572 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5724e9fefd6b1a9726fee4cf4db6d026.pdf 7197bcaba4b723de1a618998f600788f PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Ms. Julie F. Cummings Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 %The Fisher Family 27751 Fairway Hills Dr. Franklin, MI 48025 (W) 313-874-2100 Fax: 313-874-2338 *Lovelight Foundation Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol A venue Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W)517-335-4295 Fax: 517-373-4977 Ms. Judith Dunn 54790 Grand River New Hudson, Michigan 48165 (W)248-446-4500 Fax: 248-446-4508 *Small business Ms. Karen Aldridge Eason Mr. Arthur E. Ellis C. S. Matt Foundation 1200 Matt Foundation Building Flint, Michigan 48503 (W) 810-238-5651 ax: 810-766-1753 ·Matt Foundation Superintendent Michigan Department of Education Superintendent's Office P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W) 517-373-9235 Fax: 517-335-4565 *Michigan Department of Education Mr. John W. Barfield Ms. Kathryn Honaker The Bartech Group 17199 N. Laurel Park Drive, Ste. 224 Livonia, Michigan 48152 (W)734-953-5050 Fax: 734-953-5076 *The Bartech Group 5944 Seville Circle Orchard Lake, Michigan 48324 (W)248-351-7111 Fax: 248-351-7677 *Allstate Insurance Mr. Victor Begg Ms. Dorothy Johnson 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (W) 248-334-9225 Fax: 248-334-9225 *Small business Council of Michigan Foundation 1 South Harbor A venue, Ste. 3 P.O. Box 599 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417 (W) 616-842-7080 Fax: 616-842-1760 *Council of Michigan Foundation Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell 619 E. Chippewa Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858-1741 ) 517-774-3885 ax: 517-774-3690 *Central Michigan University 1 8-99 Updated �Ms. Nancy Lenz Dr. Joel Orosz 'chigan National Bank 200 W. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (W)616-349-0549 Fax: 616-349-0550 *Michigan National Bank W. K. Kellogg Foundation One Michigan Avenue East Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 (W)616-969-2308 Fax: 616-969-2693 *W. K. Kellogg Foundation Mr. James W. Muir 403 E. Broomfield Hall Herrig Hall, Room 018 Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 (H)810-263-9066 (S)517-774-5611 Fax: 517-774-1416 *CMU Student Ms. Kari Pardoe Ste. A 226/Porter Hills 3600 E. Fulton Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (H)616-285-6797 Fax: 616-459-9906 *Retiree and Senior volunteer Ms. Kathleen Keen McCarthy Ms. Vivian Rogers Pickard Supervisor of the Charter Township of Plymouth 42350 Ann Arbor Road Plymouth, Michigan 48170 (W) 734-453-3840 ax: 734-453-5680 Charter Township of Plymouth GM Corporation 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 300 482-C27-B76 Detroit, Michigan 48265-3000 (W)313-665-2989 Fax: 313-665-0746 *Corporate Relations Rep. Mr. Randy Neelis Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 4701 Fifth St. Menominee, Michigan 49858 (W) 906-863-9951 . Fax: 906-863-1171 *Menominee School District 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48630 (W) 517-496-8827 Fax: 517-496-6109 *Dow Corning Corporation Mr. Donald Newport Ms. Meg Smith Alpena Community College 666 Johnson Street Alpena, Michigan 49707 (W) 517-356-9021 ext. 246 Fax: 517-354-4316 *Alpena Community College RSVP of Monroe County 1623 W. Sterns Road Temperance, Michigan 48182 (W)734-241-8181 Fax:734-850-6099 *RSVP of Monroe County Patricia Ryan O'Day D. Sgt. Matthew Wesaw Marquette Monthly 424 E. Hewitt A venue Marquette, Michigan 49855 )906-226-6500 ax: 906-228-5777 -•Small Business Owner 3939 Mayapple Lane Lansing, MI 48911 (W)517 -484-6772 Fax: 517-484-5825 *Michigan State Police 2 �... 13:than Weinstock 430 N. Putnam Road Williamston, Michigan 48895 (H)517 -655-8088 *Williamston High School Student Mr. Raymond W. West United Way Community Services Labor Department 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 (W) 313-226-9215 Fax: 313-226-9210 *United Way Community Service Ms. Geneva Jones Williams Executive Vice President and COO United Way Community Services 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 (W) 313-226-9444 Fax: 313-226-9339 *United Way Community Services 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1999-09-24_Roster Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting roster Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting roster. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50057 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1b4bc69585e224f06fac8a52737bc45c.pdf b08f92d48ab7e41765e46cb0fc02775d PDF Text Text Service In Education Partnership Michiaan Service in Education Partnership Proaram Proposed Budaet Narrative Description W. K. Kelloaa Foundation Year1 Partner Contributions Year1 W. K. Kellogg Foundation Year2 Partner Contributions Year2 Total P~rsonn~l Full-time Service-Learning Coordinator 140hrs. @ $25.00 x 52 weeks) !Fringe @ 30%) Administrative Support (.5 FTE) 20 hrs @$10 x 52 weeks) Subtotal Conferences and Meetinas Annual Service-Learning Conference meals@ $27 x 150 participants) lodging @ $60 x 150 participants) Facilities (150 participants@ $5 each per meeting) Miscellaneous Materials Subtotal Quarterly Policy Meetings meals@ $27 x 20 people) transportation @150 miles @ $.2575 X 15 participants) Facility Rental $100 x 4 meetings) Subtotal Quarterly SLLC Networking Meetings 25 meals@ $27 x 4) meeting facilities $100 X 4) Subtotal Office ExPenses Copies Postaoe Telephone Facilities Rental Office Equipment General Supplies Subtotal $52,000 $0 $52,000 $0 $104,000 $15,600 $0 $15,600 $0 $31 ,200 $0 $67 600 $10,400 $10,400 $0 $67,600 $10,400 $10,400 $20,800 $156,000 $4,050 $9,000 $375 $0 $13,425 $0 $0 $375 $1 ,500 $1,875 $4,050 $9,000 $375 $0 $13,425 $0 $0 $375 $1 ,500 $1 ,875 $8,100 $18,000 $1,500 $3,000 $30,600 $0 $1 ,060 $0 $1,060 $2 ,120 $0 $579 $0 $579 $1 ' 159 $0 $0 $400 $2,039 $0 $0 $400 $2,039 $4 079 $0 $1 ,325 $0 $1,325 $2,650 $0 $0 $400 $1,725 $0 $0 $400 $1 725 $800 $3,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $1,000 $2,500 $8,000 $1 ,000 $1 ,500 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $1 ,000 $2,500 $8,000 $1,000 $1 ,500 $16,000 $4,000 $2,000 $5,000 $16,000 $2,000 $3,000 $32,000 Page 1 of 2 $800 �Service In Education Partnership Michigan Service in Education Partnership Program Proposed Budget Narrative Description ' W. K. Kellogg Foundation Year1 Partner Contributions Year1 W. K. Kellogg Foundation Year2 Partner Contributions Year2 Total B~l!QYr!<~ MS!t~riS!Il! Policy Briefs (4@ 1,000) Public Awareness Materials Subtotal E'lalyatiQn ~Qnl!yltatiQn Includes Studies of 2 school-based, 2 community-based, and 2 higher education programs Consultant @ 6 days x $325 Development of evaluation tool /4 days@ $325 ea.) In-state travel (6 x 150 miles @ $.2575) Graduate student intern to compile results $10 x 5 hours per week x 12 weeks) Subtotal Service-Lea_rnina Coordinator Travel In-state travel miles 20 trips x 150 miles @ $.2575) In-state meals 20 trips x $27) In-state lodging 10 nights @ $60) Out of state travel air transportation x 2 trips@$350 ea.) Out of state lodging 8 nights x$60) Out of state meals 8 X $27) Subtotal Total Budget Total W.K. Kellogg 2-year Contribution Total Partner 2-year Contributions Total 2-year Budget $4,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $975 $0 $975 $650 $116 $650 $0 $650 $116 $600 $2,341 $0 $650 $600 $2 341 $650 $1,200 $5,982 $386 $0 $386 $0 $773 $270 $0 $270 $0 $540 $300 $0 $300 $0 $600 $350 $0 $350 $0 $700 $240 $0 $240 $0 $480 $108 $1 654 $0 $0 $108 $1 654 $0 $0 $216 $3,309 $89,020 $35,689 $89,020 $35,689 $249,419 $178,040 $71,379 $249,419 Page 2 of 2 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $8,000 $6,000 $14,000 $1 ,950 $650 $2,600 $232 � 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_1999-09-24_Service-in-Education-Partnership Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Service in Education partnership Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Service in Education partnership. 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, 50058 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e654403a03fd1eb0e465daea2a9e1f9e.pdf 5568104c9b589bf09e6411ba8c32f63f PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Executive Director Kyle Caldwell S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Program Staff FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director RE: Staff input on Outreach, Renewal and Evaluation DATE: August 13, 1999 You may recall our discussion during a program staff meeting where we "brainstormed" issues as they relate to our renewal, outreach and evaluation processes. The following are the areas you (as a group) identified as our areas of improvement or importance and areas you have identified as least important: lmprovemenUimportance Least Important Renewal Renewal Member Retention Increased Matching Attainment of Objectives Positive Community Impact Continuous Improvement Reward innovation Numbers Civic engagement Outreach Outreach Face to face outreach Issue training matched with grant outreach Polling Tip sheets Orientation to field Samples FAQ �Improvement/Importance Least Important Evaluation Evaluation Different criteria for experience programs Community, participant, institutional impact Site visits by type of grantee experience Member satisfaction Goal achievement Money-leverage people Criteria across the board-cool stories We will revisit these results at our next program staff meeting and will be used to brief the Dir. of Programs about areas we would like to work on concerning these three areas. If you have any additions or corrections please forward them to me. � 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_1999-09-24_Staff-Input-Outreach-Renewal-and-Eval Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting staff input on outreach, renewal, and evaluation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting staff input on outreach, renewal, and evaluation. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50059 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f3b5ff2bde82498b84de49eb5aace736.pdf 3ca8596ddf96b4b27d522eca0e8e0819 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Kyle Caldwell 111 S. Cap itol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 September 7, 1999 Mr. Peter Heinaru Director, Ameri Corps* State/National Corporation for National Service 1201 New York A venue NW Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear~: ~ Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the State Administrative Standards Project. We especially appreciated the copy of the latest standards criteria. In Michigan, we have been monitoring the Corporation' s progress in developing the standards and the processes that have gone into evaluating them. In your letter dated August 27, 1999, you requested feedback from state commissions by September 20, 1999. This letter is intended to supply you the response you requested and to state Michigan' s support for the implementation of the State Administrative Standards provided that a number of questions are adequately addressed. First, we urge you to review the correspondence we sent to you recently concerning Ohio's recent experience as a beta test site for the Administrative Standards Project. Included with that memo dated August 18, 1999 you will find a response from one of the Michigan Community Service Commission's (MCSC) charter commissioners and long-time friend and supporter of National Service, Joel Orosz. You will note that Dr. Orosz concurs with staffs objection to the interpretation and implementation of standard number 1.1.2, 1.1.2 Match Sufficient to Adequately Operate Commission (H you did not meet 1.1.1) Do you meet all other basic standards, numbers 2-12? If "Yes", check the box at right and continue with the excellence standards. In the case of Ohio, the review team penalized the commission not only for not having a written policies and procedures manual for how the organization conducts its financial oversight, but because they did not fully utilize their federal draw down for Administration funds, they fail in standards 1 and 2. �To renew our objection to this provision in the standards, we must firmly protest the Corporation's penalization of state commissions for not fully expending fmancial match. We do not protest this from a state that has not fully utilized its match funds . Op the contrary, Michigan has fully drawn down its federal funds· since the creation of the funds and the Corporation for National Service through the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. We protest this criteria based solely on its lack of merit. If a state commission is able to fmd econo~es , secure additional and more flexible resources and find ways to not spend money, they should certainly be rewarded for their efforts. Penalizing state commissions in this manner sends the wrong signal. The Corporation for National Service has the opportunity here to strike out beyond the traditional federal spending approach of "use it or lose it", as Dr. Orosz points out in his letter. Find ways to reward states for their entrepreneurial approaches to "getting things done" and the payback will be manyfold. Overall, we feel that the standards are an excellent method for the Corporation and state commissions to attain a shared understanding of mutual expectations. Stepping away .from the specific standards and the measurements used to evaluate compliance, there are a number of questions about the State Administrative Standards Project in general that must be addressed soon. From the beginning of this project there has been no clear set deadline for implementation. While there has been a general sense of how long the planning stages were going to take, there has been no clear timeline developed for institutionalization of the standards. In fact, the process has had no clear beginning or ending points identified. States need clarity. Specifically, the MCSC would (as we are certain other states would as well) like to know the Corporation strategy for the standards in the following areas: 1. How will the State Administrative Standards be used? Will the results of the State Administrative Standards reviews have any negative or positive consequences in state commissions and how they operate? 2. Is participation in the State Administrative Standards review process voluntary or mandatory? If it is voluntary, what is the benefit to state commissions should they decide to participate? What consequences will exist should a state commission decide to not participate? 3. If participation is mandatory, how will this review differ from an official audit from the Auditor General's Office? Will the State Administrative Standards be legally binding? 4. What is the process for the State Administrative Standards? In the future, how will states be notified if they are to be reviewed? Can states appeal the fmdings of a State Administrative Standards review? If so, how? Michigan, and we believe, other state commissions are unclear as to the answers to these questions. This condition has the potential to create some very serious misunderstandings at a time when no organization in the National Service arena can afford to seem "out of sync" with the remainder of the field. At the same time, the standards offer real proof to the critics of CNS that the Corporation is making every effort to ensure the quality of the programs it funds. �The MCSC is eager to participate in the reviews standards process, but only after there has been well established and well documented rationales, procedures and policies set into place for the usa,ge and implementation of the standards. We look forward to your response and to the successful implementation of the State Administrative Standards Project. /J!Ctd4Zl Kyle Caldwell Executive Director �CORPORATIO FOR ATIONAL r:)sERVICE August 27, 1999 Dear Colleague, The State Administrative Standards Project is nearing the end of the pilot phase! Thanks to six brave Executive Directors, we have tested the individual Standards, assessed the review process, and made important revisions. Reviews have been completed in Montana, Florida, Arizona, West Virginia, and Ohio. Texas wi ll participate in a Review in September. State commissions, review teams, and Corporation staff report that the Standards Project is an extremely important venture. Commissions are getting a complete evaluation of their administrative systems and a clearer understanding of what is expected from the Corporation. The Corporation will end up with a consistent, in-depth process for assessing the capacity of State Commissions to promote and manage service in their states. Both the Commissions and the Corporation are learning where their own systems are sound and where they need to be strengthened. As the Project moves into the next stages, I am seeking your assistance in two ways. First, it would be very helpful to have your feedback on the individual Standards. When the pilot began, there were 16 Standards. After the first two state assessments, the Corporation, with input from the Working Group and Executive Directors from several of the pilot states, narrowed the document to 12 Standards and recommended a new rating process. At a result of this work, the Standards are much closer to a final product. Could you please take one last look at this document and give us your comments and suggestions by Monday, September 20, 1999? You can respond by mail to Nina Powers, Logistics Manager or by e-mail or phone to Gayle Hilleke Project Manager, at ghilleke@cns.gov or 202-606-5000 ext. 431. Second, I ask you to begin thinking about when you will participate in the Standards Review. The final draft document will be ready for distribution by November 1 and the Review teams will begin on-site assessments in January 2000. Gayle will be developing a three-year schedule of assessments in order to give everyone sufficient planning time. If you already have an idea ofwhen you would like to participate, give Gayle a call. If you are not sure about the timing of your visit, your CNS program officer and Gayle win discuss with you what makes the most sense. I am convinced that the State Administrative Standards will increase our accountability in using valuable federal resources and assist in the sustainability of national service at the state level. I thank you in advance for your cooperation in this important project. • :1 'w-..-:~ eter Heinaru Director, AmeriCorps*State/National NATIONAL SERVICE : GETTING THINGS DONE \11:• • ''I'· · ·, .,,. •:.1 ,, • \n •., · ,a:.,. ,. , • .. '"' 1"1 W 1201 ew York Avenue , N.W · Washington, D.C. 20 525 telephone: 202-606-5000 · website: www.nationalseTVJce.org �State Administrative Standards Working Group I . Jean Ambrose, Executive Director, West Virginia 2. Kitty Bircsu, Executive Director, Ohio 3. Nancy Deaver Sharrock, Executive Director, Oklahoma 4. Kathy Shulman, Executive Director, Maryland 5. Rosie Mauk, Commissioner, Texas 6. Bill Bentley, Director, DEEP 7. Cheryl Blankenship, Senior Program Officer 8. Bruce Cline, Acting Director of Grants 9. James Cooper, Senior Program Officer I 0. Deb Jospin, Director, AmeriCorps II. Peter Heinaru, Director, AmeriCorps*State/National 12 . Lance Potter, Director, Evaluation ll·z,- �Why Do We Recommend the Standards Review? • The Standards Review provides a credential that can be used with your governor, Iegishiture, and funders. • It gives us a well-deserved air of professionalism and certification. This is a house built to last. • It accelerates the evolution of the field of national service. • It moves us toward a permanent status for national service in each of our states. • It sets forth clear and commonly-held expectations. • It identifies the states who can take on extra responsibilities. • It provides yet another way to identify best practices. • Finally, and most importantly, it gives the communities we serve, strong and excellent syst<~ms that support them and their survival. �The Twelve Standards (draft Standards as of 6/15/99) • Raises Sufficient Administrative Match ' • Has Appropriate Financial and Management Systems • Reports Properly to the Corporation for National Service • Manages Personnel and Volunteer Resources Effectively • Has Proper Grant Recruitment, Selection and Review Process • Ensures that Programs Remedy Compliance Shortcomings Promptly • Properly Monitors Programs • Has a System for Conducting Training and Technical Assistance (Tff A) • Has Effective Assessment and Planning Process • Generates Broad-based Support • Promotes Sen·ice \Vithin the State • Communicates Information Effectively ''"ithin the State �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard One · STANDARD ONE: RAISES SUFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE MATCH 1.1. Basic Standard 1.1.1. Has Current Fiscal Year Match, or 1.1.2. Has Match Sufficient to Adequately Operate Commission 1.2. Excellence Standards 1.2.1. Has Funds Over Match, or 1.2.2. Has Funds for Diverse Funding Sources, or 1.2.3. Has Next Year's Fiscal Match, or 1.2.4. Percent of Match that Is Cash 1.2.5. Suggested Excellence Standards June 1999 Draft- Standard One Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard One What is your maximum Corporation administrative funds allocation for your organization's current fiscal year? $ If your fiscal year differs from the Corporation's period of allocation, prorate the Corporation's allocations to your fiscal year. (Enter this amount in the double underlined 1.1. space~ below.) Basic Standard: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 1.1.1. Current Fiscal Year Match How much match do you have secured (funds already on hand) and committed (funds promised in writing) for your current FY? $ Is the amount equal to or greater than the required match for full allocation of Co rporation administrative funds? DYes QNo In your prior fiscal year, did the Commission meet the minimum match required for full all ocation of Corporation administrative funds? DYes DNo If "Yes" to both, check the box to the right and skip to the excellence standards, section 1.2. D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 1.1.2. . Match Sufficient to Adequately Operate Commission (If you did not meet 1.1.1) Do you meet all other basic standards, numbers 2-12? If "Yes", check the box at right and continue with the excellence standards. June 1999 Draft- Standard One Page 2 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard One . 1.2. Excellence Standards 1.2.1. Over Match Is the amount of secured or committed match listed above greater than the required match by 25% or more? DYes 0No If"Yes", check the box to the right. D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 1.2.2. Diverse Funding Sources $ How much is your single largest funder (aside from the Corporation) contributing this FY? (consid_er all state cash and in-kind resources as coming from a single source) Is this Jess than 50% of the required match? $ DYes 0No If"Yes", check the box to the right. D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 1.2.3. Next Fiscal Year's Match $ What amount, if any, of next fiscal year's administrative match do you have committed? Is the amount equal to or greater than the required match (the double underlined space)? D Yes $ D No If"Yes", check the box to the right. D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 1.2.4. Percent of Match that is Cash* (See Note below) How much match do you have secured and committed in cash for the current fiscal year? Is this amount 80% or more of the required match? $ $ D·Yes D No If "Yes", check the box to the right. June 1999 Draft- Standard One Page 3 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard One · NOTE: Definition of "cash"- Cash means the Commission's cash outlays, including the outlay of money contributed to the Commission by third parties. 1.2.5. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard One Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard One I · STANDARD 1: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the_areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard I: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard One Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two . Standard Two: Has Appropriate Financial and Management Systems 2.1. Basic Standard 2.1.1. Has Appropriate Administrative and Financial Oversight of Commission Direct Expenditures 2.1.2. Has Appropriate Administrative and Financial Oversight of Subgrants 2.1.2.1. Pre-award 2.1.2.2. On-site Monitoring 2.}.2.3. Financial Status Reports (FSRs) 2.1.2.4. Oversight of A-133 Audits 2.1.2.5. Program Match 2.1.2.6. Subgrant Closeouts 2.2. Excellence Standard 2.2.1. Provides Grants Manual/Handbook and Training 2.2.2. Works on A-133 Findings Resolution 2.2.3. Assures Match Documentation Review 2.2.4. Systematic Grant Close Out 2.2.5. Suggested Excellence Standards . ~- June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page I �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two 2.1. BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 2.1.1. Has Appropriate Administrative and Financial Oversight of Commission Direct Expenditures. Does the Commission employ a clearly articulated fin anc ial man agement system for its direct award expenditures (Administrative, PDAT, Disability, Summit or other) which adequately segregates the costs and documents the match? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . Identify the department or agency which manages the Commission's finances: Are the financial management policies that the Commission follows , either its own or another department 's, written? DYes D No Describe: Does the Commission follow written policies and procedures relating to the following? • For internal control of grant fund s? DYes DNo • For personnel relating to administration and accounting of grant funds? DYes DNo • For grants and other awards such as consultants? DYes DNo • Procurement using grant moneys? DYes DNo • Time and effort distribution of personnel to Commission direct grants DYes DNo List, label, and file copies of the commission's written policies and procedures. If the Commission uses the policies and procedures of another entity and they are extensive, do not submit but make available for review. Does the Commission or a fiscal agent prepare the Commission's FSR's for its direct awards and expenditures? DYes DNo Identify the preparer and describe the Commission's involvement : Do the FSR's correspond to the Commission financial reports? DYes DNo 2 June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 2 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two Does the Commission have adequate documentation to support its match expenditures? 0 Yes 0No If you answered "Yes" to all of the questions in this subsection and listed, labeled, and filed copies of the identified policies and procedures, then check the box to the right. 0 2.1.2. Has Appropriate Administrative and Financial Oversight of Subgrants. 2.1.2.1. Pre-award Does the Cof)'lmission employ a pre-award risk assessment• for subawards? 0 Yes 0No Describe the process and who conducts the assessment. Attach copies of any instruments used . *Pre-award risk assessment is a process to determine if a potential grantee is responsible and financially stab le, has a history of performance and a management and financial system which provides adequate accounting for allowable and unallowable costs, documentation of expenditures, allocation of costs, cash management, etc. This process may use A-133 audits, other state agency detenninations, on-site reviews or other determinations to assure adequate financial management by the subgrantee. 2.1.2.2. On-site Monitoring Does the monitoring system include on-site fiscal reviews by Commission staff or other entities? 0 Yes 0No Describe the process, who conducts the reviews, what is reviewed and the frequency. List, label, and fil e copies of any policies or instruments used. Does the on-site monitoring system include the analysis of financial information of programs such as expenditures, documentation of match includin g time and effort distribution of staff expenses, in-kind, member hours and stipends, education awards. 0 Yes 0 No Describe the process, including the scope of the reviews, frequ ency, and how results are used . List, label , and file copies of any policies or instruments used. If you answered "Yes" to all of the questions in this subsection and provided descriptions where instructed , check th e box to the right. 0 2.1.2.3. Financial Status Reports (FSR's) 3 June 1999 Draft- St~mdard Two Page 3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two . Does the commission review FSRs from programs as a matter of written policy? (Attach a copy of the policy) Does the commission review FSRs for accuracy before submitting them to CNS? DYes DNo DYes DNo Does the commission stipulate requirements for timeliness and employ a system to follow-up on delinquencies and inadequate reports? DYes DNo Does the Commission control advances in accord with OMB and Treasury requirements minimizing the time lapse between advances and disbursements or use a system of reimbursements that adequately manages payments to subgrantees? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you answered "Yes" to all of the questions in this subsection, check the box to the right. D 2.1.2.4. Oversight of A-133 audits Does the Commission have a system to detennine which subgrantees are required to have A-133 audits performed ? DYes DNo Does the commission track the receipt of required A-133 audit reports? DYes DNo Describe the process. Attach copies of any re lated tracking documents , su ch as logs . Does the commission follow-up on findings ? DYes DNo Describe the commission's follow up process, including document trails, intervention , etc. , or attach any written descriptions or policies. Did you answer "Yes" to the 3 questions in this subsection 2. 1.2.4 . and offer descriptions or attach documents as instructed? DYes DNo 2.1.2.5. Program match Does the commission monitor programs' performance in meeting ·budgeted match requirements? DYes DNo Describe. Attach any copies of relevant policies or other documentary verification . 4 June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two Does the commission ensure programs are documenting match appropriately? DYes DNo Describe. Attach any copies of relevant policies or other documentary verification . . Did you answer "Yes" to both questions in this subsection and offer descriptions or attach documents as instructed? DYes DNo 2.1.2.6. Subgrant Closeouts Does the commission have a system and procedure for closing out grants? DYes DNo Describe. Attach any copies of relevant policies or other documentary verification . D Revi~w each of the questions above in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and if answered "Yes" then check the box. If not, skip to the next standard. 2.2. · Excellence Standards 2.2.1. Grants Manual/Handbook and Training Does the commission provide programs with a grants manual or handbook and provide structured training? DYes DNo Does the manual/handbook adequately explain and provide guidance on all commission and Corporation financial management requirements? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. If you answered "Yes" to both questions and attached a copy of the document, check the box . D 2.2.2 .. A-133 Findings Resolution Does the commission work with programs to resolve all identified findings within the time period prescribed by OMB circular A-50 for resolution of A-133 issues for which the Cornm iss ion is responsible? DYes DNo Do the resolutions adequately resolve the identified issues through changes in subgrantee systems, more oversight if appropriate and collection of any unallowable costs? DYes D No 5 June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two · Are copies of reports with reso lutions available for verification? DYes DNo Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If yo u answered "Yes" to both questions and attached documents as instructed, check the box . D 2.2.3. Match Documentation Review Does the commission sample programs' supporting match documentation for cash and in-kind matches to assure its adequacy? DYes DNo How many programs does the commission review in a year? Does this number represent a sample that is at least 33% of the commission's total portfolio? DYes DNo Does the commission conduct this review at least once per year? DYes DNo Are copies of completed reports available for verification? DYes DNo Attach copies of any written documents or correspondence describing this policy or procedure. If you answered "Yes" to all of the questions and attached documents as instructed , check the box. D 2.2.4. Grant Close Out How many grants expired during the current and most recent full administrative grant year? How many of these were closed out within the timeframe specified in the ap plicable OMB Circular A-50? Is the second figure 90% or more than the total number of close-outs? DYes DNo If you answered "Yes", check the box. D 2.2.5. Suggested Excellence Standards 6 June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 6 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 7 .June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 7 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Two STANDARD 2: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Sen,ice be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 2: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? 8 June 1999 Draft- Standard Two Page 8 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three · Standard Three: Reports Properly to the Corporation 3.1. Basic Standard 3.1.1. Submits Commission Grants Accurately and On Time 3.1.2. Submits Subgrantees' Reports Accurately and On Time 3.2. Excellence Standard 3.2.1. High Standard of Performance 3.2.2._ Suggested Excellence Standards June 1999 Draft- Standard Three J>age 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three · 3.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. Does the commission have a system to ensure that its reports/forms and those of its subgrantees arrive at the Corporation within Corporation-stipulated timeframes? 0 Yes 0No Does the Commission have a system to ensure the quality and accuracy of reports and forms submitted? 0 Yes 0 No Briefly describe the system below. 3.1.1. Submits Commission Grant Reports (Administrative, Disability, PDAT, Summit, etc.) Accurately and On Time During the past year, has the Commission submitted 90% or more of each of the following reports or forms within the Corporation-stipulated timeframes, 90% of the time, without being returned or requiring resubmission? (Timeframe includes the most recent 12 month period finishing with the end of the most recent quarter.) SAMPLE TABLE- PDAT (for example) Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Progress Reports 3 2 67% Financial Status Reports 4 4 100% 8 7 88% Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time TOTALS " Administrative Progress Reports Financial Status Reports F> •, ' l lh<\ , TOTALS Disability Progress Reports Financial Status Reports I .. . ~ ·~ . ·• . , r. . TOTALS Other~ Progress Reports Financial Status Reports I 1 >r.ti\Y~ ,l, '.i-. TOTALS · If all the submiSSions listed above were submitted withm the tun e frame Identified above as minimum , check the box at nght. June 1999 Draft- Standard Three Page 2 0 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three 3.1.2. Submits Subgrantees' Reports Accurately and On Time: Does the Commission provide training to its programs on reporting requirements (how to fill out and submit the required forms)? Describe: A. During the past year, did the Commission's sub-grantees (AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve), in tho! aggregate, submit 80% or more of the following reports within Corporation during the last twelve months, the standard was met. Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Progress Reports 30 28 93% Financial Status Reports 40 40 100% Annual Accomplishments Review 10 96 10 91 100% 93% Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time SAI\1PLE TABLE •l· ~~, .<r ··• l \TOTALS. • • Progress Reports Financial Status Reports Annual Accomplishments Review f. . ,.. .. "'' (j_~ l TOTALS If 80% or more of the submissions listed above were submitted on time, check the box at right. D B. During the previous twelve months did the Commission's sub-grantees, in th e aggregate, submit 75% or more of the following reports, 75% ofthe time, within Corporation-stipulated timeframes for the member forms listed below without being return ed or resubmitted ? E.g. if 585 out of I ,048 (56%) total submissions for the last twelve months were within stipulated timeframes during the last twelve months, the standard was minimally met. (Note: this standard will be enhanced with the implementation of WEBR reporting this coming year) June 1999 Draft- Standard Three Page 3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three SAMPLE TABLE Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Enrollment 546 413 75% Change of Status End of Term of Service 13 489 1048 12 456 881 92% 93% 84% Required Submissions Submitted on Time Percent on Time Member Forms: \;~ J,..?· · ~~'! 1· TOT.ALS ; ? Member Forms: Enrollment Change of Status End of Term of Service I }' ;~;~.<> .~ TOTALS I lf75% or more of the submissions li sted above were submitted on time 75% of the time, check the box at right. All five boxes under 3.1 . 1 and 3.1.2 must be checked in the affirmative to meet the standard . Please describe the basis for arriving at your numbers and conclusions, e.g. based on a specified sampling size or from time-dated logs, etc, and list, label, and attach supporting documentation : June 1999 Draft- Standard Three Page 4 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three 3.2. Excellence Standard 3.2.1. High Standard ofPerformancc. During the past year, has the Commission submitted 95% of its reports/forms under Standard 11 . 1.1 to the Corporation within the stipulated timeframes, 90% of the time, and 90% of subgrantee reports/forms under Standard I 1. 1.2 within the stipulated time frames, 85% of the time, without being returned or. requiring resubmission . If yes, check box at right. 0 Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 3.2.2. SuggeSted Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Thr·ee Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Three STANDARD 3: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize tht< areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 3: 1. 2. 3. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Three Page 6 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four Standard Four: Manages Personnel and Volunteer Resources Effectively 4.1. Basic 4.1.1. • • 4.1.2. • Standards Manages Personnel Effectively Follows state- or non-profit personnel management system or Has in place an alternative effective and comprehensive personnel system. Manages Commission Board Activity Effectively Follows state system for managing Board activity, including maintaining minimum number and required composition of Commissioners. 4.2 Excellence Standards 4.2.1. Has effective staff and non-Board volunteer orientation process, appropriate training, and regular performance reviews, including feedback from staff and non-Board volunteers to management in performance reviews; or 4.2.2. Develops and follows professional development plans for staff and non-Board volunteers and provides training to support the progress of each individual; or 4.2.3. Regularly assesses resource allocation and structure of commission staff and non-Board volunteers as a whole; or 4.2.4. Has comprehensive and timely commissioner orientation process and ongoing training and support as needed; or 4.2.5. Takes an active role in nominating, assessing, and replacing commissioners; or 4.2.6. Uses commissioners in appropriate and meaningful roles beyond those required by law (for example in planning, outreach, grant reviews, or program monitoring activities); or 4.2.6. Regularly assesses resour~e allocation and structure of commission board as a whole. 4.2.7. Suggested Excellence Standards June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page I I �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four 4.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 4.1.1. Manages Personnel Effectively Does the commission follow its state or non-profit personnel management system for managing staff and non-Board volunteers, ensuring that they have the training or other support needed to perform their job tasks? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation. If "Yes," continue with Standard 4.1.2. Does the commission have in place and follow an alternative effective and comprehensive personnel system for managing staff and non-Board volunteers? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation. 4.1.2. Manages Commission Board Activity Effectively Does the commission follow the state system for managing Board activity, including mainta ining minimum numb.e r and required composition of Commissioners (for example, in the event of vacancies in the past twelve months, has the commission taken all appropriate actions to maintain the minimum number and required composition of commissioners)? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page 2 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four · 4.2. Excellence Standards 4.2.1. Staff management. Does the commission have effective staff: job descriptions, orientation process, appropriate training, and regular performance reviews, including measurable and specific goals, and feedback from · staff and non-Board volunteers to management as a part of performance reviews? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation. 4.2.2. Professional development plans for staff. Does the commission develop and follow professional development plans for staff and provide training to support the progress of each individual? DYes D No Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation. 4.2.3. Assesses Resources and Overall Structure of Staff Does the commission staff regularly assess the resource allocation and structure of the Board and of the commission staff and non-Board volunteers as a whole? DYes DNo Describe list, label, and file supporting documentation. 4.2.4. Commissioner Orientation, Training, and Support Does the commission have a comprehensive and timely commissioner orientation process and ongoing training and support as needed? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page 3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four 4.2.5. Active Role in Nominating and Assessing Commissioners Does the commission take an active role in nominating, assessing, and replacing commissioners? DYes DNo Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation . 4.2.6. Uses commissioners in meaningful roles Does the commission use commissioners in appropriate and meaningful roles beyond those required by law (for example in planning, outreach, grant reviews, or program monitoring activities)? Yes No 0 0 Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation . 4.2.7. Assesses Resources and Overall Structure of Board Does the commission regularly assess the resource allocation and structure of the Board as a whole and of the commission staff and non-Board volunteers as a whole, including the Board 's ongoing TIT A needs? DYes DNo Descripe; list, label, and file supporting documentation . 4.2.8. Suggested Excellence Standards Wha( other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate fur consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? List, label, and file supporting documentation: June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four _,_ June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Four STANDARD 4: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Addit'ional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 4: l. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Four Page 6 �State Administrative Standards Review - Standard Five Standard Five: Has Proper Grant Recruitment, Selection and Review Process 5.1. Basic Standard 5.1.1. Uses defined processes to recruit, review and select quality national service programs that are in compliance with law, regulations, and grants requirements. 5.2. Excellence Standards 5.2.1. Produces consistently high quality proposals; or 5.2.2. Has at least three institutional models as grantees (e.g., community-based organization, colleges) of various sizes. June 1999 Draft- Standard Five Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Five 5.1. BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 5.1.1. Well-defined Operating Procedures for Grant Processes Grant Comp. components o • Have well-developed standard documents/other materials that meet legal , contractual and grant requirements • Have clear steps in a process • Can easily be applied to new or existing grants or expanded existing ones • Responsible individual for each step in the process is clearly defined re these procedures documen ma 1cy manual for the commission? (If "No", see below.) er operat10na If you answered "No" to question 1 or any sub-part of question 2, you did not meet this standard. Skip to Standard 6. If you answered "No" to number 3 in the chart above, describe how the procedures are otherwise defined and documented for the organization. Grant ~ompetition : Grantee Selection: Grant Award: June 1999 Draft- Standard Five Page 2 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Five Describe how the commission can verify that its grant processes meet legal and gra1_1t requirements. Grant Competition: Grantee Selection: Grant Award: If you answered "Yes" to all of the above, or you answered "No" to number 3 and offered alternative documentation of procedures for the commission as instructed, 0 AND you can verify legal and regulatory compliance, check the box at right. June 1999 Draft- Standard Five Page 3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Five .5.2. Excellence Shmdards 5.2.1. Consistently High Quality Proposals Which of the followin g apply to program fundin g proposa ls submitted by the commiss ion to the Corporati on? Objectives in all proposals do not need to be revised . DYes 0No All compliance issues are resolved prior to submission to the Corporation . DYes 0No Budget issues are identified and resolved prior to submission to the corporation . DYes 0 No Cost per member issues are resolved prior to submi ss ion to the Corporation . DYes 0 No Describe the commission's basis for these assertions or attach descriptive docum entation. If you indicated "Yes" to all of the criteria above and offered a description or docum entation as verification , check the box. 0 5.2.2. Successful Strategic Outreach Does the commission execute a plan of strateg ic outreac h to potenti al applicants, resulting in a package of fin al proposals which reflects the commiss ion' s vision of service in the state (examples of the outcom es might include a di versity of institut ional mode ls, both rural and urban prog rams, a portfolio reflecting the Governor's priorities for the state)? DYes 0 No 5.2.3. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Five Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Five STANDARD 5: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 5: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another tandard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? . ,_ .June 1999 Draft- Standard Five Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Six . Standard Six: Ensures that Programs Remedy Compliance Shortcomings Promptly 6.1. Basic Standard Programs Remedy Deficiencies Within Established Timeframes 6.2. Excellence Standard 6.2.1. Training on Expectations and Consequences June 1999 Draft- Standard Six Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Six 6.1 Basic Standard 6.1.1 Programs Remedy Deficiencies Within Established Timeframes Are the commission's expectations for program compliance clearly estab li shed? 0 Yes 0No Describe how expectations are communicated to programs (e.g., through written guide lines, trai ning, etc.). Attach any relevant documents. Does the commission have an effective and timely process to remedy compliance problems or enforce grant requirements? 0 Yes 0No Describe some of the compliance issues you have addressed and how you have resolved them . During the current program year, did all programs with compliance deficiencies appropriately remedy th e problem within a reasonable timeframe? And if not, did the commission take definitive action? 0 Yes 0 Yes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List , label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Six Page2 0 No �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Six 6.2. Excellence Standards 6.2.1. Training on Expectations and Consequences Does the commission provide training to program directors on expectations on grant and program compliance? DYes DNo Does this training include overall consequences of not meeting expectations? DYes DNo Attach documentation that will demonstrate that all programs received these trainings in a timely fashion. Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 6.2.2. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Six Page 3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Six STANDARD 6: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize th.e strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the are~s for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How .c an the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 6: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Six Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven · Standard Seven: Properly Monitors Programs 7.1. Basic Standards: Systematically assesses quality and compliance with legal, regulatory and grant requirements of National Service grantees, through a method that: 7.1.1. Establishes a plan for regular monitoring and documents that process; 7.1.2. Utilizes a comprehensive site visit review instrument of legal, regulatory and grant requirements; 7.1.3. Reviews all program reports and audit reports; 7.1.4. Monitors programs meeting match; 7.1.5. Provides feedback to programs within a reasonable period of time; and 7.1.6. Tracks program progress toward meeting objectives; on issues identified as challenges in progress reports; and on issues identified in monitoring activities. 7.2. Excellence Standards 7.2.1. Collects feedback from at least two groups of stal<cholders other than program staff, members, and volunteers; or 7.2.2. Has a system for testing and confirming validity of program monitoring by systematically crossreferencing and verifying across various data sources; or 7.2.3. Asks for feedback from programs on the effectiveness of monitoring activities; or 7.2.4. Ensures that programs use feedback for continuous quality improvement; or 7.2.5. 50°/o of all programs undergo independent evaluations by a third party. June 1999 Draft - Standard Seven Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven · 7.1. BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 7.1.1. Plan for Regular Monitoring and Documenting Monitoring • • Does the commission develop an annua l plan for regular monitorin g activities? Has the commission conducted regular monitoring activities over the last year? DYes DNo DYes DNo • Are these monito_ring activities planned to coordinate with local program activities and reporting? DYes D No • Does the commission systematically and effectively document the results of monitoring activities (for example, in copies of completed checklists, summary reports, correspondence)? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 7.1.2. Site Visit Instruments • Does the commission use the Program Review Instrument (PRJ) in the State Commission Manual? DYes DNo If "Yes", skip to the next subsection, 7 .1 .3. • Does the commission use a different site visit instrument which comprehen sive ly covers grant provisions and other compliance requirements for monitoring site visits? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 7.1.3. Reviewing Reports Does the commission review the followin g: • all progress reports submitted by programs? • all financial status reports (FSRs) submitted by programs? • all audit reports from programs? Describe how you arrived at your conclu sions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Seven Page 2 DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven · 7.1.4. Monitors Programs Meeting Match Does the commission track programs' progress toward meeting match? DYes DNo During the most recent program year, did fewer than 100% of the commission's programs meet match? DYes DNo If so, do you have effective policy and practice for handling these situations? DYes DNo Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation 7.1.5. Feedback to Programs Does the commission provide systematic and effective feedback to programs on the resu Its of monitoring activities (for example, either written reports, copies of checklists, summary letters or memos, phone logs) ? DYes D No D Is feedback provided 'to programs within a reasonable period of time following key monitoring activities (for example site visits, review of progress reports)? Yes DNo Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 7.1.6. Tracking of Program Progress Does the commission systematically and effectively track program progress toward stated program objectives (for example, does the commission have a written policy and procedures to follow when programs are not meeting objectives; does the commission examine progress made toward objectives when considering renewal funding, does the commission systematically and effectively track programs; progress towards the issues identified in the monitoring feedback described in 7 .1.5.)? DYes DNo Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Seven Page3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven 7.2 Excellence Standards 7.2.1 Stakeholder Feedback List the stakeholders from whom the commission collects and uses feedback when monitoring programs (do not include program staff, volunteers, and members). Are there at least two types of stakeholders listed? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you answered "Yes", check the box at right. 0 7.2.2 System in Place for Confirming the Validity of the Program Monitoring Process Does the commission check data from one source against another to cross-reference and verify findings? Is this redundancy built into the process as a matter of policy and design? 0 Yes 0No DYes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. If you answered "Yes" to both questions and provided a description or descriptive document, check the box. D 7.2.3. Feedback from Programs on Monitoring Activities Does the commission regularly and effectively ask for feedback from programs on the effectiveness of monitoring? DYes 0No Does the commission use the feedback to improve their monitoring systems and activities? 0 Yes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you answered "Yes to both questions", check the box. D June 1999 Draft- Standard Seven Pagc4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven · 7.2.4. Commission Has System to Ensure Programs Usc Feedback for Continuous Quality Improvement Does the commission ensure that all programs it administers conduct formal and informal assessments of quality? DYes D No If you answered "No", do not continue with this Excellence Standard. Are programs required to use feedback from assessments to make changes to the program for quality improvement? Are assessment and feedback activities conducted throughout the program year? DYes D No DYes D No Does the commission regularly track program follow-up activities? DYes 0No Does the commission's program monitoring protocols or procedures require it to perform all of the above? If you answered "Yes" to the above questions, check the box. DYes DNo D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 7.2.6. Formal Independent Evaluations of Programs How many programs funded by the commi ssion undergo an independent eva lu ation by a third party? Does this number represent at least 50% of the number of programs funded by th e commission? DYes 0No If you answered "Yes, check the box. D Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 7 .2. 7. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Seven Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Seven STANDARD 7: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 7: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Seven Page 6 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight 8.1. Basic Standard: Has a system for conducting training and technical assistance (TITA) that: 8.1.2. Includes ongoing assessment of training and technical assistance for State Commission National Service grantees; 8.1.3. Provides or mandates effective T/TA and assesses that T/TA; 8.1.4. Brokers T/TA resources for its grantees; and 8.1.5. Shares effective practices. 8.2. Excellence Standards - 8.2.1. Solicits feedback from community members, beneficiaries and/or other stakeholders in assessing training and technical assistance needs; or 8.2.2 Uses structured peer-to-peer assistance; or 8.2.3. Includes other streams of service in T/TA; or 8.2.4. State Commission National Service grantees participate in cross-stream training and technical assistance; or 8.2.5. Assists in Developing Continuous Improvement Plans. June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight ·s.t. BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 8.1.1. Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance Needs Assessments Does the commission have an appropriate process and suitable protocols th at are regularly used to assess training and technical assistance needs (for example, as a part of monitoring)? DYes D No Does the commission monitor and assess program TIT A as a part of their overall monitoring process? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your ·conclusions. List , label, and file supporting documentation . 8.1.2. Provides or Mandates Effective Trainings Does the commission provide trainings for all program s in legal and regulatory requirements related to the program? DYes DNo Does the commission provide mandated trainings for its programs (for example, statewid e member trainings, trainin gs for all program managers) and does it assess the DYes D No effecti:veness ofthose trainings? If the commission itself has mandated TIT A which the programs must manage (for example, member orientation , TIT A as a consequence of a monitoring activity), does it monitor and assess the TIT A? D Yes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 8.1.3. Brokers Tff A Resources Does the commission have a system for gathering and updating information about effective TIT A resources and qu alified providers? DYes DNo Does the commission have a broad range ofT/T/\ resources and providers available (for exa mple, peer ass istance, local providers , national providers, providers from DYes D No other streams of service)? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 2 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight 8.1.4. System for Sharing Information on Effective Practices Does the commission have a system for collecting and sharing infonnation about effective practices among all commission-funded programs (for example, Web page, listserv, meeting time, regular correspondence, regular newsletter or briefin g, as a regular part of monitoring protocol)? 0 Yes 0 No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Pagc3 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight 8.2. EXCELLENCE STANDARDS 8.2.1. Solicits Input from Other Stakeholders Does the commission solicit feedback from community members in determining program TIT A needs (for example , on a site visit)? Does the commission solicit feedback from beneficiaries in determining program TIT A needs? DYes DNo DYes DNo List other stakeholders from whom the commission gathers feedback in determining program TIT A needs. , Describe (for c~amplc, usc of survey instruments, questionnaires, focus group protocols, or other evidence of the feedback process); list, label, and attach supporting documentation. D If you were able to list at least one stakeholder group above and verify the ex isten ce of the process, check the box at right. 8.2.2: Uses Structured Peer-to-Peer Assistance Does the commission have a structured process which maximizes the quality of peer-to-peer assistance among national service programs? lf"No", skip to the next excellence standard, section 8 .2 .3. lf"Yes" , check the box at right. DYes DNo D Describe the process (for example; sharing of materials, presentation at a meeting, coaching or one-on-one T A, instruction at a training workshop) and the system for assuring quality; list, label, and attach supporting documentation . 8.2.3. Inclusion of Other Streams of Service in Tff A Of the trainings provided during the past twelve months, at how many was at least one other stream of service invited ? In what other ways does the commission share TIT A resources with other streams of service and are other streams of service invited to at least 30% of all trainings or D Yes D No are 20% ofTffA resources allocated to the needs of other streams of service? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, an~ file supporting documentation . If "Yes," check the box . June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 4 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight 8.2.4. Programs Participate in Cross-Stream Tff A Complete the charts below as instructed to demonstrate the level of participation in cross-stream training and technical assistance in the state. I. Other Streams' Level of Participation -Current Year In the columns on th e right of the chart, indicate the level of participation of other streams of service in trainings provided for commission grantees. Do this by writing th e number of times during th e current program year other streams have been invited to, have attended, and have co-planned trainings provided for commission grantees. · I .,•.. Stream of Service Invited Attend Co-Piari Stream of Service L&SA K-12 programs AC*N ational Direct programs L&SA Community-Based programs AC*VISTA programs L&SA Higher'Ed. programs AC*Tribes program s Learn and Serve Tribal Senior Service Corps programs • Invited Attend ;1>< : Co-Plan .•. ' ' In this chart, did you indicate at least one incid ence for two different streams of se rvice where the other stream s either attend ed or co-planned a TIT A event provided for commission grantees? 0 Yes 0 No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . II. Commission Grantees' Level of Participation- Current Year In the columns on the right of the chart, indicate the level of part ic ipation of commiss ion-funded programs in trainings provided for th e other streams of service. Do this by writing the number of times during the current program year commission-funded programs have been invited to, have attended , and have co-planned trainings provided for other streams of service. ·~.~I 1;:1~:.-Stream or.se,rvice I Invited Attend Co-Plan Stream of Service L&SA K-12 programs AC*National Direct programs L&SA Community-Based programs AC*VISTA program s L&SA Higher Ed. programs AC* Tribes programs Learn and Serve Tribal Senior Service Corps programs June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 5 Invited At1end Co-Plan �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight In this chart, did you indicate at least one incidence for two different streams of service where commission-funded programs either attended or co-planned a TIT A event pro~ided for the other stream? Yes No 0 0 Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you indicated "Yes" to the questions under each of the two charts and have provided verifying docum entation, check the box.O 8.2.5. Provides Assistance in Developing Continuous Quality Improvement Plans What percent of all programs administered by th e commission have continuous quality improvement plans? 0% Did the commission provide assistance to programs in deve loping and implementing CQI plans (for examp le, help in setting up formal and informal assessment processes, plans for ongoing assessment and improvement activities throu ghout th e year, strategies for using results to make changes to address challenges and improve performance)? 0 Yes 0 No Describe the assistance. Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . lf"Yes," check the box. 8.2.6. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 6 0 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eight -STANDARD 8: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the area~ for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 8: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. Wl)at other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Eight Page 7 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine Standard Nine: Has Effective Assessment and Planning Process. 9.1. Basic Standards 9.1.1. Has in place an effective administrative plan. 9.1.2. Has developed, submitted, and begun to implement a Unified State Plan. 9.2. Excellence Standards 9.2.1. Has designed and implemented a strategic plan which evidences sound principles of organizational development; or 9.2.2. Has begun to implement a Unified State Plan which includes broad representation, commission engagement, and mutual support; or 9.2.3. Has made progress on clear outcome based goals and objectives in the USP; or 9.2.4. Has implemented a written continuous improvement plan; or 9.2.5. Has incorporated the findings of an outside independent evaluator into its planning . ... June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine 9.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 9.1.1. Effective administrative plan. Has the commission's current administrati ve pl an been approved by th e Corporati on and adequate progress been reported on to date? 0 Yes 0No DYes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 9.1.2. Unified' State Plan Has the commission developed, submitted, and begun to implement a Unified State Plan th at is signed by all required parties? · If you answered "Yes", check the box to right. Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 2 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine 9.2 Excellence Standards 9.2.1. Strategic Plan. Does the commission have a strategic plan (which could be a Unified State Pl an) which addresses issues such as leadership, including Board issues; management and 0 personnel; finance; program se lection , man agement, and support; fundrai sin g; outreach, including legis lative and stakeholder relationships ; and evaluation? Yes 0 No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 9.2.2. Unified Sta~c Plan: Broad representation, commission engagement, and mutual suppo•·t Mark "Yes" or "No" to indicate whether the listed constituency actively participated in th e development of the USP, or mark "N/A" if the constituency is not present in your state. Corporation State Office State Educational Association Learn and Serve America Community-Based Learn and Serve America Higher Ed. AmeriCorps*National Direct AmeriCorps*Tribes AmeriCorps*VIST A Senior Service Corps Education Awards Only Programs State office ofvolunteerism , other than the commission Other (List) _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ DYes DYes DY es DYes DY es DY es DY es DY es 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 0No 0No 0No 0No ONo 0No 0No 0No 0 No 0 No 0 No ON/A ON/A ON/A ON /A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 N/ A ~Did you have active participation from all of the applicable constituencies in you r state listed above? ~Did the commission collect written feedba ck from two or more outside stakeholders outs ide of the USP required signatories? 0 Yes 0No DYes 0N o ~Were commission members actively involved in the di scuss ion and deve lopment of the USP and its vision? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 3 DYes 0No �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine ~ Do the partners in your Unified State Plan support one another through the shared goals in the plan? DYes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . ~Did you indicate "Yes" to each of the four questions above? DYes 0No Review each ofthe questions above with the symbo l(~) preceding them . These questions correspond to the elements of broad representation, commission engagement, and mutual support that comprise this basic standard . Did you answer "Yes" to each of these questions? If so, chec~ the box to the right. 0 9.2.3. Progress on Measurable Goals in USP Have the goals and objectives of the Unified State Plan been determined to be "clearly articulated, outcome-based, and measurable" by a third party (the Corporation, evaluation expert, etc.)? DYes 0 No Describe how you arrived at your conclu sions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . Is the .commission making satisfactory progress on all of its responsibilities und er the USP? DYes 0No Was this determined by either a formal third party evaluation or formal internal evaluation? DYes 0No Have these same conditions been met for all previous years of USP Implementation? DYes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you answered "Yes" to all questions, check the box. 0 9.2.4. Continuous Improvement Plan Does the commission have in operation a written plan for improving itself on th e basis of its identified successes and challenges (a continuous improvement plan)? DYes 0No If "Yes", does the plan describe a process to identify a wide range of stakeholders; a se lf-assessment; expectations and assessment of commission performance from programs and other stakeholders; how stakeholder assessments will be used to modify commission policies and design and develop Trr A; ways in which findings and progreSs in the process are communicated back to stakeho lders; a process for regu larly upd ate and assess progress under the plan . If you answered "Yes", check the box at right. 0 Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine 9.2.5. Independent Evaluator Assessments Has the commission used an independent evaluator to conduct an assessment of the commission during th e past twelve month s? 0 Yes ONo Is this assessment used to inform and enhance any lon g-range planning (USP, continuous improvement, other)? 0 Yes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . Jfyou answe~ed "Yes", then check the box at right. 0 9.2.6. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? List, label, and file supporting documentation: STANDARD 9: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Nine How can the Corporation for National Se1-vice be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 9: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assess ment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Nine Page 6 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Ten Standard Ten: Generates Broad-based Support 10.1 Basic Standard 10.1.1 Evidence of Political, Financial, or In-ldnd Support or Evidence of Outreach Efforts 10.2. Excellence Standards 10.2.1 Has Bi-partisan Support - ~ . June 1999 Draft- Stnndar·d Ten Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Ten · 10.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the St~ndards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 10.1.1 Evidence of Political, Financial, or In-kind Support or Evidence of Outreach Efforts In the state, do government agencies: Publicly support service-related state policies and/or legislation? D Yes D No Publicly support financial support for the commission and/or service programs? D Yes D No Provide cash or in-kif\d assistance for the commission and/or service programs? D 'Yes D No Publicly support general public support for the commission and/o r service program s? DYes D No If you were not able to check two or more of the above " Yes" boxes, please provide evidence of systematic and significant outreach activities (meetings held, events, shared trainings, etc.) toward government agencies. Do you, for example, have written plan s, records of activities, evidence of supporting other organizations, ongoing activities with other groups, or shared proposals for financial support with other groups? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation _ If you were able to supply evidence of support or evidence of systematic and significant outreach, check the box at right. D In the state, do the private sector and foundations : Publicly support service-related state polici es and/or legi slation ? DYes DNo Publicly support financial support for the commission and/or service programs? DYes DNo Provide cash or in-kind assistance for the commission and/or service programs? DYes DNo Publicly support general public support for the commission and/or service programs? DYes DNo If you were not able to check two or more of the above " Yes" boxes, please provide evidence of systematic and significant outreach activities (meetings held, events, shared trainings, etc.) toward the private sector and foundations. Do you, for example, have written plans, records of activities, evidence of supporting other organizations, ongoing activities with other groups, or shared proposals for fin anc ial support with other groups? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you were able to supply evidence of support or evidence of systematic and significant outreach, check the box at ri ght. June 1999 Draft- Standard Ten Page 2 D �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Ten In th e state, do community-based organi zati ons and orga ni zati ons supporting volunteeri sm: Publicly support se rvice-related state policies and/or leg islati on? 0 Yes 0No Publicly support fin ancial support for th e co mmission and/or service programs? 0 Yes 0No Provide cash or in-kind ass istance for the co mmi ssion and/or service programs? 0 Yes 0No Publicly support general public support for th e commiss ion and/or service programs? DYes 0No If you were not able to ch eck two or more of th e above "Yes" boxes, please prov ide evidence of systemati c and signifi cant outreach activities (me"tings held, events, shared trainings, etc.)·toward governm ent age ncies. Do you, for example, have written pl ans, records of acti vities, ev idence of supporting oth er organizati ons, ongoing activities with other groups, or shared proposa ls for fin ancial support with oth er groups? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label , and file supporting documentation . If you were abl e to suppl y evidence of suppo rt or evidence of systemati c and signifi cant outreach, chec k th e box at right. If you were able to ch eck all three far-ri ght boxes, continu e with the Ex cell ence Standard (sec tion 10.2.). June 1999 Draft - Standard Ten Page 3 O O �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Ten · 10.2 Excellence Standards 10.2.1 Bi-Partisan Support Can the commission demonstrate evidence of bi-partisan support? Examples could include the passage of legislation, statements of support from at least one leader in each major political party (which might include the Speaker, Senate or House Minority or Majority Leader, statewide elected official), statements of support from at least two advocacy organizations representing distinct issue areas, or other examples of significant support from at least two traditionally opposing leader groups or individuals: 0 Yes 0 No Describe; list, label, and file supporting documentation: Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? List, label, and file supporting documentation: June 1999 Draft- Standard Ten Page 4 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Ten STANDARD 10: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standar·d. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 10: 1. 2. 3. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standar·d? June 1999 Draft- Standard Ten Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eleven · Standard Eleven: Promotes Service Within the State 11.1. Basic Standard 11.1.1. Systematically and effectively promotes service within the state. 11.1.2. Participates in collaborative activities that systematically and effectively promote ·service within the state. 11.2. Excellence Standards 11.2.1 Has a Systematic Promotion Plan with Demonstrable Outcomes; or 11.~.2. Engages varied constituencies in developing and implementing the plan. June 1999 Draft- Standard Eleven · Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eleven 11.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 11.1.1 Systematically and Effectively Promotes Service within the State Has the commission developed effective, systematic, ongoing activities promoting service within the state? Have these activities been statewide in scope? 0 Yes 0No DYes 0No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 11.1.2 Participates in Collaborative Activities Has the commission collaborated in effective, systematic, ongoing activities promoting service within the state? Have these activities been statewide in scope? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . .... June 1999 Draft- Standard Eleven Page 2 0 Yes 0No DYes 0No �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eleven 11.2 Excellence Standards 11.2.1 Has a Systematic Promotion Plan with Demonstrable Outcomes Has the commission developed and impl emented a systematic promotion pl an? Can the commiss ion clearl y demonstrate th at th e promotion plan has had an positive impact on service activities in the state? For example, have you experienced increased numbers of applicants for funding, increased numbers of applicants to be members; increased numbers ofnon-AmeriCorps volunteers? . 0 Yes 0 No Describe the promotional activities below. Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 11.2.2 Varied Constituencies Below, indicate ifthe constituencies listed helped devel op and impl ement a systematic and effective prom oti on plan. Corporation State Office (and VISTA and Senior Corps rrograms) State Educational Association Learn and Serve America K-12 Learn and Serve America Community-Based PLAN DYes DYes DYes DYes DEV ELOPM ENT 0No ON/A ONo ON/A D No D N/A 0No ON/A June 1999 Draft- Standard Eleven Page 3 PLAN 0 Yes DYes DYes DYes IMPL EMENTATION 0No ON/A 0No ON/A 0No ON/A 0No ON/A �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eleven Learn and Serve America Higher Ed. AmeriCorps*National Direct AmeriCorps*Tribes Education Awards Only Programs State office ofvolunteerism, other than the commission Other (List) Other (List) DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes 0No 0No 0No 0No 0No 0No ONo ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes DYes 0No ONo 0No ONo ONo ONo ONo ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A ON/A If you had active participation from both the Corporation State Oflice AND the State Education Agency AND at least 50% of the other constituencies in your state in both development and implementation of the plan , check the box. ' Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. 11.2.3. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this categor-y? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . June 1999 Draft- Standard Eleven Page 4 0 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Eleven · STANDARD 11: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standard exist in this slate? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the area.s for improvement in this stale for this Standard. Additional comments on the slate's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard II: 1. What documentation here (if any) requires group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. What other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Stand:ud? June 1999 Draft- Standard Eleven Page 5 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Twelve · Standard Twelve: Communicates Information Effectively within the State 12.1. Basic Standard 12.1.1. Maintains a comprehensive calendar of service events and activities in the state; and 12.1.2. Sends information through an effective several mass distribution system; and 12.1.3. Ensures that key information is sent to state commission National Service programs on a timely basis. 12.2 Excellence Standards 12.2.1. Communication is developed jointly with other streams of service and/or non-Corporation volunteerism and community service agencies; or 12.2.2. Communication includes all streams of national service in subject and target of communications; or 12.2.3. Communication includes pertinent non-National Service agencies as subject and target of communications. June 1999 Draft- Standard Twelve Page 1 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Twelve . l2.1 BASIC STANDARD: The Commission must meet all of the Standards under this heading to meet the Basic Standard. 12.1.1. Calendar of Events and Activities Does the commission maintain a calendar of all service-related events and activities? 0 Yes 0No Does it include events and activities of all Corporation streams of service in the state? DYes 0No Does it include events and activities of a State Office of Volunteerism or network of volunteer agencies (if applicable)? O ,Yes 0No Is the calendar updated at least four times a year? 0 Yes 0No Describe how -you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . 12.1.2. Effective Mass Distribution Systems Check all of the mass communication systems the commission uses to effectively distribute information to the field. 0 Web Page 0 Newsletter 00ther _ _ 0 List-Serve 0 00ther _ _ Broadcast Fax Did you check more than one? If "Yes", check the box. 0 Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting. documentation . 12.1.3. Timely Distribution Has the commission established an appropriate timeframe within which to send its programs time-sensitive materials? DYes 0No Has the· commission established a timeframe within which to send its programs oth er materia ls? 0 Yes 0No Describe those time frames, demonstrate that they are followed. Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft- Standard Twelve Page 2 �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Twelve 12.2. Excellence Standards 12.2.1. Developed Jointly With Other Streams Has the commission developed communication jointly with the following; • other streams of service? DYes DNo • an office of volunteerism or network of volunteer agencies? D =Yes DNo • any other community service partners? DYes DNo Describe how"you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . If you answered "Yes" to "streams of service" and one other, check the box . D 12.2.2. Includes All Streams of National Service as the Subject and Target of Communication Does the commission regularly include information about all other Corporation programs in communications? DYes 0No Does the commission regularly disseminate information to all other Corporation programs as part of its normal communication? DYes DNo Can the commission demonstrate that it regularly includ es all Corporation programs as recipients of communication? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. If you answered "Yes" to all three questions, check the box. D · '- June 1999 Draft- Standar·d Twelve Page 3 DYes DNo �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Twelve . i2.2.3. Includes Non-Corporation Agencies as the Subject and Target of Communication Does the commission regularly include information about other non-Corporation agencies in communications? DYes D No Does the commission regularly disseminate information to other non-Corporation agencies as part of its norm al communication? DYes D No Can the commission demonstrate that it regularly includes non-Corporation agencies as recipients of communication? DYes D No Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation . D If you answered "Yes" to all three questions, check the box. 12.2.4. Suggested Excellence Standards What other practices and policies, if any, would the state like to nominate for consideration as a Standard of Excellence in this category? Describe how you arrived at your conclusions. List, label, and file supporting documentation. June 1999 Draft -Standard Twelve Page 4 • �State Administrative Standards Review- Standard Twelve · STANDARD 12: FINAL QUESTIONS What innovative practices applying to this Standnrd exist in this state? Summarize the strengths in this state for this Standard. Summarize the areas for improvement in this state for this Standard. Additional comments on the state's performance in this Standard. How can the Corporation for National Service be a better partner in helping this state to meet this Standard and excel in it? For team discussion of Standard 12: 1. What documentation here (if any) requir·es group discussion? 2. What information here might be relevant to the assessment of another Standard? 3. \Yhat other concerns or questions have arisen during your assessment of this Standard? June 1999 Draft- Standard Twelve Page 5 �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Heinaru, Interim Director of AmeriCorps FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director / ~ RE: Performance Standards DATE: August 18, 1999 CC: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission, Susannah Washburn I recently participated on a phone call with· my counterparts in the North Central Cluster concerning the performance standards for state commissions. Ohio recently participated in one for the beta test reviews and Kitty shared her experiences with us. I have a number of concerns and I have noted them in the memo attached. In response to this memo, Dr. Joel Orosz of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation noted his concerns and I am sharing them with you for your consideration. The Michigan Community Service Commission is eager to help develop the performance evaluation standards because we see it as a way of helping state commission assess their capacities and areas where they need to improve. However, we will not participate in the review until we are certain that the measures can be implemented based on common sense standards, assessed fairly, based on relevant rules and data, accurately measured and user-friendly. We hope that our feedback is helpful as the Corporation for National Service and the Standards Committee work together to develop these processes. �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lans in g, Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Staff FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director 10- RE: CNS Conference Call -No. Central Cluster DATE: August 18, 1999 CC: Susannah Washburn, Executive Committee of the MCSC The Executive Directors of the North Central Cluster (programs funded by the Corporation for . National Service (CNS) in a specific geographical grouping) participated on the regularly scheduled (monthly) conference call yesterday (8117 /99). Two major items were discussed, the Commission Performance Standards Review and the Web Based Reporting System (WBRS). Both discussions brought forth some issues we need to be aware of and respond to accordingly. Commission Performance Standards Review As you know, State Commissions will be evaluated by CNS on a number of performance standards, twelve to be exact. A committee of state commission Executive Directors (ED's)and CNS staff is working on honing the standards and the methods used to assess commissions' adherence to them. Ohio was the most recent state to be evaluated against the latest version of these standards as part of a beta test of states across the nation. The evaluation consists of a review panel coming out to the state commission for a several-day long interview and review of institutional documentation. The panel consisted of CNS staff and other ED's from across the nation. Kitty Burcsu, my counterpart in Ohio, was kind enough to share her reflections on the process and the expected outcomes. I will briefly summarize them for you. 1. The Visit - The team that came out to the Commission office was skilled, po-sitive and affirming. Kitty felt that the Ohio staff were prepared for the review because of weeks of exhausting preparation (pulling files, documentation of processes, collecting the necessary data for quick and easy retrieval). The visit itself was extremely intense. They gave up their conference �I room for several days for the reviewers to use as their working space thereby placing the reviewers . right in the laps of the staff. 2. The Results -The review team has a complicated measurement system by which to assess the commission, but it boils down to a pass, fail or pass with conditions rating. Any deficiency will automatically lead to a conditional rating. As a result of the review team's analysis, three issues were raised. First, the Ohio Commission's financial management practices were fine, but the processes that were used were not documented. In other words, everyone knew their job and how to manage the fmancial systems, but there was no "bible" that documented it for future staff nor for an auditor to review. Kitty agreed with this assessment and is working to remedy the situation. Kitty noted that this was a very helpful outcome of the whole process. The second issue involved the Ohio Commission's lack of timely reporting especially as it relates to Financial Status Reports (FSR). As we have long held and as Kitty and I agreed, the FSR issue is a chronic one especially as it relates to higher education institutions. If all accounting systems are not aligned, fmancial reports cannot be expected to adhere to a single timeline. Kitty will be contesting this potential finding. Garry and I have worked out a plan that will request a standing extension from the Corporation for National Service for all grantees we assess as being unable (for accounting systems misalignment reasons only) to comply with th~ FSR deadline. This is allowed in the provisions that govern CNS and state commissions and is a flexibility mechanism afforded to CNS by the Inspector General's Office. Finally, and most controversially, the review team noted that the Ohio Commission did not fully draw down their Admin. Funds allocated to them. This is only an issue IF the commission being reviewed is deficient in one of the other 12 standards measures. Although the logic for this convoluted measure is unclear, the results are very clear. The Corporation for National Service will penalize a state commission for not drawing down its full admin. funds should the commission be even slightly deficient on any one of the other measures. The MCSC strongly disagrees with this interpretation of the regulations and will address its concerns to the highest level of the CNS if necessary. Here is my interpretation of the review team's logic. If a state commission is deficient in one of the 12 standards and has not fully drawn down its entire allocation of CNS Administrative Funds, the commission has not properly developed some element or system within the organization to effectively adhere to the letter and spirit of the regulations that dictate how commissions are to function. In addition, the commission has not effectively utilized its administrative funds to put theses systems and processes in place. Our issue with this is many-fold. First, the MCSC always utilizes its administrative funds in the most effective and efficient manner possible to ensure that the taxpayers are getting the greatest value for their dollar. During a fiscal year, the MCSC may very well end up not expending, and thereby not draw down, the full amount of federal administrative funds (either due to staff ·changes, unforseen contributions from outside sources, or economies discovered, but not forecasted prior to developing the budget). The State of Michigan has supported the work of the MCSC with a substantial commitment of funds which mtist be spent within a fiscal year or those funds will return to the Treasury and not be returned to the MCSC for administrative functions in the next fiscal year. The MCSC has never been in a position where it was not eager, able or willing to address other administrative issues if more resources were available. yve can always use more administrative support. In addition, neither the MCSC nor the Governor's office, had any role in determining how much administrative funds were allocated to Michigan. That was a statutory regulation determined by Congress and interpreted by the Corporation for National Service. �• In other words, the amount of administrative funds the MCSC receives from the Corporation for National Service has never been adequate to fully operate the Commission nor was the allocated amount ever determined by the MCSC based on its needs. The MCSC merely develops its work plan within the constraints of the allocated funds, requests the-maximum in federal funds and then matches those funds with state dollars. The MCSC's control over how these resources are spent can vary year to year and have nothing to do with whether a FSR from the University of Michigan Office of Accounting is delivered on time, especially as the University' system is geared to only produce such data ever 60 days (this is offered as an example of how the proposed penalty could go awry). The MCSC will be addressing this issue with the Corporation for National Service and the steering committee for the Commission Performance Standards. Therefore, the MCSC staff, prior to the standards review (not yet scheduled) will all prepare for the Commission Standards Review by doing the following: 1. Each department will have a "bible" of policies and procedures that documents processes, procedures and administrative structures within the department. 2. Each senior staff member will develop job function descriptions for the positions within their supervision that documents: • how to do that particular job effectively, • who is in the chain of command,and • the communication structures and protocols for that department and position. Web Based Reporting System (WBRS) On this call, we also discussed the visit by Susannah Washburn (our program officer) and Charles Ellmaker (with the Evaluation area of CNS) from the Corporation for National Service. They were very much impressed with the Michigan's AmeriCorps grantees and MCSC staff they visited concerning the WBRS preparedness. A report will be issued in the next few weeks that summarizes their visit. They noted no major issues or potential fmdings at this time. Grant Award Letters and Reports All grant award letters (formula & competitive) are due to be completed by 8/20/99. If we do not receive them by that date, we are to note it to Susannah. From this date forward, all reports on Administrative Award Funds, PDAT, Quarterly and Annual Progress and all funding applications except Learn & Serve are to be sent to Jarnia McClean, the Administrative Assistant-for the No. Central Cluster. North Central Cluster Meeting The next call for the Cluster Executive Directors will be September 21, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. We will be discussing the Spring No. Central Cluster meeting that the MCSC has agreed to host. I would like the Dir. of Programs, Dir. of Outreach & Fund Dev. and the Training and TA Coordinator to participate on this call. �AUG 2 5 1999 August 19, 1999 Mr. Kyle Caldwell Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission George W. Romney Building, Fourth Floor Ill South Capitol A venue Lansing, MI 48913 Dear Kyle: Thank you very much for your facsimile transmission of August 18, filling me in about the Commission performance standards review. It strikes me that such reviews are important as a means of improving performance and promoting professionalism. We have certainly seen them work this way in other professions, such as the Museum Assessment Program of the American Association of Museums. WK. KELLOGG FOUNDATION One Michigan Avenue East Battle Creek, Ml 49017-4058 USA 616-968-1611 TDD on site Facsimile: 616-968-041 3 World Wide Web: http://www.wkkf.org To help people help themselves through the practical application of knowledge 'resources to improve .eir quality of life and that of future generations As I looked over the outcomes of the Ohio Beta Assessment, it struck me that it was reasonable, indeed, to criticize Ohio for failing to have documented their financial management practices. On the other hand, the second finding, that essentially penalizes the Commission for the accounting practices of other institutions, is not a reasonable finding. I believe that the solution that you and Gary have worked out, namely to request a standing extension from the Corporation for National Service for all grantees unable to meet the FSR deadline for accounting systems misalignment reasons, is a very sensible and workable one. Turning now to lhe third i:;sue rai:,ed by the review of the Ohio Conmlission, I a.u in strong agreement with your position. It has never made the slightest sense, in any organization, to impose a "use it or lose it" rule upon administrative or any other funds. If, by careful management, by leveraging other funds, or by reducing expenses, one can avoid spending a budgeted amount during a given year, the management should be rewarded for being enterprising and efficient, not penalized. I fully support your decision to address this issue with the Corporation for ·National Service and the Steering Committee for the Commission Performance Standards. If there is anything I can do to be helpful in that connection, please let me know. �Page2 Thanks very much, Kyle, for keeping me up to date on the latest activities with the Commission. I look forward to our upcoming retreat on Mackinac Island. Until then, all the best to you in your important work. fll~~~ Director Philanthropy and Volunteerism JJO/jmb � 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_1999-09-24_State-Administrative-Standards-Project Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting State Administrative Standards Project Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting State Administrative Standards Project. 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, 50060 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/985729b4bf7441b78e57eff9a3a42fb6.pdf 3c247549323dd3ada90a5b01dfde2ad5 PDF Text Text PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES Training and Technical Assistance Progress to Date (10/1/98 through 3/31/99) Reporting Guidelines • List the training events and other activities that were completed in accordance with your training and technical assistance plan, including those planned jointly with the corporation state office and the Department of Education. For each, include, as appropriate, a brief description of any effective practices and lessons learned that you think would benefit other corporation-funded programs. • List the activities you had planned, but were unable to complete. For each, briefly explain why the activity was not conducted and describe the alternative activity, if any. • For T/TAprovided, whether planned or in response to emergent needs, identify each provider used; indicate whether it was a national, state, or local provider; and list the topics addressed. OBJECTIVES 1. Provide timely and consistent program development support and outreach to all commission funded national service programs 2. Provide timely and consistent program development support, training, and outreach to nonprofit organizations, volunteer, programs, other CNS funded national service programs, and the Communities ofPromise. Staffing The MCSC hired a full-time training and technical assistance coordinator on March 8, 1999. Phil Chvojka has the responsibility to coordinate and to implement the overall technical assistance plan. This increased capacity will allow the coordinator to concentrate fully on training and technical assistance needs and to expand the MCSC's level of support to all CNS programs in Michigan. The addition of a 1.0 FTE training and technical assistance coordinator also contributes to the program officers' abilities to conduct site visits and, as a commission team, to identify and address areas which need improvement. The MCSC will have increased capacity to conduct assessment surveys, determine training needs, develop a training calendar, and conduct technical assistance site visits. The MCSC arranged with the Texas Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service a �peer exchange of training and technical assistance coordinators. On April28-29, 1999 Mr. Allen Dietz visited our office to provide insight into national training and technical assistance providers, disability funds, work plan priorities, and organizational structures. It was an opportunity for both commissions to share each's collective experience in the field of volunteerism and community service .. On-site support The Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator visited the host site for an AmeriCorps Service Project on March 26, 1999. The Rural Strategic Action Initiative and the American Youth Foundation-Miniwanca hosted a two day environmental project for 130 AmeriCorps members throughout the state. This on-site consultation consisted of logistical planning for the registration, placement, and housing of participants. A training schedule was developed along with a plan for transporting participants to and from the selected environmental sites. This project will be primarily coordinated by the host site. The MCSC will lend its support via additional staffing, supervision, and general support. During this time period, MCSC staff conducted eight on-site visits to Michigan's AmeriCorps programs. These visits are a vehicle to ascertain the current and future needs of each program. The program directors and the members have an opportunity to express and identify those areas in which assistance is needed. On February 22 and 23, 1999, Project STAR visited Creston Community AmeriCorps. Susan Kistler provided instruction and technical assistance on objective writing, measurement instruments, data collection, and data analysis. The main emphasis was to assist this program in developing measurable outcome objectives. Program Directors Meetings MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The MCSC conducted monthly Program Directors Meetings for the Michigan's AmeriCorps programs. This provided the opportunity for peer exchange, technical assistance, and professional development . These meetings consisted of two general components. First, it offered the chance to exchange information between the MCSC and the programs. The remaining session was devoted to program development and included a training component. The October 1998 directors meeting included training on the Web-Based Reporting System (WBRS) developed by Project TASC. In November, the MCSC conducted a training session on member development for the directors. The following day (November 20th), new Michigan's AmeriCorps Program Directors were given an orientation on AmeriCorps policies, procedures, and reporting requirements. Project STAR provided training on evaluation basics, objective writing, and report writing during the December 1998 directors meeting. This offered the programs an opportunity to strengthen and to clarify measurable objectives. At the February 18, 1999 directors meeting and training, the topic that was explored was, �Helping Members Prepare for Life After AmeriCorps. This training was conducted by the MCSC staff. LEARN AND SERVE-MICHIGAN Learn and SERVE-Michigan service partners meet quarterly either via conference call or at faceto-face day-long meetings. The agenda provides an opportunity for the MCSC to share information on activities and available resources, to share best practices, and to build networks with other grantees. On October 28, 1999, Learn & Serve Community Based Organizations (L&S CBO) held a grantee meeting in Lansing to discuss the coming years funding availability and to assess the current status of service learning at the community level. On January 8, 1999, the MCSC held a Learn & SERVE Renewal Program Technical Assistance conference call to provide assistance in writing strong renewal grant applications. This was an opportunity for the grant proposal writers to ask questions, get clarification, and receive preliminary feedback on their program development. Both the school and the community based Learn and SERVE programs participated in a meeting at the Library ofMichigan in Lansing on January 28, 1999. The MCSC coordinated two technical assistance conference call for new grant applicants. The new applicants had the opportunity to participate at either 10:00 a.m. or at 3:00p.m. On January 29, 1999. The proposal writers received information on the content, scope, and evaluation criteria in the request for proposal. This was targeted to the community based organizations (CBO). VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Volunteer Investment Grant (VIG) fund raising training took place October 7-8, 1999. This was an opportunity to explore both proven and creative methods to raise matching funds . VIG grantees also met on February 24, 1999 to assess current VIG status and ways to improve this innovative program. On October 5, 1999, a conference call on VIG Request for Proposal (RFP) took place. This allowed grantees an opportunity to raise questions about the RFP and to gain clarity on the evaluation criteria. Regional Training These activities were paid for by State of Michigan funds. No CNS funds were used, but CNS funded programs were able to attend. The Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA) was awarded the bid for providing two regional training sessions. MNA conducted a needs assessment survey of 105 program directors from all funding streams and, based on those results, will deliver regional training in Effective Volunteer Leadership Strategies (April26-29) and Grant Writing and Fund Development (June 22-25) . Theses sessions will encourage the participation of all �national service programs in each region (AmeriCorps-state and national, Learn and SERVE school and community based, VISTA, RSVP, Senior Companion, and FGP programs), and are open to nonprofit organizations such as United Way, volunteer centers, and community foundations. The April regional training, based upon the survey assessment, will be built around three areas identified as "high need." These are recruitment, marketing, and reflection/evaluation. The June session will cover the basics of grant writing, the development of a long term funddevelopment plan, and a panel of experts to discuss what funding sources look for in a proposal. Special Topic Training The MCSC's Finance and Administration division conducted a training on Federal Grants Financial Reporting on October 16, 1998. 34 program directors, comptrollers, and financial officers from both Michigan's AmeriCorps and Learn and SERVE-Michigan received instruction on Monthly Financial Reports, Federal Status Reports (FSR's), Cash Requests I Authorized Signature Forms, Grant Close Outs, and Audit Requirements. After receiving this information and training, the accuracy of the next round of monthly financial reports improved dramatically. The previous month, only 30% of the programs completed the reports correctly. The posttraining compliance rate climbed to approximately 90%. On March 24, 1999, Paula Kaiser of the American Association of State Service Commissions, conducted a program orientation for the new staff at the MCSC. This training focused upon the history of community service, the history of the MCSC, the roles and responsibilities for staff, and the parameters for conducting effective site-visitations. An agenda for continuous improvement also was created during this day long session. The MCSC contracted with two national providers to conduct two cross stream training sessions during this time frame. These two-day sessions are open to program directors from all CNS funding streams. The National Crime Prevention Council delivered training on Supervisory Skills on January 21 and 22, 1999. The participants received instruction on supervisory roles and styles and on oneon-one communication with members/volunteers during the first day. Day two consisted of cohesive team building, assigning priorities to work, and action planning . On March 31,1999, Campaign Consultation, Inc. conducted a train-the-trainer session for local ·Michigan facilitators to deliver ASK to Sustain, a curriculum designed by Susan Haliman of Campaign Consultation. This training was intended to develop a pool of in-state trainers to deliver instruction on resource development, marketing, media relations, and collaboration. On April 1st and 2nd, the ASK to Sustain program was delivered as a cross-stream training to 50 program directors in Michigan Those facilitators trained the previous day acted as discussion facilitators and were exposed to the program as both participants and presenters. The event culminated in a full group role play exercise in which all participants had the opportunity to utilize and to practice the concepts developed over the two days. Training and Resource Materials �The Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator will be responsible for the development of a clearinghouse for resource materials. Exemplary materials and ideas will be disseminated throughout the state. This has yet to be accomplished and is tied directly to the development of a well-designed training and technical assistance web site. The MCSC developed a monitoring guide for grantees. This guide allows programs to identify both strengths and weaknesses so that each can take a hands on approach to making continuous program improvements. The MCSC has yet to create an AmeriCorps Ambassadors program. These ambassadors would consist of both current and former members who would make presentations and testimonials at high schools, universities, and career fairs. Information Sharing Michigan is one of the ten states selected by Aguirre International (Project TASC) to implement the national AmeriCorps web-based reporting system (WBRS). As this technology, and the comfort level of the programs utilizing it, develops, it will become a convenient tool for cross program analysis and stakeholder feedback. THE OVERTURE: TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEWSLETTER The Overture is a bi-monthly training and technical assistance news brief on training opportunities within the state, regional cluster, and nation. It also includes information on nominations for service and leadership awards and on award recipients, news on the successes and accomplishments of service partners, tips on program development, and announcements of coming service events and conferences. The issues also have information on useful resources, helpful web sites, and important contact people. The first issue was sent out in January. It will become a consistent vehicle for getting information about the training and technical assistance available to our service partners. The MCSC plans to add training and technical assistance updates to its web site. This was planned to be accomplished, but staff shortages for a significant part of this six month time frame have pushed the completion of this goal back. This web site improvement will coincide with the adoption of the web based reporting system for Michigan's Americorps. CONFERENCE CALLS The MCSC utilizes conference calls as a means to disseminate and share information to program directors in Communities ofPromise, AmeriCorps Promise Fellows, Michigan's AmeriCorps, Learn and SERVE-Michigan, and VIG Grantees. Statewide Events and Activities From November 10-13, 1999, the MCSC held Michigan AmeriCorps Outreach sessions in �Lansing, Detroit, and Grand Rapids. These sessions serve to attract new programs and to give public exposure to AmeriCorps. A service project for Michigan's AmeriCorps programs will take place on May 6 and 7, 1999. 120 AmeriCorps members throughout the state will participate in an environmental clean up and habitat restoration at sites along the Lake Michigan shoreline. A second service project for members who do not participate in this activity is tentatively scheduled in June. This will take place in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. America's Promise/National Service Coordination COMMUNITIES OF PROMISE On October 1, 1998, the MCSC hosted a meeting for the 15 Communities of Promise and five other communities interested in becoming Communities of Promise. 95 participants from 77 community organizations attended the event held in Lansing. America's Promise staff members Jim Schiebel, Gardner Humphreys, Paige Genovese, Tim Hanlon, Ashley Johnson, and Reverend Mark Farr participated in the meeting. The meeting served to identify and develop resources available to Michigan's Communities ofPromise, to build a formal network of Communities of Promise within Michigan, and to provide an opportunity for local communities to share their ideas, needs, and concerns with both state and national representatives. On December 17, 1998 and on March 25, 1999 Michigan' s Communities ofPromise held conference calls to discuss ways to develop the local infrastructure to meet effectively the goals of America's Promise. Benchmarking, setting measurable goals, and tracking these goals were the main focus of the calls. They are also invaluable tools to monitor local progress and to share best practices and mutual concerns and obstacles. The calls serve as an effective and consistent communication device. MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS PROMISE FELLOWS A host-site orientation for supervisors and directors of Michigan's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows was held in Lansing on December 18, 1999. This was an opportunity for the people who would be responsible for the development of the Fellows sites to share goals, insights, and visions. The orientation for the Michigan's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows was held January 31 through February 1, 1999. The topics covered included: community organizing, program management, and partnership development. On November 10, 1998 and March 25, 1999, Michigan's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows took part in technical assistance conference calls. These were opportunities to share best practices, discuss a broad, national perspective, share concerns, and work out a shared calendar. From February 26-28, 1999, Michigan' s Promise Fellows were represented at the National Training held at the Xerox Document University Training and Conference Center in suburban Washington, D.C. �CNS National Technical Assistance Providers Used *Project STAR (provided direct objective writing, report writing, and evaluation planning assistance to local Michigan's Americorps programs. *National Crime Prevention Council (provided cross-stream two day training on supervisory skills) *Campaign Consultation, Inc. (provided cross stream two day workshop on sustainability) Other Technical Assistance Providers Used *Indiana University Center on Philanthropy - The Funding School (conducted a two-day seminar to VIG grantees on fund raising and endowment building) State Technical Assistance Providers Used *Michigan State University Extension Service (conducted a regional training) *Michigan Family Independence Agency Volunteer Services *MCSC staff (conducted Federal Grants Financial Reporting training and Helping Members Prepare for Life After AmeriCorps) • Describe the means used to evaluate training and technical assistance services, and indicate how programs rated the service of the local, state, and national providers, respectively. Depending on the training and technical assistance provided, the MCSC utilizes several methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the activity. When the MCSC contracts with a trainer such as the Michigan Nonprofit Association, part of the training providers responsibility is to conduct an evaluation of the training. Each contractor is expected to submit a final evaluation report to the MCSC. The training and technical assistance coordinator, also, arranges a brief face-to-face meeting with the trainers to discuss the effectiveness of the content, the learning that occurred, the delivery, the sequencing of activities, the time management, and the general impression of the event. The training and technical assistance coordinator attends the sessions to make empirical observations, to get feedback from the participants, and to monitor the activities. Improvements are made based upon all the input. The MCSC also uses the monthly AmeriCorps program directors meetings as an opportunity to get feedback from the participants about how to make these meetings more productive. This is a verbal discussion where the directors can express their views and make suggestions. • Identify the extent to which traditional volunteer associations and centers were involved in and/or supported your training and technical assistance activities. Volunteer Centers ofMichigan (the state association ofvolunteer centers) currently operates a statewide Michigan's AmeriCorps program. As a result, the volunteer centers throughout the state participate in most of the MCSC training and technical assistance activities. They are also one of the facilitators of our regional training sessions. They were represented at our monthly �Michigan's Americorps program directors meetings, the regional training, regional service learning training, and other MCSC sponsored events. Other volunteer agencies such as the Family Independence Agency's Volunteer Services coordinators, United Ways, and Michigan State University Extension Services participate in MCSC training and technical assistance activities. Our regional training involved participants from Girl Scouts, Michigan Special Olympics � 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_1999-09-24_Training-and-Technical-Assistance Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting training and technical assistance Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting training and technical assistance. 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, 50061 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1917e28c62ea63c104a430ff34484c27.pdf 0ea67008496a6f13c6581cfd25375a62 PDF Text Text VOLUNTEER CENTERS OF SEP u 9 1999 September 7, 1999 Mr. Kyle Caldwell Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission George W. Romney Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Lansing, MI 48913 Dear Kyle : On behalf of the Volunteer Centers of Michigan, I am pleased to submit the following Capacity Building and Support Proposal to the Michigan Community Service Commission. We are requesting funding in the amount of $50,000 to be distributed through an RFP (Request for Proposal) Process outlined herein. The focus of our proposal is to enhance the effectiveness of local volunteer centers through access to technology and other resources, thereby strengthening our state volunteerism infrastructure. In addition to becoming more effective communicators and collaborators on the local level, access to a minimum standard level of technology will allow volunteer centers to be more active participants and resources on the state level. Ensuring that each volunteer center has access to e-mail, the internet, and - in some cases - a working fax machine, will allow us to more effectively connect them with the Michigan's Promise, Connect Michigan and Make A Difference Day initiatives, in addition to other events and activities . Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this proposal. As always, thank you for your ongoing support ofvolunteerism and local volunteer centers. Director 29 Kellogg Center • East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (Phone 888-242-7075 or 517-353-9277) (Fax 517-355-3302)(rlschult @pilot.msu.edu .) Affiliated with Michigan Nonprofit Association www.vcm.mna.msu.edu �VOLUNTEER CENTERS OF MICHIG•N A Proposal to Michigan Community Service Commission For Capacity Building and Support Summary: The Volunteer Centers of Michigan respectfully request $50,000 Capacity Building and Support Funding. These funds will be allocated to local volunteer centers statewide through a request for proposal process that will focus on technology as a critical element of volunteer center success. Past capacity building grant processes have focused on up to seven focus areas. After a great deal of discussion, the VCM Executive Committee agreed that their primary goal is to bring all volunteer centers in the state up to a minimum level of functioning in regard to technology. It is our goal for every member volunteer center to have a working computer with Pentium processor, CD-ROM and printer; have a fax machine; and be on-line via email and access to the Internet. Bringing every volunteer center to a minimum level of technological ability will greatly enhance our state infrastructure through enhanced communication among centers; access to resources and current information; and the ability to connect more effectively with local partner organizations. Additionally, it is our goal to provide volunteer centers with the financial support needed to build resource libraries for effective volunteer program management, which will be shared with other nonprofit organizations within their local communities. Process: An RFP (Request for Proposal) process will be followed for dissemination of the grant funds. A team of 3-5 peer reviewers, under the guidance and support of the VCM staff will review proposals. Grants will be made on a l:llocal match basis (cash or in-kind), and will range from $1,000-$5,000. Grant funds may not be used to supplant existing funding, but may enhance/expand key initiatives that fall within focus areas listed above. The following materials will be included in each proposal considered for funding: 1. A completec.i cover page (attached) 2. A three- to five- page concept paper including the following information: a. Needs Statement • What specific need is the project addressing? • What was the process for identifying the need? • How does the project respond to the identified need(s)? b. Program Design: • What is the basic concept of the project? • What are the project's goals and objectives? • How does the project relate to the mission of the Volunteer Center? 29 Kellogg Center • East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (Phone 888-242-7075 or 517-353-9277) (Fax 517-355-3302)(rlschu1t@pilot.msu.edu.) Affiliated with Michigan Nonprofit Association www. vcm.mna.msu.edu �VOLUNTEER CENTERS OF MICHIG•N CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT APPLICATION (Please type. This form may also be scanned into your computer for completion.) Date of Application - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amount Requested Matching Funds Legal Name of Organization Address ------------------------------------- City, State, ZIP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ P h o n e - - - - - - - - - - Fax _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ e-mail _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Contact person - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Name and Title) Contact person address, phone, and fax if different from above: Executive Director/ Authorizing Agent -------------------------- Organization's mission statement: Are you a member of the Volunteer Centers ofMichigan? Yes ___No Does your organization have tax-exempt status under Section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code? - -Yes - - -No Will this gran~ be matched by any other organization(s)? If yes, by whom? Yes No 29 Kellogg Center • East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (Phone 888-242-7075 or 517-353-9277) (Fax 517-355-3302)(rlschult@pilot.msu.edu.) Affiliated with Michigan Nonprofit Association www. vcm.mna.msu.edu �Geographic location(s) seiVed ------------------------------------------------------------ Has your organization received previous grants from Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, or Michigan Campus Compact within the last five years? _ _Yes _ _No. If yes, please explain below: Purpose/project Amount How do you substantiate community need for this project? Signature of Project/Executive Director Date Typed Name and Title Signature of Board Chair Typed Name and Title Date � 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_1999-09-24_VCM-Proposal-to-MCSC Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Centers of Michigan proposal 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 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Centers of Michigan proposal 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, 50062 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6bec6bb2c44f81ea6d16e5cc1123ff47.pdf 7120b4e53b9a7d7f99adf43de6958003 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Executive Director Kyle Caldwell S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Angelia Salas, Program Development Coordinator ~ RE: VIG Progress Report and Allocation Modification Proposal DATE: August 31, 1999 Michigan' s Volunteer Investment Grants Program has been a success! To date, we have been able to leverage $1,758,388 in local funds housed in community foundations. Those funds will produce over $105,503 in revenue next year in support of volunteer resource centers across Michigan. While I am satisfied with the progress that we have been able to make over the past two years, VIG still faces some significant challenges. First, the MCSC has yet to disburse the full $1 million state appropriations within the 12 months of the fiscal year. Garry Gross has been able to secure clarification on our ability to carry-over VIG funds from one fiscal year to another. For FY 2000, we will be able to carry over any unspent VIG funds from FY 1999. I estimate that amount to be $100,000 based on current unencumbered levels and past history with the program. Given the current program structure, I believe that this carry over amount will be a constant. This is a dangerous set of circumstances if we are to prove the worth of the program to the Legislature. You may recall that we modified the VIG match requirements and the grant amounts last year. This modification provided a substantial amount of flexibility to our grantees and applicants. However, the most successful and rapidly growing grantees remain the same. Applicants are still unable to develop the capacity to effectively meet the fund raising goals of the grant. In this situation, the VIG program is a "Catch 22." Those organizations seeking to develop their organizations' financial stability, but requires fund raising capacity in order to gain access to the VIG funds . �The MCSC received a proposal from the Michigan Campus Compact in January of 1999 requesting venture grant funds. Currently, the MCSC has no discretionary funds to disburse for the venture grants discussed in the proposal. However, based on our discussions with Sam Singh, President and CEO of the Michigan Nonprofit Association, it makes sense for MCSC to develop Campus Compact volunteer initiatives in long-term and sustainable terms much like those initiatives funded' through volunteer resource centers. Therefore, the MCSC staff recommend the modification of Michigan's Volunteer Investment Grants to set aside $100,000 for demonstration grants that build the capacity of organizations that can demonstrate that service and volunteerism are components of their core mission. These funds would be granted annually to organizations that will be required to provide a 1:1 match through cash or in-kind contributions. The MCSC staff recommend that the MCSC re-examine this funding stream in one year and assess whether the process and outcomes were desirable. For FY 2000, the MCSC staff recommend targeting volunteer centers and higher education institutions. Staff further recommend that the Volunteer Centers of Michigan and the Michigan Campus Compact be the grantee for the FY 2000 Demonstration Grants. These two organizations have the infrastructure and experience necessary to effectively target the volunteer center and higher education constituencies. Michigan's Volunteer Investment Demonstration Grants would be granted as follows: $50,000 - Volunteer Centers of Michigan: These funds would be granted to the Volunteer Centers of Michigan to build the fund raising capacity of volunteer resource centers across Michigan. The intent of these funds is to increase the capacity of volunteer resource centers to raise rmancial support for their agencies. The Volunteer Centers of Michigan will disburse the funds to volunteer resource centers that can match the granted funds 1:1 through cash or in-kind contributions. $50,000 - Michigan Campus Compact: These funds would be granted to the Michigan Campus Compact for grant programs that involve service in education activities. These funds would be matched 1:1 through cash match that will be endowed in a community foundation. The earnings of the endowment would be earmarked for the aforementioned activities or similar volunteer oriented activities at higher education institutions. �1999 Learn and Serve-Michigan CBO Round II Application Review Results IApplicant I Recommendation Funding Requested Funding Recommended ISupport Needed Romulus Community Parks and Recreation and Senior Center Yes $17,500 $17,500 • more structured program activity timeline is needed • more detailed information on student outcomes is needed Eastern Upper Peninsula Community Foundation Yes $10,500 $10,500 • youth voice resources are needed • impact assessment info is needed EightCAP Yes $10,500 $8,000 Delta County Yes $10,080 $8,000 • participant impact assessment tools are needed • community impact assessment is needed • more information on program sustainability plans is needed Winn Area Activity Center Yes $10,513 $8,000 • info on how to include stakeholders in program evaluation/assessment is needed • grant management training needed Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Flint No $10,500 $0 ACCESS No $30,000 $0 TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED $99,593 TOTAL FUNDING RECOMMENDED $52,000 I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1999-09-24_VIG-Progress-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants progress report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants progress 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, 50063 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/97ff404448087c454b3f282159ab688e.pdf df44b5ed8b90f1b947ba96908223d569 PDF Text Text FY 99 VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS I GRANTEE NAME GRANT NUMBER MCSCNIG/F-25/99 Albion Vol. Service Org. MCSCNIG/F-26/99 Barry County United Way Dickinson Cty Area Comm . Foundati MCSCNIG/F-27/99 MCSCNIG/F-28/99 ENRICH for Ionia County Jackson Non-Profit Support Center MCSCNIG/F-29/99 MCSCNIG/F-30/99 Keweenaw Children's Museum MCSCNIG/F-31/99 Lighthouse of Oakland Co. MCSCNIG/F-32/99 Marquette County Vol. Center Resource Center MCSCNIG/F-33/99 Southwestern Michigan Vol. Center MCSCNIG/F-34/99 Voluntary Action Center of Midland C MCSCNIG/F-35/99 Volunteer & Info. Services, Battle Cn MCSCNIG/F-36/99 Volunteer Center of Isabella County MCSCNIG/F-37/99 Volunteer Center of Northwest Michi MCSCNIG/F-38/99 Volunteer Center of Otsego County MCSCNIG/F-39/99 Volunteer Center of the Tri-Cities MCSCNIG/F-40/99 MCSCNIG/F-41/99 Volunteer Muskegon MCSCNIG/F-42/99 Lenawee United Way & VC TOTALS I YEAR 2 VIG GRANTS As of 8/23/99 I GRANT AMOUNT SIGNED GRANl PAYMENTS AMOUNT OF ENDOWMENT $17,280 $25,400 $12,500 $17,280 $25,400 $12 ,500 $75,000 $177,520 $40,314 $50,000 $75,000 $40,314 $50,000 $75,000 $30,000 $30,000 $325,494 $428,014 $65 ,500 $50,500 $25,500 $25,500 $75,500 $34,000 $25,500 Cancelled $60,000 $25,500 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $100,500 $25,500 $50,000 $40,500 $50,000 $904 ,000 YES* YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES* YES YES YES* NO *Albion, Northwest Ml , and Muskegon are wa iting on signed amendments . Amount reflect amended grants. �VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS As of 2/15/99 GRANTEE NAME Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Voluntary Volunteer GRANT NUMBER Center of the Tri-Cities Services of U.W., Traverse City Center & Sf2ecial Projects & Information Services Action Center of Gr. Kalamazoo Action Center, Bay City MCSC/VIG/F-1/98 MCSC/VIG/F-2/98 MCSC/VIG/F-3/98 MCSC/VIG/F-4/98 MCSC/VIG/F-5/98 MCSC/VIG/F-6/98 DECLINED GRANT ~§!Q.n Co~!!!Y_l:!!lJ!~d Way - -------Volunteer Impact, Southfield MCSC/VIG/F-8/98 Volunteer Center at Kirtland C.C. DECLINED GRANT Alpena Volunteer Center of Alpena C.C. MCSC/VIG/F-1 0/98 Southwestern Michigan Volunteer Center MCSC/VIG/F-11/98 Voluntary Action Center of SaQinaw Cty DECLINED GRANT Cass County Council on Aging MCSC/VIG/F-13/98 Marq!:!ette County Volunteer Center MCSC/VIG/F-14/98 Resource Center, Flint MCSC/VIG/F-15/98 !2l~~l!1~2n__g~~ nty_t.r~a__Q()~ :..E2u~g§!iQ!!_ MCSC/VIG/F-16/98 -----------The Jackson Community Foundation MCSC/VIG/F-17/98 Albion Volunteer Service O!:f]anization MCSC/VIG/F-18/98 MCSC/VIG/F-19/98 Y~l~!!!~y_t.~tiQn_Q ~n!~ !:_()f_ ~i91an~ _Q!Y_ - - - - - - - --Volunteer Muskegon MCSC/VIG/F-20/98 /98 _!:!!2!ted Way~!_Q~nesee & La~~gQ~!l!!~§... MCSC/VIG/F-21 - - - -- - - !jeart of W. MI. United Way Vol. Cen~ !:__ -----------MCSC/VIG/F-22/98 United Way Volunteer Center, Big Rapig.§..._1-DECLINED GRANT - - ----~ TOTALS GRANT AMOUNT $53,500 $75,000 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $60,000 $27,000 $0 $25,000 $37,500 $75,000 SIGNED GRANT YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES t'JO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES $~§.QQQ $75,000 YES $50,000 YES ~;??_2Q9 - - -YES $31,500 YES YES $6~ 1 QQO YES $3Q !QOO $0 t'JO $865,000 PAYMENTS AMOUNT OF ENDOWMENT $53,500 $75,000 $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $107,000 $160,311 $50,000 $100,876 $50,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $27,000 $115,073 $54,045 $1 _8,750 $75,000 $31,500 $37,500 $150,000 $25 ,Q QQ_ $150,550 $1 02,694 $77, 18_g_ $63,536 $18,000 $36,607 $648,750 $1,330,374 $1 ~. 500 $75,000 $50,000 $;? ~§ 00 ) � 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_1999-09-24_Volunteer-Investment-Grants Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-09-24 commission meeting Volunteer Investment Grants. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50064 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 1999-09-24 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/39d0c445beae208de95b2477efa254a3.png 6d011e0fc6997bd1b60f60e9b4106c7d 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_1999-11-05_Commissioners-Photo Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting commissioners photo Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting commissioners photo. 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 image/png Type The nature or genre of the resource Image 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, 50065 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2fa6767b459555942e25889794891584.pdf bb0c914d2263fddb3cbad13d98ae754c PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler MEMORANDUM Executive Director Kyle Caldwell TO: 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 Members of the MCSC Executive Committee Michelle Engler, Chair Terry Pruitt, Vice Chair (absent) Julie Cummings (absent) Dorothy Johnson Joel Orosz FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director RE: Summary of November 5, 1999 Meeting DATE: November 5, 1999 Thank you once again for your active participation in the November 5, 1999 meeting of the Executive Committee. The following is a summary of our discussion, facilitated via conference call, with Commissioners Engler, Johnson, and Orosz participating. Commissioners Cummings and Pruitt were unable to participate due to prior commitments. November 5, 1999 Meetin2 of the MCSC Executive Committee • Review and approve staff recommendations for FY 2000 Volunteer Investment Grants The Executive Committee approved the staff recommendations for FY 2000 VIG funds: 1. Renewed funding at the requested amount for the Jackson Nonprofit Support Center. 2. New funding at the requested amounts for United Way of Chippewa County, Volunteer Impact, Hillsdale County Volunteer Resource and Support Center, United Way of Saginaw County Community Volunteer Center, and United Way of Allegan County. 3. Provisional funding (funding that will not be committed unless and until the applicant not only addresses the fundraising requirements of the VIG, but also addresses added concerns including meeting the goals of the previous VIG) for Volunteer Muskegon, Dickin on County Area Community Foundation, Volunteer Center of Northwest Michigan, Volunteer Center of Barry County, Volunteer Center of Otsego County, Volunteer and Information Services (Battle Creek), Volunteer Center of the Tri-Cities, Lenawee United Way and Volunteer Center, Volunteer Action Center of Midland County. �Members of the MCSC Executive Committee November 5, 1999 Page2 4. Not recommend Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan (Lansing) and United Way of Bay County for funding this round. 5. Offer remaining funds ($153 ,275) in a second round of Michigan VIG funding. Reschedulin2 of the April meetin2 of the MCSC and Le2islative Breakfast The meeting of the MCSC and the legislative breakfast will be changed from April13, 2000 to April 27, 2000. This change was made to ensure that we can secure the participation of the Governor and First Lady. The breakfast will be held in Lansing in the morning and the meeting of the full Commission will follow shortly thereafter. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. 2 �2000 Michigan's Volunteer Investment Grant Staff Recommendation Chart Recommendation #1 Th e staff recommends the following applicants for renewed fund in:< at the requested amount: Applicant Jackson Nonprofit Support Center Match Required Funding Recommended 1.5 : 1 $75,000 Recommendation #2 Th e staff recommends th e following applicants (or new (undin:< at the requested amount: Match Required Funding Recommended Hillsdale County Volunteer Resource and Support Center 1: 1 $50,000 United Way of Allegan County 1: 1 $50,000 United Way of Chippewa County 1: 1 $25 ,000 United Way of Saginaw County Community Volunteer Center 1: 1 $40,000 Volunteer Impact 1:1 $100,000 Applicant Recommendation #3 Th e staff recommends provisionalfundin:< for the current :<rantees: Applicant Match Required Funding Recommended Dickinson County Area Community Foundation 1.5 : 1 $30,000 Lenawee United Way and Volunteer Center 1.5 : 1 $50,000 Volunteer Action Center ofMidland County 1.5 : 1 $100,000 Volunteer and Information Services 1.5 : 1 $25,000 Volunteer Center ofBarry County 1.5 : 1 $5 1,725 Volunteer Center ofNorthwest Michigan 1.5 : 1 $75,000 Volunteer Center of Otsego County 1.5 : 1 $25,000 Volunteer Center of the Tri-Cities 1.5 : 1 $25,000 Volunteer Muskegon 1.5 : 1 $25,000 Recommendation #4 The staff recommends that thefollowinf{ applicants not be approved for fimdin:< at this time: Applicant Recommended Funding United Way of Bay County $0 Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan $0 I Totatlll $746,725 I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1999-11-05_Executive-Committee-Summary Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting executive committee summary Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting executive committee summary. 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, 50066 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1640c36f83258c4b1d30508167276a3f.pdf e26a0c49fa6868a7c8ca30011c40e77f PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Di rector Kyle Caldwell MEMORAN D UM 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX TO: Members and Friends of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director RE: Executive Director's Report DATE: November 8, 1999 / S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 }£- Summary This month's Executive Director Report will be shmt and simple although the size of this mailing is deceiving. Attached you will see three reports. Each report is a summary of the three different divisions of the organization prepared by the directors of those divisions (Garry, Lindy and Paula). I have summarized the key points and date specific items for you below. I encourage you to read through the entire packet at your leisure. Making It Happen Finance and Administration Division You will note that the prediction of the staff has come true. The Auditor General for the Corporation for National Service has dispatched a CPA firm to conduct a pre-audit site visit to Michigan to examine our ArneriCorps funding records. The review will take place in January, after which we will be notified if a full audit will need to be conducted. Outreach & Fund Development Division The April meeting of the MCSC has been rescheduled to Thursday, April 27, 2000 to begin immediately after the Legislative Breakfast in Lansing, Michigan. The Legislative Breakfast will begin at 8:00 a.m. and needed to be moved to April 27, 2000 to ensure the participation of the Governor and Mrs. Engler who are scheduled to travel abroad during the previously scheduled date. �Executive Director's Report Page 2 Program Division The AmeriCorps FY 2000 application process is in full swing and staff have already conducted four outreach sessions to inform the public about the availability of funds (A special thank you to Commissioner Lenz for helping to arrange a Kalamazoo site). Applications are due to the MCSC by November 30, 1999. The Executive Committee approved staff recommendations for FY 2000 Volunteer Investment Grants. More details will be presented at the January meeting. A special "Thanks" from the staff goes out to Commissioners Orosz, Pruitt and Smith for their participation in the Michigan's AmeriCorps Member Celebration. And a pecial congratulations to Ms. Christy Hicks-Bowman for receiving the First Annual All-AmeriCorps Common Ground Award for her work in Oakland County with the Oakland University Michigan's AmeriCorps program at a ceremony at the White House. And, of course, a big congratulations to Dottie Johnson on her "graduation" (since she will not allow anyone to call it retirement) from the Council of Michigan Foundations. Insights on the Vision Commissioner Retreat Thank you for participating at our September 25, 1999 Mackinac Island retreat. Staff have compiled the commissioners' input and articulated it into four key goals: 1. Develop a plan for better board engagement including mentoring programs, specific tasks and duties and lists of larger roles board members can play. 2. Make better use of technologies for communication and promotion of MCSC goals, tasks and functions. 3. Implement a joint venture with organizations in the field to sustain the work for the MCSC into the future. 4. Develop better public relations and brand strategies to promote the organization and the field. �Executive Director's Report Page 3 At the January meeting, staff will present a plan to deal with these four critical issues. The Alliance The plans for the Alliance are proceeding at a moderate pace. The Governor and his Chief of Staff have review the plan for the Alliance and are supportive of it. Unfortunately, (and as we had predicted) we were unable to get the funding for the Alliance included in a FY 2000 supplemental bill, but the Governor's Chief of Staff agreed to work to include it in the Governor's FY 2001 budget. Mr. Singh and I are working together on a Memo of Understanding" to begin to define the partner organizations' roles, responsibilities and areas of agreement. A draft will be presented at the January meeting. Finally, we have received confirmation that the MCSC is allowed to retain its own legal counsel to aid us in developing the Alliance. This will be very helpful as we begin to craft the specific language for the many legal documents and structures that will be necessary to build the Alliance. Board Development Two commissioners have resigned their positions to the MCSC. As was mentioned briefly at the September meeting, Commissioner Judith Dunn did not seek reappointment to the MCSC. However, since our meeting, Commissioner Honaker from Allstate Insurance has been offered a major promotion within the company, but unfortunately for us, in Texas. The Board Development Committee will be convened by Commissioner Johnson in December to develop recommendations to the full commission and then to the Governor for consideration at the January meeting of the full commission. Any recommendations should be forwarded to me for redistribution to the Board Development Committee. Thank you for your consideration and service to Michigan's volunteers. � 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_1999-11-05_Executive-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 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 1999-11-05 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, 50067 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/008198927efd5796747cce54ec89b329.pdf 9fd5a11bfcd669a4d9806e90827bb7d9 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Cha irperson Michelle Engler Executi ve Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Administration Michigan Community Service Commission RE: Finance & Administration Division DATE: November 1, 1999 111 George W. Romney Lansing . Telephone FAX S. Cap1tol Ave . Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 Well, its that time of year again, year end close out! It just seems like we have finished one budget year and already we are in the starting process of closing out another fiscal year. The following is a small recap of the cunent issues facing the Finance and Administration Division as we wind down the previous fiscal year and gear up the new fiscal year of 2000. FY 98-99 Closeouts The year end close out process is already one month old and we will be receiving our first year end reports this week. After final close out adjustments of accounts, I will be forwarding to yo u a final close out statement. Based upon cunent projections, we have spent virtually all of our budgeted state and federal admin funds for the year. In theory, this is how it is supposed to work out, however we have rarely reached this level in past years for both funds. Increased staff costs due to filling open positions and an increase in indirect and administration charges from the Department of Career Development (MDCD) and the Department of Management and Budget (DMB) explain the increases. While the increases in charges from our oversight agencies is troubling, it is a sign of increased staff costs (charges are tied to personnel costs) and we are working with MDCD to cap the charges to a more reasonable amount. FY 2000 Budget We are in the process of fmalizing the budget for the cunent Fiscal Year (FYOO). The budget is being reconfigured to allow each division of the MCSC to have more responsibility and flexibility with their funds. While the original set up of the system and reports is taking a lot of time to create, the benefits down the line far out weight the cunent headaches. Michigan's AmeriCorps Audit We have received notice that the audit finn of Urbach, Kalm & Werlin, PC, will be doing a preaudit survey of our AmeriCorps funds. The dates for this "survey" are January 18-28, 2000. �We are in the process of filling out the pre-audit survey for the firm. MCSC will be receiving assistance during the survey from staff from the Michigan Department of Auditor General and MDCD. Timing is everything and having just finished the internal audit on the Michigan AmeriCorps program by the state will be a real advantage to MCSC during this survey. Financial Site Visits All AmetiCorps programs with the exception ofBHK in the upper peninsula have received their financial site visit. As reported in my last memo, I am very pleased at the results. Three of our programs had no concerns with the rest having between one and three areas of improvement. Not one of the issues is considered a major fmding. Due to the travel difficulties of sending a consultant up to the upper peninsula, I am going to personally visit BHK in the next couple of months. I had previously performed a site visit to BHK during their last grant year. Based upon the success and the results of having a contractor perform the visits, we feel that the process will be continued and expanded to our other grant programs in the next couple of years. Miscellaneous Issues A couple of Commissioners questioned the large amount showing on the last quarter spreadsheet in miscellaneous other. The amount under State Funds had expenditures of$56,729 and was only budgeted for $19,000. First of all, let me explain what expenses fall under the miscellaneous other Line. It includes payments that do not fit under the other line items and includes such things as payments to universities and government agencies. In this case the amount of $56,729 includes the payment of $49, 835 to the Corporation for National Service for the reimbursement of disability funds which were spent in previous years, but not for disability issues. I realize that some ofthe line items may be confusing as they relate to our spending plans and budgets within the State, however I am almost always available to answer any specific questions that you may have on individual line items. Personnel Matters We are in the process of filling a new position, the Outreach Coordinator and filling the vacant Training and Development Coordinator position. We hope to be starting the process of filling these two positions within a month. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to call me at (517) 335-4295 or email at grossg@state.mi. us. � 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_1999-11-05_Finance-and-Administration-Division Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting finance and administration division Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting finance and administration division. 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, 50068 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ca1c9e7eddf1e6c7495f1f0e7942dd6f.pdf 7904f5fa79bbd9f8b7abe8619e9dd362 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Members and Friends of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director RE: November 5, 1999 Commission Meeting DATE: October 22, 1999 / (/.... The November 5, 1999 meeting of the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) has been canceled. The MCSC staff value your time and appreciate your efforts. For those reasons, we felt that the agenda was insufficient to warrant convening the meeting. The cancellation of this meeting, however, increases the importance of the January 21, 2000 meeting in the Michigan Room, George W. Romney Building, in Lansing and hosted by the Michigan Community Service Commission. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Mary Estrada at (517)373-4998. �. MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING DATES and TIMES FOR 2000 NOON - 4:00 P.M. FRIDAY, January 21, 2000 Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Lansing * THURSDAY, April 13, 2000 Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Lansing Center, Lansing (Special time for this meeting only! From 10:00 a.m. till 1:00 p.m.) FRIDAY, September 15, 2000 Host: Nancy Lenz Farmington Hills * FRIDAY, December 1, 2000 Host: Vivian Pickard Detroit *Critical dates for program approvals MCSC - Executive Committee Meetings George W. Romney Building, 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan 10:00 a.m. - Noon Friday, December 3, 1999 Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Friday, March 24, 2000 Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Friday, August 11, 2000 Host: Michigan Community Service Commission Friday, October 13, 2000 Host: 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_1999-11-05_Meeting-Cancelation-Letter Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting meeting cancelation letter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting meeting cancelation letter. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 50069 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2d0e0dcf2d85a28844a13408839a301f.pdf cee4b13c00b9da1258c2c40318db69fe PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Announces MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS 2000 APPLICATION GUIDELINES APPLICATIONS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 5:00P.M., NOVEMBER 30, 1999 (FAXES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED) Michigan Community Service Commission George Romney Building, 4th Floor 111 South Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 www .state.mi. us/ careerI mcsc �I. Michigan's AmeriCorps Overview The Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) is the administrative agent for Michigan' s AmeriCorps. The MCSC's mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and Volunteerism. For more information on the MCSC visit our website at www.state.mi.us/career/mcsc. Michigan ' s AmeriCorps engages the energy and idealism of the citizens of Michigan, including young people, in meeting the most critical educational, public safety, human and environmental needs in our communities. Michigan 's AmeriCorps currently consists of 19 programs with more than 1,000 members serving on a full- or part-time basis. The 19 programs partner with more than 100 organizations throughout the state to address the needs of communities. AmeriCorps is a national service program designed to strengthen citizenship and the ethic of service by engaging thousands of Americans on a full- or part-time basis to help communities address their toughest challenges. The Corporation for National Service (CNS) administers AmeriCorps at the federal level and works in partnership with states to develop service programs and create a community-based national service network. CNS focuses AmeriCorps programs to address the human needs, public safety, education and environmental issues of the nation. AmeriCorps ' mission inCludes: Getting Things Done. AmeriCorps helps a community meet its education, public safety, human or environmental challenges through direct and demonstrable community service. Strengthening Communities. AmeriCorps unites individuals and institutions of all kinds in a common effort to improve our communities. Encouraging Responsibility. Through service and civic education, AmeriCorps enables members to see themselves as problem-solvers, not problems; to become leaders, not just followers; and to act on their responsibilities, as well as their rights. Expanding Opportunity. AmeriCorps helps those who help America. Members receive job skills, invaluable experience and scholarships or loan repayment for schooling or job training. A. Michigan's AmeriCorps 2000 Funds MCSC has approximately $2 million dollars available to fund new Michigan ' s AmeriCorps programs. Approximately 8-10 new programs will be submitted by MCSC in its Federal funding request to CNS. The selection of the Michigan' s AmeriCorps programs is a multistep process. In order to be eligible to be included in the MCSC Federal funding request, finalists should develop service programs of high quality that will produce substantial impact in communities and offer meaningful service opportunities. �B. Types, Terms, Size, and Match Requirements of Grants 1. Grant Terms a. Operating Grants The MCSC funds operating grants that support fully-developed plans to establish a new Michigan's AmeriCorps program or to support, expand, or replicate an existing program. Most grant awards will cover a period that includes one year of operation with an initial start-up phase for programs that are completely new. Grants may be renewed for two years subject to annual review and availability of federal appropriations . Programs seeking funding beyond three years must reapply as a new applicant. b. Sustainability The Michigan Community Service Commission is re-examining its funding decisions and its goals as a grant maker. As a result, applicants will need to carefully weigh their ability to increase local financial support for their activities. The MCSC feels that given the unpredictable nature of federal funding for AmeriCorps and the desire to broaden the opportunities for other communities to experience the power of AmeriCorps, a pro-active plan for distributing resources was needed. The MCSC has long held that AmeriCorps is a powerful tool for community building, individual development and creating demonstrable impact where people live. As a state agency charged with enabling all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism, the MCSC must work to affect as many individuals and organizations as possible. This is why the MCSC encourages applicants to seek increased local match while requesting reduced levels of federal support. Applicants that are former recipients ofMichigan's AmeriCorps funds should pay particular attention to this issue. 2. Program Types Applicants have a great deal of flexibility to design programs that will best achieve the goals of getting things done in communities, strengthening communities, and developing the citizenship and skills of corpsmembers. This flexibility includes the ability to target individuals of a certain age or skill level as corpsmembers, and to place corpsmembers individually in projects or organize them in teams. For suggestions on program models, The Principles for High Quality National Service Programs, offers a wide array of program examples. Applicants may request a copy of this publication from MCSC. Please note: The CNS and the MCSC believe that it is important that programs instill the ethic of service in their corpsmembers while making demonstrable impacts on communities. Accordingly, the CNS and the MCSC will not fund any programs whose primary purpose is job training or education for the corps members rather than service to the community. 2 �a. Preferences The MCSC has designated certain types of national service program models for priority consideration. During the MCSC's selection process, a program that incorporates one or more of the following approaches will be given a preference over other programs that do not. 1) Program Focus Model MCSC is seeking applications that focus activities within a single priority area (education, environment, health/human needs, or public safety). This single focus area may connect service sites across a community or across the state in a common cause. The benefit of this approach is in its ability to ensure that different partners from different sites share the same goals and objectives which makes measuring accomplishments more efficient. In addition, this type of program makes it easier to achieve significant impacts for service; to create a strong sense of program identity (both with Michigan's AmeriCorps and locally); and to be cost-effective - all of which are critical program elements. 2) Compact Administrative Structure Model The compact administrative structure model ensures that corpsmembers, volunteers, and staff serve in the same organization, sharing in the same program culture. This structure, which is a basic corps model, ensures that staff, corpsmembers, and volunteers serve under the same supervisors, meet in weekly meetings, share the same 'home base' location, and participate together in member development and training activities. This model ensures program unity, thus enabling a program to provide multi-focused services. This model could be used in a single community or regionally. 3) Volunteer Generator Model MCSC encourages programs to involve members in creating and managing strategies to involve citizen volunteers in helping to meet community needs. If programs propose using the volunteer generator model, MCSC expects them to have every member generate at least 10 non-stipended volunteers. Beyond leveraging additional volunteers, programs should collaborate with existing service efforts (including other national service programs such as Learn and SERVE programs, AmeriCorps*VISTA, Foster Grandparent Program, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, and Senior Companion Program). Collaborating with other service programs and the generation of additional volunteers is a way to significantly enhance program results. b. Summer Component Programs may operate summer programs but only as a component of their year-round program or to expand their operations during the summer months. Programs must ensure that a summer component is consistent with the overall mission of the program, is not designed as separate from the year-round operation, and instills the ethic of service in the Michigan's AmeriCorps members. Any corpsmembers added for a summer component must complete a minimum of 300 service hours. The 3 �education award will be pro-rated based on the $4,725 amount for 1,700 hours of service. 3. Program Size Programs must be large enough to achieve a demonstrable impact on the community served. Thus, while the actual size of each program may vary depending on the size of the community it operates in, the design of the program, and other factors, applicants are required to enroll at least ten (1 0) full-time equivalent corpsmembers. In addition, MCSC encourages new applicants not to apply for more than 20 full-time equivalent members. Applicants should evaluate their present infrastructure and capacity when considering program size. Applicants are encouraged, when considering program size, to examine cost-effectiveness by calculating the recommended cost per corpsmember (see "Budget"). 4. Grant Size Grant requests may vary in size depending on the type and scope of a proposed program. Applicants are allowed flexibility in developing their budgets, but within certain limitations. No program funded through the MCSC formula allotment shall receive more than 20% of Michigan 's total formula funding from the CNS. For the 2000 Application year that figure is estimated not to exceed $520,000. Therefore, applications being submitted should not request more than $520,000 from the MCSC. In addition, MCSC has set a target of $11,700 for the average federal cost per full-time equivalent member for each Michigan' s AmeriCorps program. Individual program cost effectiveness will be assessed against the $11 ,700 figure. Programs will not be penalized for exceeding the target, however, MCSC strongly encourages that programs consider this as an essential element of quality and cost effectiveness. Regardless, no individual program funded by MCSC may propose a CNS share that exceeds $13,000 per full-time equivalent member. 5. Match Requirements Substantial cash and in-kind matches are required from the applicant. Program costs (i.e. staff salaries, training, equipment, administration, uniforms, etc.) require at least a 33% cash or in-kind match. Programs may use other federal funds (as long as they are not other Corporation for National Service funds) as part of their 33% match. Corpsmember support costs (i.e. living allowance, FICA, workers compensation, and health care) require at least a 15% non-federal cash match. The 1999 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs provided an average cash match of22% of the member support costs and an inkind match of 58% of the other program costs. In Michigan, you can estimate that the cash match is approximately $2,000 per corpsmember (this is excluding child care and education awards which are funded totally by CNS). Applicants must specifically identify the source and levels of the cash and in-kind matches. Applicants are not required to attain the cash or in-kind matches prior to submission of the application, but should, however, have the commitment(s) for the financial match prior to the start of the grant. 6. Eligible Applicants Education institutions (local school districts, Intermediate School Districts, colleges and universities, etc.), local government entities, state agencies and nonprofit organizations 4 �that have their 501(c)3 status and have been in existence for at least 3 years are eligible to apply for a Michigan's AmeriCorps program. C. Michigan's AmeriCorps Goals Michigan's AmeriCorps funds and supports quality programs that get things done, encourage responsibility, expand opportunities and strengthen communities. AmeriCorps members undertake service that has a maximum impact on Michigan's communities and would not be provided without the service of AmeriCorps members and volunteers. 1. Getting Things Done a. Direct Benefit Corpsmembers serving in Michigan's AmeriCorps programs must meet education, public safety, human and environmental needs in the community served, and provide a direct and demonstrable benefit that is valued by the community. Project activities must provide specific measurable service outcomes that otherwise would not be provided with existing funds or volunteers, and that do not duplicate the routine functions of existing workers or displace paid employees. Activities that do not provide a direct benefit to the community, such as clerical work, research or fund raising, may be performed only if they directly support the service provided by the program. Such activities may never be the primary activity of a Michigan's AmeriCorps program. For example, a program may use a team of AmeriCorps members to provide meals, transporation, and health services to the homebound and might need to conduct a door-to-door survey of community residents to help identify those in need of this service. Because the survey is necessary to provide the services, AmeriCorps members can be involved with it. b. Issue Area Priorities All Michigan's AmeriCorps programs must address one of the following priority issues areas: education, public safety, human needs, or the environment. Listed below are examples of activities that fall within each priority area. Education Such as: • Improving the quality and availability of child development programs by working in day care, Head Start centers and preschool programs. • Teaching literacy and other basic skills to parents of young children so that they can help their children learn. • Working in schools with high concentrations of low-income students. 5 �• Mentoring, tutoring, and providing after-school, summer and work-place learning opportunities for children and youth. • Coordinating service-learning activities for K-12 students. Environment Such as: • Revitalizing neighborhoods by creating and maintaining recreation areas, green spaces and community gardens, and by making public areas clean and safe. • Eliminating environmental risks, especially those that affect children and youth, such as lead poisoning and radon exposure, through education, testing, and cleanup. • Reducing waste through energy efficiency efforts, and promoting recycling and other conservation measures. • Conserving, restoring, and sustaining lands, forests, rivers, streams, and wetlands . • Making parks more accessible through trail maintenance and infrastructure improvements. • Sampling, mapping, monitoring, and recording air and water quality and the status of groundwater, land, plant and animal resources. Human Needs Such as: • Offering prenatal care, parenting education, and health care to families of young children. • Improving the health of low-income communities by offering preventative health service through community health clinics and immunization programs targeting families with children as a priority. • Providing independent living assistance and health care to homebound elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with HIV/AIDS . • Helping people who are homeless by providing shelter support, assistance in moving into permanent housing, and related services. • Renovating and rehabilitating low-income housing, particularly family units . 6 �• Helping individuals move from public assistance into self-sufficiency by providing job training, literacy tutoring, and other services. Public Safety Such as: • Enhancing community policing efforts by working with local law enforcement to address crimes committed by youth. • Reducing specific crime problems such as drug dealing, domestic violence, crimes motivated by bias, crimes against senior citizens, and child abuse. • Improving services available for victims of crime, and strengthening innovative criminal justice programs, such as neighborhood courts and community restitution. • Reducing crime against children and youth by making schools safe, creating safe havens, and involving youth in conflict resolution and prevention efforts. • Providing substance abuse counseling and education . • Developing specific crime prevention strategies targeted at key locations such as playgrounds, public transportation points, and other public gathering places. 2. Developing Michigan's AmeriCorps Members Although programs may choose to develop their members in different ways, all programs must include the following components: a. Citizenship Programs must help members develop, through their service experiences, the ethic and skills needed for productive, active citizenship. Programs should thoughtfully employ service-learning or other education methods in order to develop members' skills in solving community problems, and to cultivate a lifelong ethic of personal, family, and community responsibility. Because voting is an important component of citizenship, every program must encourage, in a non-partisan manner, each member who is eligible to register to vote. b. Training, Education, and Supervision Programs must provide members with the supervision, training, skills, and knowledge . necessary to perform the tasks required in their respective projects. In fulfilling this requirement, programs should provide members with background information on the community to help them understand why the service projects are needed. Programs may also provide, if appropriate, specific training in a particular field, including training and education designed to help members explore career possibilities in areas such as child development, teaching, public health, or public safety. Programs must 7 �also agree to provide all members training in certified CPR, conflict resolution, and communication. Programs must also designate individuals who will supervisor the members on a regular basis. The supervisors should be located at the site(s) where the members are serving and available on a daily basis. c. Support Services Programs must provide support services that help members who have not completed their secondary education to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma. Programs are also encouraged to assist members who are completing a term of service to make the transition to other education and career opportunities. d. Required Training and Service Hours In general, members must devote at least 80 percent of the required hours to direct service and no more than 20 percent to education, training, or other approved nondirect service activities during a full-time or part-time term of service. This ratio applies to the overall program and not to each individual member. This will allow variance among the individual members and takes into consideration variations in the education and developmental needs of members. If a program exceeds the 1700 hour minimum, the additional hours do not fall under these guidelines. e. Leadership Opportunities MCSC and CNS encourages programs to build member leadership capacity by providing opportunities for members to coordinate activities, recruit volunteers, and serve in team leader capacities in their programs. Please note, however, that members should not be assigned as the primary legal supervisors of other members, and they should not be placed in roles where they can provide no direct service. 3. Strengthening Communities Michigan's AmeriCorps programs must strengthen communities by bringing together both individuals and institutions to achieve lasting community change. There are four basic components that should be present in the description of strengthening communities: a. Mobilizing Community Assets to Meet Community Needs Programs should identify needs and mobilize the assets, capacities, and abilities of the community. Identifying the variety and richness of skills, talents, knowledge, and experience of people, associations, and institutions in communities provides a base upon which to build new approaches and enterprises. b. Generating Volunteers Programs should involve members in creating and managing strategies to involve citizen volunteers in helping meet community needs. Leveraging volunteers and linking with other existing service efforts (including other national service programs) is a significant way to enhance program results and to build community capacity. c. Community Involvement and Consultation _ Local participation in service efforts is vital to developing effective programs, and to 8 �sustaining and building Michigan' s communities. Projects should be designed, implemented, and evaluated, with extensive and broad-based community input, through consultation with representatives from the community served, members in the program, appropriate community-based agencies, foundations, businesses, local labor organizations, and local government. Programs should also work to build community partnerships, which can provide opportunities for programs to share technical expertise and contribute resources with other community groups. The full range of associations -civic, education, religious, social service, labor, and business-should be invited to use community service as an opportunity to work together in the common work of community development. d. Diversity Programs should build strong communities by engaging diverse members and staff in service activities and encouraging mutual understanding and cooperation. Programs must actively seek to include members and staff from the communities in which projects are conducted, as well as individuals of different races and ethnicities, education levels, socioeconomic backgrounds, gender, and individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities. Programs that lack one or more aspects of a diverse program should strive for diversity in other ways. All programs should undertake activities that will provide opportunities for citizens who might not otherwise serve, work, or learn together to do so. In addition, programs are encouraged to bring together younger and older adults as members. D. Prohibited Service While charging time to a Michigan's AmeriCorps program, accumulating service or training hours, or otherwise engaged in activities associated with the AmeriCorps program or the MCSC, staff and members may not engage in the following activities: 1. Any effort to influence legislation, as prohibited under §501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C . 501); 2. Organizing or participating in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; 3. Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing; 4. Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements; 5. Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office; 6. Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities which are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials; 9 �7. Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instructions as part of a program that includes mandatory religious education or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization; 8. Providing a direct benefit to (1) a business organized for profit, (2) a labor union, (3) a partisan political organization, (4) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in the preceding sub-clause, unless grant funds are not used to support the religious activities; (5) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in §50l{c) ofTitle 26. 9. Conducting voter registration drives; 10. Organized fund raising, including fmancial campaigns, endowment drives, solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar activities designed for the sole purpose of raising capital or obtaining contributions for the organization. 11. Clerical work, research, or fund raising activities unless such activities are incidental to the members direct service. Individuals may exercise their rights as private citizens and may participate in the above activities on their initiative, on non-AmeriCorps time, and using nonCorporation funds . The AmeriCorps logo should not be worn while doing so. Applicants should specify the actions that will be taken to ensure that members do not engage in improper activities. Suggestions for how to comply with this requirement include signing a certification that contains a list of prohibited activities, including the list of prohibited activities in member training manuals and adding a clause to member contracts that prohibit them from engaging in such activities. E. Member Eligibility, Recruitment, and Selection 1. Term of Service Programs may engage members on a full- or part-time basis. Full-time members must serve at least 1,700 hours during a period of not less than nine months and not more than one year. Part-time members must serve at least 900 hours during a period of one year. Although the Corporation allows for reduced part-time members (members that serve between 300 to 900 hours in a given year), MCSC is not looking to fund such programs this year. However, programs may engage summer members who serve at least 300 hours between May and August. 2. Member Eligibility At the time of enrollment in a Michigan's AmeriCorps program, members must: (1) be at 10 �least 17 years of age; (2) possess a high school diploma or its equivalent, or agree to obtain a high school diploma or equivalent prior to using the education award; (3) not have dropped out of elementary or secondary school in order to emoll as a member; (4) be a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or lawful permanent resident alien; and (5) meet the task-related eligibility requirements established by the program. 3. Eligibility for a Second Term An individual may receive an education award only for the first and second terms of service in approved AmeriCorps positions. In addition, there are strict limits on the use of federal funds to support an individual serving in a third, or subsequent term. While members may, in some cases, serve more than one term, mere eligibility for an additional term of service does not, however, guarantee selection or placement. A member's eligibility for a second term of service must be based on at least a mid-term and end-ofterm evaluation of the member's performance, that demonstrates, but is not limited to : (1) completion of required number of hours; (2) satisfactory completion of assignments, tasks or projects; and (3) satisfactory performance criteria that were clearly communicated both orally and in writing at the beginning of the term of service. 4. Selection Michigan's AmeriCorps members will be selected by the individual program, and the selection criteria will vary among different programs. However, programs must select members in a non-partisan, non-political, non-discriminatory manner. Programs must establish minimum qualifications for members related to the service they will provide, including the successful completion of an AmeriCorps orientation period. Programs must ensure that they do not displace any existing paid employees. Programs with members who will have substantial direct contact with children (as defined by State law) or who perform service in the homes of children or individuals considered vulnerable by the program, shall, to the extent permitted by State and local law, conduct criminal record checks on these members as part of the screening process. MCSC encourages programs to select members who possess leadership potential and a commitment to the goals of the national service program, regardless of education level, work experience, or economic background. MCSC also encourages programs to select some members from state and national recruitment systems in order to supplement local recruitment with people who (1) are from different backgrounds and regions of the nation, (2) have special skills or training, and (3) desire to serve but live in areas where there are few or no national service programs. F. Member Benefits 1. Living allowance a. Full-time Members Generally, all full-time corpsmembers must receive a living allowance between 11 �$9,000 and $17,808. The living allowance is considered taxable for FICA and income tax. The amount of the living allowance that may be paid using CNS and other federal funds may not exceed 85% of the minimum living allowance, or $7,650. Programs that want to provide a higher living allowance, in excess of $9,000, must provide a grantee match for all funds over $7,650. Programs must provide the same level ofliving allowance for all full-time members. b. One Year Part-time Members Part-time members completing 900 hours of service in one year could receive up to $4,765 for the year with the maximum CNS match being $4,050 ($4,765 x 85%). The $4,765 was calculated by multiplying $9,000 by (900 service hours/1700 service hours). Programs must provide the same level of living allowance for all part-time members. c. Summer Only Members Summer Only members completing a minimum of 300 hours of service are eligible to receive a living allowance ofup to $1 ,541. The CNS share must not exceed $1 ,310 ($1 ,541 x 85%). The $1 ,541 was calculated by multiplying $8,340 by (300 service hours/ 1700 service hours). 2. Exceptions to the Living Allowance a. Prior Existence If a program was in existence prior to the signing into law of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (September 21 , 1993) there is no legal requirement that the program provide living allowances to its members. If such a program chooses to offer a living allowance, it is exempt from the minimum requirement but not from the maximum requirement. Thus, it may offer a living allowance ofbetween $0 and $17,808. If the allowance is less than $9,000, the portion that may be paid using Corporation and other federal funds may not exceed 85% of that allowance. b. Residential Program If a member is serving in a program that provides room and board, programs may request a waiver to pay the members a reduced living allowance. c. Waiver or Reduction of Living Allowance CNS may, at its discretion, waive or reduce the living allowance requirements if a program can demonstrate to the satisfaction of CNS that such requirements are inconsistent with the objectives of the program, and that members will be able to meet the necessary and reasonable costs of living (including food, housing, and transportation) in the area in which the program is located. These costs include food, housing, and transportation. 3. Education Awards Michigan's AmeriCorps members who successfully complete a term of service will 12 �receive education awards for each term up to two terms of service. The education award for full-time corpsmembers is $4,725 and the education award for part-time corpsmembers is half of that, or $2,362.50. The education award for Summer Only members will be pro-rated based on the $2,362.50 amount for 900 hours of service. The education award may be used up to seven years from completion of service to pay for any combination of ( 1) the costs of attendance at a qualified institution of higher education, (2) the costs of approved School-to-Work programs, or (3) the costs of repaying qualified student loans. Finally, corpsmembers who have qualifying outstanding students loans may be eligible to receive forbearance on their payments while they serve, but they need to contact their loan holders to receive this benefit. CNS will make payments for interest that accrues during the period of forbearance upon successful completion of a corpsmember' s term of service. 4. Child Care Programs must make child care available to any full-time eligible member who needs such assistance in order to participate in the Michigan's AmeriCorps program. CNS will fund child care directly and will pay 100% of the allowance as defined by payment rates of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). CNS, through the National Association for Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA), will provide technical assistance to programs for determining corpsmember eligibility, provider eligibility and child care allowance. NACCRRA, on behalf of CNS, will also make payments to the child care provider directly. A corpsmember's eligibility for child care is based on need. CNS defines need to be consistent with the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as follows: a. Total family income of the member must be less than 75% of the State median income, or as defined by the State under CCDBG guidelines; b. The member must reside with and be a parent or guardian of a child under the age of13; c. At the time of acceptance into the program, the member must not be receiving child care assistance from another source, including a parent or guardian, which would continue to be provided while the member serves in the program, unless the member would become ineligible for child care by virtue of enrolling in the program; and d. The member certifies that he or she needs child care in order to participate in the program. The grantee must provide an estimate of the number of members and the number of their children needing child care, and CNS will arrange for direct payment to qualified child care providers. 13 �5. Health Care for Full-Time Members A full-time member must be provided with a basic health plan if he or she is not otherwise covered by a health care policy that provides the minimum benefits set forth below at the time he or she is accepted into a program. If, as a result of participation, or if, during the term of service, a member loses coverage through no deliberate act of his or her own, such as parental or spousal job loss, the member must be provided with a basic health plan. a. Health Care Requirements Grantees must provide health benefit coverage for eligible members as follows: (1) programs with existing health benefit policies that meet the minimum benefits may use their current health care coverage, or choose the AmeriCorps Member Health Care Policy underwritten by Allianz Life Insurance and administered by Strategic Resource Company; (2) programs that do not have health care coverage or have coverage that does not meet the minimum benefits described below must use the AmeriCorps Member Health Care Policy. Minimum benefits. The following minimum benefits must be provided or exceeded for programs with existing health benefit coverage: Covered Services physician services for illness or injury hospital room and board emergency room x-ray and laboratory prescription drugs Limited Coverage mental/nervous disorders substance abuse Annual limits Deductible: Not more than $250 per individual Coinsurance Member pays no more than 20% or alternatively, a comparable fixed fee Exception- mental and substance abuse may require a 50% co-payment Out-of-pocket Not more than $1,000 per individual Maximum Benefit At least $50,000 Programs electing to use current health plans that meet the above minimum benefit 14 �requirements will be required, at time of selection, to provide specific information on the benefits and policy. b. AmeriCorps Member Health Care Policy Organizations electing to use the AmeriCorps Member Health Care Policy must budget $924 ($785 for the CNS share, $139 for the grantee share), for each eligible member, in Section A. of the budget form . c. CNS Share of Health Care CNS will pay 85% of the cost of a policy that meets the requirements defined above and is not excessive in cost as determined by CNS. CNS will not pay any share of the cost of the policy that does not include the minimum benefits nor any share of coverage provided to any person other than the member. d. Health Care for Part-Time Members In general, CNS will not pay the costs of health benefits for part-time members except if they are serving full-time for a sustained period of time such as the summer. All other requirements for full-time health care coverage apply to these part-time members. 6. Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities Programs must provide reasonable accommodation to known mental and physical disabilities of otherwise qualified members, service recipients, applicants, and program staff. All selections and project assignments must be made without regard to the need to provide reasonable accommodation. By far, the vast majority of accommodations are inexpensive. For those limited cases where reasonable accommodations are more costly, there is money available to provide accommodations for members. G. Member Release and Grievance Procedures Programs may release members for two reasons: (1) for compelling personal circumstances; or (2) for cause, as defined in the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12593(c)) and in CNS's regulations (45 C.P.R. Chapter XXV, Section 2522.230) and by the program's member contract. Programs must establish written guidelines, to be incorporated into the member contract, that explain the circumstances under which members will be released for cause. Programs are required by law to release for cause any member who is convicted of a felony during a term of service. In addition to the circumstances mandated by law, programs may include in the guidelines their own reasons for releasing members for cause. Programs must establish a grievance procedure for members who believe that they have been unfairly released and for other grievances expressed by members or interested parties. The procedures must include an opportunity for hearing and binding arbitration within statutory deadlines. CNS and MCSC encourage programs to establish an alternative dispute resolution procedure, such as mediation. A model grievance procedure is available from MCSC. 15 �H. Internal Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Every Michigan's AmeriCorps program must develop a system that allows them to evaluate and monitor their own activities. They must collect and organize data on an ongoing basis. Each program must: • • • • develop annual program impact objectives that are tangible and measurable; track progress toward accomplishing those annual objectives; institute management procedures that provide regular "customer feedback" that will be used to improve program quality; and collect additional descriptive and demographic data (e.g. member summary forms , local program information, etc.). Programs must cooperate with CNS, MCSC, and its evaluators in all monitoring and evaluation efforts, including in-depth studies of selected programs. Additionally, programs must collect and submit to CNS the following data: (1) information on members including the total number of members in the program, and the number of members by race, ethnicity, gender, age, economic background, education level, disability classification, geographic region, and marital status; and (2) information on services conducted in areas classified as empowerment zones (or redevelopment areas), in areas that are environmentally distressed, in areas that are adversely affected by reductions in defense spending, and in areas that have an unemployment rate greater than the national average. I. National and State Identity 1. Identification To help promote a national identity for all AmeriCorps programs and members, programs must agree to identify the program, through the use of the AmeriCorps logos, common member application materials, and other means, as part of a larger state and national effort. The programs must also agree to participate in other activities such as a local opening ceremony (including the administration of a national pledge or affirmation), orientations, service days, and conferences. A Michigan's AmeriCorps program may continue to use its own name, logo, or other identifying materials in addition to, but not in lieu of, the AmeriCorps name and logo. In an effort to increase the visibility of Michigan's AmeriCorps members, programs are required to provide them with a standard AmeriCorps uniform. Uniform items may range from a pin appropriate for members who need to wear professional clothing at the service site to full gear appropriate for construction or other work. Programs wishing to use uniforms other than the standard AmeriCorps uniform may do so. However, programs may request no more than $68 per member ($33 for the standard uniform and $35 for additional unifonn items). 16 �2. Start of Operations Programs must agree to begin terms of service in October and/or January. The program must establish no more than three class start dates (the first class beginning in either October or January) in which members may be enrolled. Creating "classes" of members who begin and "graduate" from their terms of service at the same time will help create a national identity. If programs lose Michigan's AmeriCorps members between "classes," they may not replace the member until the next class start date. MCSC prohibits rolling admissions. Programs may not enroll members after the second quarter of their program. If programs experience attrition in the third quarter and beyond they are not permitted to replace these corpsmembers. J. Federal Financial Management and Grant Administration Requirements As with all Federal grant programs, it is the responsibility of all AmeriCorps programs to ensure appropriate stewardship of federal funds entrusted to them . Under the CNS regulations, all programs must maintain financial management systems that provide accurate, complete, and current disclosure of the financial results of the AmeriCorps program. To meet this requirement, programs must have adequate accounting practices and procedures, internal controls, audit trails, and cost allocation procedures. As of June 30, 1996, recent revisions to the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133 require all organizations to have fmancial audits if they annually expend $300,000 or more under federal awards. This requirement applies to the organization's total expenditures each fiscal year under all of its federal awards, not just an AmeriCorps grant. K. Other Requirements 1. Program Monitoring Responsibilities Michigan's AmeriCorps programs are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the grant activities to assure they are in compliance with applicable Federal requirements and achieve their performance goals. Monitoring must include each project site, function and/or activity. Programs are responsible for ensuring high quality standards including having a significant impact on the identified community need, ensuring members complete the required number of hours in the appropriate time frame, ensuring members are not performing prohibited activities, and ensuring member activities are consistent with those described in the approved application. Each program should develop systems for close tracking and monitoring of these issues. A number of factors may make monitoring a challenge for programs. These include individual placements, programs that are spread out geographically and programs that attempt to address many issues areas at once. Programs that experience these challenges should specifically address in their applications specific strategies for monitoring. Specific strategies for monitoring may include: recruiting and enrolling members who 17 �can work independently; providing appropriate orientation and ongoing training and a means of regular communication; selecting strong host sites and ensuring strong support from direct line supervision of members; establishing contracts with host sites that clear articulate the roles of each party, and narrowing the range of tasks members perform to make monitoring easier. 2. Program Reporting Michigan's AmeriCorps programs must comply with all reporting required by MCSC including quarterly progress reports, monthly expenditure reports, member hour tracking forms, continuous improvement surveys, and corpsmember emollment, termination and end-of-term-of-service forms . Programs are required to use MCSC ' s Web Based Reporting System for all aspects of reporting. 3. Michigan's AmeriCorps Program Directors' Meetings Michigan's AmeriCorps program directors or an approved representative must attend the regularly scheduled program directors' meetings (usually 10 per year.) 4. MCSC Trainings and Special Events Michigan's AmeriCorps staff and members must participate in all MCSC sponsored program trainings and service events, including the annual Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. 5. AmeriCorps on the Internet Michigan's AmeriCorps programs are required to have Internet e-mail capability and to subscribe to the AmeriCorps listserve run by the National Service Resource Center at ETR Associates. To facilitate this process, programs may budget up to $250 to defray expenses for gaining on-line capacity (e.g., purchase of a modem, subscription to an online service or internet provider.) 18 �II. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS A. New Program Instructions Your Michigan's AmeriCorps application must follow the order outlined in the following instructions. The application must not exceed the page limitations specified for each section. You must number the pages of the narrative section. The application must be typed and double-spaced in not less than 12-point font size with one-inch margins. One side counts as one page. The title page, one page description of proposed program, and budget form and budget narrative are not included in the narrative page limitation. The unbound original, plus five bound copies of your application, must be submitted. No appendices will be accepted. Complete the Intent to Apply form that is located in the Appendix. Submission of your Intent to Apply form must be received by 5:00 p.m., November 19, 1999. The Intent to Apply form may be faxed to (517) 373-4977 or mailed to MCSC at 111 South Capitol Avenue, George W. Romney Building, 41h Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48913. Ifthe Intent to Apply form is not submitted or is not received by the due date, the applicant organization is not eligible to submit an application. Michigan's AmeriCorps applications must be received no later than 5:00p.m. on November 30, 1999 at the Michigan Community Service Commission, 111 South Capitol Avenue, George W. Romney Building, 4th Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48913. Copies may be mailed or hand-delivered. Facsimiles will not be accepted. 1. Title Page (limited to one page) Complete the form located in the Appendix. THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED. The original copy must have an original signature. 2. One Page Description of Past Accomplishments (limited to one singlespaced page) For applicants that have previously received Michigan's AmeriCorps funds, please provide a one page description of program impact (include all years of AmeriCorps funding) and accomplishments in all three objective areas. 3. Program Narrative (not to exceed 15 double-spaced pages) The narrative should address the statements and questions listed below. In writing the program narrative you will want to refer to the specifics detailed throughout Section 1., the Michigan's AmeriCorps Overview. The narrative should be structured according to the following format that includes the proper headers. Each question should be addressed in the appropriate section. A. Program Design (60%) 1. Getting Things Done (30%) • Clearly describe the need in the community that the proposal is being 19 �• • • • written to and how that need was identified. Describe the overall design and structure of the program, including the number of sites, the number ofmembers in the program, and how the members are assigned to the sites. Also, indicate the number of corpsmembers assigned to each site. Describe the specific service activities to be performed by the corpsmembers. Describe how the work done by the members will directly achieve the objectives of the program. Describe the measurable impact of the program on this need. How will the identified community need be improved as a result of the Michigan ' s AmeriCorps program? (After reading this section readers should have a clear idea of the overall program design and structure. This includes a clear description of what the proposed program intends to do, how the members' service activities will accomplish these objectives, and the anticipated impact of the members' service activities within the community.) 2. Developing Members (15%) • Provide a description ofthe number and type of full-time, part-time, and summer only corpsmembers to be recruited. • Describe the expected characteristics, attributes and skills required of the corpsmembers. • Describe the program' s recruitment strategy including selection criteria, minimum qualifications or specialized skills, measures that will be used to ensure diversity, other organizations that will be involved in the recruitment process and plans to use the national recruitment referral system. • Describe the key elements of member training that will prepare them for and support them in their service. • Describe how the program will provide leadership opportunities for members. • Describe how the host sites/service sponsors will be prepared for placement of corpsmembers and how members will be placed and regularly supervised. Include information on the host sites/service sponsors orientation to AmeriCorps and the local program's mission and objectives. • Describe how the program will develop member ethic of service and civic responsibility. • Describe how the program will ensure that the corpsmembers will not participate in prohibited AmeriCorps member activities. • Describe the benefits members will receive, especially any that will be additional to those in the program guidelines and requirements. 20 �3. Strengthening Communities (15%) • Describe the individuals and organizations involved and the role that each partner organization will play in the administration of the program. Indicate who is accountable for what and how support for Michigan's AmeriCorps will be built among the various community sectors. • Describe how the proposed program will enhance the capacity of the organizations involved. • Describe how the program will mobilize community resources in support of the program. • Describe how the program will bring together people of diverse backgrounds . • Describe how the program will involve corpsmembers in recruiting and coordinating nonstipended community volunteers • Describe how the program will link the service projects to other existing efforts, including other local CNS and MCSC funded programs, to solve community problems. B. Organizational Capacity (25%) • Describe the organization's past experience and current capacity to operate or coordinate a program comparable to the one proposed. Include the organization' s experience in addressing the identified community need. • Describe the background, experience and relevant accomplishments of the principal staff who will be accountable for this program. Describe plans to recruit, select, train and support additional staff. • Describe the size and structure of the applicant organization and the relationship of this program in that structure. • Provide overall budget figures for the organization from the past three years . • Describe the organization's financial management system . • Describe the organization's past experience administering federal grants . • Describe the systems that will be used to monitor progress toward accomplishing the program' s goals. The description need not be a comprehensive evaluation plan, but should generally describe what methods will be used to evaluate what is getting accomplished and the impact of the services. It should also include the organization's capacity to design and conduct the evaluation activities. • Describe how regular feedback will be obtained from the primary stakeholders and used to improve the overall quality of the program. C. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability (15%) MCSC will evaluate the overall cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) member and the federal share of the FTE cost within the context of the program's impact on the community. MCSC has set a target of$11,700 for the average state cost per full-time equivalent member. Program cost effectiveness will be assessed against the $11,700 figure. Programs will not be penalized for exceeding the target, 21 �however, MCSC strongly encourages that programs consider this as an essential element of quality and cost effectiveness. Regardless, no individual program funded by MCSC may propose a CNS share that exceeds $13,000 per member. The full-time equivalent cost per member is calculated by dividing the CNS share of the total budget by the number of full-time equivalent members. For example, if an organization requested a total budget of $250,000 for 15 full-time members and 20 one year part-time members the FTE cost would be $10,000 ($250,000/25 FTE members). The FTE for Summer Only members is calculated by dividing the number of service hours by 1,700 service hours. The 1999 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs provided an average cash match of 22% ofthe member support costs and an in-kind match of 58% ofthe other program costs. MCSC will assess all new applicants against the current match percentages. • In this section, provide information that demonstrates efforts to build • • community support, both financially and programmatically. Describe how the applicant will meet the financial match requirements. Describe what plans exist to exceed the match and how the work of the program will continue beyond the grant term. * * The quality and completeness of the budget form and budget narrative and the quality of the narrative cost-effectiveness section will both be considered when scoring the cost-effectiveness component of the application. ** 4. Budget Form, Budget Narrative, and Budget Checklist Budget Form Applicants must submit the budget form located in the Appendix. The instructions for completing the budget form are also located in the Appendix. Budget Narrative Please complete and attach a detailed budget narrative that is organized in the same order as the budget form and clearly identifies the requested CNS and grantee share. The grantee share of specific items should meet at least the minimum requirements as set forth by the CNS and MCSC. The narrative must be completed for funds requested from the CNS and for all other matching funds. For each line item, a full explanation must be provided in the budget narrative that specifies the purpose, cost basis, and calculation. 5. Michigan's AmeriCorps Application Submission Compliance Checklist Applicants should complete and submit, with their Michigan's AmeriCorps application, the checklist located in the Appendix. Please review the following 22 �checklist to ensure that your application meets the submission requirements. Each application will be reviewed for compliance. Any application received by MCSC not in compliance with any item on the following checklist will be considered ineligible for review. Applicants must submit one original and five (5) copies of a complete application package that includes: • Title Page • Original copy of the application must have an original signature. • Applicants must use the form provided in the Appendix. • The form must be typed. • Description of Previous Accomplishments (for programs that have previously received AmeriCorps funds) • Not to exceed one page (single-spaced) • Program Narrative • Typed. • Double-spaced and in not less than 12-point font size. • One-inch margins. • Must not exceed 15 pages (one side counts as one page). • The narrative must follow the narrative format and include. headers for each section. • The pages must be numbered. • Budget F orin • Applicants must use the form provided in the Appendix. • The form must be typed. • Budget Narrative • The narrative must follow the order of the budget form . (The budget narrative may be single-spaced). • Financial Audit • Include a copy of the applicant organization's most recent independent audit. 23 �III. SELECTION PROCESS A. Review and Selection The review and selection of the Michigan's AmeriCorps applications is a multiple-step process as described below. 1. Interested applicants must submit an Intent to Apply form on November 19, 1999. 2. Interested applicants must submit a Michigan ' s AmeriCorps application by 5:00p.m. on November 30, 1999. 3. Applications will be reviewed by a panel of external peer reviewers. After the external peer review, the panel will make its recommendations based on the criteria listed in the application guidelines. 4. The Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff members will review the applications for requirements, priorities, and preferences (as detailed in the application guidelines). The staff will also consider: • Geographic diversity - MCSC will ensure that the programs recommended for funding are geographically diverse and include projects in urban and rural areas. • Geographic concentration- MCSC may recommend for funding programs that will enable it to test the effect of concentrating a critical mass of participants in a specific geographic area. • Diversity - MCSC seeks to fund a broad range of programs with various approaches to addressing community need. 5. Applicants will be notified if their application has been selected to proceed to the next step in the application process. If the application is selected, representatives from the applicant organization are required to attend a oneday technical assistance workshop on December 13, 1999. In the workshop, applicants will receive a copy of their application feedback that was generated from the peer and staff review. Applicants will be asked to revise their application. 6. The revised applications are due to MCSC no later than 5:00p.m. on January 3, 2000. The proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by Michigan Community Service Commission staff members. 7. The MCSC will submit the Michigan's AmeriCorps proposals to the Michigan Community Service Commission Commissioners for approval. 24 �8. The approved proposals will then be submitted to the Corporation for National Service (National Office) for fmal approval. B. Criteria The Michigan's AmeriCorps applications will be evaluated on their quality, according to the general categories listed below. A. Program Design (60%) 1. Getting Things Done (30%) 2. Developing Members (15%) 3. Strengthening Communities (15%) B. Organizational Capacity (25%) C. Cost-Effectiveness/Budget (15%) 25 �APPENDIX Forms and Instructions �• Michigan's AmeriCorps 2000 Intent To Apply Form Narne of Organization: Contact Person: Address: City: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ State: _ __ Phone: Fax: Zip: Indicate your anticipated Michigan's AmeriCorps program focus. Please note that you may change this focus without notifying us. Human Need_ _ Education ___ Environment ___ Public Safety Also, indicate the anticipated size of your Michigan's AmeriCorps program. Please note that programs must enroll a minimum often (10) full-time equivalent corpsmembers. You may change the size of the program without notifying us. Number of Corpsmembers: Full-time _ _ Part-time (one-year) _ _ Part-time (two-year) _ _ Summer Only You may fax or mail this form to: Michigan Community Service Commission 111 South Capitol Avenue George W. Romney Building, 4 111 Floor Lansing, Michigan 48913 Fax: (517) 373-4977 Phone: (517) 335-4295 The form must be received by November 19, 1999 no later than 5:00p.m. �MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS TITLE PAGE Name of Program: Name of Applicant Organization: Contact Person: - - - - - - - - - - Title: Address: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - City: - - - - - - - - - - - - - State: _______ Zip: Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - Fax: ---------------------------------Name of Organization Operating Program (if different from Applicant Organization): Contact Person: Title: ----------------------- Address: ---------------------------------------------------------City: - - - - - - - - - State: _ _ _ __ Phone: ---------------------- Zip: _ _ _ _ __ Fax: --------------------- County, region, or city in which program will operate:__________________ Program Emphasis (please check one): 0 Education 0 Environment 0 Public Safety 0 Human N eeds Corpsmembers (please enter the appropriate number in the blanks below): Full-time: ----------------------!1700 hours/ one year) Part-time: ---------------------(900 hours/ one year) Part-time: ---------------------(900 hours/two years) Summer Only: - - - - - - - - - - - (minimum of 300 hours of service) Budget: MCSC Amount Requested: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In-kind Match: ___________________Cash Match: ------------------------Authorized Signature: ------------------------------------------------Title: -------------------------- Date:------------------ �BUDGET FORM AND BUDGET NARRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS The budget should be the last component of the proposal developed. The budget should be sufficient to perform the tasks described in the proposal narrative. It should not contain unexplained amounts for miscellaneous or contingency costs or unallowable line items such as entertainment costs. A budget form and budget narrative must accompany your application. BUDGET NARRATIVE It will be easier to complete the budget narrative first, using the line items on the budget form as a guide, then transferring the totals to the budget form. The budget narrative should be organized in the same order as the budget form and clearly identify the requested CNS share and grantee share. The grantee shares in specific items should meet at least the minimum requirements as in the application guidelines. The budget narrative must be completed for both funds requested from the CNS and for other federal/state/local/private funds. It should show whether the grantee share is in-kind or cash and whether the cash match comes from other federal versus non-federal funds. For each of the line items contained on the budget form, a full explanation must be provided in the budget narrative that explains the item, its purpose, and shows how the cost was calculated-- please use an equation format where appropriate. For example, travel should be broken down into discrete components, then equations prepared showing the number of anticipated trips, the number of travelers, and the estimated cost. Narrative Sample CNS Share Grantee Travel to State Commission Workshop: 2 staffx (2 days x $120 per diem)+ mileage (150 miles x .25 mile)= $517.50 $317.50 $200.00 CPR Training for corpsmembers: 100 members x $50 = $5,000 Staff 1 Program Director 10%@ 35,000 = $3,500 (Overall program management) $517.50 $3,000 $2,000 $5,000 $3,000 $500 $3,500 2 Project Coordinators $34,000 $6,000 $40,000 100% @ $20,000 = $40,000 (Provide daily supervision to members, training, monitoring, progress reports) Compliance with Federal Legal Requirements Programs must comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, and OMB Circulars for grant management, allowable costs, and audits. 27 �AMERICORPS Please anach the budget narrari,·e ro chis page. Applicant Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _;___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Program l'Jam e: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Sire locarion (Ciry, Scare, Zip): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (/or Nariona! Dirw only) A. MEMBER SUPPORT COSTS Livin~ Allowance Type Number of Members Corporation Share Grantee Share' Total Hours 1 year FT 1700 1 Year PT 900 2 yea r PT 900 (450 rarh) ----------- ------------ Summer Subtotal (7.65%) FICA \X'orker's Compensation Health Care· AmeriCorps Participant Healrh Care PoliC\··· ($924 per eligible parricipdm) Ocher Subtotal A .____~I ~'________,! ~',-------~1 ~'--:-:--:-:----' (max. 85%) (min. 15%) 100% B. OTHER MEMBER SUPPORT COSTS Training and Education (please specifJ in budger narrative) Ocher Subtotal ~~I 1:::::====~1 ~I====~ C. STAFF Salaries Benefits Training (please specify in budget narrative) Ocher Subtotal 1 £,:u'Pr for h~a!rh mrr. ftdrral fonth camuu br ~J as a nt:!«h in Strnou A ....________,! !...____ ___,, ~'-----' • For progromu with 1111 r.risring polrry· rhar mu:r mi11imum b..7ttf.n •• For progranu uri!i:u"ng thr Auur:.Corpr ft.fnubiT Hralrh G11r flality OHB Humb er: 3045-0047 �AMERICORPS Corporation Share D. OPERATING COSTS Total Grantee Share Travel Corporation sponsored meeting Supplies Transportation (no greater than 10% ofA through F) Equipment (plerue specify itz Budget 1\'arrarit•e) Other Subtotal E. INTERNAL EVALUATION F. ADMINISTRATION + + ------- To arrit•r nr rlu Corporation} maximum sharr of5%, multip~y rhr mm oftlu 'Subtotal .A' and 'Subtotal B through £ ' in tlu Corporation SIJ,m column by 5.26% Corporation Share Grantee Share Total Program/Operating Site State Commission {jor Sr.:m Program; on/;-) ...___________.! Subtotal ...._I_ __.I .__I_ ____. mar nor r:r:rud 5% of Corpowion fimth G. TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COSTS (B-F) + + _ _ _ _ _ __ (rna:"<. 67%) (min. 33%) + H. TOTAL BUDGET (A+G) 100% + _ _ _ _ _ __ Items below ace not pact of the grantee budget and should not be included in totals that arc: transferred to the Tide: Page I. AVERAGE FTE COST PER MEMBER J. CHILD CARE COSTS Estimated Number of Children Estimated !'-:umber of Eligible Members II Total Grantee Share II II K. EDUCATION AWARDS Number of New Members (from Item A) P:ew Fuli-Ttme Members Number of Total Additional Education Education Awards Al\·ards + ------ Amount per Member X s 4,725 $ 2,363 New Pan-Ttme Members + X Summer Members + X Total Funds Anticipated Continuing Members ffor tDIIt:nUttllOII progriJrTU • only) ·Cominuarion program! riftn ro any program mraing iu 2nd or 3rd y~ar offonding from rlu Corporario~:. OMS Number: 3045.00~7 �BUDGET FORM All budget items listed in Item A must have, at a minimum, a 15% cash match. Except for health care, matches cannot be made with other Federal funds. Funds received under P.L.638 for tribal self-determination are allowable as non-federal match. Item A: Member Support Costs LIVING ALLOWANCE On the budget form, state the number of corpsmembers who will be receiving a living allowance in each of the appropriate categories as determined by the number of service hours they expect to complete in the year (e.g. 20 full-time, 10 one-year part-time). Full-Time Members Generally, all full-time corpsmembers must receive a living allowance between $9,000 and $17,808. CNS will fund only 85% of the minimum living allowance amount ($9,000 x 85 %), or $7,650. Programs that want to provide a higher living allowance in excess of $9,000 must provide a grantee match for all funds over $7,650. For example, a program desiring to provide a $10,000 living allowance to its members would have to provide $2,350 match if it requested the maximum CNS match of$7,650. Note this $2,350 match must be cash and come from non-federal sources. One Year, Part-Time Members Part-time members completing 900 hours of service in one year may receive up to $4,765 for the year with the maximum CNS match being $4,050 ($4,765 x 85%). The $4,765 was calculated by multiplying $9,000 by (900 service hours/1700 service hours). Summer Only Members Summer Only members completing 300 hours may receive $1 ,541 with the maximum CNS share not to exceed $1,310 ($1 ,541 x 85%). The $1 ,541 was calculated by multiplying $8,730 by (300 service hours/1700 service hours). The living allowance for Summer Only members completing more than 300 hours of service should be calculated by multiplying $8,730 by(# of service hours/ 1700 service hours). FICA All programs must pay FICA for any corpsmember receiving a living allowance. The program ' s share ofFICA should be calculated at 7.65% of the total amount of the living allowance and must be prorated in the same proportion as the CNS and Grantee match. For example, a grantee providing $9,000 to its full-time corpsmembers with CNS providing an 85% match ($7,650) and the grantee providing a 15% match ($1 ,350) would provide a FICA match of $103 ($1 ,350 x 7.65%) while CNS would provide a FICA match of $585 ($7,650 x_7 .65%). Workers Compensation Michigan requires Workers Compensation for Michigan' s AmeriCorps members. Programs must check with their insurance carrier or the Michigan Department of Labor to determine the proper rate. 28 �CNS Health Care Programs without existing health coverage or with coverage that does not meet the minimum requirements must select the AmeriCorps Member Health Care Policy. The cost of this policy is currently established at $924 per full-time member. CNS will fund 85% of these expenses, or $785 per full-time member. The remaining amount must be matched in cash by the grantee. Alternative Health Care Programs with existing health benefits policies for their full-time corpsmembers that meet minimum requirements should request 85% of those funds from CNS. The remainder must be matched in cash by the grantee. CNS will not pay for spouse or dependent coverage. Other Leave this line item blank. All budget items listed in Item A. must have, at a minimum, a 15% non-federal cash match. Item B: Other Member Support Cost Include any training, education, and other costs that relate directly to the corpsmembers in this section. The applicant should budget $65 per member to attend statewide trainings. Item C: Staff The portion of staff costs that are attributed directly to the operation of a Michigan's AmeriCorps program or project through the recruitment, training, placement or supervision of corpsmembers (e.g. salaries, benefits, training and travel expenses) are allowable. Staff that are indirectly involved in the management or operation of the applicant organization may only be funded through the administrative cost section of the budget. Item D: Operational Costs that are directly related to operating the Michigan's AmeriCorps program. Travel Costs associated with transportation, lodging, and other related expenses for staff and Michigan's AmeriCorps members outside their local service site. Corporation Sponsored Meeting Each applicant must also add $2,000 to this line item to cover the cost of CNS sponsored technical assistance meetings. Supplies Funds for the purchase of supplies that would not be considered equipment and tend to be more expendable (see equipment). The applicant should budget $33 per corpsmember for the required uniform and may budget an additional $35 per member for other uniform items. Local Transportation 29 �Costs associated with traveling locally such as bus passes to local sites, mileage reimbursement for use of car, etc. Equipment Funds for the purchase of equipment are limited to 10% of the total grant amount (line items A-F.) Any single item costing more than $1,000 must be listed. Other Include in this line item Internet costs up to $250. Allowable costs in this section may include space rental (for sites where programs operate), utilities, and telephone and Internet expenses that are directly and specifically used for Michigan' s AmeriCorps members and directly involve staff. They must be equitably prorated if shared with other projects or activities. Each item should be listed and justified in the budget narrative. Item E: Internal Evaluation Costs for activities related to program evaluation, including additional staff time not otherwise budgeted, use of evaluation consultants, purchase of instrumentation and other costs specifically used for this activity. Item F: Administration No more than 5% of the total grant amount may be used to pay for administrative costs. Administrative costs means general or centralized expenses of overall administration of an organization that receives Corporation funds and does not include particular program or project costs. For organizations that have an established indirect cost rate for Federal awards, administrative costs means those costs that are included in the organization's indirect cost rate. Such costs are generally identified with the organization's overall operation and are further described in Office ofManagement and Budget Circulars A-21 , A-87, and A-122. For organizations that do not have an established indirect cost rate for Federal awards, administrative costs include: (1) costs for financial, accounting, auditing, contracting or general legal services except in unusual cases where they are specifically approved in writing by the Corporation as program costs; (2) costs for internal evaluations including overall organizational management improvement costs (except for independent and internal evaluations ofthe program that evaluations are specifically related to creative methods of quality improvement); and (3) costs for general liability insurance that protects the organization responsible for operating a program, other than insurance costs solely attributable to the program. Administrative costs may also include that portion of salaries and benefits of the program's director and other administrative staff not attributable to the time spent in support of a specific program. The principles that pertain to the allocation and documentation of personnel costs are stated in the OMB circulars that are incorporated in Corporation regulations [45 CFR 2541 .220(b)]. 30 �Administrative costs do not include allowable costs directly related to program or project operations, such as: (1) allowable direct charges for corpsmembers, including living allowance, insurance payments, and expenses for training and travel; (2) costs for staff who recruit, train, place, or supervise corpsmembers; (e.g. salaries, benefits, training and travel expenses) if the purpose is for a specific program or project. Particular costs, such as those associated with staff who perform both administrative and program functions, may be prorated between administrative and program costs if included in the budget and approved by a Michigan's AmeriCorps grant officer; (3) costs for independent evaluations and internal evaluations that cover only the funded programs or project; (4) costs, excluding those already covered in an organization's indirect cost rate, attributable to staff that work in a direct program or project support, operational, or oversight capacity, including, but not limited to: support staff whose functions directly support program and project activities; staff who coordinate and facilitate single or multi-site program and project activities; and staff who review, disseminate and implement Corporation guidance and policies directly relating to a program or project; (5) space, facility and communication costs that primarily support program operations, excluding those costs that are already covered by an organization' s indirect cost rate; and (6) other allowable costs, excluding those costs that are already covered by an organization's indirect cost rate, specifically approved by the Corporation as directly attributable to a program. Limitation by statute: the Corporation share of administrative costs cannot exceed 5% of total Corporation funds actually expended under the grant. To arrive at the Corporation maximum share of 5%, multiple the sum of Subtotal A, plus Subtotal B through E in the Corporation share column by 5.26% Fixed 5%: If approved on a case-by-case basis by the Corporation, the grantee may charge, for administrative costs, a fixed 5% of the total of the Corporation funds expended. In order to charge this fixed 5%, the grantee match for administrative costs may not exceed 10% of all direct cost expenditures. These rates may be used without supporting documentation and are in lieu of an indirect cost rate. Indirect Cost Rates: If grantees have an approved indirect cost rate, such rate will constitute documentation of the grantee's administrative costs including the 5% maximum payable by the Corporation and the grantee match of administrative costs. If a grantee wants to claim more than 10% match in administrative costs it must have or obtain an approved indirect cost rate. Where appropriate, the Corporation will establish an indirect cost rate that may be used for this and other Federal awards. Consistency of Treatment: To be allowable under an award, cost must be consistent with 31 �• policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally fmanced and other activities of the organization. Furthermore, the costs must be accorded consistent treatment in both federally financed and other activities as well as between activities supported by different sources of federal funds. To calculate the Corporation maximum share of 5%, multiple the sum of Subtotal A, plus Subtotal B through E in the Corporation share column by 5.26% Items B-F must be matched at least 33% by the grantee with one or more of the following sources: cash, in-kind services, other Federal funds, State funds, or other funds. Item G: Total Program Operating Costs Add Item B through F for the Corporation Request less member support costs. Item H: Total Budget Add Items A and G Item 1: Cost Per Member Programs should provide the overall average cost per member for the program year. This average will remain at $11,700 for 2000 and does not include the education award or child care. It is calculated by dividing the total Corporation funding requested from the first column, Corporation Share, of Item H, Total Budget (A+G) ofthe budget form by the number of full-time equivalent education awards. Part-time education awards should be converted to full-time education awards before determining cost per member as follows : • • Each 900 hour, one-year member= Yz full-time member Summer component members:# ofhours/1700 hours+portion of full-time member Item J: Child Care Costs Programs should estimate the number of eligible corpsmembers and children requiring child care assistance. Because CNS will fund all child care expenses for eligible corpsmembers directly, it is not requiring a dollar estimate. However, programs that can provide any of their own funds for child care, should indicate that amount in this section. These costs should not be added into any calculation. Item K: Education Awards Programs should provide the number of new full-time and part-time corpsmembers receiving education awards. These costs should not be added into any calculation. 32 �MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST Please review the following checklist to ensure that your application meets the submission requirements. Each application will be reviewed for compliance. Any application received by MCSC not in compliance with any item on the following checklist will be considered ineligible for review. The application will be returned to the applicant. Please complete and submit the checklist along with your Michigan's AmeriCorps application. This checklist should be placed on top of your application. Do not staple the check-list to the application. Only one copy of the checklist needs to be submitted. Applicant Organization: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Applicants must submit one unbound original and five (5) copies of a completed application package that includes: 0 TITLE PAGE 0 0 0 Original copy of the application must have an original signature. Applicants must use the form provided in the Appendix. The form must be typed. 0 DESCRIPTION OF PREVlOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 0 Not to exceed one page (single-spaced) 0 PROGRAM NARRATIVE 0 Typed. 0 Double-spaced and in not less than 12-point font size. 0 One-inch margins. 0 Must not exceed 15 pages (one side counts as one page). 0 The narrative must follow the narrative format and include headers for each section. 0 The pages must be numbered. 0 BUDGET FORM 0 Applicants must use the form provided in the Appendix. 0 The form must be typed. 0 BUDGETNARRATIVE 0 The budget narrative must follow the order of the budget form. The budget narrative may be single-spaced. 0 INCLUDE ONE COPY OF THE APPLICANT ORGANIZATION'S MOST RECENT INDEPENDENT AUDIT � 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_1999-11-05_MI-AmeriCorps-Application-Guidelines Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps application guidelines Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps application guidelines. 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, 50070 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/55be3b7c90573f0cda5e1de63d35b41c.pdf 7a2a0a87ad443acea406b086bae59415 PDF Text Text ~ichigan's AmeriCorps Celebration friday, October 29, 1 999 9:06-9:45 a.m. Lobby Registration and Refreshments 9:45 a.m -1 0:45 a.m. Ballroom Welcome 6 Introductions Kyle Caldwell, rxecutive Director ~ichigan Community Service Commission ~ary Pfeiler, Director of CNS State Office, Corporation for Nationals Service What is National Service? Diana Algra, Volunteer Services Liaison family Independence Agency Team Building 6 l:nergizers Jill ~anlove, YI:S Ambassador ~ichigan Community Service Commission 1 0:45 a.m.- 11 :00 a.m. Break 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Ballroom Training Topics: Personal Safety Strategies (Ballroom) By Shinn 's Tae Kwon Do, Okemos, ~ichigan (Jold Rooms Leadership Styles ((Jold Rooms) By Cyndi ~ark, 4-H rxtension Parlors A, B, 6 C Conflict ~anagement ( Parlors A, B, and C) Charl:m AmeriCorps Program 12:36- 1:30 p.m. (iold Room Lunch Question 6 Answer panel Kyle Caldwell, ~esc ~ary Pfeiler, CNS State Office Carmen Wells, Program Director of the ~ichigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program 1 :30 p.m. - 2:30p.m. Ballroom Program Presentations ~ichigan Community Service Commission Dreamcatchers AmeriCorps Program ~ichigan AIDS fund: National Direct AmeriCorps Program City Year Detroit AmeriCorps Program ~ichigan's AmeriCorps Promise fellows 2:30p.m.- 2:45p.m. Break �2:45p.m.- 4:00p.m. Ballroom Introduction of AmeriCorps ~ember Council Beth Barney, ~ichigan Community Service Commission Welcome to National Service field Joel Orosz, ~esc Commissioner l!emarks from AmeriCorps Alumni frick Laurila, former AmeriCorps member Aaron Sommers, former AmeriCorps VISTA member AmeriCorps Pledge ~eg Smith, ~esc Commissioner 4:00p.m. rmcee's: Cake and punch Depart Pam Bailey (Dreamcatchers)joined by Bertiamin Brandt (Creston Neighborhood Association), and Dana Anderson with Luke Pandzich (City Year Detroit) � 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_1999-11-05_Michigans-AmeriCorps-Celebration Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps Celebration Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps Celebration. 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, 50071 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e96f6c97bd46527009cb4a44b12e74bd.pdf 9a0f3472ce05231bc2d7abf3824926bf PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FR 0 M: Lindy Lange, Director of Outreach and Fund Development RE: Outreach & Fund Development Di vision Director's Report DATE: November 3, 1999 The following is an update from the Outreach and Fund Development Division. The function of the Outreach and Fund Development (O&FD) Division is to address the non-program and nonadministration components of the Michigan Community Service Commission's (MCSC) work (i .e. publications, special events, media relations , fund de velopment, training, etc.) . 1. Make A Difference Day in Michigan * MDDay was Saturday, October 23. More than 78,000 Michiganians volunteered in more than 500 MD Day projects. * Pri or to l'viDDay, each commissioner received (vi.1 e-mail or fax) a list of MDDay projects taking place in their local community. Thi s information was provided per a request made at the September 24·, MCSC meeting. * Several commissioners participated in MDDay, including: Victor Begg and his family volunteered with Bloomfield Hills School District making court boxes for children waiting to testify in abuse cases; Karen Aldridge Eason and her team at the Mott Foundation helped collect personal care items, bedding and other supplies for three local domestic violence/women's shelters; Don Newport joined Alpena Community College, Alpena Volunteer Center, Alpena Youth Volunteer Corps, and Alpena Public Schools to collect food and other needed items for a local food bank; and Michelle Engler, Madeleine Engler, Hannah Engler, Maggie Engler, and several members of the MCSC staff helped make Halloween costumes for youth who attend Advent House Ministries' Day Program. You can see highlights on the First Lady's web page www .state. mi. us. Thank you to all for showing your belief in the power of volunteerism! �Outreach & Fund Development Division Director's Report Page2 * More information on MDDay in Michigan, including the seven MDDay Weekly Updates, can be found on the MCSC website at www.state.mi.us/career/mcsc. * The MD Day in Michigan scrapbook will be available early next year. 2. Seventh Annual Governor's Service Awards * The Seventh Annual Governor's Service A wards dinner will be held May 18, 2000 at the Lansing Center, in conjunction with the Volunteerism SuperConference 2000. * Nomination forms will be available in early December. 3. Volunteerism SuperConference 2000 * The Volunteerism SuperConference 2000 is being held May 18 & 19, 2000 at the Lansing Center. 4. ConnectMichigan Campaign * In support of Make A Difference Day in Michigan (Saturday, October 23, 1999), 60 ConnectMichigan billboards were posted and numerous radio and television PSAs were aired throughout Michigan. 5. Legislative Event * The second annual legislative breakfast, Celebrating Michigan's Volunteers, is tentatively scheduled for April27, 2000 in Lansing. This is a change from prior announcements. * The Celebrating Michigan's Volunteers event is designed to provide an opportunity for the MCSC and others to share information on the state of volunteerism in Michigan with the Michigan Legislature, and is a ConnectMichigan initiative. 6. Poster Contest * The MCSC will hold a 2000 ConnectMichigan Youth Poster Contest. The contest will be geared around "youth connecting through service" and will be an initiative of the Connect Michigan campaign. The contest will take place this winter, with the unveiling scheduled for the Seventh Annual Governor's Service Awards dinner. * The posters will be included in a mailing that will be sent to schools, youth programs and nonprofit organizations that work with youth. Jill Manlove, our Points of Light Foundation Youth Engaged in Service Ambassador will be working on this project. �Outreach & Fund Development Division Director's Report Page 3 ------------------~------------------~--------------------------------- 7. MCSC Web Site * The MCSC website has recently been revised and has a new address www.state.mi .us/career/mcsc. The revised web site highlights each of our programs, activities, and events and links readers to our partner organizations' websites. More revisions will be posted soon and will include visual highlights of many of the MCSC's activities from the last three months. �Volunteering is a family matter for Miehigan Gov. John Engler, h~~ wife Michelle and 4-yearold triplets Maggie, left, Madeleine and Hannah. On Oct.23- Make A Difference Day- Michelle Engler, chairwoman of the Michigan Community Service Commission, and more than 75,000 other Michiganders will join together to help others. akeA c Make it part of you Please join us: Reach out to others Oct. 23. $2.6 million will go to local charities. .,.. Step 1: Decide to help others by volunteering on the ninth annual Make A Difference Day, Saturday, Oct. 23. You may want to help the elderly, clean up a river, teach children or gather food for the hungry. Act alorie or enlist your whole family, club, class, office or town. .,.. Step 2: Tell us your plans so we can help you get publicity, volunteers and donations. Check out what's happening near you at our Web site, vvwv.r.makeadifferencedaycom .,.. Step 3: Mter helping others on Oct. 23, subrrut an entry form. All participants are eligible for charitable awards of $10,000 or $2,000 from Make A Difference Day supporters Paul Newman and his food company, Newman's Own; Wal-Mart, the day's retail supporter; and Sunsvveet Growers. (7) CLICK ON OUR WEB SITE 1f To order a "tattoo" like the Englers' at left, get ideas, or register you r plans in the Make A Difference DAYtaBANK, visit www.makea differenceday.com For Make A Difference Day details, call 1-800-416-3824 USA WEEKEND's Make A Difference Day is in partnership with the Points of Light Foundat ion. � 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_1999-11-05_Outreach-and-Fund-Development-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting outreach and fund development report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting outreach and fund development 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, 50072 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/754f7cef04a97588f52bca27d77dc482.pdf 94af5ecc63712f048e437096553ffc85 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Paula Kaiser, Director of Progr~a,u..Q.bJ RE: Program Division Director's Report DATE: November 5, 1999 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Cap itol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335 -4295 (517) 373-4977 It was great to see all of you on Mackinac Island. Things have been extremely busy for the program division since my return to MCSC less than two months ago. Listed below is an program division update for your review. Michigan's AmeriCorps Michigan's AmeriCorps Member Celebration On October 29, 1999 more than 300 individuals representing Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, AmeriCorps VISTA programs, AmeriCorps Promise Fellows programs, and national direct AmeriCorps programs gathered to celebrate AmeriCorps in Michigan. The event served as an orientation for members to learn about AmeriCorps at the state and national level. A number of commissioners participated in the celebration including Commissioners Pruitt, Smith and Orosz. Celebration members were asked to take the AmeriCorps pledge administered by Commissioner Meg Smith. Commissioner Orosz was on hand to celebrate with the members and deliver a few inspiring words to the members as the begin their year of service. See the attached agenda for more details on the events. Hats off to the AmeriCorps staff for this great event! 5th Anniversary ofAmeriCorps On Wednesday, October 20, 1999 the President and First Lady hosted more than 1,000 AmeriCorps members and friends at the White House to commemorate the fifth Anniversary of AmeriCorps. Key participants of the event included Retired General Colin Powell, Governor Michael Leavitt, Caretta Scott King, and Sargent Shriver. Kyle Caldwell attended the event on behalf of the MCSC. Since 1994, nearly 150,000 Americans have answered the AmeriCorps call to service and have devoted a year to help change lives, rebuild communities, and strengthen America. Together they have taught, tutored, or mentored more than 4 million children, recruited and trained more than 2 million volunteers, built more than 10,000 homes, established or expanded more than 40,000 "safe zones" in schools and neighborhoods, provided food and clothing for more than 5 million homeless, helped more than 600,000 seniors live independently, and responded to nearly 200 disasters including floods , hurricanes, and tornadoes. �Program Division Director' s Report Page 2 To commemorate the overall accomplishments of the AmeriCorps members, the Corporation created the First Annual All-AmeriCorps Awards. Twenty-one AmeriCorps members were recognized at the White House Ceremony for their extraordinary commitment to service. Christy Hicks-Bowman, a former Michigan's AmeriCorps member, was awarded the Common Ground Award. The award honors AmeriCorps members who brought together people and organizations and helped others learn to find common ground, live peacefully, and work together toward shared goals. Christy, who served with the AmeriCorps Oakland program in Pontiac, Michigan, started a conflict resolution program for middle school students, teaching them skills in managing conflict and diversity and then training them as peer mediators and role models for elementary students. 2000 Michigan 's AmeriCorps Application Process Although many of our 1999-2000 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs just started in September, it i time to begin thinking about the application process for 2000-01. After reviewing our current portfolio and where programs are in their 3 year funding cycle, MCSC has determined that we have approximately $2 million to fund new AmeriCorps for FY 2000-01. Thirteen of our 19 Michigan's AmeriCorps programs must recompete as new applicants. Therefore we have a large amount of money available for the next application process. On October 8, 1999, MCSC mailed a letter to more than 15,000 organizations announcing the availability of funds for new Michigan's AmeriCorps programs and asking organization to respond if they wanted a copy of the application guidelines or to participate in one of our technical assistance sessions. On October 18, 1999, MCSC conducted two conference calls for organizations to get a basic understanding of the Michigan's AmeriCorps program. More than 100 organizations participated in the calls. MCSC also hosted three technical assistance sessions for organizations interested in sponsoring a Michigan's AmeriCorps program. More than 175 individuals registered for the Detroit session. Nearly 75 individuals registered for the Kalamazoo session and 75 additional individuals registered for the conference call technical assistance session. MCSC received requests for more than 600 copies of the application guidelines. The Michigan' AmeriCorps application process has multiple steps. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13 . If organizations plan to submit an application they must submit an Intent to Apply form by November 19, 1999. The applications are due to MCSC on November 30, 1999. The applications will be reviewed by a panel of external peer reviews and the MCSC staff. Those applications that are successful will be asked to attend a one-day technical as i tance session on December 13. At that time, applicants will be asked to revise their proposal based on the peer and staff review. The revised proposals are due to MCSC on January 3, 2000. MCSC staff will review the proposals and determine which ones should be included in the MCSC's competitive Funding application. MCSC staff will present the staff recommendations at the January 21 , 2000 board meeting. MCSC will submit their Competitive Funding application to CNS on February 25 , 2000. MCSC will be notified on May 4, 2000 which programs were funded competitively. MCSC staff will finalize the staffs recommendation for the formula funding package. MCSC board will approve the formula package via conference call of May 8, 2000. MCSC will submit their formula package to CNS on May 12, 2000. MCSC will be notified by August 1, 2000 on the approval of the formula package. �Program Division Director's Report Page 3 Attached is·a copy of the Michigan's AmeriCorps 2000 Application Guidelines and the notice that was mailed out announcing the availability of funds for new programs. Michigan's Promise Promise Fellows At the September board meeting you approved provisional funding for all seven of the Michigan' AmeriCorps Promise Fellows applications. Provi sion funding meant that the applicants needs to address the identified weaknesses generated from the peer and staff review . If the applicants successfully addressed the weaknesses they would then receive funding. All seven of the applicants successfully addressed their weaknesses and will receive another year of funding . During the last meeting there was some discussion about the Grand Rapids application regarding their inability to fill all of their awarded Promise Fellows slots in the fust year. They were awarded five slots and only filled two of them. The MCSC staff has worked with the applicant to develop a detailed plan for recruiting all of the slots for the new year. We are confident they have a solid plan for recruitment and selection of the fellows. However, we will continue to monitor this issue closely. Jackson and Saginaw Events SAGINAW- On October 21, 1999 Retired General Colin Powell and First Lady Michelle Engler joined the Saginaw community in launching their America's Promise efforts. The celebration was the formal kick-off for the $3 million endowment fund being established at the Saginaw Community Foundation around the five fundamental resources . The event was also an opportunity to inform the general public and potential commitment makers about the Community of Promise activities to date and future plans. The event was held at the Saginaw Civic Center and approximately 5,000- 6,000 people were in attendance. JACKSON- On October 22, 1999 Retired General Colin Powell and First Lady Michelle Engler joined the Jackson community in launching their local America's Promise efforts, Jackson County's Promise to kids. The event also formally introduced the Consumers Energy Commitment, Jackson Community Foundation commitment, and commitment by United Way of Jackson County. The celebration was held in the auditorium of Jackson High School and was filled to capacity with 1600 in attendance. The senior class of Jackson High School attended and the remainder of the school attended via live taping/broadcast. In addition, overflow rooms were available for the general public to watch the program live via the live broadcast. Upcoming Fellows Training A training is being held at the Ralph A. McMullen Conference Center at Higgins Lake on Nov 8-9, 1999 for Fellows, Head Start VISTAs, and National Direct Fellows. There will be approximately 20 attendees. The main training topics are: Effectively communicating your message and Group Process/Group Dynamics. There will also be open space discussions around challenges and solutions. Headstart VISTA Program Training There are 11 Head Start VISTAs providing service to 11 Head Start agencies in Communities of Promise. They are working to increase the number of volunteers within their agency and are also working to provide at least two of the five fundamental resources to the clients. On October 16, 1999 a training was held for the Head Start Sites of Promise ArneriCorps* VISTA members. It was conducted by Robin Lynn Schultheiss and focused on Volunteer Recruitment and Retention since all VISTA members have a goal of increasing the volunteers at their local sites. All 11 VISTAS and some of their supervisors attended the training. MCSC helped organize the training. �Program Division Director's Report Page4 Upcoming National Meeting The Corporation for National Service is hosting a national meeting for Promise Fellows grantees on November 16- 18, 1999. Mary Grill, MCSC's Communities of Promise Coordinator will attend the meeting. Communities o(Promise Directory A MSU class in American Thought and Language has a service learning component where students work with local nonprofit organizations to complete a writing project. Two students and the class professor chose Michigan's Promise as their project. We are working together to complete a Michigan's Promise Community Directory that will be printed in catalog form. The catalog will be distributed to local communities, potential statewide commitment makers, and other Promise partners. The catalog will be divided by community and will include lead contact information, a brief description of the local initiative, and a listing of all partner organizations involved in the local initiative and the fundamental resource each organization provides. Volunteer Investment Grants FY99 Grants For FY 99, the MCSC issued 17 grants for a total of $904,000. As of November 1, 1999 a total of $645,647 has been endowed in local foundations and MCSC has distributed $539,127. Each VIG recipient has until December 31, 1999 to raise their local match. Three grantees (ENRICH for Ionia County, Keweenaw Children's Museum, and Lenawee United Way and Volunteer Center) did not reach their 6 month local match goal. MCSC is working with them to address this issue. See the attached chart for specific information for FY 99 Volunteer Investment Grants. FY 2000 Grants The MCSC Executive Committee will be giving approval for the FY 2000 grants on November 5, 1999. The results will be shared at the January 21 , 2000 board meeting. Learn & SERVE Michigan Community-based On September 16- 17, 1999 a joint Learn & SERVE Michigan meeting was held at Camp Miniwanca in Shelby, Michigan. The MCSC partnered with the Michigan Department of Education to conduct the meeting. Grantee from both school-based programs and communitybased programs gathered to discuss policies and procedures, financial management practices, highlights from the field, and available technical assistance. Community-based Service- Learning Curriculum Pro ject MCSC has been working with Steve Stanley, President of Analyze and Apply, Inc. , to develop a community-based service-learning curriculum. The curriculum was developed in order to support our grantees in better identifying measurable learning objectives for their service-learning programs. The curriculum is currently being piloted with our 1999 Learn & SERVE Michigan community-based programs. The curriculum will be revised based on the pilot stage. Once the revisions are made, the curriculum will be published and disseminated to our current and future grantees. Training and Technical Assistance As you know the training and technical assistance coordinator position is currently vacant. Diana Algra, our loaned executive from the Family Independence Agency, is serving as the interim �Program Division Director' s Report Page 5 coordinator. We are working to fill the position but realistic think it will not be filled until January 2000. Currently, Diana is preparing the Program Development and Training (PDAT) application for the Corporation for National Service. MCSC will be applying for $120,000 to provide training and technical assistance to our grantees and others in the national service and volunteerism field. The application is due to the Corporation on November 17, 1999. � 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_1999-11-05_Program-Division-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1999-11-05 commission meeting program division 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 1999-11-05 commission meeting program division 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, 50073 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 1999-11-05 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/33b06dc0eb855b65e9a7acdbfcc9526d.pdf 4985c6b50126844635047b85ed10daca PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Agenda January 21, 2000 George W. Romney Building, Michigan Room Lansing, Michigan 12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. /r'.f rr~ I. Welcome and Introductions - Chairper~ler II. Review & Approval of September 24, 1999 Minutes - Chairperson Engler III. Standing Committee Reports A. & Executive Committee - Chairperson Engler, Vice Chair Pruitt 1. Review of Executive Committee November 5, 1999 meeting. 2. Executive Director Performance Review Results B. Board Development Committee- Dorothy A. Johnson 1. Recommendation (approval item) IV. V. Executive Director's Report - Kyle Caldwell A. Michigan's AmeriCorps (approval item) B. Michigan's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Round 2 (approval item) Old Business- Chairperson Engler A. VI. Michigan Alliance for Volunteers Proposal New Business A. Michigan's Unified State Service Plan B. Future Directions for the MCSC VII. Adjourn � 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_2000-01-21_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 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 2000-01-21 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, 50074 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/70a8901a62a39a3e9822e3c8fcbfa349.pdf 850cf9e15b33679afd3ea5e6ec768cb7 PDF Text Text STAT E OF MI CHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Miche ll e Engler 11 1 S. Capitol Ave. Geo rg e W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lans ing , Michig an 48913 Tele phone (517) 335-4295 FAX (5 17) 373 -4977 Executive Director Kyle Caldwell MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Dorothy A. Johnson, Chairperson, Board Development Committee RE: Report and Recommendations for Consideration DATE: January 7, 2000 The Board Development Committee met on November 24, 1999 to discuss appointment recommendations and changes to P A 219. Appointments Kathy Honaker has asked to step down from the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) as she has accepted a promotion within the Allstate Company in Texas. The Governor has accepted her resignation. We wish Ms. Honaker well in her new position. Should you wish to contact Ms. Honaker, her new address is: Allstate Insurance Company 8675-E5 Freeport Parkway Irving, TX 75063 The Committee currently has no formal recommendations to offer the Commission, but has been pursuing a number of prospects and invite members of the MCSC to forward any names to the Committee for consideration. Final recommendations will be offered at the April meeting. PA 219 Currently PA 219 (the statute that codified the MCSC) reads: " The commission shall consist of 25 members appointed by the governor." The statute makes no reference to term limits (recently approved by the MCSC) nor does is provide the flexibility to appoint more than 25 members. The Committee recommends that the statute be changed to include the language concerning term limits and language addressing the minimum number of appointments rather than the maximum (see modified copy of PA 219). � 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_2000-01-21_Board-Development-Committee Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting board development committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting board development committee. 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, 50075 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2b815db667dbb9b12f0da271cf38c3d1.pdf ab09162f0f6a1430ae0b946c68cc9019 PDF Text Text CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL flsER V ICE December 1999 Dear Friends in National Service, I'm delighted to write to you this holiday season with good news - a record of accomplishment of which we can all be proud (highlighted in the enclosed Report) and strong prospects for the next decade of citizen service in America. Thank you for all the hard work that made these achievements possible. There are two points I want to make at this turn of the century. First, national service- as a partnership of the civic sector, the corporate sector and government at all levels- is built on the principles of devolution and collaboration that are now at the center of a quickly emerging national consensus. Practically all the Presidential candidates are calling for a devolution of resources and responsibility to states, communities, and the non-profit sector, including the great educational, faithbased, and civic organizations. National service is the living example of just such a new way of getting things done. That's one reason it is so important that we have succeeded and that we continue to succeed in making national service work. And that' s why bipartisan and non-partisan support of our programs is so strong and growing- why we're not just going to survive, we 're going to thrive. Second, we' ve made tremendous progress in getting the systems in place to meet the extraordinary challenges of administering, monitoring and accounting for this large decentralized system through which we support thousands of grantees and service sponsors. As we succeed in establishing the infrastructure for National Service that Congress intended, we are demonstrating that this new form of public-private, federal, state and local cooperation works. In January alone, we have two special opportunities. First, I urge each of you to organize or participate in service activities to celebrate the Martin Luther King Holiday on Monday, January 17 as "a day on, not a day off." And second, I look forward to being with many of you January 24-27 in New Mexico at the ACCESS: Opening the Doors to Service national conference to build collaboration between the disability community and all the streams of service. We ' ve come far- and we' ve got far to go. As we approach the new year and new century, let ' s remember the urgency with which Martin Luther King, Jr. sought to fulfill the Promise of America for all. More than thirty years after his death that work is still not finished, but in all our programs - and in the campaign for America's Promise in which we are participating- we are doing our part to overcome the big obstacles that remain. With warmest wishes, Harris Wofford Chief Executive Officer NATIONAL SERVICE: GETTING THINGS DONE . . 1201 New York Avenue , N.W. ~ Washingto.n , D.C. ~0525 AmrnCt•rrs . u am and Serve America · \ \ wcnal Senior Semce Corps W telephone: 202-606-5000 · websne : www.nauonalsernce.org �December 1999 1999 HIGHLIGHTS CORPOP~.ATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE This has been a year marked by exceptional progress in creating opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve and in advancing the idea that service is a key strategy for bringing people together to solve community problems. This Report underscores some highlights ofthe year. Before turning to reports on our programs, a few key developments merit special mention. One of the most important developments ofthe year is that service has become an increasing factor in the public discussion about how to mend the American community and solve persistent problems. Reflecting our democracy, this discussion is occurring in many forums. In August, General Colin Powell, Chair of America's Promise, told the nation's Governors that AmeriCorps "is a tremendous investment in young people, a tremendous investment in the future." Alld George Magazine's newly-released book ranks service first among 250 ways to improve America in the new century. Most of the presidential candidates, in their own ways, have spoken powerfully about the need to inspire and encourage citizens to give to their communities and the importance of forging new partnerships to solve problems. The serious attention that service is n~w receiving is a testament to the long and hard work of so many champions of National Service around the country. President Clinton has continued his emphasis on service, on many occasions, ending his year with his message to AmeriCorps members and other volunteers at the DC Central Kitchen: "I want to say again how proud I am of you and what a testament you have been to the proposition that working with others is not a burden, it is a joy; it is not a duty, it is a privilege. And whether you are preparing meals or teaching a child to read or painting an old school, you always get more than you give." We also witnessed a growing consensus that solving our problems requires real partnerships between businesses, the non-profit sector, and government at all levels. The Corporation for National Service is at the forefront, searching and finding new ways to collaborate with leading companies, with non-profits, large and small, local and national. and with the nations governors and mayors. Working with the Points of Light Foundation, with whom we sponsored the Presidents' Summit for America's Promise, we are actively engaged in carrying out the campaign for children and youth led by General Colin Powell. Also worthy of special note is the impact of technology on our work. One of the most important priorities during this year has been to increase and improve our use of �technology. We have used technology to enhance our basic communications through the national service field and now information technology, including the internet, has become a vital force in improving the efficiency of our daily business operations. We also continue to improve the Corporation's website- www.nationalservice.org. We experienced an exponential increase in the number of "hits" on the website, and we expect to see further growth in the coming year. At this point, the website contains extensive resource material, and we hope that you will use it as a key research tool. (This Report often refers readers to the website for additional information.) We know that the web is an increasingly important vehicle for recruiting and are devoting time and energy to make the site a more lively, user-friendly recruiting tool. Expect to see new material and further enhancements in the months ahead. AmeriCorps In its first five years, more than 150,000 people have joined AmeriCorps- as many as have joined the Peace Corps in 38 years. And since 1994, the number of AmeriCorps grantees has grown from 350 to over 800. Our latest evaluation study, released in conjunction with the fifth year anniversary, documented the impact that AmeriCorps members are having in classrooms, in after-school programs, in low-income communities, in disaster response and in myriad other assignments. We have also seen growing numbers of AmeriCorps members take advantage of the education award they receive for completing service. In 1999 alone, more than 23,000 former AmeriCorps members used their AmeriCorps education awards. The key to the success of AmeriCorps lies in the achievement and experience of individual members. That ' s why our emphasis in AmeriCorps this year has been on the recognition of the AmeriCorps members. Early in the year the President launched AmeriCorps ' Call to Service campaign at the University ofMaryland. This recruiting blitz ultimately included 28 events in 16 states and included such notable participants as Tipper Gore. former Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan, First Lady of Michigan Michelle Engler, Sen. John Kerry, Lt. Governor Olene Walker ofUtah. Mayors Dennis Archer of Detroit and Ron Gonzales of San Jose. and former Congressman and Chief of Staff Leon Panena. In all of the events and the supporting material. the focus was squarely on the stories and the experiences of AmeriCorps members. In the fall , we celebrated the Fifth Anniversary of AmeriCorps with a series of service projects and events around the country, including a major event at the White House on October 20. The centerpiece of the White House commemoration was giving the first All* AmeriCorps Awards to 21 exceptional former AmeriCorps members. In the spirit of non-partisan support for service, the awards were given by Caretta Scon King. General Colin Powell, Gov. Mike Leavitt ofUtah and Sargent Shriver. (For features on each of the 21 winners, please see www.americorps.ore/5vears.) To support the continued growth of AmeriCorps, we developed a range of new recruiting materials emphasizing the achievements and experiences of individual 2 �members. Those materials include new AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps*NCCC, and AmeriCorps*\1STA brochures. We are about to complete a mailing to 300,000 college seniors. Soon after the New Year, we will release a new AmeriCorps recruiting public service announcement featuring Detroit Pistons basketball star Grant Hill. Another priority in AmeriCorps was to work closely with the field to strengthen the management of grants and programs. We began in January with a Financial and Program Accountability Seminar, an intense three-day training session for state commissions and national direct grantees. The leadership of the Corporation, including the Inspector General, stressed how important it is to improve and pay close attention to all aspects of the administration and record keeping of AmeriCorps grants. Throughout the year, we have been working intensely to develop administrative standards for state commissions. These standards, which we developed in close consultation with state commissions, are designed to help commissions assess their own capacity and to guide outside evaluators in measuring the performance of state commissions. We have field-tested the administrative standards, adjusted them based on the results of these pilot tests, and will fully implement them in the coming year. In addition, AmeriCorps launched three program initiatives during the year. First, the initial class of AmeriCorps Promise Fellows was sworn-in. The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows program is a partnership with America's Promise to help communities deliver the five promises for children and youth that are the focus of the America's Promise campaign. In February, more than 350 ofthe first group of Fellows attended a national training institute to prepare them for their service. In the fall, the Corporation made a second round of grants to continue and expand the AmeriCorps Promise Fellows initiative. To strengthen our continuing partnership with the nation ' s Governors, the Corporation announced a special competition for Governors' Initiatives . Through these grants. the Corporation is making AmeriCorps resources available to support special policy initiatives of governors. The Corporation funded a total of 18 proposals. making 3.000 AmeriCorps members available for projects ranging from state park restoration in Tennessee to tutoring ofK- 4th grade students in Ohio to technology training and development in Maine. AmeriCorps*VISTA continues to grow and flourish. Once again, VISTA received a sizable increase in appropriations, and in the next year we hope to reach 6,000 volunteers. As VISTA celebrates its 35th anniversary in the coming year, it is on the cutting-edge of meeting challenges in literacy, welfare-to-work and efforts to close the digital divide. Just this month, after a nationwide search, we selected Matt Dunne, a state legislator from Vermont, to be the new Director of AmeriCorps*VIST A. He will be an energetic new leader during this very promising time for VISTA. In ~ovember. we announced a major new AmeriCorps*VIST A initiative called PowerUp, a partnership to deliver technological resources and expertise to disadvantaged 3 �commumt1es. PowerUp is a joint venture of America Online, the Case Foundation, America's Promise, the YMCA ofthe USA, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Wain Family Foundation, and other partners and founders who are donating computers, internet access anp other resources to schools and community centers that need them. In 250 new PowerUp centers, more than 400 trained AmeriCorps*VIST A members will serve fulltime as mentors to young participants ·a.nd train them in computer technologies they'll need to succeed in the digital age. The Case Foundation and other partners such as the Boys and Girls Clubs will pay most of the VISTA costs. AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) continues to be a powerful force. This year, the NCCC once again received over 3,000 applications for its 800 positions. Corps members engaged in hundreds of successful service projects, covering 49 states and Puerto Rico, ranging from disaster response in North Carolina after Hurricane Floyd to support for the Special Olympics World Summer Games to the Habitat Collegiate Challenge project which made it possible for over 2,000 college and high school students to help build homes for low-income families during their spring break to The Great River Sweep project that engaged 8,000 volunteers on a massive clean-up of the Hudson River to work with more than 30 Boys and Girls Clubs. Lauren Ravit, a Southeast Region class V NCCC alumna recently wrote of her experience: "I know it is the most important thing I will ever do and I will take the pledge to 'get things done for America' with me for the rest of my life." Service-Learning As a strategy for both engaging students in service to the community and enhancing academic performance, service-learning is taking hold in an ever-growing number of schools. Through the Learn and Serve America program, we provide grant funds to more than 200 educational and community-based organizations to support service-learning. As a result of a proven track record, more and more educators. parents and community members are seeing service-learning as a viable teaching tool and realizing the potential for utilizing students as a resource for solving community problems. In September we joined with the Department of Education to release the results of a national K- 12 school survey that documents the growth of service-learning. The survey shows that thirty-two percent of all schools organized service-learning as part of their curriculum. including nearly half of all high schools. Sixty-four percent of all public schools, including eighty-three percent of public high schools, had students participating in community service activities recognized by or arranged through the school. The survey also provides information on sources of funding to support community service and service-learning, school policies making participation in servicelearning voluntary or mandatory, and how schools are implementing service-learning. (For more information on the study, please see www.leamandserve.org.) 4 �Following up on the release ofthe survey, just this month we joined with Secretary of Education Riley to renew our agencies' Declaration ofPrinciples in support of Service-Learning. (The full text of the Declaration is available at www.leamandserve.org.) In addition to funding service.:leaming grants, we have undertaken several special initiatives to encourage and recognize service by students and leadership in the field of service-learning. This year the Corporation launched t.he President's Student Servic~ Award. This award program, which is modeled on the President 's Physical Fitness Award, demonstrates that civic fitness is as important as physical fitness . Young people who perform at least 100 hours of service are eligible for the Award. The program is off to a strong start, and promises to multiply in the coming year. It is being administered by a joint venture of the American Institute for Public Service, the Points ofLight Foundation and Youth Serve America. (For more information on the President ' s Student Service Award, please see ·www.student-service-awards.om/awards .html.) Through the President's Student Service Scholarships, more than 3,600 high school students received a $1,000 scholarship for their outstanding service in 1999. With $500 provided by the Corporation and matched dollar-for-dollar by a local or national organization, the Scholarships can be awarded to two students per high school, so long as funds are available. This past year, Boys & Girls Clubs of America allocated $1 million to enable each of its Clubs ' local Youths of the Year to receive the President's Student Service Scholarship . The Scholarship program is administered by the Citizens' Scholarship Foundation of America. The Corporation also recognized the first winners of the National S~-~ice­ Learning Leader Schools, 70 high schools that exhibited outstanding programs and accomplishments in service-learning. For the next two years. these 70 schools will serve as models and active ·leaders in demonstrating the value and quality of service-learning programs. In the coming year, we are extending the Leader School program to middle schools. (Additional information on the Leader Schools is available at v.'wv; .leamandserve.ore 1leaderschools/.) Senior Service All sectors of society are beginning to see the significance of the aging population. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of service, where the power of senior service is becoming ever more important and apparent. Just this month, the New York Times featured senior service on the cover page. In line with this increasing importance and attention, the National Senior Service Corps made significant progress in 1999 toward major strategic, program and management objectives. We are meeting the needs of seniors and of communities by implementing a vision for senior service that includes a wide range of flexible service alternatives. 5 �The three programs that form the heart of the National Senior Service CorpsFoster Grandparent Program, Senior Companions, and Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)- are stronger, larger and more vital than ever. The Programming for Impact initiative we put in place over the past several years has helped to change the face and focus of the Senior Corps programs and has positioned them to respond effectively to the increasing demand for accountability. The success of Programming for Impact is seen not only in the effectiveness of delivering services but also in the increased appropriations for each of the Senior Corps programs. In addition, we have developed senior demonstrations as "incubators" for new ideas and service innovations. These initiatives are demonstrating the value of various approaches that can be incorporated into existing programs and that can lead to a wider range of service opportunities for a wider group of seniors. These demonstration are helping to identify and shape a new national senior service model that focuses on sustained, intensive service of senior leaders. The senior leaders help to recruit and support even greater numbers of volunteers ages 55 and older.. Volunteers serve ~ithout regard to income or restrictions on what they can do. One example is the Experience Corps I Seniors for Schools. The evaluation results for Seniors for Schools show the potential value of seniors focused on a particular service. The results show that senior service concentration on reading skills makes a major impact on the children and the schools served. Even in the early stages of testing, these senior demonstrations have generated significant new partnerships. 1he State of Ohio now contributes more than $2 million annually for a program explicitly founded on Seniors for Schools. We are working closely with Civic Ventures to help sustain and accelerate the momentum for an expanded and more comprehensive national approach to senior service. It's president, Marc Freedman, has just written a challenging and important book on the potential of senior service, Prime Time: How Baby Boomers will Revolurioni=e Retirement and Transform America. In another successful effort to expand the scope of senior service, the Senior Corps has established National Organization Partners , who have been introduced to the power of senior service. In the past two years, Senior Corps established productive partnerships with seven national non-profit organizations: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. Catholic Charities, Child Welfare League of America-Generations United, Lutheran Services in America, Points ofLight Foundation, Save the Children, and Volunteers of America. As a result, these national organization are: (I) looking to the aging of America as a resource boom; (2) acknowledging the Corporation's role as a leader; and (3) beginning to promote the use of senior volunteers as a resource throughout their affiliate networks . 6 �These national partners are starting to coalesce as vital new supporters of an expanded andre-engineered Senior Corps, and will be important allies as we begin the 21 51 century. Management and Administration Improving the business operations and financial management of the Corporation has also been a top priority. This year we made additional improvements in financial management, including getting a clean opinion on a statement of fmancial position, and important steps toward the goal of a clean audit opinion on a full set of financial statements. While more work remains, the Corporation is moving closer to our goal of full auditability and is becoming more efficient and customer-friendly for our grantees and partners. We implemented a new financial accounting system that will modernize financial management, provide better funds control and real-time, on-line access to data for record-keeping and decision-making. This new system is Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant. We also successfully updated and modernized our computer hardware and software so that all mission critical systems are Y2K compliant. As noted earlier, we are harnessing the power of the internet to support our financial and program management. Working closely with state commissions, we implemented the new web-based reporting system (WBRS) that makes it possible for AmeriCorps grantees to enroll and record member service through the internet. In addition to the improvements in productivity and accuracy that will come through this system, both for our grantees and our own staff, we will have far more powerful management reports that will contribute to program operations. In the coming year, we will continue to emphasize the importance of good business practices and sound fiscal management. And we will have the benefit of having our new Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Musick, who was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate in mid-November. Tony brings a well-tested experience to his lead role on financial management improvements. SPECIAL INITIATIVES Compact on Youth Service The Corporation for National Service took the lead with America's Promise in bringing about a new compact with a growing number of the leading national youth or youth-serving organizations specifically pledging to work together to increase opportunities for young people to help fulfill America's Promise for other young people. The other initial organizations joining in this concerted strategy include: American Red Cross, Big Brothers Big/Sisters, YMCA of the USA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Points of Light Foundation, Grantmaker Forum on Community and National Service, Youth 7 �Service America, United Way of America, City Cares of America, Communities in Schools, Do Something, and Girl Scouts of America. The compact includes support for the goals of 100,000 ArneriCorps members, two million President's Student Service Awards for 100 hours of service, and half a million work-study students in community service. The compact will be a powerful new force in demonstrating that young people must be seen -and see themselves- as resources and leaders in fixing what ails us as a nation and in bringing service by youth to scale in this country. Martin Luther King Day of Service Last January the national service community, working with the King Center on Non-Violence and hundreds of thousands of volunteers, led the nation in celebrating the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. as "A Day On, Not a Day Off." The idea of the King Holiday as a Day of Service ccntinues to gain ground. The President and the VicePresident joined with AmeriCorps members in Washington, DC and the King family participated in a service project with Hands on Atlanta. And at hundreds of sites around the country, national service participants - young and old -participated in service projects ranging from serving meals to home bound AIDS patients in Maryland to building Habitat homes in Pennsyivania to tutoring children at a Head Start/Early Learning Program in Virginia. King Day 2000, which will be celebrated on January 17, promises to be even larger. As a result of a $100,000 contribution from Best Buy, Inc. the Corporation was able to increase the number of its small grants for serv.ice projects. And Grant Hill has produced a radio and television PSA urging people to serve on MLK Day. (For more information on MLK Day activities, please visit www.mlkdav.org.) National Community Service Conference Last June more than 3,000 leaders in national service and community volunteering gathered for the annual National Community Service Conference. In addition to being the largest conference to date, this year' s conference generated tremendous enthusiasm for seeing service and volunt~ering as essential elements of community problem-solving strategies. Based on the success of the 1999 conference, America's Promise and the United Way have joined as partners in the 2000 National Community Service Conference, which will be even larger. General Powell and the network of state and local Promise campaigns will participate. The focus of the conference will be on "Fulfilling the Promise for America's Children and Youth." 8 �* * * We in the national service field have set high goals for ourselves, and we are constantly stretching to increase the quality, scope and impact of our work. The future holds many challenges and opportunities. The record of accomplislunent in 1999 is cause for great optimism about what national service can do for communities, for panicipants, and for the nation as a whole. 9 � 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_2000-01-21_CNS-1999-Highlights Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting Corporation for National Service 1999 highlights Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting Corporation for National Service 1999 highlights. 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, 50076 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f10de9f6e5505c9f04d0732dee63d9b8.pdf be98cea96ce86ee17e3710bff0d6b570 PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Maria Santana RE: Commissioner Profiles for Annual Report DATE: December 14, 1999 As members of the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC), you are vital to the direction that the MCSC takes, the goals we accomplish and the people we serve through the programs we manage. For this reason, the 1998-1999 Annual Report will feature profile highlights of each of our members. We want our colleagues and friends to know who you are and the wealth of expertise that you bring to the Michigan Community Service Commission. Please fill out the questionnaire below and provide us with a new personal quote that summarizes your thoughts on volunteer service and an update on your volunteer service activities. Both will be featured in the MCSC annual report beside your picture. If you would like, please provide the MCSC with an updated professional photo for the annual report. If we do not receive one we will use the photo from last year's annual report. NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATIONffiMPLOYER: ___________________________________ QUOTE: VOLUNTEER SERVICE ACTIVITIES (please list those items that should be added to the list in last year's annual report): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please fill out the questionnaire and return it to the MCSC office no later than Thursday, January 20, 2000 to: MCSC, George W . Romney Building, 4th floor 111 S. Capital Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48913 or fax it to me at (517) 373-4977. If you have any questions please call me at (517) 373-4200. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_2000-01-21_Commissioner-Profiles-for-Annual-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting commissioner profiles for annual report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting commissioner profiles for annual 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, 50077 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/eef94dca7bede4dea993f6ab73ac5ada.pdf ce0ab328bcfe231f3cd7854801de889a PDF Text Text STATE OF MI CHIGAN JOHN ENG LE R, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executi ve Direct or Ky le Cal dwe ll MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the MCSC Executive Committee Michelle Engler, Chair Terry Pruitt, Vice Chair (absent) Julie Cummings (absent), Dorothy Johnson, Joel Orosz FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive Director RE: Summary of November 5, 1999 Meeting DATE: November 5, 1999 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Rom ney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing, Michig an 48913 Telep hone (5 17) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 Thank you once again for your active participation in the November 5, 1999 meeting of the Executive Committee. The following is a summary of our discussion, facilitated via conference call, with Commissioners Engler, Johnson, and Orosz participating. Commissioners Cummings and Pruitt were unable to participate due to prior commitments. November 5, 1999 • Meetin~ of the MCSC Executive Committee Review and approve staff recommendations for FY 2000 Volunteer Investment Grants (VIG) The Executive Committee approved the staff recommendations for FY 2000 VIG funds: 1. Renewed funding at the requested amount for the Jackson Nonprofit Support Center. 2. New funding at the requested amounts for United Way of Chippewa County, Volunteer Impact, Hillsdale County Volunteer Resource and Support Center, United Way of Saginaw County Community Volunteer Center, and United Way of Allegan County. 3 . Provisional funding (funding that will not be committed unless and until the applicant not only addresses the fundraising requirements of the VIG, but also addresses added concerns including meeting the goals of the previous VIG) for Volunteer Muskegon, Dickinson County Area Community Foundation, Volunteer Center of Northwest Michigan, Volunteer Center of Barry County, Volunteer Center of Otsego County, Volunteer and Information Services, Volunteer Center of the Tri-Cities, Lenawee United Way and Volunteer Center, Volunteer Action Center. 4. Not recommend Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan and United Way of Bay County for funding this round. �. . , -·.... Summary of November 5, 1999 Meeting Page 2 5 . Offer remaining funds ($153,275) in a second round of Michigan VIG funding. Reschedulin2 of the April meetin2 of the MCSC and Le2islative Breakfast The meeting of the MCSC and the legislative breakfast will be changed from April13 , 2000 to April 27, 2000. This change was made to ensure that we can secure the participation of the Governor and First Lady. The breakfast will be held in Lansing in the morning and the meeting of the full Commission will follow shortly thereafter. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. � 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_2000-01-21_Executive-Committee-Summary Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting executive committee summary Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting executive committee summary. 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, 50078 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6ac31162a1f977be748431e7268a996b.pdf 844f96ed1c317df507a371492147f564 PDF Text Text .• STATE O F MI CHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler MEMORANDUM Execut ive Director Kyle Ca ldwel l 111 George W. Romney Lans ing , Telephone FAX TO: Members and Friends of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Kyle Caldwell, Executive RE: Executive Director's Report DATE: January 10, 2000 S. Capitol Ave . Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517 ) 335 -4295 (517 ) 373-4977 Director~~ Greetings and wishes of joy and prosperity for you in the new year! 2000 is looking to be a challenging and equally successful year for the service and volunteer field in Michigan and especially for the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC). This report will be rather brief not because of a lack of activity, but rather in response to commissioners' request for brevity and conciseness. In the two sections ("Making It Happen" and "Insights on the Vision"), I will quickly highlight the MCSC staff and commissioner activities then briefly discuss new initiatives and the progress of the Volunteer Alliance. More detailed reports from the division directors are included for your review. Making It Happen Michigan's AmeriCorps Continuing with our annual Fall/Winter ritual, the MCSC is currently engaged in soliciting, reviewing and submitting our FY 2000-2001 AmeriCorps application. The MCSC has approximately $2 million in federal funds available for new programs which may translate into approximately 4-8 new programs. Commissioners will be asked to approve the MCSC FY 20002001 Competitive portion of the application at the January 21,2000 meeting. (Reminder: the MCSC application to the Corporation for National Service (CNS) consists of two parts-Competitive, or the programs we place in a pool to compete with other applications nationally, and Formula, those programs we place in our allotted funds that are based on state population figures.) The Formula portion will be presented for your approval at the April 27, 2000 meeting. Learn & SERVE Michigan Grants CNS is calling for applications for the National Service-Learning Leader Schools program, a Presidential initiative designed to encourage and foster improved teaching and leadership through high quality service-learning activities. Applications have been sent to intermediate school districts in Michigan and are due to the MCSC no later than February 3, 2000. �Michigan's Volunteer Investment Grants CVIG) As a result of our VIG program, the MCSC distributed a total of $698,742 of state funds to leverage the current FY 2000 total of $804,131 in locally endowed funds. To date, Michigan ' s VIG has generated $2,302,378 in locally endowed match. Not bad for two years of hard work for and by the volunteer field in Michigan. Michigan's Promise You will note that Michigan was featured prominently and frequently in America's Promise public relations materials (see Director of Programs Report). These highlights include the addition of Jackson and Saginaw to our list of Communities of Promise and Consumers Energy and the community foundations of Saginaw and Jackson to our list of commitment makers. Make A Difference Day CMDDay) A scrapbook highlighting the MD Day 1999 activities will be available in early Spring. Staff have received more than 350 newspaper clippings to date and will compile them for publication. With the overwhelming success of the program, the staff had to expand the scrapbook which significantly raised the costs of publication. Consequently, we are seeking sponsors for the 1999 publication. Governor' s Service Awards The Seventh Annual Governor' s Service Awards will be held on the evening of May 18, 2000 in conjunction with the Volunteerism SuperConference 2000. Applications for nominations are available and are due February 11 , 2000. We are also seeking peer reviewers. Please contact Lindy and/or complete the reviewer form included in the attached Outreach and Fund Development Director' s Report. As a co-chair of the Volunteerism SuperConference 2000, I am seeking sponsors for the conference. Sponsorship packets will be available at the January 21 , 2000 meeting. . Youth Poster Contest Our poster contest is moving along with the financial support of Julie Cummings and direction of Lindy Lange, Kathie Vasilion and Jill Manlove. Currently, we are distributing requests for submissions and collecting names of possible reviewers. Again, we are seeking more sponsors to defray the pre-press, printing and mailing costs. Celebrating Michigan' s Volunteers Breakfast The next commission meeting will be held in conjunction with the ConnectMichigan "Celebrating Michigan ' s Volunteers" breakfast on April 27, 2000. You may recall the success of last year' s program. We hope to again have an equally strong turnout this year. MCSC Budget The 1999-2000 fiscal year will be one of the first years the MCSC will spend all, or nearly all of the funds appropriated within the year designated. This is a healthy situation and is providing for the maximum utilization of funds for our constituents. Staff are still in the process of finalizing the FY 1998- 1999 closeout figures and creating a user-friendly budget monitoring system for FY 1999-2000. 2 �Spending all of the funds appropriated also means that the MCSC must look for creative means of supporting the myriad of new initiatives that it takes on annually. This means that the MCSC staff will be searching for sponsors of projects and initiatives like the many noted above. It also means t~at the staff will be ~ailing on ~ur leadership and our partners for assistance in securing support. Lmdy Lange and I will be working on fund development and support plans over the corning months and we will share them with the full commission as they are more fully formed. Follow Up to Commissioner Retreat A written summary of the "History of the MCSC" exercise from the MCSC retreat last Fall will be distributed at the January 21, 2000 meeting. In addition, staff are working to follow up on the items commissioners identified as issues. You will recall that the four main issues were: 1. Develop a plan for better board engagement including mentoring programs, specific tasks and duties and lists of larger roles board members can play. 2. Make better use of technologies for communication and promotion of the MCSC goals, tasks and functions. 3. Implement a joint venture with organizations in the field to sustain the work of the MCSC into the future. 4. Develop better public relations and brand strategies to promote the organization and the field . The MCSC staff have developed plans for points 2 and 3. Slowly, we have been communicating with commissioners and friends via email and the internet on issues that need quick and timely attention. The Make A Difference Day activities posting was the most recent example. Staff will continue to find ways to improve communication between members and staff. The Volunteer Alliance proposal is moving forward. All respective boards (Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, Michigan Campus Compact and the MCSC) have been introduced to the concept and have charged their respective staff members to investigate how the Volunteer Alliance might be implemented. In addition, the leadership of the MCSC and the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA) will meet with Governor Engler on January 12, 2000 to secure his commitment to the Volunteer Alliance and discuss the best way to develop this initiative. Points 1 and 4 will need to be examined in conjunction with the development of the Volunteer Alliance and the future directions of the MCSC. There is significant time set aside in the January meeting agenda to discuss these issues and their impact on the field . More information on the Volunteer Alliance and our progress to date will be presented at the January 21, 2000 meeting. Insights on the Vision At our January 21, 2000 meeting we will be discussing the future directions of the MCSC. You will find a number of items under Tab 6 that will be used to spur the conversation. I would also like to include an explanation of a few initiatives that the staff are working on that will impact our discussion and the direction of the field. 3 �Strengthening National Service in Michigan One of the goals I set early on for the MCSC was to strengthen the size, scope, quality and reach of the Michigan ' s AmeriCorps portfolio of programs. Last year, Michigan welcomed City Year into its formula funding portfolio while maintaining the quality and size of its established overall AmeriCorps funding. This year, Michigan will propose the Governor's Reading Readiness Corps. The Governor' s Office, in conjunction with Michigan State University's 4H Extension Service and the Michigan Department of Education are developing an AmeriCorps application to improve the reading abilities of children K-4. The Reading Readiness Corps will be developed in response to the Governor's call for children to be ready to read by the third grade. This program and the national service application will build on a soon to be implemented statewide VISTA program involving approximately a dozen members who will work to build relationships with schools, parents, students and community based organizations to develop early childhood literacy programs in and out of schools. A final application will be prepared for approval at the April 27, 2000 meeting. Service-Learning The W.K. Kellogg Foundation invited the MCSC, Council of Michigan Foundations K-12 Philanthropy in Education Project, and the Michigan Department of Education to submit a threeyear $200,000 grant proposal to develop public policy and resources to institutionalize servicelearning in Michigan. This proposal builds on the work of the MCSC and its partners to build the infrastructure of service and education and the outreach efforts we made last Spring to key state leaders to gain their support for service-learning. This current effort will bring support and staff to this effort and provide a context for significant progress toward our goal of building an ethic of service in our youth. Unified State Service Plan The MCSC and its statewide partners are developing a state plan for service and volunteerism (see Tab 6). This plan is based on our state's basic vision, principles and practices related to how the service and volunteer field does business. Currently, the MCSC is working with a consultant to conduct focus groups across the state to gain the feedback of local individuals and organizations on the plan. After we have collected and analyzed the data from these focus groups, we (MCSC and its statewide partners) will modify the plan and then present it at the Volunteerism SuperConference 2000 where we will hold a public signing of the document as a demonstration of the plan 's acceptance by the field. The intention is for this plan to be incorporated in the operations and planning of volunteer based organizations across the state. The MCSC staff would like to recommend that the full membership of the MCSC also adopt the plan in its grantmaking and strategic planning priorities. Thank you. 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_2000-01-21_Executive-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 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 2000-01-21 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, 50079 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 2000-01-21 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f54c94658f3f8d87dcd46daeccd0c40c.pdf 028232f08f5af33939d0cdfc47a5072c PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGA N JOHN ENGLER , Governo r MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Eng ler 111 George W. Romney Lansing. Te lephone FAX MEMORANDUM Executive Director Kyle Caldwell TO: Members of the Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Finance and Administration Michigan Community Service Commission RE: Finance & Administration Division Director' s Report DATE: January 7, 2000 S. Capitol Ave . Bldg .. 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335 -4295 (517) 373-4977 a {Y. \ A- ...&A The following is a small recap of the current issues facing the Finance and Administration Division as we continue to work on closing out the previous fiscal year and gear up for the federal audit at the end of the month. FY 98-99 Closeouts We will be receiving the final year end close out reports around the 12th of January, 2000. After receiving the reports, I will be finalizing the numbers and adjusting our accounts and I hope to have a final close out report for you at the Commission meeting. FY 2000 Budget We are still in the process of finalizing the internal divisions budget for the current Fiscal Year (FYOO). It is taking a lot longer than we originally planned due to the amount of work required to break down the large amount of expenditures, programs, and events that we do each year. This process also requires a tremendous amount of recoding of the first three months of expenditures and the creation of all new accounting lines. While the original set up of the system and reports is taking a lot of time to create, once the original budget is complete, the process in future years will be much more timely and smooth. However, while we work on completing the new format I will continue to account for the expenditures under the previous system. A breakdown of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000 (Oct. 1, 1999 - Dec. 31, 1999) will be handed out at the commission meeting for your review. FY 2001 Budget We have submitted our budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2001, starting October 1, 2000. In the request we have asked for an increase in our State administrative funding to one million dollars from our current year amount of $566,000. This request will allow us to maintain the high quality and level of programs that the Commission currently maintains and to help set up MCSC to increase our outreach capabilities around the State. In the current fiscal year, we are very tight in our budget as the costs of doing business, normal increases in salaries and benefits, and expanding our programs is increasing at a level faster than our support. �Finance & Administration Division Director' s Report Page2 One large expenditure that we are looking at being prepared for is the possibility of moving out of our current location. As we currently enjoy rent free status, moving to another location will require a substantial amount of support on a yearly basis. Michigan's AmeriCorps Audit The audit firm of Urbach, Kahn & Werlin, PC, will be in the office January 18-21 , 2000. We sent out the pre-audit survey and are now working on compiling the required documents and financial information that the firm requested for the survey. Based upon discussions with the audit firm, the survey should be completed in one week. Miscellaneous Issues The famous Y2K has come and gone and MCSC along with the State of Michigan passed the milestone without a glitch! The weeks leading up to the new millennium were very hectic as we upgraded all computers and software for the new year. Personnel Matters Interviews for the vacant Training and Development Coordinator position have been completed. The hiring packet has been forwarded to the Michigan Department of Career Development for processing. We hope to be able to offer this position and have our new Program Development Coordinator on staff by the end of the month. Letters of interest for the Outreach Coordinator position have been recently mailed and if things go smoothly, we hope to be interviewing the first week of February, 2000. I hope that you all had a great holiday season and if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to call me at (517) 335-4295 or email at grossg@state.mi.us. � 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_2000-01-21_Finance-and-Administration-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 2000-01-21 commission meeting finance and administration 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 2000-01-21 commission meeting finance and administration 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, 50080 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 2000-01-21