ 232,095 $9,284 25 0 Norther Mich. Community Mental Health: Dreamcatchers Yolunteer Program $ 71,194 $11,866 2 8 SOS Crisis Center: Washtenaw Family Support Network $ 52,990 $10,598 2 6 Van Buren Public Health De~artment: Health Forward Mentoring roject $ 113,094 $11,309 10 0 Youth Volunteer Corps of Muskegon County: Volunteer Muskegon! $ 95,835 $11,979 8 0 TOTAL (Formula) $791,869 $10,701 65 18 American Red Cross: AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service $ 58,469 $11,694 5 0 Eastern Michicflan University: CLASS: Coor inating Literacy for America's Students' Success $ 274,502 $10,558 3 46 **Family Inde~endence Ae_ency: Citizens Hea th Service orps $ 287,189 $9,573 30 0 Michigan D(frartment of Agriculture: Michigan's round water Stewardship Program $ 225,415 $11,271 20 0 Michigan Communities in Schools $ 95,820 $11,978 6 4 New Detroit, Inc.: Nonviolence KOPS $ 259,226 $12,961 20 0 Oakland University: AmeriCorps Oakland $ 222,879 $11,578 .75 (3 2yr PT= .75 FTE) 37 Olivet College: Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County $ 273,290 $13,665 10 20 Saginaw Public Schools: Saginaw AmeriCorps $ 271,691 $13,585 20 0 United Way of Genesee & La~eer County: Genesee County AmeriCorps rogram $ 305,792 $9,266 20 26 **United Way Community Services: Detroit's Academic Success Program $ 318,521 $12,741 25 0 University of Michigan: Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program $ 402,798 $8,951 20 50 $ 179,266 $10,244 15 5 Young Detroit Builders: Detrmt YouthBuild AmeriCorps $ 232,578 $13,290 0 35 TOTAL (Competitive) $3,407,436 $11,126 194.75 223 Average Program Cost $11,062 (formula) Wa~e County Neighborhood Legal Services (W NLS): WCNLS AmeriCorps Community Service Program Average Program Cost (competitive) $11,525 •• denotes competitive renewal profeams. Please note that FIA is submitting t e Subtitle H grant competitively. Total Average Program Cost $11,386 �YEAR FOUR FUNDING -MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Legal Applicant/ Program Name Funding Request FfE cost Ff Pf d-H-K Child Development Board: Copper Country AmeriCorps $ 226,661 $ 11,333 18 4 Grand Rapids Service Corps $ 232,095 $ 9,284 25 0 Norther Mich. Community Mental Health: Dreamcatchers Volunteer Program $ 71,194 $ 11,866 2 8 SOS Crisis Center: Washtenaw Family Support Network $ 52,990 $ 10,598 2 6 Van Buren Public Health Department: Health Forward Mentoring Project $ 113,094 $ 11,309 10 0 TOTAL (Formula) $ 696,034 $10,546 57 18 American Red Cross: AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service $ 58,469 $ 11,694 5 0 $274,502 $ 10,558 3 46 $ 287,189 $ 9,573 25 10 $ 225,415 $ 11,271 20 0 $ 95,820 $ 11,978 6 4 New Detroit, Inc. : Nonviolence KOPS $ 259,226 $ 12,961 20 0 Oakland University: AmeriCorps Oakland $ 222,879 $ 11,578 3 37 $ 273,290 $ 13,665 20 0 Saginaw Public Schools: Saginaw ArneriCorps $ 271,691 $ 13,585 20 0 United Way of Genesee & Lapeer County: Genesee County AmeriCorps Program $ 305,792 $ 9,266 20 26 United Way Community Services: Detroit's Academic Success Program $ 318,521 $ 12,740 25 0 $402,798 $ 8,951 20 50 $ 179,266 $ 11,032 15 5 Young Detroit Builders: Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps $ 232,578 $ 13,290 0 35 TOTAL (Competitive) $ 3,407,436 $ 11,582 177 213 Eastern Michigan University: CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps Michigan Department of Agriculture: Michigan's Groundwater Stewardship Program '-- Michigan Communities in Schools Olivet College: Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County University of Michigan: Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services (WCNLS) : WCNLS AmeriCorps Community Service Program � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Funding Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps funding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps funding. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49873 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/0b38220d936fca557c6c0d902c40caaf.pdf 1057beffabe8080c6d100493acd9aeaa PDF Text Text Michigan's Ameri Corps Grant Review Process December 9 through December 13, 1996: The Michigan Community Service Commission held outreach sessions regionally throughout the state. The outreach sessions provided interested individuals/organizations with technical assistance information on how to become a sponsor for a Michigan's Americorps program or Education Award Only program. Interested individuals/organizations received a draft version of the Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only Concept Paper application materials, an Intent to Apply form, the timeline for the grant application process, an overview of national service programs, lessons in effective practice for Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, an address list of national service and related programs in Michigan, a list of the individuals/organizations that registered to attend the outreach sessions, and a copy of Principles for High Quality National Service Programs. December 20, 1996: The Concept Paper application materials for Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only programs were made available to all interested organizations. The Concept Paper guidelines were mailed to individuals/organizations that registered to attend the December outreach sessions and to others who requested the information . .January 21. 1997: MCSC received 76 Intent To Apply forms . .January 22: Applicants were notified via fax that MCSC had received their Intent To Apply form. Letters were also mailed to the applicants . .January 31: The peer reviewers received the materials needed to prepare them for the peer review. This packet of information included: the Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only Concept Paper application materials, the timeline for the grant application process, an overview of national service programs, lessons in effective practice for Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, and a copy of Principles for High Quality National Service Programs. February 4: MCSC received 30 Concept Papers-- 27 Michigan's AmeriCorps and 3 Education Award Only. February 5: Applicants were notified by MCSC that their Concept Paper was received. February 7: A conference call was held with the panel of peer reviewers to discuss the review process and their roles and responsibilities as peer reviewers. February 17: The Concept Papers were reviewed by a panel of external peer reviewers. The job of the peer reviewers was to recommend, based on the criteria detailed in the Concept Paper guidelines, which of the Concept Papers submitted should or should not be forwarded to the next step in the review process -- the MCSC staff review. �February 19: The MCSC Staff Review of the Concept Papers took place. The papers were reviewed for requirements, priorities, and preferences. MCSC staff also took into consideration: 1) Geographic Diversity and Concentration- to ensure that the programs recommended are geographically diverse and include projects in urban and rural areas. 2) Diversity- MCSC seeks to fund a broad range of programs with various approaches to addressing community need. February 21: Based on the results of the peer and staff reviews, 23 individuals/organizations were notified that their proposal was selected to proceed to the next step in the application process-- the submission of the Comprehensive Proposal. Applicants selected received a copy of the feedback generated from both the peer and staff review and were required to attend a technical assistance meeting. The feedback provided each applicant with a list of strengths and weaknesses as well as items for continuous improvement. The feedback was faxed and mailed to applicants. February 26: MCSC held a technical assistance meeting for applicants submitting a Comprehensive Proposal. MCSC staff provided the applicants with an overview of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Comprehensive Proposal and technical assistance on how to prepare a strong budget. Paula Bilinsky from Project STAR, a national technical assistance provider, attended the meeting and discussed writing quality objectives for AmeriCorps programs. At this meeting, applicants had an opportunity to sign-up for a conference call with MCSC staff to review the Concept Paper feedback. March 21: MCSC received 20 Comprehensive Proposals. March 24: MCSC notified applicants that their Comprehensive Proposal had been received. March 26: MCSC staff reviewed the Comprehensive Proposals. Each proposal was reviewed to determine overall quality. Proposals were rated according to the criteria for the Comprehensive Proposal and technical compliance. Based upon the strengths of the proposals and whether the proposals fully addressed the issues as outlined to them in the Concept Paper feedback, MCSC staff made recommendations as to which proposals would be included in the national competitive package and formula package. Staff review of the Comprehensive Proposals determined that 18 proposals were strong enough to advance to the next stage of the review process-- MCSC Commissioner review. March 31: Applicants whose proposals may be included in the competitive package received the staff review feedback in order to make revisions before final submission to CNS (pending MCSC Commissioner approval). April 1: Renewal competitive proposals were submitted to MCSC. April 7: Revisions of the Comprehensive Proposal due to MCSC. �April 10: Michigan Community Service Commission meeting to review staff recommendations for Michigan's AmeriCorps competitive package and possible formula package. April 11: Applicants will be notified as to whether the proposal submitted by their organization will be included in MCSC's federal funding request (competitive). April 15: Michigan's AmeriCorps competitive package due to CNS. Michigan's AmeriCorps formula renewal applications due to MCSC. April - May 1997: Possible new formula funded programs will receive feedback generated from staff review. Revisions for Comprehensive Proposal due to MCSC. June 6: Michigan Community Service Commission meeting to review staff recommendations for new and renewal formula programs. June 20: CNS will notify commissions of funding approval for competitive programs . .July 1: Michigan's AmeriCorps formula package due to CNS. AU2USt 1997: CNS will notify commission of funding approval for formula programs. October 1997: Earliest expected date for new Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only programs to start. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Grant-Review-Process Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps grant review process Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps grant review process. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49874 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/853df586fa07b14d9edc27de008de81c.pdf 74194832d438ca5faa46cc61c3aa8ffa PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Year 1 Budgeted vs. Actual Figures Program Service Hours FfE (1700) Federal Funds Exp. Cost perFfE Ed. Awards Cost oer Ed Award CircleNet Budget Actual 34,000 28,177 20 16.5 $277,475 $244,546 $13,874 $14,820 20 18 $13,874 $13,585 Oakland Budget Actual 36,000 26,517 20 15 .5 $223,706 $185,618 $11,185 $11,975 40 29 $5,593 $6,400 Genesee Budget Actual 42,500 38,758 25 23 $267,127 $226,157 $10,685 $9,832 25 19 $10,685 $11,903 Grand Rapids Budget Actual 56,100 32,892 33 19.5 $248,252 $231,108 $7,522 $11,852 33 13 $7,522 $17,777 Saginaw Budget Actual 46,750 44,093 27.5 26 $265,708 $213,237 $9,662 $8,201 41 37 $6,481 $5 ,763 34,000 18,617 20 $208,283 $188,999 $10,414 $17,182 32 28 $6,509 $6,750 E.M.U. Budget Actual 11 1 �Program Service Hours FfE (1700) Federal Funds Exp. Cost perFfE Ed. Awards Cost oer Ed Award UofM Budget Actual 51,000 47.266 30 28 $310,537 $283.165 $10,351 $10.133 20 20 $15,527 $14.158 Sub-Total Programs Budget Actual 300,350 236,320 175.5 132 $1,801,088 $1,572,830 $10,263 $11,915 211 164 $8,536 $9,590 N/A 0 $47,114 N/A 0 N/A 300,350 236,320 175.5 132 $1,848,202 $1,619,944 $10,531 $12,272 211 164 $8,759 $9,877 R.S.A.I. Planning Grant COMMISSION TOTALS Budget Actual Figures do not include MSU. It is a combined two year grant. MSU' s numbers will be com"f?ined and included with Year 2 numbers. 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Year-1-Budgeted-vs-Actual-Figures Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps year 1 budgeted vs. actual figures Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps year 1 budgeted vs. actual figures. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49875 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e4b28306469d9b9feffa8cdada26eb5c.pdf 2fad95040a2e36f4738d63a3ce724bfd PDF Text Text I I MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS YEAR 1 FOR CAUSE - ' No Education Award ~ E o ;: ltl u Cl) c: - c. 0 > 0 "C "ii c: 0 Cl) f/1 > 0 ::E 3 c:ircleNet ~ Cl) a. J: :I "i ~ Cl) ... f/1 0 ::t J: Cl :I 0 c: w ... 0 z 1 f/1 Cl) .a "C ..,0 ;;:: ltl Cl) ... f/1 ltl f/1 f/1 ~ ....0 ....... Cl) c: Cl f/1 :r:0 a: 0 ... ...J ...J ......: f/1 0 CIS Cl) J: Cl) "ii Cl) 0 ...J ...J ::t 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 G~rand Rapids Service 7 8 M ~ichigan Neighborhood 3 siaginaw 9 T earns for School Success 6 1 37 11 1 ct 0 LL LL f/1 f/1 E CIS Cl) ;: - 0 11 1 c: ~ 1 1 4 ~ 0 CDLL J: ... 0 ~ .a ..,0 Oz 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 8 2 0 ...0ct ... 3 2 6 1 1 1 8 10 4 19 23 7 34 20 10 2 > ::E ...J 4 1 1 7 2 Cl) 1 1 3 1 0 "C 2 14 4 ::E 0 Ill u ...ct 0 ... 2 71 245 TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO DID NOT COMPLETE THEIR TERM 116 TOTAL "FOR CAUSE" ATTRITION RATE w a. CIS a: 'TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS ENROLLED 'TOTAL OVERALL ATTRITION RATE z ...J ...J > E 6 G~enesee Co. I TOTALS I ~ ltl ::E en ;:::) "C CIS ~ ... Cl) -w a.~ Ill E Cl) ~ Cl 0 ... 0 1 f/1 ~ .: 0 akland Compelling Personal Reasons Prorated Education Awards 47% 28% I I 1 1 45 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Prorated-Education-Awards Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps prorated education awards Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps prorated education awards. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49876 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/afb9a1bb7742b60e24bad9aecaa5b833.pdf 7acaec798690bc10e52758c3b796f105 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission April 10, 1997 Lansing, Michigan 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Engler, Chair Karen Aldridge VictorBegg Mary Ellen Brandell Julie Cummings Judy Dunn Dorothy Johnson Randy Neelis Joel Orosz Terry Pruitt Michael Tate Matthew Wesaw Ray West Geneva Williams Frank Dirks, Ex Officio MEMBERS ABSENT: Arthur Ellis NancyLenz Denise llitch Lites Kathleen Keen McCarthy Sister Mary Martinez Jim Muir Eunice Myles Don Newport Amber Pritchard Meg Smith Scott Smith OTHERS: Jennifer Dick, Michigan Community Service Commission Mary Estrada, Michigan Community Service Commission Lindy Reurink, Michigan Community Service Commission Daphne Wells, Michigan Community Service Commission �I. Welcome and Introduction - Chairperson Michelle Engler The meeting was called to order at 11:25 p.m. by Chairperson Engler. Chairperson Engler welcomed everyone and thanked everyone for attending. II. Action Items a. State Service Commission Meeting Reception - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an overview of the State Service Commission meeting and proposed to the commissioners that the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) sponsor a reception on Friday, May 16, 1997. The Commissioners all agreed that it would be an excellent idea to sponsor a reception and also asked if they could attend the two-day meeting. Mr. Dirks invited commissioners to attend whatever portion of the meeting they could fit into their schedule. b. Volunteer Investment Grants - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that Commissioner Pruitt and Commissioner Tate are taking the lead on building support for MCSC' s work, but reminded everyone that they cannot do it alone. Mr. Dirks asked everyone to be prepared to step forward if we are to succeed in advancing this mission. c. Commission Information Gathering Meeting Materials - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that in the commission packet were copies of the written testimonies that were giving at the March 25, 1997, meeting. Mr. Dirks informed the Commission of the commissioners who were at the meeting and suggested that we schedule time at the June meeting to discuss it in detail. d. Michigan's AmeriCorps Retention- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an update on the continued efforts by MCSC to understand the problems of Michigan's Ameri Corps member attrition and its impact on the programs. Mr. Dirks explained the enclosed analysis of the actual cost of the Year 1 program with attrition rates factored in. Mr. Dirks explained that the actual average FTE rates are higher than budgeted, but they are not above the Corporation's Year 1 average. Mr. Dirks asked that if anyone needs more information or has concerns that we could discuss it in more detail at the June meeting. e. Michigan's AmeriCorps New Program Application Package- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that the package being presented for approval included 18 new Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, one competitive renewal program, and one innovative grant reassigned to competitive. Mr. Dirks explained the enclosed items: (!)individual program recommendation sheets; (2) a chart presenting the current and proposed Michigan's Americorps program portfolio; (3) a breakdown of the proposal package by program applicant, funding request, and FTE rate; and (4) the application process time-line. Mr. Dirks gave a detailed description of the whole Michigan's AmeriCorps review process and explained that during the process Project Star will help with technical assistance supportto programs on writing their objectives. Garry Gross assisted them on creating their budgets, and gave them some insight as to what the Corporation for National Service would expect regarding the budget. 2 �Chairperson Engler went through all the proposals one by one to give commissioners a chance to ask questions regarding funding, the application process, the review process, and whether each proposal had corrected their weaknesses. Mr. Dirks and Daphne Wells answered all questions to the commissioners' satisfaction. Commissioner Pruitt suggested that we vote individually on each proposal. All commissioners agreed because some commissioners had a conflict of interest and would not be voting on those proposals. Chairperson Engler started the approval process with the understanding that each approved proposal would meet the recommendations of the MCSC staff and would have corrected the weaknesses in order to qualify for funding. Competitive application for Genesee County AmeriCorps Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Pruitt to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Commissioner Aldridge abstained from voting. Competitive application for Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Wesaw to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success, a motion was made by commissioner Aldridge to approve. All Commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for AmeriCorps Oakland, a motion was made by Chairperson Engler to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County, a motion was made by Chairperson Engler to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps, a motion was made by Commissioner Pruitt to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Michigan Communities in Schools, a motion was made by Commissioner Tate to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Chairperson Engler abstained from voting. Competitive application for Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Williams to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES), a motion was made by Commissioner Brandell to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Nonviolence KOPS, a motion was made by Commissioner Aldridge to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Orosz to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. 3 �Competitive application for Saginaw AmeriCorps, a motion was made by Commissioner Brandell to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Commissioner Pruitt abstained from voting. A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve formula applications for Washtenaw Family Support Network, Cooper Country AmeriCorps, Van Buren Public Health Department, Northern Michigan Community Mental Health, Volunteer Muskegon!, and Grand Rapids Service Corps. Commissioner Neelis seconded the motion and the applications were unanimously approved. Commissioners Tate and Wesaw abstained from voting on the application from Van Buren Public Health Department. Chairperson Engler announced to the Commission that at the request of Corporation for National Service, MCSC is resubmitting the recently approved second year innovative grant for the FIA Citizen' s Health Service Corps as a national competitive program grant. Commissioner Orosz made a motion to approve the grant. All commissioners approved unanimously. Chairperson Engler accepted a motion by Commission Pruitt to approve the United Way Community Service competitive renewal grant application. All commissioners approved unanimously. VII. Public Comment Commissioner Williams announced that in a few days we will be celebrating National Volunteer Week and on Sunday, United Way Community Services will be releasing their Volunteer Coalition Award which is funded by theW. K. Kellogg Foundation. Commissioner Williams also mentioned that the mayor of Detroit would be announcing the delegation from the Detroit area that would be attending the Presidents Summit in Philadelphia. Commissioner Neelis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. The next meeting will be June 6, 1997, in Kalamazoo, hosted by Commissioner Lenz and Commissioner Pritchard. 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Minutes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting minutes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting minutes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49877 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/eef821066727bf26acd0029b810d83b7.pdf a4eaf61901ccb1ee542661b28ba4de18 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's ArneriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way of Genesee and Lapeer Counties NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 26 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Genesee County ArneriCorps Program's (GCAP) ArneriCorps members will serve youth and children who are at-risk by working with them to improve academic outcomes and to address health care concerns. Specific objectives of the program include: improving math and reading scores through tutoring; improving social skills, self-esteem, and community involvement through rnentoring and service-learning opportunities; and improving the health through referrals of children, horne visits, immunization reviews, and transportation to medical visits. STRENGTHS The Urban League is well established within the community, their staff are credentialed and experienced, and they have shown the capacity to run a program of this size. The program has access to a large number of local partners. It is clear how GCAP will address the education needs and the human needs of the community. Each partner agency provides match money for each full-time member. There is a concentrated effort on generating additional non-stipended volunteers. However, if members are specifically serving as volunteer generators at a site (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) the program needs to be able to report on the increase in service delivered as a result of the new volunteers. The program's philosophy is solid (i.e. registering to vote, uniforms, transition-out-of-the-program system). The post-service program will benefit members. Across the board this is something most members need, however it' s not always provided by other programs. The relationship with Mott Community College and U-M Flint will provide educational opportunities for the ArneriCorps members. There is the possibility for academic credit for participation in the program. ~ \t, WEAKNESSES )f ~ The program intends to use non-stipended Education Award Only members serving 900 hours in one /\' '\1 ~..0 f! year. The program needs to address whether this is a realistic goal. The program needs to indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation. GCAP needs to address how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. £Z...eoL.~ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $305,792 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The PTE rate of $9,266 is well below the CNS and MCSC PTE average. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 14 Name of Applicant: United Way of Genesee and Lapeer County Strengths: Getting Things Done: • • • • • .. . The program will generate addttlon~ non-stlpend~d voh~nt~ers. The organizations involved have a history of ru~mng a strrular program. The paper used statistics to support the needlra~wnale of the program. The readers liked how the writer broke down, m separate para~aphs, ho~ the program will address the education needs and the human needs. It made 1t a lot easter to read and easier to understand how these two areas will be addressed. . The proposal discussed the success/ accomplishments of the current AmenCorps program and lessons learned. Strengthening Community: • • . There is a concentrated effort on generating additional volunteers. However, 1f members are specifically serving as volunteer generators at a site (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) the program needs to be able to show/report on the increase in service delivered as a result of the new volunteers. The program has access to a large number of local partners. Developing Members: • • • • • • The program intends to use non-stipended Education Award Only members. Indoctrination into AmeriCorps philosophy is solid (i.e. registering to vote, uniforms, transition-out-of-the-program system.) Post-service program will benefit members. Across the board this is something most members need, however it's not always provided. The relationship with Mott and U-M Flint will provide educational opportunities for the AmeriCorps members. There is the possibility for academic credit for participation in the program. Candidates for the program will undergo a criminal records check as part of the screening process. The proposal discussed the lessons learned from the current AmeriCorps program . Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • • Mea~uring I_Uembers' effe~tiveness/impact early-on in the program is beneficial to the contmuous Improvement tlmeline. The ~~~strati:ve pr~gram st~f will do on-site monitoring . Th_e m?tvtdual_sttes will ~ubrrut ~onthly and quarterly reports. This will provide good ongomg mformat~on and will provide for a good tracking system. !he proposal discussed lessons learned from the current AmeriCorps program in terms of 1mpact. �Organizational Capacity: • The paper shows evidence that the Urban League is well established within the community. • The credentials of the Urban League program staff are detailed and support the mission of the program. • The organization has shown their capacity to run a program this large. • Experienced principle program staff. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Each partner provides match money for each full-time member. FfE $9,266 is well below the CNS and MCSC FfE average. Each site will provide match funds for the FfEs placed at their site. • • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Indicate which partners and host sites are new versus continuing. Indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation, ie, the number of members focusing primarily on volunteer generation and at which sites. • Describe how the numbers and percentages for the health care objectives were reached. Is this based upon baseline data from the current AmeriCorps program, other information? • It would be helpful if the applicant were to group the distribution of AmeriCorps service activities according to priority area (pgs. 6,7). • Describe the differences between the VISTA program and the proposed AmeriCorps program. How do they complement one another. • Describe how host sites are supported. • • Strengthening Community: • Indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation, ie, the number of members focusing primarily on volunteer generation and at which sites. • Clarify the difference between program goals as listed at the top of pg. 9. Provide rationale for the numbers and percentages listed. Is this based on the current AmeriCorps program? Developing Members: • The proposal did not address how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Provide rationale/ justification for the numbers and percentages in the annual objectives and how they build upon the current AmeriCorps program (p.15, 16). Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: In the budget narrative, please provide clarification as to the classification of AmeriCorps members as Sales. It would be beneficial to provide an overall statement that indicates the number of AmeriCorps members at each site according to service activities at those sites. • Remove clerical language from budget narrative. • Clarify who the principle staff is as listed in the budget narrative (see staff line item). • Overall Comments: The proposal fully addressed the weaknesses/ continuous improvement items in each section as raised in the Concept Paper feedback document. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: The University of Michigan NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 20 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program aims to strengthen the social development of children and families in Detroit neighborhoods through: direct services, such as violence prevention workshops and community service projects, provided to at least 500 youth in after-school and summer programs; increasing access to health education and health promotion services for at least 300 children and family members; and enabling 100 residents to gain access to jobs and start new businesses. STRENGTHS The university's demonstration of commitment, resources, and an existing AmeriCorps program identity are strong. Staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program, program partnerships are established, and an evaluation system is in place. Member pre-service training is also well developed. There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The University of Michigan needs to address the preparation of host sites, specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members, and how the proposed program builds upon the current Q f/ AmeriCorps program. This project needs to clarify its intervention with at-risk youth in community-based organizations with low organizational capacity. Cl~-0 The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however the proposal needs to provide further information about the implementation of the system. How will it actually work for AmeriCorps? The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program should connect with Michigan CARES and its initiatives. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $402,798 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. Including the education award only component, the FfE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS (11,750) and MCSC target (11,300). Cash match for the member support category is 29%. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: The University of Michigan NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 50 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program aims to strengthen the social development of children and families in Detroit neighborhoods through: direct services, such as violence prevention workshops and community service projects, provided to at least 500 youth in after-school and summer programs; increasing access to health education and health promotion services for at least 300 children and family members; and enabling 100 residents to gain access to jobs and start new businesses. STRENGTHS . The university's demonstration of commitment, resources, and an existing AmeriCorps program identity are strong. Staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program, program partnerships are established, and an evaluation system is in place. Member pre-service training is also well developed. There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The University of Michigan needs to address the preparation of host sites, specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members, and how the proposed program builds upon the current AmeriCorps program. This project needs to clarify its intervention with at-risk youth in community-based organizations with low organizational capacity. The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however the proposal needs to provide further information about the implementation of the system. How will it actually work for AmeriCorps? The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program should connect with Michigan CARES and its initiatives. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $402,798 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this propo~al be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. Including the education award only component, the FTE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS (11 ,750) and MCSC target (11,300). Cash match for the member support category is 29%. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 7 Name of Applicant: The Regents of Michigan Stren~ths: Getting Things Done: • The administrative structure is comprehensive and well developed. • The university commitment and resources were viewed as a strength. • The education award only component is a nice compliment to the overall program. Strengthening Community: • The program recognized the cultural diversity issues and developed a plan to address them. • The proposal identified the program's partners. • The partnerships have already been established. • The program developed a strong volunteer integration piece. Developing Members: • Michigan's AmeriCorps program identity is strong. • Member pre-service training is well developed. • The types of skills necessary to perform the tasks were well thought out. • The education award only component focuses on very specific tasks. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The program has a variety of feedback techniques. • The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however they need to elaborate on the system. • The evaluation system is already established. Organizational Capacity: The two lead organizations are strong and viewed as leading organizations in the community. • The staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. Including the education award only component, the FfE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS and MCSC target. • Cash match for member support category is 29%. • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • Provide greater justification for objective #lc. Readers are not clear on how the proposed activities relate to strengthening youth or families with youth. • The organization chart needs to include the number of full-time, part-time, and education award only members assigned to each site. • The proposal needs to include more detail as to the members activities and tasks and the �• overall impact. It would help to list the organization under the objective and a brief description of the members' activities. The proposal does not make a strong correlation between the needs of at-risk youth in the community-based organizations with low organizational capacity with regard to objective 1c. (Access to jobs and new businesses and its connection to families and youth). Overall, the needs and the method for assessing those needs are weakly described. Strengthening Community: • Clarify how many volunteers will be generated: 100 or 1,500? How does objective 2b differ from objective 1b.? • • Please describe how the program will connect with Michigan CARES? • It is not clear how the community's assets will be used to address the identified community needs. Developing Members: • The proposal does not address the preparation of host sites. • The proposal lacks the specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members. • Describe the different roles for full- and part-time members. • Describe the number of host sites. How many members will be placed per site? Who will provide direct supervision? • Even if the proposal answered the above points of this section in other sections of the narrative, the points should be fully addressed in the Developing Members section of the program narrative. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Describe the accomplishments of the current AmeriCorps program and how the proposed program builds upon the current program. Incorporate any lessons learned. • How will the program ensure that the evaluation system will collect outcome-based information? Organizational Capacity: • The proposal should include the host sites ability to manage the program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Include in the proposal what will be sustained from your current AmeriCorps program. Identify the sources of match funding under training line item. • • Overall Comments: • The proposal needs more detail on the specific activities of the members, on a per site basis. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Eastern Michigan University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 3 FT 46 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Eastern Michigan University (EMU) aims to improve the reading and writing performance of children kindergarten through fifth grade through a tutoring and mentoring program which utilizes parent and community-based volunteers. The program plans to increase volunteer and parent participation in the literacy of children, establish partnerships between institutes of higher education and the community, and promote civic-rnindedness and community service among those involved in the program. Forty-nine AmeriCorps members will be placed at 14 elementary school sites, five members per site, to provide: reading and writing tutoring, incentives for reading, and parent workshops. STRENGTHS Eastern Michigan University has previously operated an AmeriCorps program. The proposed program builds on an existing multi-cultural literacy effort to meet well-documented community needs. Its focus is not only on the children's literacy and tutoring needs, but also on the parents' . EMU is making connections between community-based organizations, the university, and the area schools. The proposal suggested a very detailed evaluation plan which incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative and quantitative. EMU has a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the number of hours volunteered. _,0 &JY-. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned with how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? How will personnel and graduate assistants (the supervisors) be prepared for their roles in the program? Another area of concern is the service-learning component of the program. It is unclear how servicelearning relates to the overall goals. Clarification is necessary. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $285,060 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. This program has a $10,558 FTE. This is below the MCSC and CNS average cost per member. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Eastern Michigan University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: -""'""3_FT 46 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Eastern Michigan University (EMU) aims to improve the reading and writing performance of children kindergarten through fifth grade through a tutoring and mentoring program which utilizes parent and community-based volunteers. The program plans to increase volunteer and parent participation in the literacy of children, establish partnerships between institutes of higher education and the community, and promote civic-mindedness and community service among those involved in the program. Forty-nine AmeriCorps members will be placed at 14 elementary school sites, five members per site, to provide: reading and writing tutoring, incentives for reading, and parent workshops. STRENGTHS Eastern Michigan University has previously operated an AmeriCorps program. The proposed program builds on an existing multi-cultural literacy effort to meet well-documented community needs. Its focus is not only on the children's literacy and tutoring needs, but also on the parents'. EMU is making connections between community-based organizations, the university, and the area schools. The proposal suggested a very detailed evaluation plan which incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative and quantitative. EMU has a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the m,J.mbei of hours volunteered. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned with how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? How will personnel and graduate assistants (the supervisors) be prepared for their roles in the program? Another area of concern is the service-learning component of the program. It is unclear how servicelearning relates to the overall goals. Clarification is necessary. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 274,502 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. This program has a $10,558 FTE. This is below the MCSC and CNS average cost per member. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 10 Name of Applicant: Eastern Michigan University Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • The program builds on multi-cultural literacy program. • The community's needs are well documented. • The program focuses on not only the children's literacy/tutoring needs, but also the parent's. • The paper specifies the specific age group of the young students involved in the program. Strengthening Community: • The paper did a good job detailing member responsibilities. • The program is making connections between CBOs, the university, and the area schools. Developing Members: • Member training is well detailed. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Keeping records on databases at each site should make it easy to problem solve and implement continuous improvement. The paper suggested a very detailed evaluation plan . • The evaluation plan incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative • and quantitative. There is a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the number • of hours volunteered. The paper specifically stated the frequency of site visits to the host sites . • Organizational Capacity: The applicant has past experience administering a federal grant. The applicant (EMU) has operated an AmeriCorps program. However, different staff will be assigned to administer/operate this new program (see weakness stated below.) • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program exceeds the minimum match required. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • Please clarify the service-learning component as stated on page #4. Please describe how it relates to overall program goals. Who is involved? This component might be better in Strengthening Communities as it relates to the involvement of community volunteers. �• • • • The proposal should quantify the program's impact (as in the objectives) in the narrative . This should include the number of children, by how much improvement, etc. The proposal should include the distinction between the members serving 900 hours and 450 hours per site. The proposal did not address how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? The proposal needs to provide additional detail on the summer component of the program. Strengthening Community: • Please clarify: Is it "Chamber of Congress" or "Chamber of Commerce"? Developing Members: • Please describe how host sites will be prepared for the placement of AmeriCorps members, particularly school personnel. • How will the Graduate Assistants, as supervisors, be prepared for their role in the program? • The proposal should include information on the weekly team meetings that will occur at each site and across sites. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: Please include the credentials of key program staff and graduate assistants, i.e., the literacy coordinator and the Graduate Assistants. • This paper lists a very large number of staff to run this program. It is unclear as to the portion of key staff time being spent on the project. Please clarify. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There was no mention of how successful the applicant has been in sustaining the current AmeriCorps program. What will be sustained from the current AmeriCorps program? • $14,838 FTE. This is exceptionally higher than the MCSC or CNS average cost per member. • Budget form and budget narrative should reflect 16 one-year part-time members instead of 46. Also, two-year part-time members should be 30. There is a high number of program staff and a high staff cost of $114, 832. This alone is • $6,207 per FfE. The proposed program budget is very staff intensive. • Cost of uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member instead of $33 . • The proposed technical consultant position should be included in the staff line item. • The cost associated with the training consultant equates to $461 per day using federal funds. Provide justification. • The budget should include health care for the full-time members. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Oakland University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: _ _ FT 37 PT 3 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION AmeriCorps Oakland will enroll40 AmeriCorps members to provide reading/literacy and life skills training for youth and families in Pontiac. The program will provide year-round support for the youth through learning and educational programs. The program will also teach Character Education that focuses on respect, caring, trustworthiness, fairness, responsibility, and citizenship. AmeriCorps Oakland corpsmembers will also conduct workshops for parents to encourage parents to read with their children at home. STRENGTHS AmeriCorps Oakland is an existing Michigan's AmeriCorps program in their third year. The program staff has managed the program for the past three years and will continue to administer the new program at Oakland University. The proposed program is meeting an important need within the Pontiac community, the need for tutoring and literacy improvem~nt. The parent workshops and the inclusion of parents as volunteers will support the efforts of the program and increase the students' chances of improving academically. By bringing the AmeriCorps members, who are college students, into the schools, they will serve as role models and may demonstrate to youth the value of education. In addition, generating additional volunteers helps provide an overall cost effectiveness to this program. WEAKNESSES As an existing Michigan's AmeriCorps program, it is unclear as to what will be sustained from the current program. With regard to the proposed program for 1997-98, the program's plans for sustainability will need to describe the role of schools and other community partners and ~ f 5 Oat.)ON'C! t..._,'f-va ct/ community volunteers. <.-p4~ .. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $222,879 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided that the program fully addresses the issues as outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The program's FTE is $11,578, which is slightly higher than the MCSC target but below the CNS figure of $11 ,750. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 6 Name of Applicant: Oakland University Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The paper stated, statistically, the need for tutoring and literacy improvement. The parent workshops and the inclusion of parents as volunteers increases the students' chances of improving academically. • The proposal discussed the current Michigan's AmeriCorps program and how this proposed program will build upon it. • • Strengthening Community: • Bringing college students into the city may show students how valuable their education is. It may also possibly show them how their education may be used differently than they had originally anticipated (i.e.working in the city with the kids who are in need). • Program provides young students with good role models. Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The site supervisors will meet monthly. • The program plans to hire an outside evaluator. This is good so that the staff are not overburdened with this additional task. • The paper states that each host site will track their own members. Organizational Capacity: • The paper provided thorough details on the individuals responsible for running the program at the college. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Generating additional volunteers helps provide an overall cost effectiveness to this program. • Applicant reduced FfE to $11,578, which is slightly higher than MCSC target. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • List the number of members assigned to each component of the program, ie, how many will work in the after school component, the in-school component, etc. Also, please identify the age range of the population to be served in the after school and summer component. • Clearly describe what services the AmeriCorps members will provide during the summer component of the program. • Clarify the number of sites for the summer versus in-school. • Indicate the number of sites the program will operate out of and identify what agencies and �• service sites are new versus continuing partners. The proposal should discuss how the members will be involved in recruiting community volunteers. Strengthening Community: • It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph that discussed how the program's structure and involvement of the variety of community organizations will build community. • What assets and resources would each community partner bring to the program? Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The proposal did not incorporate regular stakeholder feedback and continuous improvement as components in the evaluation plan. • Describe how the program will ensure that like objectives are measured consistently across sites. Organizational Capacity: • The proposal should state Joyce Esterberg's experience and role in the current AmeriCorps program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: What will be sustained from the current program? The paper should speak to the sustainability of the past program/efforts. • The plan for sustainability should include the role of schools and other community partners. • Cost for uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member instead of $33. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Olivet College NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: -""'""'10"----- FT 20 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County (TEECCC) AmeriCorps Program will strengthen the connections between students, schools, and the community to address teen drop-out rates and develop positive alternatives for youth to raise the level of interest in their education, career, and community. The program will prepare youth for the workplace by developing mentoring and job shadowing experiences. The program will also conduct tutoring sessions, study skill development training, and summer school classes for youth ages kindergarten to third grade. STRENGTHS The program will work with the Calhoun Intermediate School District to form connections with the schools and upon reviewing the Comprehensive Proposal for the program it appears that there is a good collaborative effort between Olivet College, the Calhoun Intermediate School District, and other community partners. The program has good support from the college. The college will provide opportunities for members to attain educational and career goals. Olivet College has redesigned its scholarship program to recognize the service and volunteer efforts of potential students. Part of that re-organization is the Community Responsibility Scholarships which are offered to students who have demonstrated significant service to the community. With respect to this AmeriCorps program, the college will offer up to $6,000 to any full- or part-time AmeriCorps member who completes their term of service and enrolls at Olivet. MCSC feels that this demonstrates Olivet's commitment to recognizing and facilitating service and volunteer initiatives. WEAKNESSES With regard to objectives and proposed impact, the number of students involved in the program appears to be low. The program will need to revisit this component of their objectives. The program needs to describe the role that the schools will take in developing the plans for sustaining the program. Additionally, MCSC is requesting that the program provide information concerning other grants that Olivet College has received. This should include the size of the grant and how those grants are '~ comparable to this proposed program. , -' o~ I h fA:)~.Q- ()..,cL~~ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $273,290 v- ~ Joel ;s I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 07\ ...-rk ' MCSC staff recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided that they fully address the issues as outlined in the staff review feedback. The FfE for the program is $13,665. This is considerably higher then the MCSC or CNS FfE average cost. The program will need to reduce the FTE below $12,000. L~sfh\.. "l ? �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 26 Name of Applicant: Olivet College Strengths: Getting Things Done: Indication of good support for the project at the college level. Good idea of creating volunteer projects that involve students, teachers, and parents. • • Strengthening Community: • Paper details a good collaborative effort, including the TECC team advisory board. • By engaging students in after-school and summer programs this shows "at-risk" students that someone cares and is showing an interest in them. • The program will use the CISD to form connections with the schools. Developing Members: • Thorough training plan which includes members as well as teachers and other relevant staff. Through this everyone involved should hear the same message as to the goals of the program. • There is a long-range plan to develop curriculum that can be used long-term . • The paper presents good topics for relevant trainings (i.e. public speaking, dealing with difficult student populations, etc.) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper has an overall evaluation plan laid out, however the paper needs to identify the • qualities of the potential host sites and then detail how the evaluation plan fits in with any existing evaluation tools that the sites ( schools/CBOs) may have in place for measuring impact (on students.) The TECC staff will provide bi-weekly/monthly monitoring. In the Comprehensive Proposal please detail how this information will be used in the continuous improvement of the program. Organizational Capacity: The paper provided a good thorough description of the college. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The paper shows that a large amount of in-kind match will be provided. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • Need to describe the difference in tasks between full-time and part-time members. With regard to objectives, the number of students involved appears to be low across all three objectives. For example, objective 1 states that 20 FfE will be at 10 sites-- this works out to members interacting with only 10 students per site. Strengthening Community: • • • Teachers and students should be on the TECC board. Building support for the program should be included in this section, in addition to the Getting Things Done section. The second objective in this section does not seem consistent with the information on the objectives worksheet. It is not clear whether the objective is a fund development goal or an opportunity for AmeriCorps members to network with community organizations. Developing Members: • • • • • What are the different roles of the full-time members? Part-time members? The proposal did not include how the program would create and maintain an AmeriCorps identity among the members and at each site. Specify any on-going training for members that will occur, including training that local school sites will provide. It is unclear as to how often will members come together for training and teambuilding, and networking activities. Bullet point #1 (on-site supervision in the schools) was fully addressed, however, it was addressed in Getting Things Done. This information should be addressed or re-stated in this section. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • The first two bullet points ( ... provide clear anticipated outcomes ... intended outcomes/impacts of the program ... ) were addressed in the Getting Things Done section instead of this section. The evaluation plan did not incorporate regular stakeholder feedback or continuous improvement activities. Organizational Capacity: • • Again, responses for the first two bullet points (... details on Olivet staff responsible for running the program .. .information on schools and CBOs that will serve as host sites .. .) were included in the Getting Things Done section instead of this section. Provide information concerning other grants that Olivet College has received. This should include the grant size and how those grants are comparable to this proposed program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • The FfE increased to $13,665 which is considerably higher then the MCSC or CNS FfE average cost. The FfE should be reduced. The proposal should identify potential future funding sources. What role will the schools take in sustaining this program or aspects of it? Overall Comments: • • The paper used a lot of acronyms, thereby making it difficult to read. Limit the number used. The proposal should use the words "AmeriCorps member", not AmeriCorps participant, student, etc. �• • The application did not include the Primary Annual Objectives forms! The Getting Things Done section is very informative and detailed; however, the writer needs to ensure that questions asked in other sections are answered in that section. Do not rely on answers provided in the Getting Things Done section. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Young Detroit Builders NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: _ _ FT ----"'3=5_ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps project will involve low-income, disadvantaged young adults in the rehabilitation and construction of 24 public housing units located in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. STRENGTHS _ The program will engage low-income, disadvantaged young adults as AmeriCorps members in the revitalization of public housing for homeless and low-income residents in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. The program involves former and current Empowerment Zone residents and businesses in the design and building process of the program. The program supports and complements current revitalization and rejuvenation activities with the Empowerment Zone. By involving disadvantaged youth in housing rehabilitation and providing them with practical experience, the program takes an innovative, integrated approach in meeting the need for lowincome housing and the educational/training needs of low-income youth while facilitating the youth's participation in community service. The applicant organization has previously administered federal grants and currently has a HUD grant. The program provides a strong, stable member support system by providing opportunities for members to obtain their GED and providing vocational and life skills training. The organization also has a high placement rate for "graduates" from the national YouthBuild program. WEAKNESSES The primary concern for this program is that the focus of their existing program, Y outhBuild USA, is on job training while the major focus of Michigan's AmeriCorps is providing direct service to the community. Therefore, the program focus should be on the need for housing renovation, the renovation that will be accomplished, and the impact of the service on the community as a result of those renovations; member development, while important, is secondary. Also, the program will need to describe how this program differs from or complements the existing program and how it will ·_G-ttpon the successes and accom lishments of the existing program. In addition, the admi ·strative struc r- the...Q\1 rsight and management o t e mem ers IS unc ear. J ..fvJ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS $ 232 578 ' (he I l- s e" 15f (/Y\.5 W'Me c;;..c.~• ~1rt"< e.Jt • ~ tA lt ~ '4-q J' "' s. " , I~~ ~ .1- T j) c« ' j f MCSC staff recommends that this proposal e included in the competitive package for submission 'rD rife( to CNS, provided that they clearly articulat the focus on direct community service and fully ~ c/a; r:. address the issues as outlined to them from he staff review. 1h~ The FTE for this program is $13,290. Th" is considerably higher than the CNS average of $11,750 and the MCSC target FTE of $1 300. The program will have to reduce its FTE below $12,000. ~t, ' v->'' l\ ~"ret\' '5 ' If"'~ 'DW' seJV to ' ' I �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 18 Name of Applicant: Young Detroit Builders Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The paper fits a critical need - getting minorities trained and working in construction within Detroit. • The need to bring the underdeveloped work force into the work force is greater than ever. • There must be an extraordinary impact on the members in this program. They participate in a strong well-rounded curriculum that offers necessary support services. • Innovative idea and concept. • There is a strong connection with the Empowerment Zone. • The program involves former and current Empowerment Zone residents and businesses in the program. • The proposal described current activities within the Empowerment Zone and how the program connects to these activities. • Strengthening Community: • By teaching kids who drop out of school to care for and provide for themselves and by providing housing to those in need the paper addresses two critical issues. • The proposed program is connected to the Youth Build USA program. • There is collaboration or interaction with MCSC programs (Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program). Developing Members: • This is a very focused program that teaches vocational skills and life skills to youth to ensure that they have skills to use to obtain employment. • The paper provides a good description of on-site supervision. • The program provides an opportunity for GED completion by members. • There is a stable, strong support system for the AmeriCorps members. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is an evaluation tool already in place to evaluate member development, track the completion of corpsmembers' hours. The existing system can be used to track the educational attainment of members, skills mastery, job placement, etc. • The quality of the housing is checked by MSHDA and HUD . • The AmeriCorps members will keep a daily log of their service activities and progress toward goals. Organizational Capacity: • The organization has administered large amounts of federal grants. • There is an existing administrative system for the program. • The program has a grant from HUD. This is seen as a strength as these grants are difficult to obtain. • The key staff are well established within the program. • The organization has a high placement rate for "graduates" from the program. �Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • There is an FTE cost of $13,290. This is considerably higher than the CNS or MCSC average FfE cost. The program should aim to reduce FfE to under $12,500. • AmeriCorps members may not participate in any fundraising activities (p.20). • Costs for uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member. • AmeriCorps members may not receive bonuses. Please remove this language (and associated costs) from the budget and budget narrative. Overall Comments: • Michigan's AmeriCorps focuses on providing direct service to the community. Therefore the program focus should be on the need for housing renovation, the renovation that will be accomplished, and the impact of the service on the community as a result of those renovations. AmeriCorps members may not provide a direct service to other AmeriCorps members. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Michigan Communities in Schools NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 6 FT 4 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Michigan Communities in Schools (MCIS) aims to bring together community resources, parents, and schools in order to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life. MCIS helps local communities to coordinate existing resources and reposition needed services into the schools to best meet the needs of youth. STRENGTHS The proposed program's strengths are in its intentions and its capacity. It focuses on keeping children in school and appropriately utilizes existing resources to solve community problems. MCIS has strong connections to other local initiatives and to both the public and private sectors at the state and local levels. MCIS's host sites are well-prepared. They have a history of conducting outcome-based evaluations. They offer a balance between match funds and federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The program needs to provide justification for the seemingly low number of stated beneficiaries and develop overall project goals to which all sites will be connected. MCIS also should describe how it will have an impact on the capacity of local sites to expand or enhance current activities. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $95,820 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The comprehensive proposal showed an increase in the FTE rate to $11,978, which is slightly over the MCSC target rate. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 3 Name of Applicant: Michigan Cities in Schools Stren2ths: Getting Things Done: • • Good needs assessment-- statistical support. Good concept-- proposed program focuses on keeping children in schools. Strengthening Community: • • • • The connection to other local initiatives is strong. The connection to both the public and private sector is good. The use of existing resources to solve community problems. The objectives for this section are clearer than those in Getting Things Done. Developing Members: • Strong preparation of host sites. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Applicant has a history of previous outcome-based evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • • Program will have a full-time program director. Applicant organization has good capacity at both the local and state level. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Exceeded minimum match requirements. Good balance between match funds and federal funds requested. Specified source(s) of match funds. Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • The number of beneficiaries seems low. Please provide justification. The proposal does not explain how the 10 members will be placed across the six host sites. List the number of members to be placed at each site. The proposal needs to develop overall project goals that all sites will be connected to. These goals should be listed as the primary objectives for the program. The words "members" and "volunteers" are interchanged throughout the program narrative; this is confusing. The proposal should refer to members of this program only as AmeriCorps members. Describe how the proposed program impacts the capacity of local sites to expand or enhance current activities. In quantifiable terms, describe how the proposed program will increase the capacity of the existing organizations. �• Describe how the members will be placed at the host sites and describe supervision of the members at the sites. Strengthening Community: Developing Members: • • • The proposal needs to provide more detail as to how the training for specific activities, ie, tutoring, youth services, etc. Although the proposal addressed how often members will come together, it should occur more frequently. The entire corps could come together monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly. At least quarterly. With regard to each of the objectives in this section, the beneficiaries should be all 10 corpsmembers. All 10 corpsmembers should participate in the stated activities. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • FfE increased to $11,978 which is sightly over MCSC target. Budget item: parking costs cannot be included in the staff line item. Overall Comments: • The criteria/ goals for impact are not stated. Although individual sites deal with different age groups of children, there should be some standards consistent across all sites. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's ArneriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 15 FT 5 PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services (WCNLS) ArneriCorps Community Service Program (ACSP) will assist the homeless in Detroit's Empowerment Zone to obtain permanent housing. The ArneriCorps members in this program will conduct community education seminars to inform homeless individuals about the availability of housing placement; provide life skills training, housing education, counseling and post-placement services that will enable homeless individuals to maintain their homes and become self-sufficient. The ArneriCorps Community Service Program will utilize a combination of ten full-time and five part-time stipended members along with five full-time non-stipend, education award only members. STRENGTHS The program will serve in Detroit's Empowerment Zone and has the potential to make a significant impact on the residents in the Empowerment Zone by providing affordable outreach and much needed support services. Having provided housing assistance to Wayne County for nearly 10 years, WCNLS pas a strong organizational capacity to operate the program and has prior experience in administering federal grants, ie, HUD's Supportive Housing Program. Additionally, there is a natural fit between the program and the mission of WCNLS. WEAKNESSES The program needs to clearly define intended outcomes and impacts within the community and on the service recipients. Additionally, the program needs to clearly state how the members' service activities support or enhance the current activities/projects at WCNLS and whether there are other WCNLS staff doing the same tasks as the AmeriCorps members. Although the program plans to generate additional volunteers, it is unclear as to how the volunteers will be integrated into WCNLS and how the volunteers' service will be coordinated across the program. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $179,266 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them in the staff review. The program's FTE is $10,244, which is below the CNS and MCSC average FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's Ameri Corps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 19 Name of Applicant: Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: Program design is very detailed. The paper shows evidence of significant impact on the members and community recipients (i.e. affordable outreach, members get career skills, service recipients get quality services.) • • Strengthening Community: • There is a large number of collaborators. Developing Members: • The paper did a good job of describing member qualifications. • The paper did a good job of describing the member recruitment strategy. • Members will wear AmeriCorps identification and attend statewide meetings. This all helps to maintain an AmeriCorps identity. • The member training component involved skills that are specific to the members' service activities, volunteer management, and post-AmeriCorps as well. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper states a good evaluation mechanism, however intended impacts/outcomes need to be clearly defined to establish if the evaluation mechanism is adequate. Organizational Capacity: There is evidence of good organizational capacity. The organization has experience with government funding sources. The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. WCNLS is a large organization and it appears that the proposed program fits within the organizations's mission. • • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $10,244 per FTE (including Education Award Only members). This is well below the CNS or MCSC average per FTE. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • The program design and structure is vague. Please describe a typical week, clarifying when the members would work with the program's service partners and when they would work with WCNLS and the activities/ tasks to be performed at each site. Please clarify how service sponsors and host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. �Strengthening Community: • The paper details services that the partner organizations will provide, but not the administrative support to be provided by the partner organizations. Developing Members: • There was no mention of the Education Award Only members. Please define/ clarify their roles and responsibilities with regard to the other members. Describe the differences, if any. • Are there other WCNLS staff doing the same tasks as the AmeriCorps members? If so, describe the differences between staff responsibilities and AmeriCorps member responsibilities. Also, please provide a statement ensuring that AmeriCorps members will not displace an employee or duplicate services that are available in the locality of the proposed program. On page 15, the proposal states that partners will train the AmeriCorps members. Please • provide an outline of when the training would occur and clarify whether the training is for the entire corps, teams, or on an individual basis. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Although regular feedback will be obtained from client surveys, this should be expanded to include other primary stakeholders such as: partners/ the community, program staff, the AmeriCorps members. • Opportunities for continuous improvement should be incorporated into the overall evaluation plan. What role will partners program staff and other primary stakeholders take in the development and implementation of this? • It is unclear how often the partners will come together. • It is unclear as to how the service activities will be coordinated across all sites and how the program will ensure that the service is consistent with overall program goals and objectives. Organizational Capacity: • The program plans to generate additional volunteers. Please describe how the volunteers will be incorporated into WCNLS . Describe how the volunteers' services will be coordinated and managed across the program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The living allowance (category A) figures do not match between the budget form and the budget narrative. • Uniform costs should be included in the Uniform line item. • The administrative cost (category F) is not calculated correctly. The cost is still within requirements, however. • Need to add an additional $2,000 in the Travel line item for MCSC travel costs. • Overall Comments: Getting Things Done objective #1 and Strengthening Communities objective #2 are exactly the same. This particular objective should be under Getting Things Done, the Strengthening Communities objective needs to be revised to emphasize how this strengthens the community. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: American Red Cross NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 5 FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The primary focus of the AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) Program is the promotion of volunteerism among youth and generating youth to participate in community problem-solving. The program will identify and develop volunteer opportunities for 500 at-risk youth in Highland Park. AmeriCorps members will work with community agencies to get youth involved in tutoring and mentoring, homework and reading projects, latchkey programs, HIV/AIDS education and outreach. The corpsmembers will also support and recognize youth volunteer efforts. STRENGTHS As a volunteer generator, the AmeriCorps YES program enrolls only five AmeriCorps members to leverage 500 at-risk youth volunteers. Through the program, these youth will address community issues and engage in community problem-solving by serving on the program's Advisory Committee. AmeriCorps YES works in collaboration with the Highland Park Public Schools, the Highland Park Communities First Program, and the United Way Community Services "Volunteer Connect" program. With regard to organizational capacity, the American Red Cross has a history of operating a variety of volunteer programs, several comparable to the AmeriCorps YES program in size and scope. The American Red Cross also has past experience in working with other federal programs. The members and program will be supported by qualified staff, of whom the program director has had previous experience in volunteer administration. Their previous experience and strong organizational capacity will provide them with a good foundation for operating an effective Michigan's AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES At this time, it is unclear as to how the proposed program will enhance or complement the already existing projects within the American Red Cross. The program needs to strengthen the correlation between the identified community needs and how the service activities of the corpsmembers will directly achieve the overall goals and objectives of the program. The needs identified should be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the members' service activities and the goals and objectives of the program. The program proposes to engage 500 volunteers, who will, in turn, provide 5,000 hours of service. This equates to only ten hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer and questions arise with respect to the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement in the program. The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Also, the program will need to provide more details on the plan for sustaining the program and how this involves the volunteers that will be generated and the community partners. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 58,469 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive funding package for submission to CNS , provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them during the staff review. The FTE is $11,694, which is slightly above the MCSC average, but below the CNS target. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: American Red Cross NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 5 FT PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The primary focus of the AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) Program is the promotion of volunteerism among youth and generating youth to participate in community problem-solving. The program will identify and develop volunteer opportunities for 500 at-risk youth in Highland Park. AmeriCorps members will work with community agencies to get youth involved in tutoring and mentoring, homework and reading projects, latchkey programs, HIV/AIDS education and outreach. The corpsmembers will also support and recognize youth volunteer efforts. STRENGTHS As a volunteer generator, the AmeriCorps YES program enrolls only five AmeriCorps members to leverage 500 at-risk youth volunteers. Through the program, these youth will address community issues and engage in community problem-solving by serving on the program's Advisory Committee. AmeriCorps YES works in collaboration with the Highland Park Public Schools, the Highland Park Communities First Program, and the United Way Community Services "Volunteer Connect" program. With regard to organizational capacity, the American Red Cross has a history of operating a variety of volunteer programs, several comparable to the AmeriCorps YES program in size and scope. The American Red Cross also has past experience in working with other federal programs. The members and program will be supported by qualified staff, of whom the program director has had previous experience in volunteer administration. Their previous experience and strong organizational capacity will provide them with a good foundation for operating an effective Michigan's AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES At this time, it is unclear as to how the proposed program will enhance or complement the already existing projects within the American Red Cross. The program needs to strengthen the correlation between the identified community needs and how the service activities of the corpsmembers will directly achieve the overall goals and objectives of the program. The needs identified should be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the members' service activities and the goals and objectives of the program. The program proposes to engage 500 volunteers, who will, in tum, provide 5,000 hours of service. This equates to only ten hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer and questions arise with respect to the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement in the program. The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Also, the program will need to provide more details on the plan for sustaining the program and how this involves the volunteers that will be generated and the (Yl£ _ hou y S community partners. -7 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 58,469 0{ i& o...&cfl.t<..::. ~ I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive funding package for submission to CNS, provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them during the staff review. The program FTE is $11,294, which is below the MCSC and CNS target FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 15 Name of Applicant: American Red Cross Stren~;:ths: Getting Things Done: • Concept Paper is very detailed. • Shows evidence of existing collaborative relationships. • Concept paper takes the work of a few (five members) to leverage 500 volunteers. • Paper provides a strong rational of the need in the community. • Paper addresses youth as a community asset. • Paper provides a clearly defined timeline. Strengthening Community: • There is a double benefit of the program as it impacts youth volunteers and the community. • There is a good identification of assets, inclusive of community youth. • The program proposes using existing resources. • The roles of the three primary partners are well defined. • This paper uses an asset based approach. • The program aims to create new, previously non-existent partnerships. Developing Members: • The training offered to members is well defined. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There appears to be a good commitment to member development/placement beyond their AmeriCorps term of service. • Stakeholders are involved in feedback to the program. The mechanisms for feedback are already in place. • There is a Program Advisory Committee that will provide a monitoring function. • There are youth on the Program Advisory Committee. Organizational Capacity: The organization has an excellent capacity to administer the program. There is evidence of highly qualified key personnel. The organization has past experience with a variety of volunteer programs. Program director has previous experience in volunteer administration. • The organization has experience working with other federal programs/grants. • The organization has past experience running a program of this size. • Service partners /host sites will sign a written agreement to confirm their commitment to the program. • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $11,294 FfE below MCSC target. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • • • Comprehensive proposal needs to clarify how host sites will be prepared for member placement. Including how members will be supervised and by whom. Although this has been clarified somewhat. the proposal stated that the Highland Park school district will provide space and support to three AmeriCorps s members. Where will the remaining two members be placed? Please clarify how this program enhances/complements the already existing program. The needs, as identified in the needs statement (page 4, balded paragraph), should be consistent with the "standard" component of the Getting Things Done objectives (see worksheets) . Therefore, if the program hopes to impact attendance, academic achievement, and self-esteem, this should be clearly articulated. AmeriCorps members are not employees. (p.7) Please remove language referring to them as such. Please describe the various projects within the overall program, i.e. , the focus of the projects, duration of service projects. (p.l 0) With regard to program design, as participants are teens and are enrolled in middle and high school, when will the program provide services to these youth? In-school, after school, weekends, etc.? GETTING THINGS DONE OBJECTIVES: The program may omit the third objective since the primary focus is covered in the first two objectives. Strengthening Community: • The proposal does not describe plan to link the proposed program with or to interact with other MCSC, CNS programs. Developing Members: • • • • • It is unclear if the members will be placed individually or in pairs/teams. AmeriCorps members must undergo criminal records check as part of the screening process. Although this was mentioned in the budget, it should be noted in the proposal narrative. Please provide a statement ensuring that members will not participate in prohibited member activities. How does the child care training provided to the members relate to the program? (p.ll) MEMBER DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: If objective #3 is a one-time occurrence, it must be revised or replaced. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • Need to clarify how members will be provided with the skills and tools to develop their own evaluation strategies. This is a difficult and important process. If the program is engaging 500 volunteers and expecting 5,000 hours of service, this equates to 10 hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer. What is the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement? The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Please provide more detail on the plan for sustainability of the program. Provide justification for budgeting for three replacements (out of five members). Secretarial support (in staff line item) should be included under Administration category. �• • In "Other" line item, please provide explanation for Teachers 30@ $75. Explain this cost and its benefit to the program. Agency staff time for administration should be included in the Administration category. Overall Comments: • The Annual Accomplishment Objectives should reflect those formulated on the objectives worksheets. All five components (activity, result, measure, standard, beneficiaries) should be included. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: New Detroit, Inc. NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Nonviolence Kids, Organizations, Parents, and Schools (Nonviolence KOPS) is a collaborative which enhances the existing New Detroit Coalition's Youth Nonviolence Training Program which is designed to reduce the level of crime, violence, and fear in 10 of Detroit's elementary and middle schools by making those schools safe havens and involving youth in conflict resolution and prevention efforts. Nonviolence KOPS will facilitate human and community development by providing opportunities for conflict management, conflict resolution, reconciliation, intercultural approaches, and cross-community efforts. The program will have an impact on the lives of 5,000 Detroit Public School students and 3,000 other individuals. STRENGTHS Nonviolence KOPS has a strong capacity to coordinate such an effort. The program is an extension of an existing and on-going nonviolence initiative, it has an established training structure, and an advisory board that is already operating. The program will create peer safe havens for youth, develop strong mentoring relationships, and reduce fear among elementary school youth. The program will offer college credit for members through Wayne County Community C9llege. WEAKNESSES MCSC is concerned about the development of specific activities at the schools. Nonviolence KOPS needs to clarify the activities that will take place at each school and describe tthe schools' level of support for the program, define the role of peace centers, and specify where, when, and what service activities will occur. It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. Nonviolence KOPS should address member diversity issues and related recruitment activities. The program's impact on the community is not clear. Since it builds on an existing initiative, it is important to identify how Nonviolence KOPS contributes to the current effort and describe how it is different from or similar to that effort. This is an expensive program. There are problems with match funds and the training and education costs seem inflated. Justification for these costs and an explanation as to who will provide services, donations, and match funds are needed. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $259,226 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTEfor the program is $12,961. This exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: New Detroit, Inc. NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Nonviolence Kids, Organizations, Parents, and Schools (Nonviolence KOPS) is a collaborative which enhances the existing New Detroit Coalition's Youth Nonviolence Training Program which is designed to reduce the level of crime, violence, and fear in 10 of Detroit's elementary and middle schools by making those schools safe havens and involving youth in conflict resolution and prevention efforts. Nonviolence KOPS will facilitate human and community development by providing opportunities for conflict management, conflict resolution, reconciliation, intercultural approaches, and cross-community efforts. The program will have an impact on the lives of 5,000 Detroit Public School students and 3,000 other individuals. STRENGTHS Nonviolence KOPS has a strong capacity to coordinate such an effort. The program is an extension of an existing and on-going nonviolence initiative, it has an established training structure, and an advisory board that is already operating. The program will create peer safe havens for youth, develop strong mentoring relationships, and reduce fear among elementary school youth. The program will offer college credit for members through Wayne County Community College. WEAKNESSES MCSC is concerned about the development of specific activities at the schools. Nonviolence KOPS needs to clarify the activities that will take place at each school and describe tthe schools' level of support for the program, define the role of peace centers, and specify where, when, and what service activities will occur. It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. Nonviolence KOPS should address member diversity issues and related recruitment activities. The program's impact on the community is not clear. Since it builds on an existing initiative, it is important to identify how Nonviolence KOPS contributes to the current effort and describe how it is different from or similar to that effort. This is an expensive program. There are problems with match funds and the training and education costs seem inflated. Justification for these costs and an explanation as to who will provide services, donations, and match funds are needed. ~ _:) ex 1s.-1"5 , 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $259,226 J\1 ~eo( -1-o !j~m/-/- /'evt's/rvtS. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. $13,826 FTE exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 5 Name of Applicant: New Detroit, Inc. Strengths: Getting Things Done: The program will create peer safe havens for youth and develop strong mentoring relationships. • The program will reduce fear among elementary school youth. • Advisory Board is already up and running. • Strengthening Community: • The program is part of an existing and on-going process to increase the nonviolence effort within the overall program. • The program will offer college credit through WCCC for members. This might be an incentive for members. Developing Members: • There is intensive member training listed. The organization has an established training structure. • The school connection to training is good. • Police checks on applicants are a good idea, especially when working with children. • The program will hold regular AmeriCorps meetings. The paper also described the goals of the meetings. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper refers to a process for some data collection. Organizational Capacity: There is a long organizational history. The organization has past training experience. The organization has experience administering federal grants. • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is good local in-kind match. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. • Clarify in-school and out of school activities. When and where will the of the service occur? What types of things will members be doing? The proposal needs to provide a better sense of member daily activity. Provide an example • of a typical member day. • It is not clear how the community will be different as a result of this program. • �• • • • It is not clear what elementary schools will be involved in the program. Nor does it specify their buy-in into the program. Will each school implement a peer mediator program? What are the peace centers? While members will all play different roles, there should be some unifying goals toward which every member will work to achieve through their service. Since this program adds on to an existing program the readers would suggest creating a chart that highlights the two programs and shows their differences and similarities. Strengthening Community: • • • • • It is not clear how the partners will come together. The paper needs to better describe the partners' roles/responsibilities. The proposal does not describe how current community assets (teachers, existing afterschool clubs) will be used to the program's benefit. The program should look into which elementary schools currently host UWCS AmeriCorps members. How can they work together? Where are the gaps in service? The proposal should discuss the structure of the advisory committee. Who is on the advisory committee? Overall, community impact is very vague. It should be addressed in this section. Developing Members: • • • The paper does not mention member diversity. How member recruitment will be conducted to reflect this? Elaborate on how supervision will be provided on-site at the schools and community organizations. Further development is needed on how the host sites will be prepared to host members. What ongoing support will be provided to site supervisors? Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • Provide additional information about the evaluation plan that is in development. How long will evaluation development take? What is the cost associated with evaluation? Applicant seems to understand and value evaluation. However, in the development of the evaluation plan, please be sure to include methods to measure both impact and process evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • • • • The paper does not describe how AmeriCorps fits within the overall organizational structure. Describe the organization's ability to administer the program (payroll, reporting and etc.). Key accomplishments of the staff were not included. The paper should briefly describe the program coordinator's skills and attributes and qualifications. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • This is an expensive program. $13,826 FTE exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. Reduce the FTE cost. The proposal does not describe plans for sustainability. Please note that member support costs cannot be matched with federal funds as it relates to NDI, CIS and collaborating partner contributions. Training and education costs seem inflated. Provide justification and an explanation as to whom will provide services, donations, match funds , etc. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Michigan Department of Agriculture NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP) will provide information and technical assistance to homeowners, farmers, and tenants about identifying and reducing the risks to groundwater contamination. Twenty AmeriCorps members will be placed throughout the state to assist landowners with the completion of three environmental awareness tools (Farm* A *Syst, Home* A *Syst, and Field*A *Syst). The members will also allocate MGSP cost-share funds to implement agricultural stewardship practices, to train volunteers to complete the Home* A_*Syst tool, and to coordinate with local groundwater teams to develop groundwater stewardship activities based on local priorities. STRENGTHS The program is taking an innovative and proactive approach by focusing on educating the community rather than punishing the community. Through the proposed activities, the program has the potential to raise environmental awareness of residents across the state. The applicant organization has prior experience in administering federal grants and in managing the USDA AmeriCorps program, a national direct, similar in size and scope. The program collaborates with a group of agency partners that are able to provide a variety of resources to support the program. Those partners are: the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Michigan State University Extension and local Conservation Districts. In addition, the program is cost-effective in that it exceeds the minimum match requirements and the FTE rate is below both the MCSC and CNS average. WEAKNESSES Supervision of AmeriCorps members at the local sites represents a concern. The program will need to ensure that the goals of the local sites are consistent with the overall objectives of the program. Also, the program needs to strengthen how local partnerships will work together on projects. There is no clear plan detailing how the program will create a local presence within the communities that the AmeriCorps members are placed. Additionally, it is unclear how the program will strengthen the community. The administrative structure is unclear. MCSC has requested that the program provide an administrative flow chart to clarify who is accountable for what within the applicant organization and among the host sites. Although the program is capable of administering the proposed program, it is unclear at this time what the organization's capacity is to support additional volunteers and what the role of the volunteers will be. Also there is little detail on the program's plans for sustainability. ) · ~ (9 V'l e.. u 1£ a J 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $225,415 n - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE for this program is $11 ,271, which is below MCSC and CNS average FTE costs . �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 27 Name of Applicant: Department of Agriculture Strengths: Getting Things Done: Proposed educating the community rather than serving punishments. Unique concept. Proposed program has potential to raise environmental awareness. • • • Strengthening Community: • Stewardship teams is a good idea. • Strong group of agency partners with a variety of resources available. Developing Members: • Monthly meetings for members is good. • Good member evaluation. • Kick-off training for AmeriCorps members and staff to outline duties, roles, and responsibilities is good. • Community organizing training would be very beneficial for members with a technical background. • Solid member training plan. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Applicant organization has prior experience and the capacity to administer an evaluation of the proposed program. • There is a designated person to coordinate the evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • Applicant organization has prior experience operating an AmeriCorps program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Exceeded minimum match requirements. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Describe the supervision of AmeriCorps members at the local sites. Please provide supportive data with regard to need statement. With regard to program design, please provide the rationale for 20 members to operate out of 35 counties. • What is the role of the State Groundwater Team in the administration of the program? • Strengthen the discussion of any collaborations and/or partnerships that will work together on the projects, especially locally. • Proposal did not describe how service sponsors and host sites will be prepared and supported. • Please explain how the non-participant volunteers will be used . • Administrative structure in unclear. Provide an administrative flow chart. • • • �• program. Little detail on sustainability was provided. Overall Comments: • Ensure that goals of local sites are consistent with overall objectives. • Refer to AmeriCorps members as simply AmeriCorps members. The usage of MGSP/ AmeriCorps became confusing, especially as the proposal began to introduce the other Groundwater Stewardship team. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way of Saginaw County: Saginaw AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Saginaw AmeriCorps program, in partnership with local schools and the community, is committed to providing educational support services that will help to meet the needs of students and embrace the ideals of volunteerism and service. AmeriCorps members will tutor third grade students who score below standard levels in math and reading, serve teens who are in their first trimester of pregnancy and are at-risk of dropping out of school, and offer prevention-of-gang-activities services for middle school students. STRENGTHS Saginaw AmeriCorps is providing increased resources to existing programs by building on previously established partnerships, bringing together schools and community-based organizations, and recruiting new volunteers. WEAKNESSES Saginaw AmeriCorps needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not clear what value the program will add to the community. MCSC staff are concerned about pre-placement preparation for the host sites. Teachers and principals should be a part of the planning in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives. Teachers should be informed as to what activities are appropriate for members. Linkages with the schools ' improvement plans and schools' administrative structures should be addressed. Evaluation is a weakness as well. Saginaw AmeriCorps does not provide an outcomes-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are placed individually, with different tasks, it seems that it will be very difficult to gauge the rogress and activities as they relate to overall program goals and impact. ~ C)t..MI ~ ~~ cc..>.....c.\cod Saginaw AmeriCorps should also clarify their plan for sustainability. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $271,691 ?e¥ fV'> 'oeer. ~tS'-e-? <J"Vo STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS cStaff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $13,585 FTE is above the CNS and MCSC target rates of $11,750 and $11,300 per FTE. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Saginaw Public School District NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Saginaw AmeriCorps program, in partnership with local schools and the community, is committed to providing educational support services that will help to meet the needs of students and embrace the ideals of volunteerism and service. AmeriCorps members will tutor third grade students who score below standard levels in math and reading, serve teens who are in their first trimester of pregnancy and are at-risk of dropping out of school, and offer prevention-of-gang-activities services for middle school students. STRENGTHS Saginaw AmeriCorps is providing increased resources to existing programs by building on previously established partnerships, bringing together schools and community-based organizations, and recruiting new volunteers. WEAKNESSES Saginaw AmeriCorps needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not clear what value the program will add to the community. MCSC staff are concerned about pre-placement preparation for the host sites. Teachers and principals should be a part of the planning in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives. Teachers should be informed as to what activities are appropriate for members. Linkages with the schools' improvement plans and schools' administrative structures should be addressed. Evaluation is a weakness as well. Saginaw AmeriCorps does not provide an outcomes-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are placed individually, with different tasks, it seems that it will be very difficult to gauge the progress and activities as they relate to overall program goals and impact. Saginaw AmeriCorps should also clarify their plan for sustainability. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $271,691 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $13,585 FTE is above the CNS and MCSC target rates of $11,750 and $11,300 per FTE. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 17 Name of Applicant: United Way of Saginaw County S tren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The program is providing increased resources to existing programs. The program connects schools and communities. The program has a multi-cultural emphasis. The program is community-based. The Girl Scout connection is good. The program plans to recruit new volunteers. The program involves tutoring in math and reading. The newsletter is a good public relations method and should help establish a community presence. • AmeriCorps members will use activity logs to document and track their progress. • Weekly AmeriCorps member meetings will be held. • • • • • • • • Strengthening Community: • The program is building on previously established partnerships. Applicant did an excellent job acquiring these partnerships and describing them here. • Accountability and support for AmeriCorps members is well detailed. • The program takes a broad look at the whole community and the community's diversity. • The school district's role provides a good connection across the community. Developing Members: • The member training component seems strong and applicable. • Excellent breakdown of the skills and attributes members will need. Skills and attributes seem very reasonable. • AmeriCorps candidates will undergo criminal records check, drug test, etc. as a part of the screening process. • Member identity plans seem adequate. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The program will have bi-monthly CTI meetings. • There will be weekly progress reports on member activities. Organizational Capacity: • The involvement and support from the school district is good. • The applicant has administered federal grants. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Each site will provide cash and in-kind match support. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: It was unclear what the overall impact of the program will be. The program needs to demonstrate a clear impact on the community. • The program needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not • �• • • • • • • clear what value the program will add to the community. It is unclear how the service activities of the members will be coordinated across all sites . Describe how the program enhances existing youth services . Describe the rationale for focus on education, rather than continued focus on public safety . What components will be carried over into the proposed program? Pre-placement preparation for the host site does not seem adequate. Shouldn't teachers/principals be a part of the planing in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives? How will the program ensure that AmeriCorps members are not misused within the school, i.e. considered teachers aides? Teachers should be informed as to how they can and cannot utilize members. It seems that the program might be more effective with more than one member placed per school. Please justify the rationale for placing each member at a different school. Please explain the school improvement plan and how the AmeriCorps program fits into it. use AmeriCorps members. What is the anticipated number of students to be tutored at each site? Strengthening Community: • • • The paper does not list clear impacts on the community. It is unclear how the various program components are connected. Indicate continuing and new partners and how their representation on the Advisory Council. Developing Members • It is understood that AmeriCorps members fall under the jurisdiction and policies of the district, but they should never be referred to as employees. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • • • The paper does not provide any specifics on this section. The performance assessment is based more on job function. The paper does not provide an outcome-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are all place individually, with different tasks, it seems that it would be very difficult to gauge the progress and activities as it relates to overall program goals and impact. Continuous improvement plans should include primary stakeholder feedback (members, program staff, service recipients and partners). Organizational Capacity: • • • Did not address weaknesses/ continuous improvement items from the Concept Paper feedback for this section. The paper needs to clarify what the individual schools' buy-in and teacher commitment is. There also needs to be clarification as to the administrative structure of the program within each school. An administrative flow chart should be provided. The application does not include the background, experience and relevant accomplishments of the principal staff or describe plans to recruit, select or train and support additional staff. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • The overall cost of the program is high. There is no clear plan for sustainability. $13,585 FTE cost above MCSC target. Reduce FTE costs. Members receive more than $8,340. Reduce costs accordingly. Describe what will be sustained from current AmeriCorps program. �Overall Comments: • • • • Describe site activities as they relate to overall program objectives. Incorrect budget pages used. Please use the budget pages provided in the Comprehensive Proposal guidelines packet. AmeriCorps service activities need to be directly connected to objectives. How does the Wellness Center Activity fit into overall goals and evaluation process? �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: SOS Crisis Center NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 2 FT 6 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Washtenaw Family Support Network program will provide specialized child care for more than 100 infants and toddlers from homeless families; assist more than 20 families, through child care, to increase the parents' opportunities to participate in and gain access to education, job training, or other services that would increase the parents' capacity to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The program will also engage a minimum of 35 homeless parents in programming designed to increase their competence in supporting their child's development. STRENGTHS The program is a multi-agency collaboration among homeless family service providers. The SOS Crisis Center has previous experience administering federal funds and receives funding from several sources. The organization and staff have experience with both homeless issues and volunteer management. Also, the SOS Crisis Center currently serves as a site in the Eastern Michigan University, Teams for School Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps program. The program supports local "welfare-to-work" initiatives by targeting homeless parents who are predominantly public assistance recipients. Also, the program aims to serve more than 100 families and pre-school children each year and has the potential to impact a larger population through its relationship with the partner agencies. Additionally, the program should be easily sustained due to the size and its integration into other ongoing initiatives. WEAKNESSES Although the Comprehensive Proposal provided a description of the overall structure of the program, MCSC staff has concerns regarding the on-site supervision of the members and service activities, the amount of time being spent at the partnering agencies, and the specific roles of the partner organizations. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $52,990 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The program reduced the PTE to $10,598, which is below MCSC and CNS targeted cost per PTE. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 11 Name of Applicant: SOS Crisis Center Strengths: Getting Things Done: The proposed member activities are realistic. The proposal identified the key partners of the program. The proposed program will impact a large number of families. The organization has a strong history of homelessness partnerships • • • • Strengthening Community: • The proposal has identified an area not currently being served. • The partnerships and network appears well developed. • The use of the partner agencies will increase the number of people served. • The organization is connected with other CNS/MCSC programs. Elaborate on your involvement with these programs. • The proposed program will strengthen the families ability to strengthen their own kids. Developing Members: • Strong member recruitment strategy. • Well developed plan for member training and orientation • Good use of technology • The program will be connected to other AmeriCorps programs and training and wants to take advantage of these opportunities. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Local evaluation firm expertise should ensure an outcome based evaluation. • The development of qualitative measures. • The proposal recognizes the importance of collecting data up front. • The community advisory group will review and assess the program's progress. Organizational Capacity: SOS past history and staff expertise was viewed as a strength. The organization receives funding from several sources. The organization has past experience administering federal funds. The organization has experience with both homeless issues and volunteer management. • • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program should be easily sustainable due to the size and its integration into other ongoing initiatives. • The program reduced the FTE to $10,598, which is below MCSC and CNS targets. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • There was no statistical data to support program rationale. • Although the proposal provided a description of the overall structure of the program, it is still not clear how much time is spent at the partnering agencies, how many members per site, how much time will be devoted to each site per week. Strengthening Community: • The proposal did not clearly articulate the specific roles of the partner organizations. Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: The proposal should describe how the members and the service activities will be supervised on-site. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The match funds for category A cannot be federal dollars. (p.16 ... HUD will supply match). • In budget, members do not receive hourly wages. Instead they receive a stipend that is disbursed in regular intervals (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly). Please remove $6.00 per hour from budget narrative. • Cost for uniforms should be calculated at $32 instead of $33. • The budget narrative needs to indicate which portion (per line item) is being provided by CNS and the grantee. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: B-H-K Child Development Board NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 18 FT 4 PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Copper Country AmeriCorps program will operate out of Baraga, Houghton, and Keweenaw counties in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The program, through its Teen Initiative, will engage area teens in educational programs, leadership training, mentoring programs, and employment opportunities. Through the Family Initiative, the program will recruit teens for Friends of the Elderly, a volunteer program that serves the elderly, and will facilitate parent education, provide child care, and introduce youth to the environmental history of the community. STRENGTHS The program is the result of a tri-county effort to address important needs within the community and seeks to strengthen the community through collaboratives with schools, local volunteer and service agencies, and community leaders. The commitment to the program from the community collaboratives and partners seems good. Additionally, the program is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, therefore, adding to the geographic diversity of Michigan's AmeriCorps. The Baraga-Houghton-Keweenaw Child Development Board has previous experience in administering federal grants and in managing volunteer programs. Also, the proposal puts forth a strong plan for member development and program administration. With regard to program cost effectiveness, local partnering agencies will provide match funds for each FTE placed at their site and the program, overall, exceeds minimum match requirements. WEAKNESSES The applicant proposes that a small number of its members provide child care for young children. However, it is not clear why providing this child care is important to the community and how the community will be strengthened or improved as a result. MCSC has requested that the program further develop this aspect of the program and provide additional information as to the needs of the parents and children and why this program is an appropriate means of meeting the proposed need. As a tri-county program, the coordination of service across all three counties is not certain. The program will need to describe how program staff will coordinate service across all sites effectively. Overall, the program proposes to provide a broad range of services. MCSC has suggested that the applicant give some thought as to how members will manage the variety of tasks and the impact they will be able to make in each area. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $226,661 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE rate for this program is $11,333, which is within the MCSC and CNS average FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 1 Name of Applicant: BHK Child Development Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • • • • All sites are responsible for recruiting volunteers. Identified the number of members to be assigned to each service initiative. Commitment to the program from community collaboratives and partners seemed good. Good job of assessing overall community needs. Strengthening Community: • • • • Tri-county collaborative. Good breakdown of partner responsibilities per service initiative. Program is linked to Strong Families/Safe Children initiative. Teen representation on the AmeriCorps Council is a good idea. Developing Members: • The AmeriCorps members meet monthly. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • The organization has the means for tracking and documenting progress and program impact. Proposed evaluation plan incorporates continuous improvement component. Organizational Capacity: • • • Program director has good credentials Previous experience in administering federal grants. Applicant has experience in managing volunteer programs. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Local partnering agencies will provide match funds per FTE. Exceeded minimum match requirements. Proposed FTE is within MCSC and CNS FTE targeted cost. Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • Describe plan for preparing sites for the placement of AmeriCorps members. It is not clear how the proposed activities, with regard to the senior citizen component, will impact community needs. Please clarify what "delinquency" and the reduction of this means for the program. What grade level are the members interacting with in local schools? (p.7) In terms of members providing child care for young children, the reasons for so, as �• explained in the proposal ... "space for children in registered homes ... " needs to be further developed. Who are the children? Who are the parents? Why is providing this child care to these individuals important to the community? The Getting Things Done objective #2 (see worksheet) should be broken down into three objectives with a standard for each one. Strengthening Community: • Although the program has narrowed its focus, it is still unclear how the community will benefit as a result of the proposed service initiatives. • Each member seems to have many proposed tasks that, in most cases, are far reaching over a broad spectrum. Applicant should give some thought as to how members will manage the variety of tasks and the impact they will be able to make in each area. • It is not clear how the GEM Center and the historical books relate to the identified community need. • How will the program work through the council to ensure that the program does not duplicate services? Developing Members: • The three professional positions is still unclear. Is this reasonable to expect professionals to accept these position? What is the alternative if they do not? • There should be three objectives (worksheets) for this section. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The evaluation plan should reflect each component of the program. Organizational Capacity: • Coordination of service across all counties is unclear. Describe how program staff will coordinate service across all sites effectively. • What is the role of the RN? Where does he/she fit into the program? Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: In the budget narrative, please clarify what office and educational supplies include. Provide justification for the purchase of a computer. In staff line item, clarify $22 per hour for recruitment. Who is doing this? Shouldn't the program director or assistant director do this? • $44,000 match for space fees seems high. Please clarify this. • • • Overall Comments: • Overall, what the program hopes to accomplish is still far reaching, however, the proposal puts forth a strong plan for member development and administration. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Northern Michigan Community Mental Health NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 2 FT _____,8,__ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Dreamcatcher Volunteer Program focuses on providing independent living assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities in four counties in northern Michigan (Emmet, Charlevoix, Otsego, and Cheboygan). The program aims to increase the community's knowledge and understanding of individuals with developmental disabilities by involving person with developmental disabilities more directly in community activities and by developing a circle of friends for the individual. The members will be matched with developmentally disabled individuals and will work to generate volunteers from the community to serve as activities companions for these individuals.- STRENGTHS The proposed program builds upon an existing structure to provide services that no other agency in the region is offering. Through the members' service activities, the program will establish new networks of people who may not have normally been introduced to each other. As a result of their involvement in the program, members will enhance their own self worth and respect for individuals with disabilities. The program will operate under the direction of the Volunteer Services Coordinator of Northern Michigan Community Mental Health. The staff has previous experience with other national service programs. In addition, they have developed and managed other volunteer programs. The organization has established high quality service standards. The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. The program model has the potential to be replicated in other parts of the state. WEAKNESSES With regard to collaborations and partnerships, it is unclear what support the other community-based organizations and government offices involved with the program will provide. The proposal needs to detail how these other organizations will promote this program, educate others about the need for these services, and create systems within their own organizations to support the goals of the program. The program will need to clarify how members will be involved in recruiting, training, and maintaining volunteers. In reviewing the Comprehensive Proposal, the volunteer recruitment piece was vague. This component is most critical to the overall sustainability of the program, yet it could be potentially lost within the members' other duties. The program will need to ensure that members will spend ample time J: . recruiting volunteers. fV} 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $71,194 1/o I L(..Nlf e~(" c c ~"' «-t.f~ /S ~QO t, .' t STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided that the program fully address the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE rate for the program is 11,865 which is somewhat higher than the MCSC and CNS average FTE rate. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 2 Name of Applicant: Northern Michigan Community Mental Health Strengths: Getting Things Done: No other agency in the region is providing this service. The program would establish new networks of people who may not have normally been introduced to each other. • The impact of the proposed program would be long lasting. • The single focus was viewed as a strength. • • Strengthening Community: • Members will enhance their own self worth and respect for individuals with disabilities. • The proposed program builds upon an existing structure. • The program increases collaboration between the partnering agencies. Developing Members: All key components of developing members are covered. The member training component was well developed. Screening involves criminal record checks. Members will not displace employees. There is assurance that members will not participate in prohibited activities. The member orientation includes history and understanding of agency structure, mission, etc. • • • • • • Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is an existing evaluation system. • The plan calls for regular and frequent meetings to monitor and communicate with members. • Members complete monthly activity logs. Organizational Capacity: The staff has previous experience with other national service programs. In addition, they have developed and managed other volunteer programs. • The organization has established high quality service standards. • The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Where will ArneriCorps members work out of on a daily basis (which office)? Will members come to this "home base" daily? In terms of collaborations/partnerships what does the "support" that the other community• based organizations, government offices, etc. look like. This is still unclear. The proposal should detail how these other organizations will promote this program, educate others about the need for these services, create systems within their own organizations to support the goals of the program. In terms of specific service activities to be performed by the members, it would be helpful • to describe a typical day that details the activities. Need to clarify how the program will involve members in recruiting volunteers . • As was written on the previous Strengths/Weakness Sheet.. ...The volunteer recruitment piece was vague. This component is most critical to the overall sustainability of the program, yet it could be potentially lost with the members' other duties. Ensure members will spend ample time recruiting volunteers. • Strengthening Community: • The first objective is very unclear. This will need to be rewritten. In doing so, please make sure that the activity works to strengthen the community. As it is currently written, it appears to be a Getting Things Done objective. • Please quantify the number of community volunteers that you will involve as activities companions. • On the top of page 9 you listed a very comprehensive list of partners. Please provide a clarifying statement on the "support" that they will give to the ArneriCorps program. Developing Members: • The paper did not discuss how the program will ensure that participants think of themselves as ArneriCorps members. • Please note that the member orientation should include information on MCSC, CNS, and Michigan's ArneriCorps. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Please note how effective has the evaluation plan been in the past. Organizational Capacity: • Please note that the information contained on page 16 in the first full paragraph should also be included in the Getting Things Done section. This information will provide clarity on the program' s design. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program needs to further develop the volunteer component. As mentioned before, this directly relates to the program's plan for sustainability. • There is no plan for sustainability. • In this section of the narrative, please clarify if the program already has access to InterNet. If not, this will need to be budgeted for in the budget form and narrative. • The overall FTE rate is 11,865 which is higher than the CNS and MCSC targeted rate. • The budget narrative is done incorrectly. The narrative should follow the same format as the Budget Form. Therefore, you should start with A. Member Support Costs and detail the costs involved, who is responsible for the costs (CNS or grantee), etc. Each line item must be covered/described in the budget narrative. • �• • Please note that in D. Operational under the Travel line item that there must be $2,000 budgeted to attend CNS meetings as well as $2,000 budgeted to attend MCSC meetings. These costs need to be fully detailed in the budget narrative. Please clarify advertising cost of $1,000 (as noted in the budget narrative). Overall Comments • Please note that the correct spelling is "AmeriCorps." The letter "s" was left off in the proposal. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Van Buren Public Health Department NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 10 FT PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Health Forward Mentoring Project will enroll seven AmeriCorps members to mentor Bangor High School students and will work to develop a pool of high school mentors for middle school students. The mentors will employ strategies to build the developmental assets and characteristics of resiliency. The remaining three AmeriCorps members will volunteer with the Foster Grandparents Program, the Child and Family Program at MSU Extension, and the Family Support Program of Community Mental Health. These three members will work with at-risk and/or developmentally disabled youth and their families to develop plans for personal, family, and school goals. The program will also develop a network of community volunteers and emphasize the value of community service. STRENGTHS The Van Buren Public Health Department has previous experience in administering federal grants and will partner with a variety of community-based organizations, government agencies, and businesses and schools. Also, accountability for the programmatic and financial administration of the program within the applicant organization was clearly identified. AmeriCorps members serving in this program will be placed with organizations that are members of the Strong Families/Safe Children Coordinating Council and will support existing efforts for that initiative. The program seems to understand the importance of having citizens connected and involved, as they aim to use community volunteers as mentors for youth. WEAKNESSES In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support family community services are currently being provided through Health Forward. MCSC staff has requested that the program clarify this and ensure that the program does not/will not duplicate services that are available in the locality of the program. MCSC staff has also requested that the applicant provide information as to the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department and the relationship of the proposed program within that structure. This should also include the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. Also, the plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. The program should discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will use volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. ta t E r 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $113 ,091 f 9 w-~ct..J o... i (: ol.;v~ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ~ r ~)---~eel-./' Q~.;> MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issue outlined to them in the staff review feedback. rc The FTE for this program is $10,077. This is below the MCSC and CNS FTE targeted average cost. ~V{., ~ )~ ,-f:j +i' e--\'L, L 1'--«--~ ? �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Van Buren Public Health Department NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 10 FT _ _ PT _ _ 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Health Forward Mentoring Project will enroll seven AmeriCorps members to mentor Bangor High School students and will work to develop a pool of high school mentors for middle school students. The mentors will employ strategies to build the developmental assets and characteristics of resiliency. The remaining three AmeriCorps members will volunteer with the Foster Grandparents Program, the Child and Family Program at MSU Extension, and the Family Support Program of Community Mental Health. These three members will work with at-risk and/or developmentally disabled youth and their families to develop plans for personal, family, and school goals. The program will also develop a network of community volunteers and emphasize the value of community service. STRENGTHS The Van Buren Public Health Department has previous experience in administering federal grants and will partner with a variety of community-based organizations, government agencies, and businesses and schools. Also, accountability for the programmatic and financial administration of the program within the applicant organization was clearly identified. AmeriCorps members serving in this program will be placed with organizations that are members of the Strong Families/Safe Children Coordinating Council and will support existing efforts for that initiative. The program seems to understand the importance of having citizens connected and involved, as they aim to use community volunteers as mentors for youth. WEAKNESSES In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support family community services are currently being provided through Health Forward. MCSC staff has requested that the program clarify this and ensure that the program does not/will not duplicate services that are available in the locality of the program. MCSC staff has also requested that the applicant provide information as to the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department and the relationship of the proposed program within that structure. This should also include the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. Also, the plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. The program should discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will use volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $113,091 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issue outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTEfor this program is $11 ,309. This is within the MCSC and CNS FTE average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 8 Name of Applicant: Van Buren Public Health Department Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: Needs assessment supported with statistical information/data. Clearly stated program objectives and how those objectives would be accomplished. Good communication between sites, members, and partners. Applicant has a good relationship with community partners. Good host site preparation. Program is utilizing the Search Institute's Youth Asset Model. • • • • • • Strengthening Community: • Applicant understands how important it is to have citizens connected and involved as shown through the use of community members as mentors. • Program is linked to existing efforts, i.e., Strong Families/Safe Children. • Provided a description of program director responsibilities. • Identified who will be accountable for programmatic and financial administration of the program. Developing Members: • Good host site preparation-- prior to arrival of members. • Identified member training elements. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Evaluation plan and feedback plan involves partner agencies that have prior experience. • Host sites will receive instructions and materials necessary to monitor member activities. • Members have an opportunity to evaluate and provide feedback on their training, placement, and support received from host sites. Organizational Capacity: • Applicant organization has prior experience in administering federal grants. • Program director has good credentials. • Identified primary program staff experience and education. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $10,077 FfE cost is below MCSC and CNS PTE average cost. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The objectives do not seem consistent with the proposed outcomes. (Teen drop out rate, teen pregnancy, school success). • Need to quantify how many teens will be engaged at each site . • Please provide examples of member activities that will teach skill development and decision-making skills. • Strengthening Community: • It is unclear how the proposed program will strengthen the community. • In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support pro-family community services are being provided through Health Forward. • The paper does not describe how community resources will be used to address the identified need. Developing Members: • The proposal does not mention how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of AmeriCorps members. • The proposal stated that the members will come together regularly. Please clarify. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The stakeholders will be updated as to the program's progress toward objectives, but do not seem to be part of the feedback beyond determining satisfaction. Please list the stakeholders and how they may participate in the overall evaluation process. Organizational Capacity: • Please describe the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department. What is the annual budget? • Please describe the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. • What amount of time will host sites provide in the supervision of the AmeriCorps members? Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. Discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will utilize volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. • Overall Comments: • The Strengthening Community objectives are weak and will need revisions. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Youth Volunteer Corps: Volunteer Muskegon! NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 8 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Volunteer Muskegon! aims to promote, support, and recognize volunteerism among people with diverse talents and link them to efforts that enrich the county's residents. The program will create and increase volunteer opportunities to address community needs, enrich youth, and develop lifetime commitments to service. STRENGTHS The strengths of the Volunteer Muskegon! program lie in its collaborative partnerships and administrative capacity. While being linked to other Michigan Community Service Commission and Corporation for National Service programs, the program also exhibits a unique partnership between the communities of Alpena and Muskegon. This partnership involves a large number of nonprofit organizations and draws upon an existing administrative structure to serve identified community needs. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned about the lack of clarity as it relates to the program's focus and overall design. Volunteer Muskegon! needs to have over-arching goals that span across all sites and communities. The primary impact of the program should be positive youth development. The secondary impact should be on the service delivered. Outcomes· should relate to the identified community needs. Evaluation is also a concern. Volunteer Muskegon! needs to strengthen its evaluation plan and specify how it will incorporate stakeholder feedback. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $95,835 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $11,979 FfE rate is slightly above the MCSC and CNS targeted FfE rates. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 4 Name of Applicant: Volunteer Muskegon! Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • The proposal had a well developed rationale that was supported by the identified community needs. • The proposed program draws upon an existing administrative structure. • The program is a unique partnership between Alpena and Muskegon. Strengthening Community: • The organization is linked to other MCSC/CNS programs. • The partners were identified. • Past accomplishments were included in the proposal. Developing Members: • The members will keep journals of lessons learned. • The members will develop leadership skills. • The program will host weekly member meetings. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The use of pre- and post- tests is a strength. • The program identified specific outcomes for the community and corpsmembers. • The program will use a self development tool. Organizational Capacity: • Previous AmeriCorps members will be supervising the members. • There is a large number of nonprofits involved in the program. • The organization's past accomplishments and grants received were viewed as strengths. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The FfE rate is lower than the CNS and MCSC target. There is a good balance between the match and the federal funds requested. • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The program needs to have overarching goals that span across all sites and communities. The primary impact of the program should be positive youth development. The secondary impact should be on the service delivered (ie. meals served, trails built, elders visited, etc.) • Describe how the program will ensure that program quality is consistent across both communities. • Describe the difference between the school year component and the summer component. Describe the role of the members in each component. • There was no evidence of what the past program has accomplished. • �• • • • • • • The proposal needs to clearly identify the host sites in both communities for the school year and summer component. Describe how members will be involved in recruiting non-stipended volunteers . The paper did not provide a clearly developed rationale for the program. The paper listed several community needs and statistics, but it is not clear as to how the proposed activities will address the identified needs. Following the needs statement, the proposal should clearly outline the overall program design. This should include the number of members (in Alpena, Muskegon), how the members will be placed, the number of sites the program will operate out of, what the specific member service activities are, the number of youth involved, and the intended impact of those services on the youth. It is unclear as to the local collaborations/ partnerships that will work together on the project. The paper does not describe how and why the community will be improved because of the program. The proposal does state several outcomes, however, it is not clear how these address the identified community needs. Essentially, the proposal did not address the weaknesses/ continuous improvement items as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback for this section. Also, it is important that the proposal address the questions/ feedback in the appropriate section of the narrative. Strengthening Community: • • • • • • Describe the organizational design of the program. Ultimately, who is accountable for what? How will the program draw upon service-learning resources from around the state? How will the proposed program link to Michigan CARES and Learn and Serve? The paper does not identify the assets and resources within the community and how those resources will be utilized to address the identified needs. It is not clear how support for the program will be built among the various community sectors. It is unclear what role partner organizations will play in the administration of the program Developing Members: • • It is clear that the AmeriCorps members will meeting on a weekly basis with the program director, but how often will the entire corps come together? Although the proposal describes the key elements of member training, the paper should discuss any on-going training that will take place throughout the year. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • The proposal listed very specific evaluation activities however they need to be included in · an overall evaluation plan. The proposal did not mention how it will incorporate stakeholder feedback to continually improve the program. The proposal did not address the above points as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. Organizational Capacity: • • • • Describe the accomplishments of your current AmeriCorps program. Describe the lessons learned from the current program and how the proposed program incorporates them. Please clarify the Intermediate School District office and its relationship to the program. Page 14 does not relate to organizational capacity. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • Remove $1.00 per hour supplement from the budget. $11,979 FTE is above MCSC and CNS target FTE rate. �Overall Comments: • • • The paper contained several misspelled words and grammatical errors. AmeriCorps should be spelled correctly! The title page should be typed. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Grand Rapids Service Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Grand Rapids Service Corps (GRSC) brings together young adults, ages 17-24, from diverse backgrounds for a challenging year of full-time community service. The GRSC, in cooperation with community and neighborhood organizations, will develop and implement service projects in order to build a stronger community and tap into the idealism and energy of corpsmembers to develop leadership skills, meet community needs, and generate a strong sense of civic responsibility. The GRSC is committed to having an impact on children in neighborhoods with disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates. The teams will organize and facilitate homework and recreation clubs for school children, an Adopt-A-Senior project for 30 elderly neighborhood residents who wish to continue living in their own homes, a violence-prevention program at Buchanan Elementary School, which has been plagued by playground and neighborhood conflicts, and neighborhood clean-up and restoration programs. STRENGTHS GRSC has attained a strong commitment of involvement from schools and the community which includes an extensive and varied list of partner agencies and organizations and support from the Mayor of Grand Rapids. --- n !l, 1 Regular training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review days (Fridays) provide an overall benefit to the member development portion of the program. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned that the program has not clearly defined its focus nor the specific service activities which the members will participate in order to meet the program's objectives. GRSC needs to strengthen its rationale, projected outcomes, projected impact on the community, and evaluation system. Cj t '- ~ S:l ~ ~ ~ GRSC also needs to provide specifics regarding host sites, selection of neighborhoods, recruitment of additional volunteers, and training for members as it relates to the various focus areas. ~ fl'\ E v ( ~ d.. /l. -~ d , (1 ' \ Q 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $371,352 1 ' 1 - t:-~ -...) ~ Xp~e-t.~ (.,. -· ~ 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS [ rl ,( ~ Staff recommends that this proposal, funded at $232,095, be included in the formula package submitted ) ~ to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them ~ in the staff review feedback. \i The $9,256 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE targeted average cost. &.-Jet ~.,,bl~ bJ Ti 1-1~ C - ,;, veJ~J �bJ- ~ if'/\ fr~ bovh'o- j_f-rd-~c__ ~ I (! Ufl\JL ~ &x o p +~.,_) J �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Grand Rapids Service Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Grand Rapids Service Corps (GRSC) brings together young adults, ages 17-24, from diverse backgrounds for a challenging year of full-time community service. The GRSC, ·in cooperation with community and neighborhood organizations, will develop and implement service projects in order to build a stronger community and tap into the idealism and energy of corpsmembers to develop leadership skills, meet community needs, and generate a strong sense of civic responsibility. The GRSC is committed to having an impact on children in neighborhoods ·with disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates. The teams will organize and facilitate homework and recreation clubs for school children, an Adopt-A-Senior project for 30 elderly neighborhood residents who wish to continue living in their own homes, a violence-prevention program at Buchanan Elementary School, which has been plagued by playground and neighborhood conflicts, and neighborhood clean-up and restoration programs. "-- STRENGTHS GRSC has attained a strong commitment of involvement from schools and the community which includes an extensive and varied list of partner agencies and organizations and support from the Mayor of Grand Rapids. · Regular training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review days (Fridays) provide an overall benefit to the member development portion of the program. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned that the program has not clearly defined its focus nor the specific service activities which the members will participate in order to meet the program's objectives. GRSC needs to strengthen its rationale, projected outcomes, projected impact on the community, and evaluation system. GRSC also needs to provide specifics regarding host sites, selection of neighborhoods, recruitment of additional volunteers, and training for members as it relates to the various focus areas. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $371,352 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal, funded at $232,095, be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $9,284 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE targeted average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 25 Name of Applicant: Grand Rapids Service Corps Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: There is strong involvement from schools and the community. The program uses asset mapping. Combining with the YVC program is a potentially good connection. The list of partners appears extensive and well-rounded, however it would benefit to write what each partner brings to the program. • A team leader on each team provides leadership and direction to each team. • • • • Strengthening Community: • The paper references that they have written partner agreements. • The program has support from the City' s mayor. • There are good plans for member evaluation, especially after the program. However this information should go in the Member Development section. • Good idea for bringing community members together through clean-ups and restoration projects. It would be beneficial to elaborate on the program's philosophy of including community members in the program. Developing Members: • The use of Friday as a training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review day is good for the members and the program. • The program has an Advisory Committee. • The program has a commitment to diversity. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is a good use of member self-evaluations. Organizational Capacity: There is community support for the program. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is community support for the program. In the past there has been a large amount of cash match provided by community organizations. • $9,256 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE average. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The paper does not support an asset-based approach. The paper does not describe outcomes and impact. It only reports on activities. It is not clear how the need in the community has been defined or how it will be met. It only describes activities. • Overall, the paper needs to develop a clear rationale for the program. • The paper needs to support the rationale with statistics on the community. • There is no mention/information on the host sites and their roles and responsibilities. • The paper does not describe the plan they have for recruiting additional volunteers. • The proposal identified the neighborhoods that the program will operate out of, however, it is not clear how those neighborhoods were selected. Indicate whether they are new or continuing neighborhood sites. If the "sites" are continuing, the proposal should discuss the progress the program has made within those communities. • An increased minority population does not imply a deficiency or need within a community (see pg. 2). What is the relevance of the statement? • Please clarify the priority area the proposed program will focus in. The title page states education, public safety, and human needs; yet, the narrative only discusses education. • Define the age range of the service recipients of the program. • Overall, the paper speaks of past service done. Need to detail what they plan to do (be specific) with this new grant. • Overall, this paper did not respond to the questions posed in this section nor did the paper address the weaknesses as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. • • • Strengthening Community: • It is not clear what the program is doing for the community. Clearly state how the program will strengthen the community. • It is not clear how the neighborhoods will be strengthened. • There is no description of the role of the partner organizations. • There is no mention of how the program is linked to other MCSC/CNS programs, especially Michigan CARES. • The paper should elaborate on how support for Michigan's AmeriCorps is built among partners listed in Section 1. • The Strengthening Community objectives are weak. • The proposal did not address the questions/ weaknesses as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. Developing Members: • The proposal does not detail pre-service orientation and training that members will receive; especially as that training relates to the teams' focus area, ie, Adopt-A-Senior, Violence prevention, etc. The pap~r does not discuss the host sites' roles, especially as they pertain to member • supervisiOn. • In the budget there is money budgeted for team leader training, however, this section does not mention what the training is or how it will prepare those members for their specific roles as team leaders. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • With the reports from past activities there is no report on the impacts to-date. • The evaluation approach does not appear to be well conceived. The program has no measure for their impact. • The program needs to clarify what impacts the program intends to make. For a program with three different focuses these intended impacts need to be clear. What are the goals for �• the Adopt-A-Senior component, Neighborhood Clean-up, Violence Prevention, etc.? The Violence Prevention, Neighborhood Clean-up, and Adopt-A-Senior aspects of the program should have been addressed in the Getting Things Done section. Organizational Capacity: • • The paper needs to provide additional information on the staff. It is unclear what the executive director's role is, how much time he/she spends on program. Describe the responsibilities for the executive director. The paper needs to detail the role of the team leader, especially their commitment to the program and their anticipated program/leader abilities as it relates to the organization's capacity. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • • The proposal did not discuss the program's plans for sustainability (programmatic). In the budget, the ArneriCorps members living allowance is reflective of $8,272 rather than $8,340. Provide rationale/ justification for team leaders being provided a considerably larger living allowance than the rest of the corps. In the budget under the Operational category in the Travel line item, MCSC travel cost should be $2,000. Please specify in the budget narrative what supplies includes. Health care costs should be included for each full-time member. Overall Comments: • MCSC is not recommending that this program expand to the Holland area. It is unclear that the program has the capacity to expand. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: United Way Community Services NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS MEMBERS: 25 FT _ _ PT _ _ 2 Yr. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, the Detroit Academic Success Program will continue to provide in school tutoring to 250 low achieving elementary school students in five elementary schools in the Empowerment Zone to increase academic achievement and reading comprehension. The members will also develop after-school tutoring labs for 200 neighborhood youth. In addition, the program will develop community-wide service-learning projects to promote civic responsibility. STRENGTHS To date, the Detroit's Academic Success Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps has increased the reading and math skills in five schools by five percent; raised student attendance rates at the five schools; and provided direct and group tutoring services to more than 1,000 students in four communities in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. The program has developed and participated in more than 15 community-wide service events, developed four advisory boards, and developed a video on best practices for tutoring. Additionally, the program supports the America Reads Initiative. The program provides tutoring activities and after school learning projects to assist students in successfully completing homework tasks. WEAKNESS The primary concern for the program is insufficient reporting. Several progress reports submitted by the program do not contain adequate information as to the program's progress toward objectives, the delivery of service, and the impact of those services within the program. This issue was raised to the program in a feedback document following a recent site visit. In reviewing the renewal application, however, there appears to have been some improvement in this area. FUNDING REQUEST: $318,521 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff is satisfied with the overall quality and accomplishments of the program and recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS . The program will need to demonstrate continued improvement in reporting on progress toward objectives. The FTE rate for this program is $12,740. This is higher than the MCSC and CNS average FTE. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Family Independence Agency NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _ _,_,0"---1 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps will enroll 30 AmeriCorps members to serve in four FIA county offices of Berrien, Wayne, Mackinac, and Kalamazoo. The corpsmembers will continue to work to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. The members facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, pro~ide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves face-to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks . STRENGTHS Please see the attached memo. WEAKNESSES Please see the attached memo. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $287,189 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CNS has requested that this recently awarded Year 2 Subtitle H Governor's Innovative grant be submitted under national competitive. This will not count against MCSC's competitive application total. The FTE for this program is $9,573 which is well below the MCSC and CNS average FTE cost. �OPTIONAl. FORM 99 (7 -90) Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission 111 So. Capitol Ave. Olds Plaza Bldg., 4 11; Floor Lansing, MI 48913 GeNERAL SERVICES Dear Frank: I am pleased to inform you that the Michigan Subtitle H Governor's Innovative Program has been approved for a renewal grant of up to $287,189 for 30 AmeriCorps Members pending grant negotiations. This letter describes any recommendations or suggestions we have for program devdupment and any information we need before we can issue the grant award. In general, the program appears to be progressing well and is addressing start-up problems the staff encountered. We s1J..are the concern expressed by the program staff in the application about the irill.bility to documeni impact because of the lack of hase1ine data on health screenings. It will be important in the second year to find ways to collect this data. In the application, the program staff mention that the Departnlent of CommUPJty Health is working to develop better data collection instruments and a central registry. Can they provide some additional information about that effort? What systems v.ill be used? Will the systems be in place before the new program year in the affected counties? Will the program be able to determine the percentage increase in health screenings and immunizations as a result of AmeriCorps in the coming year? We would also like some additional information concerning how the program staff plans to implement the recommendations from the report on Member retention that the application mentioned would be completed in February. As you know, Member attrition is a concern and we are interested in learning more about how to retain Members. One of the criteria we \\<ill use for determining program quality in the coming year \Vill be a low rate of attrition. We encourage the program to continue the emphasis on supervision and Member development and implement the recommendations mentioned in the application to increase the supervisory responsibilities of the Volunteer Coordinator for the Members. It is very important that Members who have not had regular work or service experiences in the past be given opportunities to learn the skills and habits they need to be successful as AmeriCorps Members. The staff may need to provide some additional training for the Volunteer Coordinators if they are to take on this expanded role. We are somewhat concerned about the pl&'l to enroll the Members a.s needed instead of through regularly scheduled orientations. However, we du want to provide flexibility for different program models and want to learn mon: about the advantages and disadvuntages .\OMI~liSTRATION �of this approach . . \Vill it be possible to evaluate this in the coming year to help us learn more about the pros and cons? The objectives for the program are designed to be measurable, but it is difficult to understand impact with just the raw figures listed. The collection of the baseline data will be a critical element in demonstrating percentage increases and impact. For example, Objective #4 states that 70% of all low income mothers and children \vill receive \VIC and MISS services. What percentage currently receives these services and what is the increase? Could the program staff review the objectives and identify any in which the raw numbers given can be placed in context nO\\' in terms of impact and percentage increases? Finally, since this program will be renewed through the Subtitle C state competitive process, you will need to prepare new title and budget forms using the Subtitle C formats and resubmit the renewal request with your Apri115 compt:liliv~ submission to the Corporation. The budget does not r~quin: revision, but you may want to review it to determine lhal il meets the Subtitle C guidelines. The program staff can include the addilional information we have requested here with the April 15 submission. During the corning year, we are planning a "formative" evaluation process \-Vith some of the Governor's Innovative programs. We are interested in working with you to document the successes of this Micf.igan welfare reform effort and i:1cluding it in our evaluation project. Linda Camino and David Rymph will be in contact with you soon to discuss this further. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Vle are pleased to be supporting the program again and look forward to wmking \-Vith you in the coming year. Sincerely, Margaret Rosenberry, Director Planning and Program Development �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Family Independence Agency NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 30 FT _ _ PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps will enroll 30 AmeriCorps members to serve in four FIA county offices of Berrien, Wayne, Mackinac, and Kalamazoo. The corpsmembers will continue to work to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. The members facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, provide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves face-to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks . STRENGTHS Please see the attached memo. WEAKNESSES Please see the attached memo. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $287,189 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CNS has requested that this recently awarded Year 2 Subtitle H Governor's Innovative grant be submitted under national competitive. This will not count against MCSC's competitive application total. The FTE for this program is $9,573 which is well below the MCSC and CNS average PTE cost. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: April 10, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: ------"'1~0_FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center "Volunteers Promoting Opportunity and Responsibility" serves to mobilize the strengths and skills of its constituency. Simultaneously, it demonstrates and models the principle that citizenship obligates us to assist others so as to strengthen the ethical foundation of our democratic society. An AmeriCorps team of 10 members will focus on three issues surrounding current refugees who have been evicted from Iraq. The members will provide services that will assist the refugees with securing housing, health care, resource identification, and language translation. The members will work to improve public safety within the community. The members will also assist individuals who are seeking employment, especially as it relates to identifying barriers to employment. Additionally, the members will establish a volunteer recruitment program within the community. STRENGTHS • • • • • • • • The needs of refugees are genuine and important. There are few groups or individuals who are more at risk than newly arrived-to-the-country refugees. The program reinforces the value of service in this community and culture. The program will work to recruit and train volunteers to help address the need. This lends itself to the overall sustainability of the program. The program uses the assets of the service recipient to reduce the charity case effect. There is a plan in placy to ease and assist cultural transition. There is a strong process for obtaining stakeholder feedback. There is a good commitment to increasing the number of volunteers for the program. The staff seems very dedicated and has the capacity to organize large events, however it sounds like the organization is already stretched to oversee the existing program. The applicant will need to describe how the organization will effectively manage the program, not to mention the additional responsibilities of the AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES • • • • • The paper does not succinctly describe the measurable impact of the program. In particular, there is no indication of the number of individuals/clients the program will impact as a result of the members' service. For example, how many individuals will obtain housing, obtain employment, etc. Additionally, with the broad range of proposed services, it may not be realistic for the ten members to make a significant impact in each of these areas. The paper does not address collaborations and/or partnerships that will work together on the project. The paper does not address what impact the program will have on the variety of social service agencies that are currently a part of the refugees' daily life. The paper does not address how the proposed program will enhance or complement the existing services provided by the social service agencies or how the proposed program will increase the capacity of the agencies to serve the refugees. The roles of four of the AmeriCorps members were not clearly described. It is not clear what their specific tasks or duties will be and how they relate to the overall goals of the program. The paper needs to provide details on collaborations and partnerships that will work with this program. The paper needs to provide details as to the roles and responsibilities of partners. There is no evidence of coordination with other community-based organizations and government agencies. This needs to be discussed, especially as it relates to referrals, resources that they provide, and how they support the members' activities. �• • • • • • The paper did not provide a comprehensive explanation of how the members' training will prepare them for their term of service, specifically, how it relates to the programs' objectives (i.e. housing, employment, public safety.) The comprehensive proposal did not adequately detail the anticipated outcomes of the members' service activities. The program mentions recruiting 264 volunteers, however, the staffs capacity to oversee and manage the volunteers is not discussed in the proposal. Although the applicant mentions that they currently receive a federal grant for a senior program, they do not mention how the grant is administered, the program's focus nor how this program is comparable to the proposed AmeriCorps program. There is no plan for sustainability of the program. There is no money in the staff category to support staff activity. There is very little money included in the staff category to support the program. As stated at the technical assistance meeting in February, a program of this size, with this many members will require a full-time program director. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $109,920 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff does not recommend that this proposal be included in any funding package to the Corporation for National Service. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 10, 1997 PROPOSAL: Wayne State University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: ---=2=-0- FT ---"'6=0_ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION STRENGTHS • The program will increase the number of teen parents who obtain their GED. The program also plans to reduce the number of new teenage pregnancies. • Good advisory board which includes teen parents. • The training that is being scheduled appears to be strong. • The applicant has good organizational capacity. WEAKNESSES • The rationale for the program is weak. It is unclear how the local need had been identified. • The impact of the program is limited. AmeriCorps members will only assist teen parents who are already engaged in pursuing a high school diploma or GED. The applicant should consider taking preventive actions to incorporate teens that may not be actively pursuing a high school diploma or GED. The paper does not provide a rationale for members working with only two teen parents. It • is not clear what other service activities the members will perform. The impact on the larger community is minor especially as it relates to the number of teen parents impacted on by the program. The paper does not clearly describe the members' daily tasks/activities . • The paper does not discuss how the proposed program will increase the success rate of teen • parents obtaining a high school diploma or GED. • The paper did not describe how the AmeriCorps members will generate additional volunteers within the community. • The community strengthening objectives appear to be unrealistic. The applicant makes the assumption that once teens obtain a high school diploma or GED, they will become gainfully employed. A very important component of the program could be the inclusion of a support system for the teen parents that would include career and personal development opportunities. The paper does not discuss how the proposed program will enhance or complement • existing services and organizations that serve the same population. • The paper does not discuss the role of partner agencies in the administration of the program or the resources that each partner will provide to support the program. The program is proposing a large number of AmeriCorps members (four times the original • amount requested.) The paper does not describe the daily management and coordination of services for such a large number of members. Nor does it describe the administrative structure of the overall program. • In general the evaluation plan was unclear and does not reflect the stated program objectives. • It is not clear what role the Dean will take in the administration and oversight of the program. �• • • • • The paper does not address the roles of the six student helpers as mentioned in the budget. There was no mention of these staff members in the program narrative. The paper did not clearly describe the roles of the program director, program assistant, or secretary. There is no plan for sustainability for the program. There is limited in-kind and cash match support . Overall, several required objectives were missing and the application was incomplete. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $225,820 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff does not recommend that this proposal be included in any funding package for submission to the Corporation for National Service. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Proposal-Review-Forms Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting proposal review forms Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting proposal review forms. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49878 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/84c3eec38087354039d9af55f104006c.pdf a2407f115cf99275389380c2bc0999c6 PDF Text Text April8, 1997 <Field:1 > Dear <Field:2> : Thank you for participating in the Michigan Community Service Commission' s public information gathering meeting on March 25, 1997. The meeting provided the Commission with important views from the field. Your insights and comments were very helpful. You provided a valuable perspective that will help us in our future considerations. We hope that you will remain involved in the work of the Commission and we look forward to hearing about your continued efforts in support of service and volunteerism in Michigan. Please don't hesitate to contact our staff with other comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your time and ideas. Sincerely, Michelle Engler �April 8, 1997 Ms. Aria Larsen, Director Lapeer and Genesee Counties Senior Companion Program 202 East Boulevard Drive Flint, Michigan 48503-1891 Dear Ms. Larsen: Thank you for participating in the Michigan Community Service Commission's public information gathering meeting on March 25. The meeting provided the Commission with important views from the field. Your insights and comments were very helpful. You provided a valuable perspective that will help us in our future considerations. We hope that you will remain involved in the work of the Commission and we look forward to hearing about your continued efforts in support of service and volunteerism in Michigan. Please don't hesitate to contact our staff with other comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your time and ideas. Sincerely, Michelle Engler �March 20, 1997 <Field:1> Dear <Field:2>: Thank you for agreeing to share your views with the Michigan Community Service Commission at a public information gathering meeting on March 25, 1997. The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 4:30p.m. at the Kellogg Center, Room 105 A&B Michigan State University, Harrison Road, East Lansing. The meeting is intended to provide the Commission with views from the field in order to help it determine the best way to support and develop national and community service and volunteer programs in Michigan. Your program work and leadership will bring an important perspective to the Commission. We ask that you prepare a five to seven minute oral presentation. You may also wish to submit it in writing as well. After your presentation there will be up to eight minutes of questions and answers with members of the Commission. The total time allotted to your session will be fifteen minutes. After providing a brief introduction to your program and how it works in your community, we ask that you frame your presentation around the following questions: 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the way national and community service programs are supported in Michigan? 2) In the ideal, what is the best way that national and community service and volunteerism should be supported in Michigan? 3) What should the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in Michigan? Enclosed, you will find information on the meeting location and directions. We are delighted that you will be able to join us to share your views. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely, Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Public-Information-Meeting-Thank-You-Letters Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting public information meeting thank you letters Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting public information meeting thank you letters. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49879 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c7d6f685065e7f9ec53fcf55b13a423b.pdf 2bd3c9d0eb7eb5da102a95079897cdf1 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Ca pitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michig an 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Administration Michigan Community Service Commission RE: Administrative Issues DATE: June 3, 1997 /)h>"\ .t'P/ Attached is the Commission's Comparative Financial Statement for the quarter ending March 31 , 1996. We have recently received our award letters for the Operational and Program Development and Training grant (P-DAT). There are some major changes in this quarter's financial statement. Under the federal Operational and P-DAT grants, almost all the line items have been adjusted to account for the new award budget and also to account for a large increase in administration costs to the Michigan Jobs Commission (MJC) and Department of Management and Budget (DMB). I have increased the admin line in the Operational grant to account for the increased rates. We had originally allocated $54,197 for MJC administrative overhead. At the end of this quarter, we were informed that the Cost Allocation Plan for MJC worked out to a share of approximately $26,000 per quarter for a yearly total of $104,000. Also included in this line is a increase of our indirect rate to $30,000 for the year. This change can be directly attributed to the increase in personnel costs for the Commission. The indirect rate is figured on salary and benefits for the quarter. The commission will incur heavy training and conference charges in the quarter ending June 30, 1997, with the Super Conference and the May meeting of the State Executive Directors Group. We will also have the Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service project in late June. Based upon the comparative financial statement and our current spending pace, the only concern that we are currently working on is the expiration date of our operational grant. Depending on how the State's budget process works out, we may need to request an earlier end date for this grant. We will be able to further determine the possibility of the request late this summer. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission ~~ �Michigan Community Service Commission Comparative Financial Statement/FY 97 As of March 31, 1997 STATE FUNDS Learn & Serve Budaet YTD Actual Michigan CARES Budget YTD Ac1ual 3 ,386 , 4 2 8 107 .676 160 ,000 0 160,000 2 74 ,000 152 306 274,000 152 306 116929 0 116929 8,250 8 ,250 85 790 3 494 104 3 494 104 160 000 160 000 426 306 426 306 116929 n6929 8 ,250 8 ,25 0 85 790 3,494 , 1 0 4 3 ,49 4 , 104 1 29 ,642 129 ,642 0 187,000 0 187 ,000 0 9 1 000 91 000 129 642 187 000 187 000 91 000 9 1 000 50,762 30,726 9 ,9 2 9 41 ,262 5 ,000 3 4 ,9 13 0 5,038 0 6,879 7' 160 0 1 ,83 4 0 2,122 0 Volunteer Awareness Current Year Income Prior Year Ca rryover 175,700 175,700 100 , 000 100 , 000 0 0 0 0 2 84 , 586 90 000 284,586 90 000 100,795 20 000 1 00,795 20 000 3,386,428 107 .676 Total Revenues 175700 175700 100 000 100 000 374 586 374 586 120 795 120 795 Budget YTD Actual Operational Budget YID Actual P-DA T Budget YTD Actual TOTALS PRIVATE & FOUNDATION FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS GFIGP Budget YTD Actual AmeriCorps Budget YID Actual Michigan CARES-2 Budget YTD Actual l egi slativ e Bkfasl Budget YTD Actual State ED grant Budget YID Actual Budoet YTDActuals 85 790 4 ,481,509 580 9 51 4 ,481, 5 09 580 95 1 85 790 5 062 460 5 062 460 3,810,746 91 000 3 ,810,746 91 000 3 901 746 3 90 1 7 46 366 ,217 147,000 164,541 24 ,000 103,753 81 ,8 46 25,520 84 ,85 5 22,658 35,9 13 10 4411 1 90 , 974 70 ,956 14 ,349 253 8 , 727 19,000 1 9,528 8 , 086 4 , 4 93 2,247 20 1 02 REVE!'L£S SUB-GRANTS Program Sub-G rants Operations Sub-Grant s 0 0 0 Total Sub-Grants 0 0 0 0 3 494 1 0 4 3 49 4 104 1 29 642 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ,000 0 8,000 0 7 , 800 0 0 0 0 0 34,679 0 6,7 41 0 46 , 1 1 1 1 '129 ADMIN. EXPENSES Salaries & Benefits Admin Consultants Evaluation/ Survey 1 60 ,526 3,000 15 0 20 ,0 0 0 16,000 Training Travel Computer/Off Eq uip. Meetings Wkshps/Conferences 79 ,344 5, 1 74 5,000 0 0 563 0 1 ,408 0 18 , 120 18 , 120 0 8 , 000 145 ,000 140 ,000 2 , 500 0 2 , 000 1 7,300 0 7 , 500 7 , 500 80 , 9 0 4 70 , 94 1 326 0 0 6 , 863 0 4 , 555 3, 1 2 9 Materials/Guides P rinting/Mai ling 0 0 6 1 '1 00 0 48 , 180 7' 1 1 5 2 ,400 1 ,000 0 1 ,000 2 , 244 0 1 , 848 3, 846 0 168 0 125 0 37 . 880 8.543 52 786 11 080 Total Admin Expenses 175 .700 81 . 330 100 000 26 663 37 4 586 177 798 120 .795 8 , 231 TOTAL EXPENDrTURES 175.700 81 .330 100 000 26 663 374 586 177 798 1 20.795 8.2 3 1 REMAINING RJNDS 2 .000 94,370 73 ,3 37 196 , 788 112,564 0 3 494 104 3 4 9 4 10 4 253 53 ,573 36 ,457 0 22,339 8 , 000 900 7' 158 0 2.500 568 0 400 1 ,36 4 0 479 30 . 358 3.06 4 239 306 53 759 25 , 929 160 000 132 706 4 26 306 2 40 759 11 6 929 27,294 1 85 , 547 0 0 0 0 0 7 , 00 5 3,000 0 0 0 9 1 000 25 , 929 0 0 0 1 .245 5 .000 0 8 , 250 85.790 7 .8 70 1 160 7 14 358 715 8.250 85 , 790 7 . 870 5 062 460 4 260 4 61 8 ,25 0 M.C.S.C., in cooperation with the Capital Area Community Foundation, also receives additional support from pri vate sources to help offset the cost of the Governor's Community Service Awards Program and the AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. 7 7 ,920 801 ,999 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Administrative-Issues Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative Issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative Issues. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49880 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5deb2541203c63921c0da8b720cc12f0.pdf 9515eef2f2a7270799380873f166c1de PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir..,.........._,.., Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave. Bldg., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan' s AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner: Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Department of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps Mll..ES _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission i! �SERVICE COMMISSION MICHIGAN COMMUNITY Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Frank Dirks, Ex. Director Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 517-496-8827 If"''"'""""" Ms. Meg Smith (313)847-0582 Mr. Michael Tate 517-355-6580 Ext. Mr. MatthewWesaw nYe~ (517)484-6772 y Mr. RaymondWest «?v't~ (313)226-9215 \' Ms. Geneva Jones Williams ~ iN' 313-226-9444 Ms. Nancy Lenz ClJ 0..;-~f: (616)349-0549 ' I Mr. Doug Stites (MJC) 517-373-6227 Kathleen Keen McCarthy (313)453-3840 Sit-. Ms. Bonnie Graham(OA) 517-373-9360 web Jim Muir (616)243-3555 1 Sam Singh(MNA) (517)353-5038 Lisa McGettigan(MCC) Don Newport (517)356-9021 Ext . . 276 (517)353-9393 /)~_,A . .J... n ~· Mary Pheiler-Detroit Corporation (313)-226-7848 Dr. Joel Orosz 616-969-2308 Staff (F. Dirks, M. Estrada, L.Reurink:, G. Gross, P. Kaiser, D. Wells, A. Salas, J. Epps, T. McCloskey) Ms. Amber Pritchard (616)796-3214 (Work) 1 �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir........~­ Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave. Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner: Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Department of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps Mll...ES _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questiop.s, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan . Jobs Commission 01. ~·~ NC'I'CLI'OI>~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chalrparson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir,_~ Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative recommendations of the Michigan·s AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name Qf Commissioner: Eclucation Award Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth !)?artment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Approve -~ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan .A!neriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorp.s MILES _.2S.. Approve __ Disapprove Couunents: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335·4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)3354295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission c. · -=,~ T.C:Vl ~~6v £~£ ~~s ~ lDDHDS H~IH sn1nwo~ �MI c:tl1'WITY SERV ([}1 Jun 2S '97 Fax:517-373-4977 9:20 ?.02 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN eNGLER, Governor MICHIGAN CoMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Cftairperson M'JChelle Engler execu1ive otrecuw MEMORANDUM Frank OiJ1<s TO: MCSC Conmri~~onexs FROM: Fnmk~~nn · ~~,~~~~­ RE: June 6, 1997 Commi!Sion ~g DATE: lane 1~ 1997 Midli&an eommuM:),-scmoe CoJJDDM!~ Please complete and . fu. this form to the MCSC (.517~335-4295) by dose of business on "1.'11.nnday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials tbat were bauded out at the June 6 Commissioo meeting. If you have any questions. please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the M.iQhigan.Jobs Commission -At (';/('; 3!J'dd tt..ttE:SSS08 t • a i ~N30N3~N I ~3d05 ' W0~d 80 ' 80 1..8- SCI- NOC �jlfN 25 .. 1cJr- i12i: 32~fMAOONNA STATE OF MICHIGAN ..•.. ... .. P. IXP. 2/ 2 Jun 25 '97 UN1vE:RsrtY77 ''' . • ! .· ·. •• • ' . .. . JOHN ENGL!JI\, Govemcr MICHIQAN COMMUNITY S~AVICE COMMISSION 1 11 Chairpareon s. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Bid;., 4th Flcor Michelli Engler - Executhlt Director l.an•ln;, Michisa" 4891S Teler>hone (517) 3S5-429! · · F/JJ< (517) 373·4Sin MEMORANDUM Frank Olrkl TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks. Exeeutive Dir·~II/~r~;:r­ RE: Iune 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June: 12, 1997 Michigan Community Service Co At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Micb.tgan Community Service CommiisfOn (MCSC) staff's a.dministrative recommendations of the Michi,an'a AmcriCotps Education Award Only and Renewal packqes. The committee voted unanimously to support the paebges. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meetin1 packet (that wu mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommenclations of the packages. ~ ~ ~ ~ Nam• ofColnQIIufoner: 2 E4ucat1on Award Only Px:ogosah; •Alma College: Poousing on Children and Youth · nt of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps rove _ O.i.capprove ~ . . Renewal Progo••Js •American Youth Foundation: Rural Stratclic Action Initiative tCarinJ Toaetber Elderserve •family Independence Agenc}': Citizen's Health Service Corps •FiU:J~rald :Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · •Michiae Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michi1an .A.merlCorps •LutheraD Social Services: Ame.riCorps Mn.ES ___i( Anprove _Disapprove ~ts: :Please complete and tax thfs form to the MCSC (517·~·4295) by close ot business on Thursday• June 19.' Also enclosed are meeting materials tbrt1.ere handed out at the June 6 Commission moetinc. U you have any questio~St please call m.e at (S 17)335-4295. A. OiViaicn cf the Mlchlgan.Jobs Oommiealol'l il �. JUN:25-97 WED 8:40 LITTLE CAESAR ENT, INC. FAX NO. 3139836049 P. 02 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Executive Director MEMORANDUM Franl< Dirks ro. FROM: Lansing, M!chigan 489'13 Telephone (517) 335-4296 FAX (517) 373-4977 MCSC Commissioners Frank Dirks, Executive Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. 11Je committee has asked you to review the proposal review foi1115 that were enclosed in your meeting packe.t (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commiuloner: Dw'lc.c J:\'\tt b Wb~ · Education Award Oply PrQposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth D artment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Approve . __ Disapprove mcnts: Renewal Proposal~ •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen 9 s Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald PUblic Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES _Disapprove ..;¥..-Approve "mments: Please complete and fax tbis form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were banded out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan. Jobs Commission ~ -=-~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Avt George W. Romney Bldg. , 4th Floc Lansing. Michigan 4891 Executive Director MEMORANDUM Frank Dirks TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir...-...Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 Telephone (51 7) 335·429: FAX (51 7) 373-49T. At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner; Eu.nj (,:~ Education Award Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Df;.partment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps __ •r Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES ~Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission cr.· ---~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Mich igan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 rank Dirks, Executive Dir..,..... Michigan Community Service Co J.l,l.....,. RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES _1(Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission a. · ~1CIOH IIEC'I'a.101'.o..ot:,. �MAR-21- ' 80 WED 08:02 ID: TEL NJ : MI COvlMUNITY SERV COI1 Fax: 51 7- 373-4977 1:!938 P01 Jun 24 '97 P.Ol 15:41 STATE OF MICHICiAN .. . JOHN ENGL.~A , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chelrpe,..on ~corgo Michelle Engler - Eneutlve Dlreotor FranK Dirks MEMORANDUM 11 1 S. Cap!tot Ave. Bldg., -+th F l o~r t.ansins , Michigan 4e;13 T&lep h~;~n• {51 '7) 335-42QS W. ~ornney FAX (517) 373•49n ~- . TO: MCSC Comm.issioners FROMt Frank DirkJ, Executive D~ Michigan Community Service Co RE~ June 6, 1997 Commtsslon meeting DATEI 1une 12, 1997 ' ion At the Commission meetin~ on.Iune 6, we discussed the Michigan Cou'Uilunity Service Commission (MCSC) staff's adm.Wisrrauve recommendations of the Michigan's AmerlCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted un.ously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review ~ proposal reYiew forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on t h : r·nistrativc recommendations of the packages. ~ ~ Naw• of Commlllllmer• ~}U.i)Y U /),_ ,j Renewal Proposals •American YQ'\ltQ ;Fo'Wldation: RI.Ual Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Tosether Elderserve •Family In4cpe.nd~ Agency: Citizeo's Health Servic:c Corps •Fitzgerald PUblic Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Miclii: an Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCo:rps an Social Services: Ame.riCorps Mn..BS _ _ Disappro\'C WQV£ Comments: · · Please complete and fax thi5 form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close or business on Thl;l~day, June 19. Also enclosed are .meeting materials ~~!(em hW~t at the June 6 Comrruss1on meeti1lg.Ifyou have any questions, please r:alJ me a&!7)3354~ . a r~--------- A Division of the Michlgan .Jobs Comm ission Wl!lll'. . . . . �Jun-a0-97 12:10P 1;(:48 P . Ol P.02 STATE OF M ICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER. Govemor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperaon Miet'telle Engler t.xec:utlve DJrector Frank Oirb MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dirl~u:.,.... Michigan ColllUlumty S~ce Co RE: 1Wle 6, 1rJ97 Commis~ion meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 1, 1 S. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Sldg., 4th Floor l.ansing, Michigan 48913 Telephol'le (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commissio!l meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative m;ommcndations of the Micbigan•s Anleri.Corps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously ro suppon the packages. The committee has aske(i you w review the Foposal review forms that were cnclosed in your meeting packet (tbat was IJlailcd to you) azld indicate your views on the administrative recommenda.rioiU of the j \,_~ LA F_:.~.· packages. Name of ..Co_mmj+,loner: Ednr.auon Award O•b r···'. l.J..._1 M M r 0G·<; {}' ' PropmaJs •Ahna College; Focusing on ChildreD and Youth · nt of Natural Reso~ Michigan Civilian Conservation Cotps pprove · . __ Disapprove Repewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Eldcr-.ve "family lndepeDdence Agency: Cirtz.en•s Health Service Corps •fjtzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · ·Michiaao Nonprofit Association. Volunteer CentErs of Michigan AmeriCoif's ·~~ Social Services: ~~rove A.meriCorps MlLES ~-Disapprove Comments: Please complet£ and fax this form to the MC5C (517-335-4295) by dose or busiaess on Th\ll'Sday, JUDe 19. AJso enclosed are meeting materials that Wf)te handed out at the June 6 CommisSiott meeting. Hyou bavc any guestio~, please call me at (517)335429.5. A o;v;sion Of the Michigoai'I.Jobs Commission 0. ..==:... �se ne by: Academic Affairs 06 / 20/97 19:50 517 774 1408 Page 111 J ob 173 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Mic helle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks. Executive Dir...-~­ Mkhignn Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 S. Cap itol Ave . Geo rge W Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335 ·4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 /?) Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335·4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the M ic h igan Jobs Comm ission i! ' �JUN~17-97 TUE 8:31 COUNCIL OF MI FOUNDATION FAX NO. 6168421 760 P. 01 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Conunissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir~­ Michigan Collllllunity Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 $ . Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone {517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Conunission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of t]:le Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your ·views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. · - ~N~~==~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~ Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth · De nt of Naturdl Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps rove ,. _ Disapprove onune ts: . Renewal Prof1sals •American YouFoundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve · •Family Independence Agency: Citizen,' s Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Vol~teer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lut_boiaff"Social Setvices: AmeriCorps Mll...ES .X:: Approve · . . ~Disapprove Comments! Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by dose of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions. please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the MJchigan. Jobs Commission ~ -=:-.::... � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Administrative-Recommendations-Results Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative recommendations results Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative recommendations results. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49881 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5a21d34c6dd743fe493269ed66d32b0c.pdf 400f7f82217d69a9bd1acb270124b0c8 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Agenda June 6,1997 Michigan Community Service Commission Senior Services, Inc. 918 Jasper Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 1:00 p.m.-4:00p.m. uufe/' I. Welcome and Introductions- Terry Pruitt II. Review of February 14, 1997 and April10, 1997 Minutes -Terry Pruitt III. Program Updates a. b. c. d. e. Michigan CARES - Paula Kaiser Michigan's AmeriCorps- Daphne Wells Governor's Community Service Awards- Lindy Reurink Learn & Serve Michigan - Angelia Salas Budget and Administration - Garry Gross IV. Executive Director's Report- Frank Dirks v. Commission Initiatives (Status) t:tlr~adv ~/ft,. __ L a. b. c. d. VI. National State Service Commission Meeting- Frank Dirks President's Summit Planning - Frank Dirks ~ t"A I r-<:qct y ---b. It Volunteer Investment Grant Proposal -Terry Pruitt/Frank Dirks New Quest Grant- Angelia Salas 6. P~- ~(/v\,\ ay- Mv 1'sovl..(, ~t,.VV\C. t, f New Business (Action Items) a. b. VII. ?<-b ~. Michigan's AmeriCorps Application- Daphne Wells Review of Hearing Reports - Frank Dirks Public Comment Next Commission meeting will be September 12, 1997 hosted by Commissioner Orosz in Battle Creek. Gmun issJ.cmf/r ()Y()S:? ( omm,ss;(;rr;er- We~w_ fUm~ : 3: 5o pffl a --.-vr � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49882 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6af689b35f3eb0bf85bf060d38f96d99.pdf 1dbf7d5b154c95cd088baa3a65f05ca9 PDF Text Text June 6, 1997 Commission Report Angelia Salas III. Program Updates d. Learn and Serve Michigan On March 14th the we submitted our three year application for Learn and Serve funds from the Corporation. We worked jointly with the Michigan Department of Education to develop applications that reflect the common goals for service-learning in Michigan. The applications reflect the need to create school/community partnerships around the need to make a positive impact on the community and to provide quality educational experience which focus on the necessity to develop civically responsible citizens. • Worked with members of the SLLC to insure the highest quality application possible. The Michigan Department of Education is eligible to receive $815,563 for one year. MCSC is eligible to receive up to $500,000 over the course of three years. • RFP's would be distributed in the early fall (August). • A portion of my time is covered by MDE so that I may continue to provide program monitoring and help fashion training and technical assistance. Because the school-based grant coordinator has retired from the MDE we will be working with her unit to help transition the Learn and Serve program into another unit in the Department of Education. To help provide some amount of continuity to the program, an increased portion of my salary is being covered by the MDE. In the past year, MDE covered 1/4 of my salary. During the new program grant cycle the Department will cover 112. I have spent this spring doing site visits to the school-based Learn and Serve program sites. Many of the other school-based programs had not received formal site visits in the past. I have been using this opportunity to work with the programs to develop strategies for improvement as they move into the fall term. Over the course of the last month and a half I have completed a total of 11 full day SB and CBO site visits. More visits are scheduled throughout the summer. In May a meeting was held to introduce our new grantee to our grant policies and procedures. We used the day as a time to also introduce them to the service-learning resources in the state and to address perceived challenges as they got started. The feedback from the meeting was extremely positive. The new grantees were interested in doing this type of event again right away. I will probably be scheduling a conference call with them in the next month. Currently working to develop the RFP and RFP process for both the sb and CB programs. V. Commission Initiatives d. New Quest Grant We were just approved by Quest International to receive a $15,000 training and technical assistance grant. We proposed a series of regional trainings on various service-learning topics which will be identified according to school-based and community-based grantees. We proposed that the regions be arranged according to Michigan -CARES sites. At Tuesday's CARES retreat, several sites showed real interest in hosting the trainings. It is expected that the trainings will be organized to generate networking among school and CBO staff. We also hope that regional service-learning network will develop as a result of these trainings. We will be working to keep the regions networked between trainings. The dates for these events will be selected according to the needs of the individual sites. However it is anticipated that the first event will take place in time to provide a good outreach opportunity for the Learn and SERVE- Michigan grant program. �Michigan Community Service Commission meeting June 6,1997 Kalamazoo, Michigan 12 noon - 4:00 pm Michigan's AmeriCorps Emergency Based Response Team • MCSC has been working with the Emergency Management Division (EMD) of the State Police to develop a Michigan's AmeriCorps Emergency Based Response Team. The team would respond to natural disasters in Michigan. • In March, the team, comprised of 19 AmeriCorps members, received an introduction to Emergency Management in Michigan and participated in an abbreviated Damage Assessment workshop. • The member are now enrolled through the Emergency Management Division of the state police to receive EMD training. In July, the team will participate in a 2-3 day training that will include a Rapid Impact Assessment training followed by a Disaster Recovery Operations and/ or a Damage Assessment Workshop. • The training is free and will prepare the members for their volunteer service. • Once the members complete their training, the team will be placed on a volunteer roster and will be called upon during natural disasters. • Typically, they will receive a call to respond from the EMD and have 24 hour notice to respond to the natural disaster site. They will volunteer for 4 to 10 days. Housing and meals will be arranged through the local Emergency Operation Center or the Red Cross. • In return for their service, the team will receive a Michigan's AmeriCorps EBRT t-shirt, a write up in the MCSC newsletter, and a certificate of completion. Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project • June 28 is the date of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. • This year we are piggy-backing on Habitat for Humanity's Housing Blitz. We will be landscaping, planting trees, shrubs, flowers, painting, putting in electrical fixtures, and cleaning the build areas to help in renovating 20 substandard homes in northwest Detroit. �• The project will involve approximately 300 AmeriCorps members and staff. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Commission-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting commission report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting commission report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49883 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d4f71100c40c814f02b55c55eec21c19.pdf 03c1d03797796198fb8ce7bf9544c5c5 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: The Michigan Community Service C~ FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commi RE: Executive Director's Report DATE: June 5, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michig an 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517 ) 373-4977 on A BUSY AND PRODUCTIVE SPRING First, I would like to begin by apologizing to you for my inexcusable tardiness in presenting this report to you. You should not have to receive this on the meeting day. A thorough report from your director in sufficient time for review is the minimum that you should be able to expect. All I can do is promise that I will not disserve you in this manner again . Let me also take a moment to recognize the extraordinary efforts of a number of our key staff members in this very busy and productive spring. Lindy Reurink, Paula Kaiser, Daphne Wells, and Mary Estrada have gone above and beyond in their long hours of work in support of MCSC' s activities this spring. In a staff of hard working spirits, these four have shined. This spring, MCSC was typically busy and productive. Not including our standard reporting and administrative duties, since our February meeting we have: • reviewed, refined, and finalized a package of 28 AmeriCorps program grant applications for CNS ; • prepared MCSC' s new Learn and Serve America Community-based program grant proposal to CNS; • assisted MDE in preparing and writing a new collaborative Learn and Serve America School-based proposal that enhances MCSC's role in these programs (CNS has just announced its award to both of these proposals); • established an operational partnership with MDE to monitor and provide technical assistance to its 28 Learn and Serve programs-- MCSC has onducted 8 site visits to school-based programs, which for most sites has proven to be a first-time site visit; • conducted 3 communitybased Learn and Serve America program site visits; • finalized and printed the college volunteer recruitment poster; • assisted in the coordination and implementation of Michigan' s first ever Volunteer Superconference; • facilitated a statewide meeting of AmeriCorps program members; • facilitated four statewide AmeriCorps program director meetings; • conducted a meeting of the senior advisory council; • solicited Michigan CARES communities Phase II-Year 2 community proposals; organized and facilitated the Presidents' Summit community planning and communication; • developed a comprehensive guidebook for Michigan' s Summit delegation; • coordinated briefings, press releases, and speeches with the Governor's office for his participation A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission a. ~~ ~·- �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Two in the Summit; • coordinated the selection of the Governor's Summit delegation; • coordinated travel for Summit communities with Northwest Airlines through a reduces rate secured by MCSC' s chair; • assisted in staffing the Governor and First Lady at the Summit; • conducted a statewide follow up meeting with Summit communities; • coordinated with Connect Michigan Partners post Summit follow up; printed and disseminated new Reach for the Promise Corporate Outreach brochures for Summit follow up; • established five corporate contacts for post Summit follow up; • prepared five speeches for the First Lady on topics related to service and volunteerism; • prepared an article for the First Lady on service for inclusion in the Michigan Chamber of Commerce magazine; • coordinated a post Summit mailing from the First Lady to members of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; • facilitated the selection of Governor's Service Award winners; • planned, printed programs, and coordinated events and press outreach related to the Governor' s Service Awards Dinner; • planned, coordinated, and staffed the national meeting of state service commission in Midland; • coordinated information dissemination for the legislative progress of MCSC' s proposed Volunteer Investment Grants program; • conducted a statewide meeting of the Service Learning Leadership Council; • Compiled a statewide service learning survey of Michigan's schools; • conducted a Michigan CARES community planning retreat; and supported and participated in ten regional trainings conducted by Michigan 4-H. So far, since April, the Governor's and First Lady's support of service and MCSC have generated more than 40 recorded print press hits. This enumeration of activities has not been exhaustive, but it is intended to strongly challenge the scurrilous assertions of the bureaucratic defenders of the status quo that MCSC has a staff of ten to administer 20 programs. Our work has indeed drawn attention, and as a result criticism. Yet, you can be proud of what we have accomplished and rest assured that MCSC is recognized as the state commission leader for service in the United States. UPDATES Michigan's AmeriCorps We completed our analysis of retention and attrition rates for all of our first year AmeriCorps programs. While the rates were higher than we expect, we were pleased to find that the final, actual FfE rate for programs in year one was $12,272. This figure is below the current, reduced CNS cap, and only $700 more than out third year budgeted rate. While attrition is a concern, this low FfE rate answers the critics concerns about cost. We have also established, in cooperation with the program directors, a work group to develop recommendations to operationalize attrition control policies for next year's programs. Learn & Serve Michigan CNS has announced its award to MCSC for a new three-year grant with a first year figure of $150,000. In addition, MCSC's collaborative proposal with MDE was awarded $815,000. MCSC, working in partnership with MDE and the Service Learning Leadership Council also just secured a $15,000 grant from Quest International for outreach and training activities for supporting service learning. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Three Michigan CARES MCSC has been working with consultant, Frank Slobig, to develop a community resource guide that will be used for broader dissemination. The strongest communities a currently Muskegon, Grand Rapids, and Flint. In Muskegon and Flint CARES has helped to develop newly constituted Volunteer Centers. MCSC will disseminate through the Presidents' Summit community network, a 'Lessons Learned' pamphlet on the CARES experience in Michigan for the purpose in sharing ideas about effective collaboration. MCSC and CMF have held meeting with Chris Kwak, our WK Kellogg Foundation program officer, on state and national dissemination plans. Chris remains and enthusiastic advocate for the CARES approach. MCSC's Relationship with CNS-Michigan's Office and the Unified State Plan Until CNS clarifies the extent of its commitment to real operation change in its administrative policies, MCSC will postpone work on the unified plan. Volunteer Investment Grants The VIG program has been mentioned by the Governor at the Summit in Philadelphia, the Governor's Awards Dinner, and the Midland state service commission meeting. The Senate passed its Appropriations Bill containing the program. The House Appropriations Committee has zeroed it out of the House Bill. We are working energetically to have it reinstated and will need the active support of all Commission members in order to succeed. Terry Pruitt and Mike Tate have been the Commission leaders in this effort, and I would like to thank them for their extraordinary effort and commitment on behalf of this important program. Connect Michigan Connect Michigan is both a statewide public awareness campaign for volunteerism that will support post Summit follow up efforts as well as a collaborative networking partnership among MNA. VCM, CMF, UWM, and MCSC that will be a coordinating umbrella for public/private collaborative activities for service and volunteerism in Michigan. Connect Michigan is connected to the Points of Light Foundation's Connect America Campaign. The First Lady will be participating in a PoLF conference workshop on Connect Michigan in New York next month. Joel Orosz, has expressed his interest in Kellogg entertaining a proposal from MCSC on behalf of the Connect Michigan campaign. This grant would enable us to dovetail post Summit activities with broader outreach and public/private/nonprofit partnership building across Michigan, including those that were launched by the Michigan New Partnerships Initiative. Governor's Community Service Awards Five hundred people attended this year's Governor's Community Service Awards dinner. Each year we have succeeded in improving the program. Robert Cooper, President of Ameritech has �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Four already committed to underwriting next year's dinner, which will be, by far, the earliest we have ever secured such a commitment. We have also been successful in increasing public exposure of the dinner. We have already counted more than 21 newspaper articles. MGTV covered this year's dinner and broadcast it twice. By including a media category, we generated, and will continue to generate more coverage. Unfortunately, the total number of nomination applications have been relatively constant. This year's number of a little more than 200 is roughly the same as last year. We will continue to work to increase the number of applications by improving the visual quality of the application form and running PSA's during the Holiday Season when volunteering is more on people's minds. Finally, given the increased exposure we will begin a process of vetting all finalists after the peer review. We will ask nominators for, and check, additional references. This will help us avoid any potential embarrassment with inflated or even false nominee credentials or activities. Ford Foundation Funded National Meeting of State Service Commission Chairs and Directors We were pleased with the turn out of Commission members at the Midland meeting. Terry Pruitt deserves great thanks for securing Dow Coming sponsorship. Karen Aldridge deserves great thanks for securing the Mott Foundation's sponsorship and leading a very well received seminar on commission partnerships with grant makers. Joel Orosz also deserves thanks for his participation in the seminar, and Rob Collier was kind enough to participate for Dottie Johnson. The Governor and First Lady were wonderfully supportive. Our state partners were kind enough to provide display materials. Most importantly, the commissions agreed to form a national network at the meeting. MCSC and Michigan demonstrated their great leadership in the field. Based on the evaluations, the meeting was extremely well received. PROGRESS REPORT ON THIRD YEAR OBJECTIVES In the three-year State Plan that we submitted to CNS in 1994 we enumerated our annual objectives. This summary of Year Three objectives reflects our year-to-date accomplishments. In partnership with the Steering Committee and drawing on the results of the Year Two develop, with private sector support, a catalog of model programs and practitioners for public dissemination. MCSC has printed and disseminated the second edition of Profiles in Service. MCSC will revise and expand Profiles this summer. MCSC worked in partnership with CMF to produce Investments in Volunteerism, in which various grant makers described examples of model service �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Five and volunteer programs. In addition, this summer MCSC will complete its database development. MCSC will have more than 8,000 organization names on its mailing list. Reconvene the participants of the Year One grant makers meeting to assess progress and revise recommendations. During the week of February 10, MCSC conducted a series of conference calls with grantmakers to inform them of the new Michigan's AmeriCorps program application process. Grantmakers also received a list of the applicants that submitted AmeriCorps grant concept papers. MCSC will combine a grantmakers meeting with the state Volunteer Summit meeting in the fall. Continue in cooperation with MYPAC and the Michigan Campaign for Volunteerism, the state recruitment campaign for AmeriCorps and youth service volunteers. MCSC's work with MNANCM on Connect Michigan will achieve this objective. The Connect Michigan promotion campaign is scheduled to be launched this summer. Facilitate the development of at least four quality AmeriCorps proposals from neighborhood and community-based organizations. MCSC's final proposed AmeriCorps package contains six formula program renewals, six new formula programs, one competitive program renewal, one Governor's Innovative program renewal, twelve new competitive programs, and two education award only programs. MCSC ' s proposed AmeriCorps application package contains six new proposals from community-based organizations. Increase circulation of MCSC state service newsletter. MCSC has agreed to make the Commission newsletter the principal newsletter for Connect Michigan. This will expand outreach and coverage of service and volunteer programs across the state. MCSC has also dedicated a section to VISTA and Senior Corps programs in Michigan. MCSC' s next newsletter edition will use the new Connect Michigan masthead. Take action on the recommendations of the Task Force on intergenerational service. MCSC will continue to work with the Senior Advisory Council and MYP AC to promote the development of intergenerational service. Take action on the recommendations of the Task Force on developing model service programs that link Headstart, school-readiness, and school-to-work transition. This Task Force has not been organized. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Six Conduct regional community service collaboration training using the seven CARES communities as training centers. CARES has been a noteworthy element of the Presidents' Summit communities. The Governor referred to CARES in his remarks in Philadelphia. Of the six Summit communities, five are CARES communities. Also, as previously reported, the 4-H regional trainings have highlighted examples of program collaboration drawn from CARES communities. Based on practitioner critique, revise the state AmeriCorps training and technical assistance. In response to requests from practitioners, MCSC will conduct another statewide signature service project. MCSC will conduct this in partnership with Michigan Habitat for Humanity's Summer Housing Blitz. The project will take place in Detroit on June 27-28. Rev. Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity, will address the members and other volunteers present. We expect members from each of Michigan's AmeriCorps programs to participate. Increase by 50% the number of citizen respondents to the Community Service Awards. The objective has not been achieved. See narrative text above. In partnership with MDE, leverage at least one AmeriCorps/schoollcommunity partnership by targeting AmeriCorps, school and Community-Based Learn and Serve grants. Among the current AmeriCorps concept paper applicants are a number of school/community partnerships. Integrate AmeriCorps peer technical assistance consultants intto the Michigan Service-Learning Leandership Council and revise common training elements as needed. The Muskegon CARES/Learn and Serve/AmeriCorps program partnership is the best example of this collaborative program development. Conduct a statewide conference on national and community service to enable practitioners to assess the state's progress in establishing a sustainable infrastructure. The very successful state wide SuperConference provided a forum for this discussion. More than 500 people attended. MCSC subsidized the conference with an $8,000 dissemination contract, as well as supported the participation of more than 150 MCSC program participants. MCSC also worked with the CNS state office to secure additional conference planning support and program member participation. The SuperConference was a wonderfully successful example of statewide, public/private collaboration. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Seven Launch a fundraising campaign for MCSC' s anticipated public/private authority. While MCSC is no longer pursuing the creation of a public/private authority, MCSC is pursuing an increase of state support for programs and operations. The Governor's FY98 budget contained the $1 million Volunteer Investment Grant program and $274,000 for operations. Ensure that no less than 80% of the Year One AmeriCorps programs that have demonstrated quality and measurable success are funded for continuation beyond federal funding support. This objective was unrealistic from the start. MCSC will work with first year programs to help them sustain their activities beyond federal AmeriCorps support. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Executive-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting executive director's report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting executive director's report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49884 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/871bd2a0d728da83f61fc070601767be.pdf 921faa4501d0cddccc077812da795163 PDF Text Text STATE SERVICE COMMISSION NETWORK I MEMBERS OF THE STATE SERVICE CoMMISSION STEERING GROUP COMMISSIONERS w. HERSHEL LAMIRAND, III, CHAIR OKLAHOMA SuE DoNALDSON WASHINGTON Lucv LEE GEORG/II Ros1EMAUK TatS EuEN EDWARDS MusHINSKI MEMORANDUM NEW JERSEY TERRY SHUMAKER NEW HAMPSHIRE TO: State Commission Chairs and Directors FROM: Hershel Lamirand Chair, State Service Commission Network 2.5 RE: Follow up to Midland , DATE: June 2, 1997 GARY SMITH ARfZONA FRED W ALDSTEIN I OWA ABBY WALTERS FLORIDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS FRA NK DIRKS MICHIGAN LINDA FoRSYTH CAUFORNIII PAT KELLS J0.NSAS MARLIS MILLER OREGON SARA SIMS LOUISIANA LYNN THORNTON GEORGIA JANE WILLIAMS VERMONT George W. Romney Bldg. 4th Floor Ill S. Capitol Avenue Lansing. Michigan 48913 Phone (5 17) 335-4295 Fax (517) 373-4977 The Midland meeting proved to be an excellent occasion to unify and crystalize the developing efforts of state commission members and staff to organize a more formalized national network. I am honored to have been asked to chair the steering group for this emerging network. For your information I have included copies of a follow up memo from my steering group colleague, Sue Donaldson, reporting out from the meeting, a summary report from the meeting, and the agreed upon network framework document. As you can see, we have also adopted letterhead for our network. We will continue to work through the remaining resources of the Ford Foundation grant to move us forward. The Michigan Commission has agreed to provide staff in cooperation with Deb Jospin, from the Corporation, who will continue her efforts in support of our network. Deb will concentrate on reauthorization and the Michigan Commission will work on network development. If yo.u have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me, Deb, or Frank Dirks of the Michigan Commission. I look forward to our new joint endeavor. �MAY 27 ' 97 05:02PM SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Seattle City Council May 27, 1997 To: State Commissions & Executive Directors From! Re: SCN2.S* This is a quick memo to thank those ofyou who participated at Midlands, Michigan in designing and validating a State Commission Network. Immediate priorities are: 1) obtaining a funding source for operations; and 2) estabHshin& a SOl(c)3 entity. The target date for these activities is mid-June. As ratified at Midlands, Hershel Lamirand, Oklahoma State Chair, will serve as chair. The attached list reflects the executive committee. Additionally, Frank Dirks has agreed to senre as the interim sta1f coordinator. Please let Frank know, as soon as possible, your best address, including e-mail, for correspondence. It was a great meeting and we look forward to working together to strengthen national and oomnnmity ar:rvioe at the local. state, and federall~els. A special thank you to Hanis Wofford and Deb Jospin for their support and encouragemmt. o Stafe for Commission for National and Community Service *SCN • Stat• Commission N•twork • 2. 5 - 2. S on the organizational scale dwelop1d by Steven Schad 1100 Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1876 (206) 684-8888, Fa:~t: (206) 684-8587, TIY: (206) 233-0025, E-Mail Address: counciiOcl.eeattle.wa.us An EEO/AA employ~r. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. . ·• .~ P.nnted on Recycled Paper $. �May-18-01 03:54A P.02 KEEPING THE. PROMISE: MOVIN{; SERVICE FOR\VARD IN THE STATES l\1idland, Michigan MAY 16-17,1997 Conference Not.es Forty-two (42) stat.::s were reprc~~nt.ed by the 85 c e nfe.n:oce partidpants. Conference Attendees: Th~ pan kipaots includt:;d 35 C omnu~sion Exc~.:utiv~: Din:~:.tors (EDs) and 50 c,)JI1!Hi:o.si(mers <Chairs and members). 11tc fni :owin g st:uc.s wa c r~ pres e nted: Alaska Iowa Nebraska Rh(Kie Island Arizona Kamas Nevada Ark.ans<is Kentucky New Hampshire Tennessee Texas c~li(omia Maine Maryla.n.d l\'lassach usctl<> Mich ig;m Minnesota Mississippi N~w J~rsey r ~ wh C nioru J o Ct:mncc·ci.;u t De laware Honda Georgia Jdahn Jndiana ~hssmu·i ~·tontana New York 1'\orth Carolina Washinglnn Ohiu Oldahoma Wc:SL Wisconsin Oregon Wyoming Virgini<;~ Penn.'\ylvania Puerto Rico Conferi•nce Sponson:. The Ford h:)Undation Aguirre lntcmationa1 The Stale Com1r.1~siun Coordinating Group The Comm.tssion Chairs Steering Committcc The Michigan Cnmmunity Service Commission Publii.:/Pri vute V cmun.·s (PPV) Dow Coming Ameri~as Charles Stewan Mot! Founda1jon Conference Planning: The meeting wa.«> organi zed and plamted hy the Stare Ct1mm:ssion Ci.1<1nhaming group made up ef State C ommi.ssjon executivl! direL·tors. the St(itC Comm]ssi on Chairs Steering Cummittee. Aguirre International. the. technical assL:.;tanc.e provider to state c.:ommi.....,1ons hmdt>ci hy \he C orpor<Hion fnr National Sc.rvice. and PPV . Confen:nc.c..Qbjt~cth~: The conference was the. culminating event of ~n Jg momh grant by the ForJ �May-18-01 03:54A P.03 Founda[ion to foster the dewlopment of state c;m1missions on national and <.:ornmunity· ~rvi<:c. G\>~ls \·,f the ford r~oundation gn.nt includec.! : o Cstahlish a self- ~>uppo11ing peer ted'J1ical assistanl~e network ; o Devdup poli~ y re~o'._; mmcndations that s:r~ngthe.n .state level inl'ra.'\ tructure (or sen.- il~ t' and voiuntcerism: and, l1 Assess t11i.' feasibility and mciil~ or estahlishing a formal naritmal as:>lli.:iatiun of st2.tc r.:ommissions. tl!. 11etwork The planning commitrce a.:knowicdgcJ lha1 commissions are at very different p!a~cit in thc.i r devrlopmt'rtr : that commission chairs are on a steep k.aming c.;urve a.-. they have hegun to <.:nme tug~thL' r as:!. :;roup :'o r the first time over the~ past fiv(~ months; and Lhat. exc<.:utive directors and commt..;sioners nce.d time hoth w work toge.th,~r and time. to work arart as groups. The committee also tr1l'd to hal:lnc:.:· the ag~nJa Ill provide tim~ for parucipams to hotr. assess d1e feasibility of ar.d plan the funu·e dirc<.:tinn for an ongoing sm.tc l~Ommb>si(.ID a~-;,0\.· iaLion and to participate i11 practical hands-em \VOrkshops a..-ui plenary scsinn." tbat will help meet needs the commissions aw curremly trying to athJn:s~ . Welcome and Overview: Mil:nelc Engler, First Lady and Chair of the Michigan Commission w~lcmm~d the participants ro \1ichigan ,md highlighted the unjquc. rnle State Commissions can play to facilitat~: ~h~ expansinu and coordination of service and voluntccrism in th~ states. Frank Dirk.'\, Executh·e Director (1f th(! 1\·1ichig:m Ct)mtnission and Chair of rhe Sl.CG. reviewed the history of the Ford grant. progress to date. and discussed the a.gcnda for the meeting. He stressed the need to make u decision abmn the t'mmc of lh(.; s ~ ate Cmnm lssion network. Fred Wa.ldstcin. Chair of the Iowa Comrnis~ion and representing th<· Chair Steering Committee:. cautioned all tu rel:\>gnizc thdt <til State Commission~ arc in Jiffercnt pl:.tl.'.c.-. in tc:-m:- of their development. He urged p:i.rtkipants to he respccu~ul and inclusiv-:: of a.B participants prc.scm ir. hui !ding a (.'Ommun agenda fo:- ho\\1 State C )mmissions can work together w move natitma l :-.t n. i~o·c forwurd in the i'tates. l)yoesidents Summit: Follow-up Strategies: A panel r: t" Commission Chairs and Executive Dire<.' to~ shared stratc.gies and <;oncem~ for ~:ap.itali :dng nn tch Presidents' Summit to promote service and ·•oluntccrism in their states. Abby \Vulters of FloriJa shared a new media campaign and offered to ~xpon !he rnutcrials to any state. imcre~tcd . The Floriua 0 Jtmnissi.m has partnered with volunteer centers to <.:harutcl calls through an ROO numhcr to the: appropriate kx:al agcm:y. In California. Linda Forsyth shared ways the Commission is n>nnccting AmeriCcnjlS programs to summit communiLies to support commitments made at tbe summit. Judy Stcbhins of Maine diS~.:us.sed the Governor's Community for Children Initiative and Gary Smith of Arizona di.;;cus.r.;ed the fonnation of a 501 (c)3 to organi1.e resources and scn:i<.:cs generated by Lhe summit.. Other panicipa.nl<; shared a number of ()Lf}er strategies tha.t are being implem.enred. including: Mi(: hi~::tn's effort to reach small business network:.; L'lroughout the state; many $t<ltcs dL~c.~ ss~d plans fur ho:.;ting sL.tl~;wide :-.ummiL-. in tbe: Fall; fo1u· states in ihe fnK·ific fi(Jl1hwc.st :.tre coonli.nat.ing a l~ •t.ll h l a.c.' tiful with their Gtwemors and First Ladies in preparaLiun of their respc~:dve summi~. �May-18-01 03:56A P.04 Finally. u n:.1mber of punicipams raised (;On;.:,~n>s :.thnm chc role or commissions lo .;nsu!'C' t!lat the inf!'a~lnK'.. UrC ne.ccssary to cffe~;j\'d)' lL'-:e additional volunteer.- g·~ncratCd hy the !>llmmit i;.. pttl in rla::t' anJ ensuring [hat 1mini11~ ~nd :.tandard ..; for mcr.toring ar~ 1kvelop:.:d. The Challenge To Conm1issions: This pand of Commi.-;sion Chairs and Executive Directors focused attenuon .m;:. number •Jl ..-halkng~s thac need t;) h~ :.tdd:'C~ssed in their states for the Commission to reach its full potl'nti aJ . The is.-.,uc <.; raiscJ included amf'l1g others: building a octr.er relationship with the Govem,Jr's office; strcngthenmg tiC's wtth the CNS Sutc Otficc~ ; hroadcning :.he mission of the <.:ommission to include all -;trcam~ tlf &~rviL:~; Pi 1 ~;itiont Dg AmeriC c~rps as a ''tool in a 1oolhnx nfscrvi~.:e" options rather ch.an '' the end alL ~call of what <'lUi' Cummissiun.:.; are about ". Other pmkipants added ihat Ctnnmi.ssions need to do "·n invcmul)' and recognize. ·w·hal is already g1 ;in;; on u1 the C(lmmu.nity. Commtlisions need h.i link-up with and create pa11nerships with ong~)ing statewide in itiatives sut:h as vicllencc preYcmion, mentoring and welfare rcfonn. Commiss10ns should be ahout "cooperation, collaboration and communi~..~ation." Commissicners were challenged w be aware and scn.s itivt Lo rcligwus h1)lidays when planning events. Stability, Autonomy, J.nnovation and SmtainahiJity C.aucust!s: These :~mall group sessions provided a. forum fnr Comrnissiont:Tl\ and Eds from -:omparahle small . medium and lari!c states to di,;;cus;; priorities that :1e~d w be :1ddres.\ed to l't!rther Jevclop t~ omruission.s anti to suggest strategies hy whkh states might work together to acWn.'ss the a.reas idemit-icJ. Commi~siun rn:;mhcrs and ED~ initially mer with thej r peers and then came tngeth-::r to share idi!JS thm~ :heir variou:; pcrspccti,·es. The following swnmari.zes some key priorities idcnlificd hy the groups: Caucus l ·Small States Commj;-.sioncrs' Priorities: R~(.~ogni:t..cd th~t rhcy are opef".J.ting in a very changcah~c environment They idCJ!tiiicd fe ur key pri11ti1ics that commi&.~ionets need to take greater r..;..o,;pon.iihility for: o Sustainahiliiy- getting lhe n:soun;(;S i:l Buiidi..ng the erganizatiun o Developing imcrnal and cxt.ema! ~.::ommunicatwn systems o Moving the se.rvice. movement forward They saw commitment, L~apacity and communication as the ~onnertions EDs' Pril)J'itics: Meeting 50~ Match o Limi t~d staff capacity: staff maxed out o Staying fot:used - halu.n~i..ng CNS and sta~ priont0.s 1. 1 o La(:k of infrast.ru~ture in the states for servkc o Building connections heyond CNS to link the& prioriti~s . �May-18-01 P . 05 03:57A Common Strategic.s: <: S hanng best practices and lesse-ns learned n Continue u N~eJ tn create in-pcr~;on and electron:ic forunls for commun~cation lu haiance Lht EDs 1:\mc.em 11hout "basic stuft'' with hr<..•ader visi(m of Commissioner~ Caucus II - Medium-size States Commissioners· Priori.ties: o To learn best pr.;ctice~'i from each other o To understand and .ipproa;;.-h common challenges and oppMtunitie.-. in a com.-ertcd efton. o Broadening the mandate to includ~' lcx.·ul and federal volunteer and .:ommunity Si.!Jvicc programs. o Leam from each other about alternative funding strategies. o lncrease t.."Ie strength and di vcr~ity of Commis.o;ioners. ,....,'.1"" '1 . .. ED s' PnlWJtles: Caucus lll - Large Stares C:ommi.l\si <)11ers ' Primities: o Callahoration and .shrui.ng best practices o Mo hili.:r..c Commission member~; 0 Increase ihc huy-in or the G\iVcmor's Ofticc- Generate imllleverage resources o ~aUonal association of Com.missioners 0 EDs' Pti~)ntie$ : \) Organizational Development: stafting, resource.:;, staying uue to mission and program development o La!..'k of a national strutegic plan o Creating slability 111 ~ political environment: insulating Commjssion~ tr.)m clc.clton:.. o Stabiliz.tng and pmv-iding securi ty LO organization o Sust.ainability; building a sustainable constituency. o Member development and support Common Strategic~ : o o o o Sharing infmmation; meetings and electronically Ci.)ntinuity - support systems to su~tain good intentions genl.!rated at these meetings. Encourage CNS to provide opportunities Generate more staff resources to meet the cii~mands Luncheon Sponsored by Dow Corning Michael Lip ..;ky reiterated the C\llrunitm,;:nt of th~ Ford Foundation lo suppon. the devclopmcm of niiti(mal St;rvi~e anJ the sLalt':; wh.:. He Jcs..:ribeu how ~rvicc is u. naLural fit Lo the missicrn of the Ford �May-18-01 03:5SA P . 06 Foundarinn F1ml stes the pmentia] leverage state commission can have to hrokcr and facilitate rbe expan.siLm of service and vnlunreeri.sm w meet community nc~ds. Govt:rii\Jr Engler shared ...( what were the key points from his comments'!?] ... kl lhc ;i,l.ates dcvdop what works for them .. ... connect to tmponant is1)ues of Utt: state ... ' )') The Governor was acknowledged by participants for hlS lead~rship in promoting a scrvke. agenda among his colleagues opening the door in other stat.cs for ccmrnissions to more effc<.~tively ,,.·ork with their gt.wt:mors. How do we get to th~ future together? Building oonsensu.41 on the direction of a state Commi~sion network Prm.:css: Hershel Lamirand (OK- Chair) and David Karoff (RI-ED) introduced tl-,c quc.<it1on of the merit:> a:1d fcasihility or developing :m ongoing, fonnaJ association of State Commissions. Citing mo:.ny of the h:::nefits that were raised in the morning ses.;;ion about learning from one and other and the imporwn~.:c of having a powcti'ul voice to support reauthorization and other important i.ssues. they t.:hallcngcd the: group to (Onsidcr what will best support continued development of commissions. Steve Sch:1d rcview(':d hi" "options paper" that described the pros and cons nf four options from a \er~ fonnal, staffed association to an 1nforma.1 network . .He nx·ommended something :n the middle wi1h a mvr~: formali.z~d decred leadership and hy-laws. re.•wurce deve-lopment that combina;~s a dtle.<; structurewith outside cievclopmcnt, and open to wrnmissiom:rs and EDs. with a 501 (1..:)3 ann conne-cted aJmini.:.m.l.Li vely to an cx1sting commission or another national nonprofit. Participants then slit into small groups by state size and discussed the merit.~ of a r·onnal or informal association , Groups then reconvened as a whole lO share recornmenda\Jons. The following summarizes the k.cy issues discussed by the groups in the repon. out session : o There was general agrec~ment on Lhe part of each group that an ongoing a.~;sociation wa!> important and ~;upponable. o There was not agreement on the issue. of a formal vs informal :.tssodation. o There was general agrt:erm:nt Jtat there should be one association involving CommissiDm·,r~ and EDs together. o It was generally agreed that the purposes of su<:h an asstx~iation were well-mtiL:ulated in Steve Schad's options paper and those purpo.~s should he adopted with minor ml>difications. o There was littlt.: agreement on how it should he funded. the issue of dues raisl.!d many questions. n There wa..,;; discussion v.:ithout agreement about how often it would meet and whether it should have a national or regional srn.K'tllre. tl It wa.<: agreed that a working group would convene in the evening to develop a 1:rarnework of pr:in<.:iplcs that ull fk1rticipa.nt> could endorse on Saturday . �May-18-01 04:00A P . 07 Ccn cl usi~m : At the \:ln.,ing session on Saturday a.fternoun there was a near unanimous vote to flllm J.n na~ior.al nciW\.' rk of State C n mmiss1ons. The working group proposed the iullowing framewt}rk h .• guide lh~ dt~ vclo pmc nt of the national network o r State Co:nmis!.ion.s which was afftrmt:d hy the vast maj(1rity of panicipanL-.: 0 o o (1 Su·utmre : Less Fonnal (Strategy ":!.5'') !·undin§: Raise funus fm in fl'astructur~ as an initiul fo(;uS Meeting Structure: At least one, preft.!.rably l.\Vo, uational m.(;'.!:lings anmtJ Jly ( money issue). Membership : Commissioners and srnll. Effective cornmunic.~ation , interaction, !nfonnatinn exchange, and cdu~ation . o o o PUJTIOSe: o Support r.!gic nal '-~ollaboration . Ma.'-lmum inclusion and buy ·in: possible dues structure, hut n•.)t derailing o ~ati o na1 ~rspe.ctivc Partnership-orit~nted wirh issnc-hased task forces. to CNS and other stream,_, of service. St.~ rvicc or ma(.(h d11l i.ars. A steering group of up to 18 people comprised of half Commissioners and half EDs was una.n i rnou.sl~ endorsed hy m::: group to develop a proposal :.u1d plan for putting the network m mmi.on. It wa.s ag rc:l~d iliat the steering i.:Ommiti:CC be rcpres~ntativc C•f larg~, medium and .small states as well has have geographic diversity. The following individuals were nominated and endorsed at the meeting \Vi!.h potemi~ f()r naming an addition:1l 3 EDs if needed : C unuu i.'s i onc:r.s l. H~rshd Lamirand (OK) - Chair ~ . Abby Walters CFL) 3. Su~ Donaldson (W A J 4. Gary Smith (AZ) 5. Rosie Mauk (TX) ft. Fred Wal<lst.cin 7 . Terr-; Shumaker (NH ) R. Ellen Mu.shinski (N.J_) 9. Lucy Lee (GA) Executive Directors 1. Frank Dirb ( Ml) 2. Lynn Thornton (GA ) 3. Sam Sims (LA) 4. Li.nda Forsyth (CA) 5. Jane Williams (VT) ~ · Pat Kdls (J?.S) . i.~~Arl.$ ty],/Jer 8 . tha 9. tba It was agreed that a feedback process would be incorporated to ensure that ail EDs <.~.nd Com:nissioners would he kept apprised of network developments and have opportunities to comment on proposals developed by the steering committee. It was agreed that Hershel La.mirand would chair the steering committee. Frank Dirks agreed to utilize the remai ning ' '1ppoc funds frnm the Ford gram to support the work o f the stecting committee during a t:-an:->ition to a ne-w structur~ of St1ppo11. and n~w funding . �May-18-01 04:01A Ot~er s~.ssio n 10 he added include: Building PubliciPriYate Partnerships For Sen·ice and Volunteerism (Foundation Panel) The Role of States in the National Sen-ice Delivery System (CNS Panel} Gaining State Support and Funding for Service (Legislative Panel) Future Relations Among the Corporation for National Service and State Servke Commissions Research: What Can We Learn From It and How Are Local Voices Being HeaTd Concurrent Workshop Sessions P . OS �Consensus on a Framework for a National Network May 16, 1997 A group of approximately 35 individuals, comprised of commissioners, executive directors, and others, met and arrived at consensus on the following framework for a national network. • Structure: Less Formal (Strategy "2.5") • Funding: Raise money for infrastructure as an initial focus. • Meeting Structure: At least one, preferably two, national meetings annually (money issue). • Membership: Commissioners and staff. • Purpose: Effective communication, interaction, information exchange, and education. • • National perspective with issue-based task forces. • Partnership-oriented to CNS and other :;treams of service. • Support regional collaboration. • Maximum inclusion and buy-in: possible dues structure, but not derailing service or match dollars. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Follow-up-to-Midland-Conference Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting follow up to Midland conference Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting follow up to Midland conference. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49885 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d752d15e2b15cf41bc9f39885ef891b5.pdf 30887db40e536109f47973d6a62d6331 PDF Text Text Testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission March 25, 1997 Mrs. Engler, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission. Thank you for inviting me to comment on the topic before us today. The views that I will express today are my own and perhaps no one else' s; they are not to be construed as representing the views of the Corporation as a whole or any other persons within the Corporation. Even with as many views as are represented here today, all of us together represent only a small fraction of the people who are involved in and interested in community service and volunteerism. I read the Lansing Journal these days (since the Detroit papers have been first on strike and now in a lock-out situation) and I noticed on Thursday a small headline that read "A celebration of Community Service." "How wonderful ," I thought . "Maybe I'll see some names I know. Maybe Janet Clark has a new project she hasr}'t told me about yet." As I read the clip it turned out to be a notice about the Delta Sigma Theta Soror.it}: celebrating 37 years of community service. Delta Sigma Theta is a sorority of African-American women formed in 1913 at Howard University. The Lansing alumnae chapter was formed in 1960 and has several community service programs in the local area. A reminder that there are many more of us than we sometimes remember. Those of us here today will give you an interesting but ~mall sampling of opinion on the topics proposed; it is a good start, however. One of those topics concerns the "strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan Community Service Commission as presently constituted and as currently involved. There are of course strengths and weaknesses of any organization ..... The purpose, mission, and goals as outlined in the OPERATING PROCEDURES for the Commission do not appear to need any revision. They outline a wide range of activities and communications in support of community service and volunteerism involving residents from all ages and backgrounds serving in all areas of life in Michigan. These are indeed the mission and goals I would propose for a Commission if they had not already been devised. What I believe can come from this mission is a broad evocation of service in Michigan and one which helps to ensure that programs and resources are widely spread and geographically balanced, facilitates the formation and growth of local collaborative efforts reinforces priority consideration to Michigan ' s needs and wishes, and smooths the way, especially within State Government, for getting things done. But let 's be honest. This meeting today is about something else. Underlying this meeting today is the continuing jostling for power over the community service programs funded by the federal government. The proposed or threatened "takeover" of all the funding by either the State Commissions or by the State Offices of the Corporation has generated considerable heat and rather little understanding and absolutely no benefit to any of our combined constituency. Nationally, and here in Michigan, some people fear the so-called takeover of all the programs by the State Commissions (didn't know you were such a threatening bunch, did you?). Nationally and here in Michigan, Commissions and their staffs are maligned as upstart, inexperienced, and incompetent. Fears are raised that tried-and-true programs will be indiscriminately destroyed and that rules protecting vulnerable populations will be abolished. �Nationally and here in Michigan, some people resent that the devolutio~ of powers to the States has not included devolution of all the money and all the community service programs. Nationally and here in Michigan the federal employees of the Corporation are maligned as rigid, obsolete, and incompetent. Accusations are made that new service programs will be squeezed with rules and overlaid with hidebound bureaucracy. Much criticism is raised and many potential disasters are predicted if one side should prevail over the other. It seems to me unfair and insulting to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Commission - or any other Commission - could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the VISTA and Senior Corps programs. It is equally unfair and absurd to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Corporation for National Service office could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the AmeriCorps programs and the Learn and Serve programs. Of course, this would not be '· . true. ~ '· _j This whole issue of who's going to be IN CHARGE, I thought, was set aside last year after a group of Executive Directors and CNS State Directors came to consensus over how to overcome some of the difficulties and obstacles. The consensus was to encourage each state to determine its own way of working together- with Commission, Corporation, and Departments of Education coming to their own individualized plans of action. The idea of a " unified plan" came out of these discussions. All the parties took this agreement seriously and were working to address it locally. The good-faith efforts of all the states who took this agreement seriously were undermined- betrayed I must say- by some people in Washington for whatever their reasons might have been. The events and recriminations of the last few months can be explained ad nauseam, but after Washington 's so-called "accidental emission," every constituency of the Corporation began firing weapons. What minimal trust that had developed among the parties was destroyed. Now we find ourselves here today in the aftermath of that debacle. So what is all the fuss about over the structure of how the federal money for community service programs comes to Michigan: Who is complaining about the way things are done now? Who is unhappy and wants so desperately to make things different? Is it the public at large; is it disappointed applicants; is it successful project operators? I think it is none of these. If it is none of these, why would we want to reinvent what already exists. The problem really is that we 've gotten ourselves trapped in a focus on FIXING a few flaws when we should just get busy and work smarter. The human impulse to tinker and fix things up is well known to all of us. We also know how most " new and improved" products on the market are only repackaged and more expensive than the originals. In most areas of life, after we reach a certain level of functioning, the payback of additional "improvements" is relatively limited. The cost of such relatively small improvements can be very high and in the end counterproductive to the larger enterprise. There is the additional risk of negative unintended consequences which are worse than the thing we started out to fix. �· , . , ') We- you as Commissioners and the rest of us as staff and other beneficiaries of the federally-funded community service and volunteer programs - must acknowledge the flaws in our systems and work to minimize their effect, but I must emphasize that none of the flaws are fatal and none are serious enough to warrant the kind of time and tempest that has consumed so many of us for the last year and a half. We all may have different views of what would be the "IDEAL" arrangement. I know that Frank Dirks and I have different views on many things, but we had begun to work quite productively together and had been able to bring some things of value to the state and to individual programs and participants by doing so. We've come to understand different points of view; different approaches to problems; and different styles of work. Interagency collaboration is not easy, as all ofyou know. '· But in the end the cooperation and the learning environment have benefited both our operations and our immediate constituencies. We have made mistakes- separately and together- and will again, I'm sure- separately and together. Were there to be someone else in my place and someone other than Frank at the helm of the Commission, there might be different mistakes, but there definitely \vould be mistakes and missed opportunities and misunderstandings. That's life. We all like our own ideas best usually. If you must know my opinion on the IDEAL way to channel Corporation for National Service programs into Michigan communities I'll tell you, but I prefer to leave well enough alone. And to stop talking about changing the way it is now. If I had the power to go across the street today and start over again, I would create a different structure. The federal funding through the Corporation for National Service is for NATIONAL SERVICE, not simply community service. The programs are envisioned as nationwide in scope, nationwide in interest, and derive their participants from the nation as a whole. Not FEDERAL, necessarily, but definitely NATIONAL. There must remain a national focus and identity. Otherwise we devolve into 48,49, or 50 state service programs. The "national" in national service is best preserved through a workforce network that is state-based and nationally-connected, and is positioned to respond to and be held accountable for local and national initiatives alike. The Corporation State Offices have that workforce. In my opinion, all Corporation for National Service funding and program decisions should flow through the Corporation State Offices. For more than 20 years, federal employees in these offices have successfully balanced the rules and priorities of national program designs with specific local needs and requirements. What would happen to the Commissions in my personally-designed world across the street? I would have a Commission for all of the purposes that are currently in your OPERATING PROCEDURES. Your function as Commissioners would not change. You would be the functional and influential link between State government and federal programs. But hey we ' re not going across the street. We ' re right here. What do we do? WMtshould you~~ �I encourage you to become as involved as you can in meeting and obse~ing the participants in all kinds of community service and volunteer programs in your areas. Consider how insights from these efforts might be publicized and shared with others. Encourage a learning environment within the Commission. Encourage staff to provide you with opportunities to publicize your support for community serviceamong all ages and in all areas of the state. Continue to provide public recognition for voluntary efforts of. all kinds. Seek ways to ensure that Michigan law and policy places a value on volunteer service, in areas such as liability insurance and others. Help to bring additional partners into the community service arena. Play an active and assertive role in establishing state and statewide priorities and focus areas for community service. Seek out, analyze, and help all of us to learn from successful collaborative ventures. Keep your mission and goals as they are stated already. Nowhere do they seem to call for you to OPERATE, DIRECT or ADMINISTER community service programs; ·they call for facilitating; they call for encouraging; they call for promoting and recognizing. urge yop io stay focused on those functions . No one that I know of has proposed that State Commissions take ov~r the roles of the private Volunteer Centers; why should it seem logical to propose taking over administration of VISTA or the Senior Volunteer programs? No one would seriously entertain the Commissions taking control of civic and service clubs and sororities; why would the Commission envision taking control of VISTA and the Senior Volunteer programs? Obviously the lines of control will be drawn somewhere; I suggest you leave them where they are .. and work toward a COORDINATED PLURALITY of organizations in this field . And lastly, continue to propose Michigan ideas for Michigan people. The federal government should not be the only or even the largest player in community service in Michigan. Let Michigan devise and find funding for its own community service innovations on a variety of levels and from various sources as I know you are already beginning to do . What can work for us in the way of structure is a collaborative partnership such as the one which has flourished between the Feds and the State regarding Senior Volunteer programs. This 20-year-old working relationship provides benefits to communities and seniors alike; safeguards taxpayer interest; maintains the integrity of programmatic intent; results in a balanced response to local needs within a framework of STATE and National priorities. This partnership has simplified life for grantees and project staff, and provided coherent direction and support. It didn 't start out that way, however. No one would guess from observing our two organizations today that the relationship actually began in hostility, suspicion, acrimony, and a power struggle for control. The partnership is under considerablestrain these days but the difficulties for us are not "made in Michigan." They come from outside Michigan, and we are doing everything we can to prevent those influences from destroying what has been built over 20 years. I direct your attention at length to this example as I think it gives us hope that we could get beyond the current acrimony and suspicion in the community service arena and begin to work toward a new era of close cooperation. If we do care about providing good programs to the people of Michigan, and if we care about the longterm survival of the current program designs and funding , then we had better get to work and put an end to this power struggle. The damage of the last 2 years---- most especially the damage of the last few months --- cannot be undone, but it can perhaps be overcome. �MCSC TESTIMONY .... MARCH 25, 1997 HEARING TESTIMONY OF LINDA LARK, RSVP DIRECTOR (Note: Topics in italics are those Frank Dirks stated I should address in his letter to me of March 20, 1997.) 1. Name, Position, & Program Description: I am Linda Lark, Director of the Retired & Senior Volunteer Program of Kent County. First, I thank the First Lady and Commission for the opportunity to address the actions of the Community Services Commission and the older American programs. RSVP was authorized by Congress 25 years ago under the Older Americans Volunteer Act. Our purpose is to provide challenging and meaningful volunteer opportunities for residents aged 55 and over. These opportunities give them a chance to serve their communities, explore new interests, remain active, & avoid isolation so common with older Americans. With the help of RSVP, non-profit organizations are able to enhance and expand the services they provide. RSVP volunteers serve without compensation. Those who would find volunteering a financial hardship can request assistance with transportation and meals. Volunteers also receive training and insurance protection while volunteering. During 1996, 1,036 RSVP volunteers of Kent County provided 252,000 hours of their expertise, skill, and time to private and public non-profits or proprietary health care organizations. About 50% of Michigan's RSVP volunteers serve older people in their homes & communities . They deliver meals and provide essential services such as transportation, shopping assistance, respite care, friendly visiting, telephone reassurance, home repair, tax preparation, You Are Not Alone reassurance visits and more. Many congregate nutrition programs, senior centers and nursing homes would find it difficult to operate without RSVP. Our volunteers are found in a multitude of programs developed to benefit the environment, local neighborhoods, children, low-income, homeless or disabled persons. We actively support collaborative initiatives such as Strong Families/Safe Children and Systems Reform by promoting the services of older volunteers as a resource in meeting the needs of families and developing programs which support childhood immunization initiatives and relative caregivers. 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the way CNS programs are supported in Michigan: We are, and have been since our conception, an older American program. We are here to benefit the senior and as a second benefit, we benefit the community. We are not about service. We are about seniors. Since we were put under the Corporation for National Service, we find ourselves being �the National Senior Service Corps. Our senior programs ar~, .~tilized to validate new volunteer initiatives and then efforts are put in place to change us · into a service organization; deemphasizing the senior's needs, talents, and contributions. Studies have proven that older people who volunteer have more positive attitudes, higher self-esteem, better health and live longer lives. Healthy. active older people cost society less than frail, sick older persons. Clearly, it is a weakness of the Corporation and consequently the Commission to change us into yet another "SERVICE" Corps. We provide service to our communities now. They recognize that service with their dollars. My project's budget is over $174,000 a year. $56,000 comes from the Corporation. Over $100,000 comes from the community because they know we get the job done. get it done well and cost-effectively. Incidentally, my annual salary as Director of the RSVP Project is less than the cost of one AmeriCorps Volunteer. The Ideal, What is the best way that National and Community Service and Volunteerism should be supported in Michigan? Stop trying to change the Older American Programs. We aren't broke. Please stop trying to "fix" us. We are not service-first programs. We are senior-first programs . This single comment addresses all of the questions in your letter regarding today's hearing. I would like to give you an example of what I am talking about by telling you about one of the over 1,000 volunteers in my project: Volunteer's Story here .... Jim Muir's Stozy. Jim 's contribution to his community will benefit future generations and communities beyond this state. Talk about Impact!! Jim gave me permission to share his story today and stated, "You have to leave the freedom of choice in RSVP. Without it I won't stay there and neither will other seniors . Emphasizing service could be the end of the program. " RSVP's focus on the senior helped Jim Muir "handle living" and as a result look what we have gained! Can this country afford to lose even one caring, talented senior? What arrogance to assume a Corporation or Commission knows best what the communities ' needs are or what gifts we will allow the seniors to share! �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICHIGAN Presented by: Bradley J. Johnson, Executive Director Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan Thank you for the opportunity to share my organizations views of service and volunteerism in Michigan. The Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan, formerly known as the Voluntary Action Center has a long 45 year history of connecting people and resources in the Capitol Community. The Volunteer Center is aligned and affiliated with the Capital Area United Way, Volunteer Centers of Michigan (VCM is the state association representing over 27 volunteer centers), Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Points of Light Foundation (supporting over 500 national volunteer centers). It is through these connections that we, as community practitioners ofvolunteerism, are able to forge ahead in an ever changing nonprofit dynamic . Much like that of our statewide network of Volunteer Centers, the Volunteer Center of MidMichigan is positioned within the greater Lansing community to respond quickly to community needs. To accomplish this we are tasked as the community volunteer clearinghouse to over 300 nonprofit organizations. In addition, our mission is to promote and develop volunteerism, match volunteers with nonprofit organizations, and address select unmet community needs . It is only by following our vision of "mobilizing people and resources to deliver creative solutions to community problems " that we are able to accomplish our mission. The Volunteer Center has had the opportunity to become involved with the Michigan Community Service Commission on a number of levels: As an VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps grant recipient, through community outreach during the numerous volunteer mobilizations (ie: Day of Caring) where staff joined in the celebration of volunteerism, as a judge for the Governors Service Award, and though the use of the numerous publications produced through the Commission. During the Volunteer Centers 45 year history we have had the opportunity to observe numerous national and community service initiatives. As an organization typically outside the normal realm of these programs, the Volunteer Center has had the occasional opportunity to observe, and in other cases became intimately involved within, the operations of those national and community service programs. The Volunteer Center's experience with the operations, efficiency and overall impact in community by these national and community service initiatives or programs unfortunately range from poor to excellent. I believe that many of the problems that our organization faced were a direct result of national level involvement in program management and the inherent flaw in program organization. However, in contrast, our experience with the Michigan Community Service Commission and the national service programs that they oversee have been superior to those programs implemented from the national level organization. �I believe that President Clinton stated it clearly when he said "much of the work of America cannot be done by government, much other work cannot be · don~ by government alone. The solution must be the American people through voluntary service to others." We often hear of collaboration. It is truly an impressive buzz-word. Collaboration. Just the sound of it impresses me. It must impress a lot of others as well. Because nearly every nonprofit and governmental organization is claiming to be collaborator. Too often we are positioning our organization to be the power broker, instead of working together for a common good. A recent example of a statewide collaboration worth mentioning is that of the Presidents' Summit. The Michigan Community Service Commission, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, Council ofMichigan Foundations and United Way of Michigan came together, took off their institutional hats and said "lets work together for the children of Michigan." Get this .. .it's working! But, we must remember that we need to work with the existing state organizations, not reinvent or absorb them. True collaboration will benefit the citizens of Michigan. We would encourage the continued exploration and growth of the VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps youth volunteerism initiative. This type of collaboration not only strengthens local nonprofit infrastructure, but it also addresses a serious social problem -- declining youth volunteerism. The Michigan Community Servic~ Commission and the Volunteer Centers of Michigan are pioneers in this statewide approach to engage youth in service. This innovative model of youth service will no doubt lead to its duplication across the country as a national model. The reason for success? Governmental guidance and organizational management. The Michigan Community Service Commission will serve the citizens of Michigan best as they continue to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. It is through this open exchange of information and dialogue that our Commission is most successful. Governor George Romney said "The magnitude of our social problems will require that all citizens and institutions make a commitment to volunteering as a way of life and as a primary opportunity to create needed change." The State of Michigan has already distinguished itself as a leader in volunteerism across the country through the establishment of a Community Service Commission. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to the people of Michigan by listening to what the people really want and need. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to community by becoming the catalyst for positive community change, by stimulating innovative programs that meet real community needs through service. By becoming the convener of diverse individuals and groups, building community through shared efforts towards common goals. Now is the time to become that broker of ideas and resources and to encourage collaboration; not just talk about collaboration, but become the leader and follow your vision to engage entrepreneurial approaches to service and volunteer program development. In closing, the Michigan Community Service Commission will best serve the citizens of the State of Michigan by continuing their fine work in support national level opportunities, by acting as a facilitator and a collaborator, in support of statewide opportunities, and by supporting and enhancing statewide nonprofit initiatives. It is also critical that the Michigan Community Service Commission work diligently to recognize, support, and work with existing networks in Michigan. �11r-1a L~IJ MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY MARCH 25, 1997 ARIA LARSEN, DIRECTOR SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY 202 E. BOULEVARD DRIVE STE. II 0 FLINT, MI 48503 810-257-3769 I have been asked to represent our Senior Companion Program in Lapeer and Genesee Counties as well as the eight other Senior Companion Programs in Michigan. I have been the Director of our Senior Companion Prot,rram since it was started 13 years ago. Prior to the creation of our Senior Companion Prot,rram, I was the Director ofthe Foster Grandparent Program in our area for two years and then assigned joint directorships of both Programs for two years for a total of 15 years as a Director of National Senior Service Corps Programs in Michigan. The Senior Companion Prot,rram recruits, trains, assigns and supervises seniors who wish to be a volunteer in their community and are 60 years of age and older and meet income guidelines ( 125°·o of poverty) Staff of the Senior Companion Program support the senior volunteer in their volunteer efforts and provide advocacy for their volunteers in needs they may have outside of their volunteering experience. An annual physical is provided for the senior as well as a daily meal allowance and travel reimbursement. An hourly stipend of S2.45 for a maximum of 20 hours \\eek of volunteering in the community is also provided for the senior volunteer. These benefits help support the effort and costs of volunteering for the volunteer and improves their quality of life. Our Senior Companion volunteers visit and help special needs adults, 21 years of age and older in Lapeer and Genesee Counties who are living independently or with their families or in foster care homes. group homes. adult day care centers, adult education programs, day treatment programs and nursing homes. These special needs adults are referred by community agencies who have \'vTitten agreements with the SCP to be matched with senior volunteers by the Prof:,rram stall The community referral agencies are there for the needs of their adult clients and the Senior Companion Prot,rram is there for their Senior volunteer. By \vorking together the Prot,rram and the referral agencies work together to meet the needs of the volunteers and the clients. The special needs these adults may have are: developmental disabilities, mental illness, frail health, dementia and physical handicaps. The goal of the senior volunteers· efforts with their assigned clients is to allow the clients to live as independently as possible by providing companionship. advocacy. respite. and social activities to their assigned clients and their families . �The senior volunteer is served by enabling them to remain independent and active in their community by being part of the Senior Companion Program.-The relationships they build with their assigned clients benefits both the Senior volunteers and the referred adults . Two special !,'TOups of individuals, the low income senior volunteer and the special needs adult, are served for the cost of one, making the SCP very cost efficient In Lapeer and Genesee Counties we have 45 volunteers actively serving 248 clients in the community through 21 community referral sources. The State of Michigan began funding National Senior Service Corps Programs (NSSC) 20 years ago. The funds came from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Office on Aging (OSA) through OSA to local sponsor agencies across the State. When the State began funding NSSC Programs there was only one Senior Companion Pro!:,rram . Now there are nine Programs with only two of the SCP funded primarily by the Corporation for National Service (CNS) . The State of Michigan has funding in all the SCP, FGP and RSVP in Michigan except one Senior Companion Program. There are more state funds in the NSSC Programs in Michigan than federal funds . Our Program is a state funded program with a small federal PNS grant that supports three additional Senior Companion volunteers. Our Programs are very fortunate in Michigan to have the state funds and the full support of OSA in administering them . OSA ·s priority is the well being of seniors in Michigan. It understands the needs of seniors and the problems that confront them. The extra bonus is that OSA recobrnizes the NSSC Probrrams as volunteer programs for seniors and promotes them as a service to senior volunteers as well as the volunteers· community. This was the purpose of the NSSC Programs when they began thirty years ago through the federal agency (ACTION) under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. Before the Corporation was formed and our name \vas changed to the NSSC our Pro!:,rrams were knov.rn as the Older American Volunteer Programs (0/\ VP) . The name supported the original purpose of the Pro!:,rrams ofthe emphasis being placed on the senior volunteer over any community service they provided. The Corporation is changing the purpose of the NSSC Probrrams to have the emphasis on the service the senior volunteers provide the community over the service to the senior volunteer to tit in with the service orientation of the Corporation and its other Programs such as AMERICORPS and LEARN AND SERVE. In Michigan the Corporation ·s State office is required to adopt this same emphasis. However, the state office has monitored and funded the NSSC Pro!:,rrams , tirst as the ACTION state oftice and no\v as the Corporation state office since these Probrrams began thirty years ago. The Programs are comfortable with the state oftice as a known entity and the Corporation State Office works well with OSA giving a solid base to all the NSSC Programs in Michigan. Unfortunately, not all the states which have NSSC Programs across the country have state offices on agi ng or even Community Service Commissions like v.•e have in Michigan. What the NSSC Programs nationally do have in common is the Corporation State Offices. What has made the �NSSC Programs successful and so long-standing with bipartis~_n.support is the consistent fiscal and programmatic oversight and structure nationally with the ·col-poration State Offices_ The fiscal and pro!,rrammatic structure for the NSSC Programs in Michigan currently meets the needs of the Programs through the oversight of OSA and the Corporation State Office. It is a . system that has worked for over twenty years and has made the Michigan NSSC Programs some of the best in the country. Our Programs have been able to meet the needs of our senior volunteers and enable them to be part of the their local community support systems that works toward meeting the needs identified by their own local community. The Michigan Community Service Commission can support our NSSC Programs by facilitating information about the NSSC Programs in Michigan to their AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve Programs in the state. The Commission also needs to promote older adult service as part of AmeriCorps . Individuals who attend college later in life would appreciate an opportunity to get tuition assistance by providing community service. I have not seen or heard of any older adults being AmeriCorps service providers in Michigan and it is my understanding AmeriCorps was open to all ages of qualified Americans. Because the Michigan NSSC Pro!,rrams promote the senior over service, we feel we are not a good fit with the service oriented and youth oriented AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve pro!,rrams nationall y and in Michigan. �MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DIRECfORS 9851 Hamilton, Detroit, Michigan 48202 Joy Graves President Wayne County Linda Lark Vice President Kent County Gloria Sanderson Secretary Crawford and Roscommon Counties Kathy Herrala Treasurer Marquette County CarlaBufe Charlevoix and Emmet Counties Janet Clark Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties Sandra Dalrymple ecosta and .:>ceola Lake Counties BethDebano Macomb County Wilma Kahn Kalamazoo County Jill Kind Washtenaw County RSVP Director Grand Traverse Bay Area Hershell Masten Oakland County Pam McCrum Jackson County Theresa Nelson Delta, Menominee & Schoolcraft Counties Karen Reid Genesee and Shiawassee Counties Susan Smethurst Otsego County Meg Smith onroe County + (313)883-7764 + FAX 883-3957 March 17, 1997- Michigan Community Service Commission Public Hearing Mrs. Engler, Mr. Dirks, members of the Community Service Commission. Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak with you today. It is very important that we can meet together to discuss these very important issues. My name is Joy Graves. I have been the Director of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Wayne County for nine years. Two of our RSVP volunteers, Warren Black and Ann Evans, serve on the Senior Advisory Council for the Commission. I am also President of the Michigan Association of RSVP Directors. It is in that capacity that I come before you today. Let me briefly tell you about RSVP. RSVP is the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Please note the words "senior volunteer" in our designation. Each year in Michigan, nearly 10,000 volunteers, ages 55 and older, spend 18 hundred thousand. .. .nearly two million hours.... meeting a variety ofhuman and community needs which touch all generations. We are not a service program. We are a senior volunteer program which enriches the lives of seniors by enabling them as volunteers to provide service. The legisl ated purpose of our program is to "empower older individuals to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the volunteers and those whom they serve .... " Notice that the person comes first, their service second. When we received funding for our programs from the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging, they also emphasized the importance of the benefit to the seniors by saying that these programs are "designed to address the needs of the older volunteer, first, and then to serve the needs .... " What are the strengths and weaknesses of the way national and community sen 1ice programs are supported in Michigan? We look to our state office and to OSA for our support. The Corporation for National Service in Washington has been, and continues to be, primarily interested in Arnericorp and Arnericorp ' s survival. We are deeply concerned that the support that we once received from Washington, befo re coming to the Corporation has, indeed, been eroded. The Commission' s fo cus primarily involves youth in the field of service both as participants and as recipients . For 26 years, our state office, however, has been readily available to answer our questions and to help us find new and creative solutions to our community' s problems. They support the mission ofbeing senior programs, first, service programs second. The state office understands that, by supporting and encouraging seniors, the community will also be served. The state director and staff are the experts that guide our programs. They also work in partnership with OSA staff; our local sponsors ; �•' \1ARSVPD Testimony- page 2 community nonprofits ; and other organizations to suppon senior volunteers while they meet community needs . r7-The ideal, what is the best H·ay That national and community service and rolunteerism should be supported in _\fichigan? Our mission is senior volunteerism, so I will address that issue. Ideally, our state office will continue to be a viable and reliable source of support. The partnerships formed, and the 26 years of experience in administering our programs should continue. The current system allows for flexibility in identifying the needs of the indi\'idual communities, as well as, addressing the needs designated by the Corporation in Washington. There have been proposals to eliminate our state offices. We question the wisdom of such a decision. 'Why change a system that so ideally meets the needs of our programs, our volunteers and our communities? \Vhat efficiency can be gained by stripping our programs and the communities they serve of experienced, dedicated support and damaging effecti\'e partnerships that make our programs the low cost, creative solutions to many of our communities' problems? If the determined anempts to eliminate our state offices do ultimately succeed, then there is only one clear choi ce for the administrative and funding control of our programs. The Michigan Offices of Services to the Aging has provided firm leadership and support for our programs and oversight for our state funding for 14 years. They are already part of the partnership, I speak of, and are experienced and creative in recommending appropriate ways for senior \'Olunteers to aid in solving community problems. Because they already provide suppon and administer funding for programs for seniors throughout the state, including all of the senior volunteer programs, OSA has the knowledge needed to carry out our stated purpose. What should the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in Michigan? Again, vill address senior volunteerism because ours is a senior volunteer program. We appreciate the Commission's uecision to establish a Senior Advisory Council. This demonstrated an appreciation for the expertise and value of the seniors in our state. We hope that they will continue to look upon the seniors in Michigan as a source of wisdom, experience and an example of productive aging. We would hope that the Commission could be more creative in the membership of the Council by including a broader cross-section of senior representation such as AARP, reli gious leaders, and collaborations with retired professionals, i.e., retired nurses and teachers. The Advisory Council needs to become a more functioning body with goals and objectives. The momentum of the Council seems to be waning. What can the Commission do To support national and community service and volunteerism in .Michigan ? We hope that the Commission will, basically, leave the senior volunteer programs alone. We provide seniors v;ith the framework to improve their ovm lives while serving others. The Commission should recognize the strength of senior \'Olunteers without exploiting seniors as cheap labor. To try to dictate what a volunteer will choose to do is an ox:ymoron. Senior volunteers, actually volunteers of any age, carmot be forced to provide service for free. Sen·ice and volunteerism are not synonymous. To be an effective RSVP volunteer, there must be benefit to the senior first, and service to the community, second. Othenvise, volunteerism becomes exploitative. The Commission must recognize this subtle, yet vital, difference between service and volunteerism. The Commission's programs are predominately service programs for youth. We are volunteer programs for seniors. There is a vast difference. Again, thank you very much for providing this opportunity to express our views. We look fonvard to working llaboratively with the Commission on projects in the future thus puning to good use the strengths of each entity. �A part ofyour l~fo.. :all yo ur l{ti·. MARCH 25, 1997 PRESENTATION TO MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION RE THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES AND OTHER CYO/CO&T DEPARTMENT PROJECTS EFFECTED BY FUNDING THROUGH THE COMMISSION. BY: SHARON CAMPBELL, PROGRAM MANAGER GOOD AFTERNOON , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM SHARON CAMPBELL. I AM EMPLOYED BY THE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION OF DETROIT , AND I ADD , PARENTHETICALLY , WE ARE NOT PART OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT. I AM HONORED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY GOOD THAT'S HAPPENING WITH AND FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA. I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO BE A PART OF THIS EFFORT. THE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION HAS A LONG STANDING HISTORY OF "GETTING KIDS AND COMMUNITIES INTO SOMETHING GOOD", AS A MATTER OF FACT THE IMPACT THIS AGENCY HAS MADE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CYO ACTIVITIES IS OFTEN SO STRONG THAT OUR MOTTO IS "CYO ... A PART OF YOUR LIFE, ALL OF YOUR LIFE. - - - - - " .- - . �IN ADDITION TO THE COMMONLY KNO W N CYO ATHLETICS AND YOUTH TRAINING DEPARTMENT P~QGRAMS SUCH AS , CAMPS , LEADERSHIP , THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS , CHURCHES , PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS , SCHOOLS , GOVERNMENT AGENC IES , HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES , AND BUSINESSES TO CREATE HEAL THY ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH YOUNG PEOPLE IN SIX COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN , CAN LIVE, LEARN, AND PROSPER. THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT STAFF SERVES TO STRENGTHEN AND REVITALIZE COMMUNITIES BY GETTING PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THEIR OWN NEEDS AND TRAINING THEM TO REACH THEIR COMMON GOALS THROUGH GROUP ACTION AND SELF - HELP EFFORTS. THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION HAS SUPPORTED THE MISSION OF THE CYO COMMUNITY ORGANIZING & TRAINING DEPARTMENT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS BY GRANT ING FUNDS AND ACCESS TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE . AS A RESULT , THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES OF THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA EXISTS TO ADDRESS THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF YOUTH THROUGH ADVOCACY, COLLABORATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ; TO MOBILIZE HUMAN AND ALL OTHER AVAILABLE RESOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THIS 2 �MISSION ; AND TO SERVE AS A PRIMAR Y COMMUNITY RESOURCE FOR Y OUTH . . SERVICES AND INFORMATION . JUST WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?? FOR MANY YEARS, THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES WAS A GROUP OF EXECUTIVES WHO MET AMONG THEMSELVES , WITHOUT A SPECIFIC MISSION , TO SHARE RESOURCES AND INFORMATION. BECAUSE THE MCSC AND CYO JOINED FORCES, THROUGH A MYSAM GRANT, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THAT GROUP OF EXECUTIVES TO RE-ORGANIZE , RE - STRUCTURE , AND RE -BUILD THE COALITION. GOALS WERE ESTABLISHED WHICH INCLUDE COLLABORATING WITH ESTABLISHED AND EMERGING ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE NETW ORKING OPPORTUNITIES , EXPLORE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING POSSIBILITIES , AND SHARE RESOURCES. MEMBERSHIP WAS EX PANDED TO INCLUDE ORGAN IZATIONS , CHURCHES , COALIT IONS , NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND OTHERS WHOSE PURPOSE INCLUDES PROVIDING SERVICES TO YOUTH . THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES , NOW , AS A RESULT OF THE MCSC / CY O COLLABORATION , PROVIDES INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO APPROXIMATELY 250 YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS . THESE ORGANIZATIONS VARY IN SIZE , STRENGTH , BUDGET AND ARENA. THEY INCLUDE NOT ONLY LONG 3 �STANDING , FAMILIAR ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE GIRLS SCOUTS , BOYS SCOUTS , Y'S , BUT ALSO, SCHOOLS , CHURCHES , COMMUNITY GROUPS , THE CITY OF DETROIT, AGENCIES , NATIONALLY HEALTH NEIGHBORHOOD AFFILIATED AGENCIES , GROUPS, LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS, SERVICES AND -BUSINESSES. HUMAN AGENCIES , MANY SERVICE EMERGING PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEGUN TO GEL AS A RESUL TOF THE INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SHARING AVAILABLE TO CYSA MEMBERS . LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST QUARTER ACTIVITY . A TWO-DAY CONFERENCE WAS SPONSORED BY THE COALITION , FOR ADULTS WHO WORK CONFERENCE WITH WAS YOUTH. THE ATTENDED BY "NURTURING ALMOST 200 FUTURE ADULTS GENERATIONS" WHO RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; PARTICIPATED IN NETWORKING ACTIVITIES ; HEARD F~OM SPEAKERS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD , WHO WORK IN THE TRENCHES TO IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE STATE-OF- THE-ART INFORMATION AND RESOURCES FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS. FOR ABOUT 50 OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE , IT WAS THEIR FIRST TIME PARTICIPATING IN A CYSA ACTIVITY. TWENTY-EIGHT AGENCIES ENROLLED AS PAID MEMBERS OF THE COALITION AS A RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE. 4 �THE CONFERENCE WAS PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED AS A COMMUNITY -BASED SERVICE LEARNING PROJECT . TWENTY -FIVE YOUTH, AGES 14-21 , REPRESENTING A VARIETY OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA PARTICIPATED BY OFFERING INVOCATIONS, INTRODUCING EACH KEYNOTE AND WORKSHOP PRESENTERS, FACILITATING WORKSHOP AND OVERALL CONFERENCE EVALUATION-PROCESSES, AND PARTICIPATING IN ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTION EXERCISES AT THE END OF EACH DAY . IN ADDITION TO DEVELOPING AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, A COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED TO DEFINE AND DEVE-LOP A "PILOT" COMPREHENSIVE YOUTH SERVICES PROJECT. AT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT AN INITIATIVE TO MOBILIZE AND TRAIN YOUTH IN LEADERSHIP SKILLS. THIS WILL BE DONE THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DETROIT URBAN LEAGUE . PRESENTATIONS WERE ALSO MADE BY THE MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR HUMAN SERVICES ABOUT THE 1996 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK AND THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA AND HOW GROUPS CAN USE THOSE DOCUMENTS AS A TOOL TO INCREASE THEIR SERVICE CAPACITY. 5 �• I THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHER B.ENEF ITS TO YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE DETROIT AREA , THROUGH THE CYSA , AND I DON ' T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO D ISCUSS THEM ALL. I DO , HOWEVER , WANT TO TELL YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PLANS DEVELOPING FOR THE SUMMER . THE COALITION IS GEARING UP FOR A COLLABORATIVE SERVICE-LEARNING ACTIVITY FOR YOUTH . THROUGH THE YOUTHMAPPING PROJECT, YOUNG PEOPLE WILL CANVASS NEIGHBORHOODS , BLOCK - BY-BLOCK , GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN THEIR COMMUNITY FOR THEM AND THEIR PEERS . ONE OF THE PREMISES OF THE YOUTHMAPPING APPROACH IS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO IDENTIFY RESOURCES THAT ARE USEFUL TO THEM . RESOURCES , NOT ONLY INCLUDE SERVICES , THE Y ALSO INVOLVE OPPORTUNITIES , PLACES TO GO , AND CARING ADULTS. THIS PROJECT W ILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP , LIFE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES , A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IS UNDERWA Y TO SEEK A GRANT TO STIPEND THE Y OUTH. AS YOU CAN TELL I AM VERY EXC ITED BY THIS WORK . I WOULD ALSO LI KE TO TELL Y OU A BIT ABOUT THE WORK OTHER CO& T DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN AND ARE ENGAGED IN . 6 �THROUGH A M ICHIGAN CARES GRANT THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COLLABORATIVE WAS DEVELOPED. THIS IS A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN , YOUTH CENTERED COLLABORATIVE THAT PROVIDES SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO RESIDENTS OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT TO BUILD A SAFE AND HEAL TH Y ENVIRONMENT WHERE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERISM ARE PRESENT, WHILE CELEBRATING THE STRENGTHS AND MUL TI -CUL TURISM OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT . YOUTH AND ADULTS CAME TOGETHER TO TRAIN THE YOUTH TO PLAN AND FACILITATE A WEEKEND CONFERENCE. TWO ADOPT-A - STREET PROJECTS WERE ORGANIZED ON A STREET IN THE COMMUNITY . OVER 35 YOUTH AND 1 5 ADULTS WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH LOCAL INDUSTRIES TO CLEAR AWAY 200 TONS OF GARBAGE , 700 TIRES AND 90 GAS TANKS . TWENTY -FIVE JUNIOR HIGH AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YOUTH PARTICIPATE IN A TUTORING AND MENTORING PROGRAM . YOUTH FROM MIDDLE SCHOOL VOLUNTEER TO BE A PART OF THE GROUP WHO DESIGN THE "LESSON" FOR THE KINDERGARTNERS , AND ACTUALLY FACILITATE THE TEACHING OF THE LESSON , GUIDED BY A TEACHER. 7 �A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY BASED RECREATION LEAGUE WAS FUNDED . BUILDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT THE OF MICARES BASE COMMUNITY IN THE RECREATION COMMUNITY , THE LEAGUE HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY RECRUITING AND TRAINING VOLUNTEERS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY , COACHES, REFEREES, AND PLAYERS. THE COMMUNITY RECREATION lEAGUE INCREASES COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERISM : MORE PARENTS, MORE LOCAL BUSINESSES , MORE CHURCHES, MORE AGENCIES , MORE SCHOOLS ARE INVOLVED . THE LEAGUE WILL IMPROVE AND PUT TO USE UNDERUTILIZED AND POORLY MAINTAINED FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY . WHEN A COMMUNITY'S PHYSICAL CONDITION IS IMPROVED THERE IS AN INCREASE OF PRIDE AND SENSE OF OWNERSHIP , WHICH RESULTS IN A REDUCTION OF CRIME. EACH OF THE FINANCIALLY PROGRAMS AND / OR WITH I HAVE MENTIONED TECHNICAL HAVE ASSISTANCE BEEN BY THE SUPPORTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION . THAT SUPPORT HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS. MOST OF WHICH ARE THOSE GROWING PA INS OF ANY NEW INITIATIVE , SUCH AS , ON-GOING EVALUATION AND PROGRAM CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION AS NEW IDEAS ARE FORMULATED. THE COMMUNICATION OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND REPORTING PROCEDURES HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF SOME CONSTERNATION . 8 �DESPITE THE LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES , THE BENEFITS FAR OUTWEIGH THE PROBLEMS. ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PLANNING GRANT WHERE THEY IDENTIFY THEIR OWN ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THOSE ISSUES. THIS HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE EXPERIENCE . IT EXEMPLIFIES THE ESSENCE OF COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND SELF -HELP. THE MYSAM GRANT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ORGANIZATION , THEREBY INCREASING THE VOLUNTEERISM OF MEMBER AGENCIES . THE VISTA PROGRAM HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL RESOURCE TO CYO AND ITS CLIENT GROUPS . THE REG IONAL AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES , WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES , NETW ORKING ACTIVITIES COORDINATED AND FACILITATED BY THE MCSC HAS SERVED TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF OUR CLIENT GROUPS , BY FOSTERING COLLABORATION, SHARING RESOURCES , AND PROMOTING REPLICATION AND CROSS-FERTILIZATION OF PROGRAMS , NOT DUPLICATION . 9 �WHAT CAN THE MCSC DO TO SUPPORT THE WORK THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY? PRESENT GRANTEES OF THE MCSC CAN CONTINUE TO GRO W IN SIZE AND CAPACITY IF MCSC CONTINUES TO OFFER REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE TRAINING AND NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , WHILE MAKING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO EMERGING GROUPS, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR FUTURE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES. CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE EMERGING GROUPS TO NETWORK WITH CURRENT GRANTEES WILL ALSO FOSTER CROSSFERTILIZATION AND REPLICATION INSTEAD OF DUPLICATION . FOR EXAMPLE: A THREE TIERED STRUCTURE CAN BE DEVELOPED , AKIN TO THE LOCAL- , COUNTY-, STATE - GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, WHERE NETWORKING CAN OCCUR IN A LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS , REGIONALLY , AND STATEWIDE . THE MCSC IS IN A POSITION TO ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND FUTURE GRANTEES HAVE CUTTING-EDGE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS . A CONSORTIUM OF ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITH FUNDS AND / OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVELY BE ESTABLISHED AND FAC ILITATED BY THE MCSC . 10 CAN �IN CONCLUSION, OUR RELATIONSHIP W ITH THE MCSC, THROUGH THE MYSAM GRANT, Ml CARES FUNDING , AND WITH THE VISTA VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM HAS INCREASED OUR CAPACITY TO SERVE THE EMPOWERMENT OF YOUTH AND ADULTS , ENABLED US TO FOSTER INCREASING CAPACITY OF YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS, AND OVERALL, TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS . WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED OPPORTUNITES TO MAINTAIN A PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION . THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY . 11 �'• MCSC PUBLIC HEARING Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bob Parks. I am the Program Director of the Family Independence Agency's Americorps program: the Citizens' Health Service Corps. I come here with less experience with Americorps and the Commission than any other presenter speaking here today. I've been with the program since January 2nd of this year. This is a very sophisticated audience and I don't come with any great insights that are going to be new to you . But I bring what I hope is a balanced perspective to the issues. Where my perspective maybe different is that for 7 years I was responsible for the contract management and oversight of36 non-profit agencies providing Runaway and Homeless Youth services in Mic~igan. The total annual dollar amount of those contracts was about $ 6 million dollars. Many of my responsibilities were similar to those of the Commission. I bring an understanding and appreciation of the needs ofthe Commission in relationship to the programs being funded . A couple of examples: There are differences in the way data collection is perceived. Programs want to use data to make their programs look good and to be refunded . Data collection is seen as hard work and a burden. Unmet program goals are perceived as threatening the continuation ofthe program. While everyone recognizes that data is useful and can be used for continuous improvement; most of the time it is seen as an obligation required by the funding source. The Commission wants data to determine whether their money is being spent well and wisely. The Commission needs to ensure that programs are achieving their mission and to know whether programs are meeting their obligations that are included in the grant. The Commission and the Grantees have different customers, stakeholders and interest groups. As a result, there may be competing priorities and objectives. Often, there is a lack of appreciation of each other' s priorities and objectives Prior to becoming the Americorps Program Director, the office where I worked for two and a half years was involved, as an Internal Consultant to FIA, in areas of Total Quality Management, Teamwork and Customer Service. My comments will lean on my background as an Internal Consultant. �•• In the time that I have I would like to focus on what can be__ done to create a sense ofPartnership and Collaboration between the Comrriission and the programs under the aegis of the Commission. Discussing in a public forum what can be improved isn' t easy. All ofus were taught by our parents not to raise concerns that may appear critical of others. Nobody wants to criticize anyone in front of their bosses. And raising concerns that may appear to be critical of a funding source is seldom a good idea. But I have an advantage. Last week, I discussed these themes with Frank Dirks and, afterwards, he still invited me to speak at this public hearing. The major perception that I have is that the Commission sees its role primarily in terms of management and oversight and not from a customer-service focus. In my judgment, this mindset affects the way the Commission communicates and relates with programs. It hinders an openness which is so necessary for Partnership _and Collaboration. The examples that I will use do not occur all the time. In some cases, the examples, by themselves, mean very little. But collectively, these examples foster an attitude that is, in my view, counter-productive. Information is not always shared in a timely way . I received a call on March 7, 1997 inviting Arnericorps Members and staff to be a part of Emergency Based Response Team. An organizational meeting was scheduled for March 20, 1997. But the information regarding the meeting was not faxed to me until March 13 , 1997. Telephone calls are not always returned in a timely manner. It is at the point where I don 't expect to have my calls returned promptly. There are times when the Commission does not create an atmosphere of partnership. As an example: It was announced at the last Commission meeting that there may be $ 1 million dollars available in the FY -98 Appropriation Bill to help local communities to raise endowment funds . It was suggested that FIA Volunteer Coordinators may have a role in this effort. But this issue was never discussed with FIA prior to the announcement at the Commission meeting. Meetings are called without clear or complete agendas . Often, there is a notation in the notice that the meeting is "mandatory" . The Commission has a paternalistic attitude toward programs. In the registration materials to Arnericorps programs for the SuperConference there was a notation that said, "Two persons to a room Same sex roommates only!" I found this to be condescending If the target audience for the registration materials had been the this Board of Commissioners, would that language have been the same? �<. Requests for information often come with very abbrevi~t~d deadlines. As an example, the request to submit names for the Americorps*Vista "National Service Hero" award allowed very little time to pull the information together; particularly when our site supervisors have many other Volunteer Service responsibilities. This may not be a good example because the short timeframes probably came from the Corporation for National Service and not the Commission. There is a sense that the Commission does not want programs to call the Corporation for National Service in Washington. In truth, I'm not sure why I have this perception. The Corporation for National Service has a poor track record for returning calls promptly. Frequently what I end up doing is call both the Commission and CNS when I am requesting information. To add balance, let me give a couple of examples of outstanding customer service. Just prior to the SuperConference one of the workshop presenters wanted to have an Americorps Member make a presentation at her workshop . The site supervisor called me to ask if the registration for the Americorps Member could be paid by the Commission. I called Lindy Reurink. Within 5 minutes she called me back to tell me everything was all set. One week after I became the Americorps Program Director I found out I was responsible to write the Year Two Renewal Application; which was due in Washington, DC on February 11th. I submitted my draft to Frank Dirks. On three occasions, he thoroughly reviewed the drafts, met with me to discuss the drafts, and made specific and important recommendations to improve the application. The result was that a quality Renewal Application was submitted. We were one of only eleven programs, out of the 28 original grants, that was approved for renewal. In closing, it is sometimes true that perception becomes reality. If my perceptions are shared by others they can have a stifling impact on communication and collaboration. �1787 Manchester Dr. Ypsilanti, MI 48198 313-487-0717 smsdas@ aol.com March 23, 1997 One Project: One Reason Not to Merge I take this opportunity to share my concerns in writing about the transference of CNS programs to the state commissions. I served as the state director for CNS and its predecessor agency ACTION for 23 years in Michigan. In addition, I served as a VISTA volunteer for two years from 1967 to 1969. I have a long history of involvement with poverty programs as well as senior programs. During the period of 1984 to 1986. I was detailed to the Michigan Department of Social Services to serve as a special assistant to the director. My experiences are many and varied relative to project development and social programming. It is based on that background that leads me to vigorously object to the merger of CNS and the state commission in Michigan. I have included the position paper of the National Senior Service Corps Directors Associations stating their objections to senior programs being transferred to commissions. This paper gives my objections to the transference of the V 1ST A sponsor approval process to the state commission. The state commissions· emphasis is on service and volunteerism. VISTA ·s mission is on poverty related issues. There is a major difference between the two. V 1ST A was created in 1964 as part of the War on Poverty effort. The emphasis for VISTA has been and still is the eradication and/or amelioration of poverty. Recruiting volunteers for community agencies is not necessarily a poverty related activity and is a function that is most often done by a volunteer action type agency, whose mission is the promotion of vo lunteerism. In my 23 years in Michigan. I did not, nor would I have. approved a project like the one that was approved for 18 VISTA volunteers in Michigan this past year by the Michigan CNS office in conjunction with the state commission. The sponsor of that project is the Michigan Nonprofit Association. The project was submitted to the Michigan CNS office by Frank Dirks. Executive Director of the Michigan Community Service Commission. on �" . •. behalf of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative and its collaborating partners, the Council of Michigan Foundations and the Michigan Nonprofit Association. All fine organizations, but none that have a history in Michigan of working on poverty related issues. "The principle purpose of this project is to support the continuation of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative to facilitate communication, Citizen action, community problem solving through service and volunteerism." That is a direct quote from the application. Absent is any mention of poverty, disadvantaged , handicapped or any other word that might describe some of our more vulnerable individuals. The goals of this project are an example of what will happen to VISTA if the state commission has a role in determining emphasis areas and project sponsors. Some of the goals of this project are: I. Link organizations 2. Promote new collaborative partnerships 3. Recruit volunteers 4. Gather community agency information 5. Support collaborative service projects 6. Promote "one stop shopping'' models There are seven other goals that are all volunteer coordinator functions that are to be assumed --by the VISTAs. No where in the goals is poverty. lmv income. children or the elderly mentioned. This project is totally out of compliance with the intent of VISTA. It is a project that more likely should be a function of the state commission and not CNS. Having a state entity whose purpose is the promotion of volunteerism as the developer of VISTA projects will be disastrous for low income communities in· this state. There are six sub-grantees in this project that have significantly different miSSIOnS. The Jackson County Community Transformation Projects mission is to create a community where citizens individually and collectively increase their desire and ability to meet their own needs. the needs of the community. and the needs of the larger environment. The Catholic Youth Organization strives to respond to the current and changing needs of the youth community of Metropolitan Detroit. They seek to enable volunteers to meet expressed needs through recreationaL spirituaL and leadership programs. I never considered CYO a possible entity for VISTA resources in Detroit. Their mission was too religious for VISTA. �.. The mission of the Kirkland Community College Volunteer Center is to serve as a clearinghouse and to operate as part of a local , state, and national network which encourages and enables persons from all walks of life and age groups to perform constructive community service. I am glad that they are not promoting destructive community service. Kirkland was a horrible RSVP sponsor. We removed the program from them. The purpose of the Muskegon County Community Foundation is to assist worthwhile projects for the betterment of Muskegon County, with some emphasis on the arts, education , youth, human services , and community development. At least they are addressing some of the areas that VISTAs should be working in. TO BE DETERMINED is a project that will operate in Marquette. Never did I approve a ghost sponsor. Saginaw Bay Watershed Council serves as an advocate for local communities on water quality issues and initiates proactive educational and hands-on activities within a 22 county area of the watershed. It is interesting that, even though they have significantly different missions. the goals and objectives are the same for all the projects. Those of us in the trade call that procedure Xerox programming: write one goal, copy it for all components. New specific objectives were to be determined by each by September 15, 1996. I can find no record that they have done so. In addition to CNS approving this ghost project, they gave Michigan Nonprofit Association $26,000 to supervise it. I guess that if you have the right friends in the right places one can do most anything without anyone challenging those outlandish actions. I know that there are a lot of VISTA sponsors that would love a little money for supervision or that the VISTAs would love a little help with transportation; I bet they didn't get any. I have been unable to find any resources that the state or Michigan Nonprofit contributed to this project. One would think that a project of this size would require some contribution from the sponsor or the state. I heard that the supervision grant was amended to include $17,000 for in-se rvice training. What a sham. A reverse Robin Hood seems to be the operative methodology that created this project: take resources from those s mall agencies working with the poor and give them to state coordinating bodies who are promoting a thing called service. The collusion between the state CNS office and the state commission is not good for the poor and disadvantaged in Michigan. A preoccupation with process over results is a major flavv in the merger plan presented by Frank Dirks. One of the challenges that I had when I worked in Lansing for MOSS was convincing them that not all knowledge resided there. I had to �.. fight many battles to get funding for community .based organizations. It appears that with the proposed merger plan that small agencies need not apply for resources. In another, separate piece, I will comment on the awarding of VISTAs to the state welfare agency. Suffice it to say that CNS giving VISTAs to FIA is like me giving money to Bill Gates. It just doesn't make sense no matter how worthy the project. If FIA wants VISTAs, then let them buy them. Over 30 per cent of the state allocation for VISTA is now committed to two projects. The state commission is better suited for a role as a promoter of volunteerism and not as a grantor. I am still amazed that it takes a staff of ten to monitor fewer than twenty projects. The staffing and the budget for the commission are obscene. It is one of the reasons that the cost for an AmeriCorps member exceeds $20,000 per year. The state commission needs to be rerationalized. It will not always have a first lady as the chair and there will be a change in governors if not in 1998, then in 2002 because of term limits. With a new governor there will be new staff for the commission. It is important that there be a permanent entity in Michigan that will monitor and support programs for those who have been left out and left behind. The commission is not set up to fulfill that function. It is important to remember that a former state volunteer commission (VIM) was closed because of state budget problems. A viable state CNS office is the answer and one that is not a puppet of the state. Finally, I would like to ask commission members what value do they think is added to the delivery of service by the existence of a state commission. I believe that there are cheaper and more efficient ways to administer AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve. This proposed merger plan is not one of them. I hope that in the near future that we are able to sit down and develop a more suitable plan. Respectfully submitted: Stanley M. Stewart �Michigan Community Service Commission Public Information Gathering Meet~g: 3/25/97 - Michigan Communities In Schools, Inc. (MCIS) is our state's affiliate of Communities In Schools, Inc. As you may know, Communities In Schools, Inc., formerly Cities In Schools (CIS), is the nation's largest stayin-school network with programs operating in over 200 urban and rural communities in 28 states. Formerly incorporated in 1977, CIS pioneered the concept of coordinating and delivering existing, already funded health and human services, and other resources, at public school sites. Today, CIS, at the national level, exists to help local communities establish and maintain a formal process for pooling their resources and delive.ring these resources to children and families in need at the central location of the school. For the tremendous number of students and families who are living life on the edge, having better access to services which are delivered in a caring, accountable, and coordinated fashion, is often the first step towards ending their cycle of failure. Over the years, this approach has proven to be cost-effective and successful in helping to "tum around" the Iives of young people who were considered on the brink of dropping out of school or having the risk factors that would eventually lead to dropping out. In community after community, evaluations and outside studies are consistently showing that this approach not only produces cost savings in the criminal justice system, school district, and social welfare system, but also leads to higher attendance, improved academic performance, and reduced behavioral problems and criminal activity. At the core of this innovative movement are the four CIS basics, recently adopted as values for the upcoming Presidents' S ummit: • • • All children need and deserve: a personal, one-on-one relationship with a caring adult; a safe place to learn and grow; a marketable skill to use upon graduation; and a chance to give back to peers and community . The Michigan Communities In Schools (MCIS ) office, located in Grand Rapids, was established in early 1994 and works with as a public/private partnership to champion the connection of needed community resources, parent and schools to help young people succes~fully learn. stay in school arzd prepare for Iife. The primary function of MCIS is to develop and support local CIS initiatives across the state, as accomplished through the following activities: * assisting new communities adopt the CIS process, * arranging and/or delivering training and technical assistance for new and existing CIS communities, * linking local CIS communities with state, regional and national resources, and * advocating for children and their families through statewide partnerships. In Michigan, we are presently working with 20 communities at varying levels of interested , implementing and operatwnal status. Operational CIS programs currently serve youth and families in Tecumseh, Detroit, Branch, Ottawa, Calhoun and Lenawee Counties representing daily service coordination in 48 schools, and growing rapidly. My experience with community service programs includes working with a variety of Learn & Serve initiatives, school based Service-Learning efforts, Youth Engaged in Service and Youth Initiative prO!:,'Tams over the past ten years. While vice president for Heart of West Michigan United Way, I supervised the �Volunteer Center, Project Blueprint, and other youth and adult volunteer efforts, in addition to my other responsibilities. I have also administered a VISTA grant for the l~ttwo and a half years through MCIS, and have recently applied for an AmeriCorps grant that could benefit our programs statewide. I have been honored to participate in the varied initiatives granted, and still maintain that the opportunity to 'give back' is as beneficial to the provider as to the recipient. As MCIS is both a provider and recipient itself when it comes to community service programs, I am glad to be able to respond to the Commission's questions. 1) The value of service programs for our community based organizations, and the individuals they serve, is irrefutable, and likewise their strengths are many. They supply direct and quality staffing resources for many worthy programs, while providing real-life experience and skill-building for the individuals that volunteer. They also provide meaningful positive interaction, engender strong citizenship, and assist in often dramatic and measurable outcomes. Strengths (of Michigan's system of support) : -the open, competitive nature of application process; -support and encouragement for high standards of accountability & impact; -inclusive recruiting and placement efforts: Weaknesses -lack of coordination of efforts; -need for clear and consistent (yet comprehensive) communications; -complexity of application process and staff time required. 2) Depending on the variety of offerings planned for the future, and their complimentary or supporting natures, one central coordinating agency (or one central, with sub-sites) may be more useful and efficient. Reporting, monitoring, training, and communications could be more effectively coordinated and disseminated; while maximizing staffing and fiscal responsibilities. Similarly, all proposal timelines and processes could be streamlined and coordinated to provide less burden on the granting agency, as well as the grantees. 3) The Commission should continue advocating for: -sufficient resources to provide community service options warranted; to include staffing, training, and supplemental budgets; -increased technology to enhance efficiency (wherever appropriate), as well as the training, equipment, and expertise to facilitate such activities; and -setting, and demonstrating, a high standard of quality, accountability, and outcomes; while providing the technical expertise to make it happen! I thank you again for this opportunity to share my views and experience, and look forward to many years of continued collaboration for the benefit of organizations, communities, and the individuals involved in both. son State Director/President attachment � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Mary-Pfeiler-Testimony-to-MCSC Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Mary Pfeiler's testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Mary Pfeiler's testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49886 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5f072ec52a0ce4d0dbd7d5783474ea41.pdf 742aedd5a04df27cf07bc829e88ca0aa PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Created by Executive Order of the Governor in 1991, the Michigan Community Service Commission was established in state law with the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Legislature in 1994. The nonpartisan Commission administers national and community service programs and supports and promotes volunteerism in Michigan . Chaired by First Lady, Michelle Engler, the Commission's mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through · service and volunteerism. Michigan CARES Supported through a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in partnership with the Council of Michigan Foundations, the Commission has worked to involve more than 150 community-based agencies and hundreds of volunteers in efforts to support improved coordination in delivering volunteer service. Michigan CARES operates in Alpena, Calhoun County, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Muskegon. Already the initiative has created two communi!Y nonprofit information exchange networks ; two community volunteer centers, a comprehensive community plan for youjh development, and a resource network for community nonprofit agencies. Learn and Serve Michigan The Commission supports competitive grants to community-based nonprofit organizations for programs that involve K-12 school-age youth in community volunteer projects. The Commission works closely with the Michigan Department of Education to coordinate school-and community-based youth service and volunteer programs and activities. Learn and Serve Michigan community-based programs operate in Alpena, Dearborn, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Manistee, Muskego n, Pontiac, Portage, Roscommon, and Traverse City. Last year these programs involved more than 1,704 youth and 155 adult - volunteers in more than 21,000 hours of community service. Michigan's AmeriCorps The Commission administers the national service AmeriCorps program which involves full-and part-time stipended volunteers in high impact community service projects. The Commission's competitive Michigan's AmeriCorps grants support programs in Adrian , Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, Caro, Dearborn, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Marquette, Midland, Monroe, Mt. Pleasant, Pontiac, Roscommon, Saginaw, St. Ignace, Shelby, Southfield, Warren, and Ypsilanti. Last year, Michigan's AmeriCorps involved more than 110 community-based partner organizations. In its second year, the program involved more than 360 full-and part-time corpsmembers to generate more than 10,000 additional volunteers who gave more than 125,000 hours of service. New Partnerships for Michigan The Commission, in partnership with the Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Council of Michigan Foundations, launched a statewide initiative to support and encourage collaborati'on among the nonprofit, public, private, and religious sectors of Michigan to stimulate community-based, citizen-driven problem solving . Governor's Community Service Awards The Commission administers the annual awards program, which last year received 240 nominations, recognized winners in 13 categories, and drew more than 500 people to the ceremony. Make a Difference Day The Commission partnered with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan, the Council of Michigan Foundations, and the Michigan Campus Compact, to disseminate 4,000 start-up kits and regi ster 160 projects involving more than 30,000 volunteers. TAP Youth Service Through a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Commission supported training for more than 150 low income community-based nonprofits in such areas as organizational development, volunteer recruitment, and fundraising . Nonprofit service and volunteer resource guides The Commission printed and distributed more than 3,000 copies of nonprofit and volunteer resource guides to nonprofit agencies, volunteer and service programs , community-based agencies , youth groups, and public libraries across the state . Youth volunteer and intergenerational service recruitment posters The Commission produced and distributed posters to 4,000 schools and hundreds of senior centers, volunteer agencies, and community nonprofit organizations across the state. Training and technical assistance workshops The Commission provided more than 300 nonprofit agencies and vo)unteer groups with training and technical assistance. �SAMPLE LEITER Dear: I am writing to urge you to support reinstatement of the Governor's proposed funding request for Volunteer Investment Grants. The program, to be administered by the Michigan Community Service Commission, a division of the Michigan Jobs Commission, will help support the sustained capacity of community-based nonprofit volunteer agencies. At a time when government, business, and nonprofit organizations are encouraging more people to volunteer in order to help meet the needs of their communities, the Volunteer Investment Grants will provide important support in building sustainable community volunteer resources. Volunteer Investment Grants are in keeping with the spirit of the national Volunteer Summit, at which the President and all the former Presidents called for bipartisan support for volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grants are innovative examples of public/private partnership. In fact, in a letter of support, Harris Wofford, the CEO of President Clinton's AmeriCorps program, wrote that we "hope to draw from it lessons that we may apply to national service ... This proposal represents another example of innovation by the Michigan Community Service Commission." Volunteer Investment Grants do not duplicate current programs or services, they support the development of nonprofit capacities for providing these services. No other state agency offers a program that will help generate permanently endowed funds to support community volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grants will: Enable roughly 18 Michigan nonprofit volunteer agencies involved in partnerships with other community nonprofit agencies in 18 Michigan communities to benefit from grants of $25,000$75,000, to support the increased involvement of volunteers in community problem solving. Leverage local funds to support local volunteer endowments that will generate a perpetual aggregate annual operating income of $100,000 across Michigan. I urge you to support this worthy program and help build Michigan's nonprofit volunteer sector. Sincerely, �VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Backeround Introduction The purpose of the Volunteer Investments Grants program is to provide grants to communitybased, volunteer, nonprofit agency partnerships that 1) support volunteerism and community service and 2) match local funds supporting local community foundation endowments that help sustain the activities of community nonprofit agencies supporting volunteerisrr:f and community service. Communities need nonprofit agency infrastructure that supports community volunteerism. The focus for this infrastructure in most communities is the nonprofit volunteer center/agency. Michigan's volunteer centers currently serve 48 counties in the state by recruiting and placing volunteers and serving as volunteer information clearinghouses. Yet volunteer agencies annually struggle to raise sufficient funds to operate. By requiring a local endowment match, Volunteer Investment Grants will help increase the number and self-sufficiency of local volunteer agencies/centers while building their capacity to involve volunteers in community problem-solvi ng. Elieibilitv Volunteer Investments Grants are available to community partnerships of nonprofit organizations form any Michigan community that designate a volunteer agency and include a community foundation. Every county in Michigan now has access to a community foundation . The designated volunteer agency must not duplicate the services provided by an existing organization, but may serve to combine the services provided by existing organizations. These partnerships will be eligible to apply for grants that will range in amount from $25,000 to $75,000. The following local organizations may be designated as the community volunteer agency: • • • • • • Volunteer Centers/Agencies United Ways Nonprofit organizations that provide community-wide volunteer services including, but not limited to volunteer recruitment and placement, clearinghouse information, volunteer training and technical assistance, special volunteer projects, and volunteer public awareness. Intermediate school districts Community colleges County extension offices Partnerships Effective community partnerships are essential for supporting and sustaining community volunteerism. The Volunteer Investment Grant program is intended to facilitate and enhance community partnerships that support volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grant partnerships must include a community foundation and a designated volunteer agency/center. While every community is unique, effective partnerships may include: United Ways, community and neighborhood nonprofit organizations, public schools, community colleges, institutions of higher education, hospitals, senior centers, senior volunteer agencies, county extension offices, local government offices, and other entities that regularly involve volunteers. �Requirements The application must include: • A partnership agreement that: designates a volunteer agency to serve as the applicant, specifies a community foundation to administer the endowment fund, and includes the local Family Independence Agency volunteer coordinator. • A survey of community volunteer resources and a description of how a Volunteer Investment Grant will strengthen and promote collaboration among these resources. • A one-year volunteer action plan that includes ar least two community-_wide service projects which meet community needs and demonstrate measurable community results. • A plan for $2 - to - $1 local cash match - $50,000 to $100,000 range, for the local endowment fund. • Agreement from the community foundation to cap its annual administrative service fee at 1% of principal. • A detailed, twelve-month operating budget for the volunteer agency including the amount of the Volunteer Investment Grant request. Application Process Grants will be awarded competitively. Applicants may request grants of up to $75,000 and no less than $25,000. The grant award process will include an expert peer review, a technical compliance review by MCSC staff, and final review and approval by MCSC. The local cash match will be deposited in a permanent, dedicated agency endowment fund established in the local community foundation for the purpose of supporting the operation of the community volunteer agency in perpetuity. Communities will be encouraged to exceed the minimum cash match and continue to build on the endowment find. In many community foundations, this match may be added to the permanent Romney Fund established for the same purpose. From the date of the award notification, a grantee will have six months to produce 50% of the cash match. At the time of the deposit of the 50% match, the community foundation will certify the formation of the fund and its match level to MCSC. Upon this notification, MCSC will release 50% of the cash grant in accordance with the approved grant budget. At the time of deposit of 100% of the minimum cash match- no later than 12 months after award notification, the foundation will notify MCSC and certify the match level. At that time MCSC will release the remaining 50% of the grant award in accordance with the approved budget. Grantees must submit progress reports after six and twelve months, and a final report after eighteen months that summarize program activities, the status of the endowment fund, and grant expenditures. Priority for Grant Awards Priority consideration will be given to applicants that demonstrate: The scope of the community volunteer partnership, including collaboration among volunteer service entities involving youth and senior volunteers • The level of financial match support and the plan for matching it • The relative (based on community size) number of volunteers to be involved in projects and the number of new volunteers The quality of anticipated outcomes of the volunteer service projects . �VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Talking Points Why .is this important? Volunteer agencies serve to recruit, train, and place volunteers in community nonprofit agencies. They are critical for effectively involving volunteers in service to their communities. Volunteer agencies are :c ommunity-based nonprofit organizations. Because they usually -don't run programs themselves, volunteer agencies have a difficult time raising money . Yet, the role these community nonprofit organizations play in raising human capital (volunteers) is equivalent to the role United Ways play in raising financial capital for nonprofit organizations. A study that the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) commissioned this year with the Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research found that 90% of nonprofit agencies in Michigan reported that they use volunteers; 60% of these agencies do not have the resources for their own volunteer coordinators; and 55% need more volunteers than they currently have. Volunteer agencies are critical for recruiting volunteers from the community and training nonprofit agencies in good volunteer management techniques so they can keep volunteers satisfied and productive once they have them. There is also a need to increase the number of Michiganians that volunteer. In the same study, the Institute found that only 40% of Michiganians volunteered their time and of those that don ' t volunteer, 58% reported that they didn't have enough time. Strong volunteer agencies can increase public awareness about volunteer opportunities and make volunteering easier and less timeconsuming for those who do volunteer. Why this program? Sustainable funding is the biggest challenge to any volunteer agency. For instance, in Washtenaw County, when the United Way was undergoing recent fiscal contractions, the first thing it did was eliminate funding for the volunteer agency that it housed. Even though volunteer agencies make great sense in the long run, they are always an easy target for short term reductions . The Volunteer Investment Grant program will support organizational sustainability through endowment building in the name of a community volunteer center. A $1 million investment will generate a minimum of two million additional endowed dollars that, at minimum, will generate a perpetual annual income of $100,000 across the state. Why place the endowment fund in community foundations? Community Foundations cover every county in the state. They are governed by 50l(c)3 IRS rules and regulations, and they serve as a community fund investment pool that increases the return on the individual investment. How many grants will be awarded? Roughly 18 grants in amounts ranging from $25 ,000-75,000. �That won't generate much income in the communitv. will it? For a volunteer center, even $2,500 per year means a lot. Annual endowment interest income of $2,500-to-$7 ,500 could support a new computer system for volunteer management, a community volunteer opportunity directory, a volunteer recognition program, a summer youth program, or a share of a volunteer coordinator's salary. In addition, endowed volunteer agencies will always have the opportunity to build their endowment further. Will state dollars go into the endowment? No. State support goes only into first year operation with local match supporting the endowment. Funding for the first year operation will provide support for the range of services offered by a volunteer agency. In addition, the agency and its community partners will generate: • A partnership agreement that: designates a volunteer agency to serve as the applicant, specifies a community foundation to administer the endowment fund, and includes the local Family Independence Agency volunteer coordinator. • A survey of community volunteer resources and a description of how a Volunteer Investment Grant will strengthen and promote collaboration among these resources. • A one-year volunteer action plan that includes ar least two community-wide service proj ects which meet community needs and demonstrate measurable community results. How will MCSC ensure that there is geographic distribution? The grants will be competitively reviewed by peers, MCSC staff, and the commission. A factor in the overall review will be geographic distribution. In addition, the requirement that communities develop their collaborative plan as part of the application and in it designate the community's volunteer agency for the purpose of the endowment, makes it unlikely that grants will be concentrated in any specific geographic area. Do nonprofit organizations support this program? Volunteer Investment Grants have the support of the following nonprofit networks. • Michigan Nonprofit Association • Volunteer Centers of Michigan • Council of Michigan Foundations • United Way of Michigan • United Way Community Service for Metropolitan Detroit In addition, the program has the support of the Federal Agency administering President Clinton's AmeriCorps program: • Corporation for National Service �.. ' What the Appropriations Subcommittee Decision Means to Michigan's Nonprofit Volunteer Agencies - • Eighteen Michigan nonprofit volunteer agencies involved in partnerships with other community nonprofit agencies in 18 Michigan communities will not be able to benefit from grants of $25,000 $75,000, to support the increased involvement of volunteers in community problem solving. • These nonprofit community volunteer agencies will lose the opportunity to benefit from a perpetual aggregate annual operating income of $100,000 in endowed funds. • At a time when Government is asking more of nonprofit volunteer agencies, this decision will deny them access to an innovative approach to sustainable, endowed funding. • This decision also runs against the views expressed by Harris Wafford, the CEO of President Clinton's AmeriCorps program, who wrote that we "hope to draw from it lessons that we may apply to national service ... This proposal represents another example of innovation by the Michigan Community Service Commission.'' � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_MCSC-Information Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission information Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission information. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49887 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7accaf6691dc43db015eb368780e91e0.pdf 75d133aa41e23416477e8f544b8e92a7 PDF Text Text � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Meeting-Dates-for-1997 Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting meeting dates for 1997 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting meeting dates for 1997. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49888 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06