National Service Programs: AmeriCorps*USA--Early Program Resource and
Benefit Information (Letter Report, 08/29/95, GAO/HEHS-95-222).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
public and private resources being used to support the Corporation for
National and Community Service's AmeriCorps*USA program, focusing on:
(1) the amount of funds and in-kind contributions used to support
program participants; (2) the per-participant and per-service-hour
allocation of program resources; and (3) program objectives, anticipated
benefits, and achievements to date.

GAO found that: (1) for program year 1994 to 1995, Corporation resources
available per program participant totalled $17,600, while total
resources per participant averaged about $26,654; (2) over one-third of
the program's financial resources came from sources outside of the
Corporation, mostly from other federal agencies and state and local
governments; (3) private sector contributions accounted for about 12
percent of the program's total available resources; (4) most of the
Corporation's funding for program projects went to providing operating
grants and education awards; (5) per-participant resources were lower
for programs run by nonfederal organizations than those funded by
federal agencies; (6) total available resources per-service-hour
amounted to about $16; (7) Congress intended for the program to help
communities address their unmet human, educational, environmental, and
public safety needs; (8) the program has achieved a variety of results
that support its goals; and (9) the programs reviewed were designed to
strengthen community ties and spirit, develop civic responsibility, and
expand educational opportunities for program participants and others.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     TITLE:  National Service Programs: AmeriCorps*USA--Early Program 
             Resource and Benefit Information
      DATE:  08/29/95
   SUBJECT:  Volunteer services
             Community development programs
             Educational programs
             Student financial aid
             Employment or training programs
             Federal/state relations
             Gifts or gratuities
             Appropriated funds
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *

================================================================ COVER

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1995



AmeriCorps*USA Program Information

=============================================================== ABBREV

  ADD - Administration on Developmental Disabilities
  CPR - cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  FTE - full-time equivalent
  GED - general equivalency diploma
  HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration
  NCCC - National Civilian Community Corps
  OEO - Office of Economic Opportunity (Vermont)
  SCC - Seaborne Conservation Corps
  USDA - Department of Agriculture
  VISTA - Volunteers in Service to America
  YFC - Youth Fair Chance

=============================================================== LETTER


August 29, 1995

The Honorable Charles E.  Grassley
The Honorable Barbara A.  Mikulski
United States Senate

With the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (P.L. 
103-82), the Congress created the largest national and community
service program since the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s. 
This program, commonly known as AmeriCorps,\1 is administered by a
new federal Corporation for National and Community Service (the
Corporation) that combined two independent agencies--the Commission
on National and Community Service and ACTION.  For AmeriCorps*USA
grants and national service education awards, the Corporation's
budget was about $249 million in fiscal year 1994, and the
administration has requested about $619 million for fiscal year 1996. 
In congressional testimony, the Corporation estimated
AmeriCorps*USA's cost per participant at $18,800 for 1995
operations.\2 The Corporation did not include contributions that
AmeriCorps*USA grantees receive from other federal agencies, state
and local governments, and private sources.  Not knowing the total
resource commitment currently supporting AmeriCorps*USA programs led
to concern on the part of some members of Congress about authorizing
significantly higher program appropriations. 

Because of this concern, you asked us to provide information on the
public and private resources currently being used to support the
Corporation's AmeriCorps*USA program.\3 In addition, you asked us to
express those resources on a per-participant and per-service-hour
basis, considering the program's different resource streams.  Because
most programs will not complete an entire operating year before
September 1995, we agreed to report on the amount of funds and
in-kind contributions available for expenditure to support
AmeriCorps*USA participants.  In the absence of actual cost data,
this information may be indicative of the level of federal and other
resources that ultimately will support AmeriCorps*USA participants
each year.  Finally, you asked us to provide information on
AmeriCorps*USA's program objectives and anticipated benefits along
with examples of achievements to date. 

In developing our information on resources available for the
AmeriCorps*USA program, we identified both the amount and source of
funding devoted to supporting AmeriCorps*USA grantees' programs for
program year 1994-95.\4 As a first step, we held extensive meetings
with Corporation officials; examined legislation establishing the
Corporation and national service programs; and reviewed Corporation
program policies, guidance, and reports as well as its program
evaluation plans. 

At the Corporation, we reviewed grant files for all grantees'
programs the Corporation told us received fiscal year 1994
appropriations.  Each file typically included the application
submitted by the AmeriCorps*USA grantee, the amount of the grant
award, and matching contributions proposed and budgeted by the
grantee.  The Corporation grant files, however, did not contain
information on the source of these matching contributions.  To obtain
detailed information on matching contributions, we constructed a
random sample of 80 nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA grantees.  For each
program in our sample, we collected information as of May 1995 from
project administrators on the amounts, sources, and types of
resources--cash versus in-kind contributions--obtained or certain to
be received by the end of the program year to match Corporation grant
funds.\5 In addition, we collected information on the number of
currently enrolled participants and the number of additional
participants the grantees expected to enroll before the end of the
first program year.  The data we received were self-reported by
program officials and not independently verified with other sources. 
We used this information to project the amount and source of
resources available and the number of participants involved in
AmeriCorps*USA programs nationwide.  Our sample was drawn to make the
results statistically representative of the 284 grantee programs
administered by nonprofit, state, and local organizations.  At the
95-percent confidence level, our estimates have a sampling error of
plus or minus 4 percentage points. 

Because of the small number of federal sponsors, we collected
resource information from all 13 federal agencies that were grantees. 
We met with agency officials and obtained information on the amounts,
sources, and types of funding and in-kind contributions used to
support their programs and the number of participants enrolled and
expected to be enrolled. 

Finally, we visited seven judgmentally selected AmeriCorps*USA
grantees' programs in Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and
Washington.  These programs represented a mix of grantee
characteristics, such as mission and scale, and our visits provided
insight into program operations, actual sources of funds, and program

Appendix I provides a more detailed description of the methodology we
used to obtain and analyze funding information, along with data and
analysis limitations.  We performed our work between January and July
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

\1 AmeriCorps consists of three programs:  AmeriCorps*USA, which is
the largest; AmeriCorps*VISTA; and AmeriCorps*NCCC.  This report
pertains only to the AmeriCorps*USA program. 

\2 Statement by Eli J.  Segal, chief executive officer, Corporation
for National and Community Service, before the House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommitte on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
(Mar.  24, 1995).  In other forums, the Corporation has given
estimates that ranged from about $9,000 to $14,000 per participant. 

\3 "Resources" in this report refers to both cash and in-kind
contributions being used to operate AmeriCorps*USA programs.  "Funds"
refers only to cash contributions, while "the Corporation's
appropriations" refers to appropriations by the Congress to support
AmeriCorps*USA programs. 

\4 The program year began and will end at different times for
different sites, and it may be more or less than 12 months. 

\5 Although we excluded in-kind contributions donated by the private
sector from our per-participant and per-service-hour calculations, we
did include them in estimates of total resources available. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

For program year 1994-95, our estimate of Corporation resources
available per participant was about $17,600, slightly less than the
Corporation's March 24th estimate.  Using our methodology, total
resources available for AmeriCorps*USA programs included more than
the Corporation's appropriations.  Over one-third of the financial
resources available for AmeriCorps*USA grantees' programs came from
sources outside the Corporation, mostly from other federal agencies
and state and local governments.  Total resources available per
AmeriCorps*USA participant averaged $26,654, of which about $17,600
came from the Corporation, $3,200 from non-Corporation federal
sources, and $4,000 from state and local governments.  The remaining
amount, roughly $1,800, came from the private sector.  Resources
available per participant were lower for programs run by nonfederal
organizations than those funded by federal agencies.  Total resources
available to AmeriCorps*USA grantees' programs equaled about $16 per
service hour. 

In terms of benefits, our review of activities at the seven programs'
sites visited indicated that a variety of results have been achieved
that support AmeriCorps*USA's goals.  The legislation intended
grantees' programs to help communities address unmet human,
educational, environmental, and public safety needs.  At the
grantees' sites we visited, we found that the projects had been
designed to strengthen communities, develop civic responsibility, and
expand educational opportunities for program participants and others. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Under the act that created it, the Corporation has a diverse set of
responsibilities.  These responsibilities include administering
national service programs authorized under previous legislation,\6
funding training and service clearinghouses, and undertaking
activities related to disaster relief.  In addition, the Corporation
administers the national service trust, which pays for national
service education awards under the statute.  For fiscal year 1994,
the Congress appropriated $370 million for the Corporation plus $207
million for programs under the former ACTION agency that the
Corporation now administers. 

\6 These programs include Serve-America (which authorizes grants for
education service projects for elementary through postsecondary
education), the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) (which
utilizes former military personnel and unused military sites for
residential youth programs), Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
(a domestic version of the Peace Corps), the Youth Conservation Corps
(which provides teenagers with opportunities to perform conservation
work), and older American volunteer programs (which provide service
opportunities for retired and senior Americans). 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

AmeriCorps*USA allows participants to earn education awards to help
pay for postsecondary education in exchange for performing community
service that matches priorities established by the Corporation. 
Participants earn an education award of $4,725 for full-time service
or half of that amount for part-time service.  A minimum of 1,700
hours of service within a year is required to earn the full $4,725
award.  The Corporation requires that programs devote some portion,
but no more than 20 percent, of participants' service hours to
nondirect service activities, such as training or studying for the
equivalent of a high school diploma.  To earn a part-time award, a
participant must perform 900 hours of community service within 2
years (or within 3 years in the case of participants who are
full-time college students).  Individuals can serve more than two
terms; however, they can only receive two education awards.  The
awards, which are held in trust by the U.S.  Treasury, are paid
directly to qualified postsecondary institutions or student loan
lenders and must be used within 7 years after service is completed. 

In addition to the education award, AmeriCorps*USA participants
receive a living allowance stipend that is at least equivalent to,
but no more than double, the average annual living allowance received
by VISTA volunteers--about $7,640 for full-time participants in
fiscal year 1994.  Additional participant benefits include health
insurance and child care assistance for participants who need them. 

Individuals can join a national service program before, during, or
after postsecondary education.  A participant must be 16 or older and
be a citizen, a national, or a lawful permanent resident of the
United States.  A participant must also be a high school graduate,
agree to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma before
receiving an education award, or be granted a waiver by the program. 
Selection of participants is not based on financial need.  In its
fiscal year 1994 appropriations, the Corporation anticipated fielding
about 18,350 full- and part-time AmeriCorps*USA participants. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

The Corporation awarded about $149 million of its fiscal year 1994
appropriations to make about 300 grants to nonprofit organizations
and federal, state, and local government agencies to operate
AmeriCorps*USA programs.\7

About two-thirds of the grant dollars were awarded through state
commissions on national service set up by the 1993 act to provide
oversight to state programs.  The remaining one-third of the
AmeriCorps*USA grant monies was awarded directly by the Corporation
to national nonprofit organizations and federal agencies.  Grantees
were to be selected on the basis of their proposed national service
programs' quality, innovation, and sustainability.  Sustainability
was evaluated on the basis of community support for a program and a
grantee's ability to raise other funds from multiple sources,
including the private sector. 

Grant recipients use grant funds to pay up to 85 percent of the cost
of participants' living allowances and benefits (up to 100 percent of
child care expenses) and up to 75 percent of other program costs,
including participant training, education, and uniforms; staff
salaries, travel, transportation, supplies, and equipment; and
program evaluation and administrative costs.  Grants are based in
part on the number of participants the program estimates it will
enroll during the year.  If participants leave the program during the
year, the Corporation may either allow the program to redirect
participant stipend and benefit funds to other program expenses or
take back any unused portion of the grant.  To ensure that federal
Corporation dollars are used to leverage other resources for program
support, grantees must also obtain support from non-Corporation
sources to help pay for the program.  This support, which can be cash
or in-kind contributions, may come from other federal sources as well
as state and local governments, and private sources.  In-kind
contributions include personnel to manage AmeriCorps*USA programs as
well as to supervise and train participants; office facilities and
supplies; and materials and equipment needed in the course of
conducting national service projects. 

Consistent with the legislation, federal agencies can receive grants
to support AmeriCorps*USA volunteers who perform work furthering the
agencies' missions.  Federal agency grantees are to use their own
resources in addition to the Corporation grant to integrate national
service more fully into their mission work.  Furthermore, as is the
case with nonfederal agency programs, Corporation regulations state
that federal agencies are ultimately intended to support their
service initiatives without Corporation resources. 

\7 These grants are known as operating grants.  The Corporation also
awards planning grants, which are given to organizations to plan
future year programs but do not fund current operations. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In its first program year, AmeriCorps*USA relied heavily on public
support.  The Corporation's appropriations accounted for slightly
less than two-thirds of resources available for AmeriCorps*USA
grantees.  When Corporation appropriations were combined with
resources from other federal agencies and state and local
governments, the public sector provided about 88 percent of the $351
million in total program resources available.  Federal resources
accounted for 74 percent (about $260 million), while state and local
government contributions made up 14 percent ($50 million).  Private
cash and in-kind contributions constituted the smallest share of
resources, amounting to about 12 percent (or about $41 million). 

Most of the Corporation's funding for AmeriCorps*USA projects went to
providing operating grants and education awards.  Of the
Corporation's funding, 61 percent financed operating grants. 
Slightly over one-quarter supported participants' education awards,
while the remainder went toward Corporation program management and

Most of the matching contributions AmeriCorps*USA programs have
received came from public as opposed to private sources.  About 69
percent of all matching resources came from either a federal or a
state or local government source, with the split between cash and
in-kind contributions being about 43 percent (about $57 million) and
26 percent (about $34 million), respectively.  The remaining 31
percent of matching resources were from private sources, with cash
and in-kind contributions accounting for 17 percent (about $23
million) and 14 percent (about $18 million), respectively. 

In calculating resources available on a per-participant and
per-service-hour basis (see table 1), we found that average resources
available from all sources per AmeriCorps*USA participant amounted to
about $26,654 (excluding in-kind contributions from private sources). 
This amounted to about $16 per service hour or about $20 per direct
service hour, assuming 20 percent of the 1,700 hours of total service
was nondirect service time.\8 Although these figures represent
resources available for all program expenses, they are not the
equivalent of annual salaries or hourly wages for participants.  See
appendix II for more detailed results and appendix III for sampling
error and sensitivity analysis results. 

                          Table 1
            Per-Participant and Per-Service-Hour
          Resources Available for AmeriCorps*USA,
                         by Source

Source of                       Per service     Per direct
contribution         Per FTE           hour   service hour
-------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
Resources            $17,629         $10.37         $12.96

Other federal
Cash                   2,247           1.32           1.65
In-kind                  930           0.55           0.68

State and local government\a
Cash                   2,272           1.34           1.67
In-kind                1,756           1.03           1.29

Cash                   1,819           1.07           1.34
Total                $26,654         $15.68         $19.60
Notes:  Items may not sum to totals because of rounding.

We calculated available resources per participant on a
full-time-equivalent (FTE) basis. 

\a State and local contributors included state and city departments,
such as police forces and school systems, and public 2- and 4-year
postsecondary institutions. 

It is important not to equate our funding information with cost data. 
Because most AmeriCorps*USA programs are still in their first year of
operations, actual cost cannot yet be determined.  Funding and
in-kind contributions from sources other than the Corporation were
reported to us in May 1995 as resources already received or those
that program directors were certain of receiving by the end of their
current operating year.  Therefore, actual resource and expenditure
levels may prove to be higher or lower than indicated by the
estimates reported to us. 

During the course of our review, Corporation officials expressed
several concerns about our calculations.  First, they believed our
estimate should be adjusted to reflect start-up costs incurred in the
first program year.  The Corporation's position was that because
AmeriCorps*USA programs incur initial-year start-up costs that will
not recur in the future, first-year costs will be overstated unless
start-up costs are capitalized over several years. 

We did not attempt to systematically identify start-up costs since we
focused on resource availability and not cost data.  Moreover, during
our site visits, we saw little evidence of start-up costs so high
that, unless capitalized, they would cause a significant distortion. 
Most start-up costs consisted of intangible items, such as curricula
development and program planning, rather than conventional capital
acquisitions like buildings and machinery. 

Second, Corporation officials said it is likely that not all
education award money will be used.  Thus, they believed our estimate
for education award funding may be overstated.  However, we found no
reliable data or basis to make such an estimate to adjust our
per-participant estimates.  We have included the full value of the
awards in our calculations because the Congress appropriates funds
specifically for these awards and the funds are held in trust and
available to those who earn them for 7 years.  Moreover, our
methodology is identical to the way the Corporation calculates its
own cost estimates. 

Third, Corporation officials believed our per-hour calculations are
overstated.  The Corporation believes participants will complete
substantially more than the 1,700 service hours required by law.  As
support, they provided us information on participants serving in the
VISTA program and preliminary figures about some participants who
have completed their AmeriCorps*USA service.  We used the 1,700
figure because this is the minimum established by law, and program
participants are required to only attain, not exceed, it.  Also, from
discussions with officials at the seven programs visited, we found
that while some participants might exceed these hours, many others
would have difficulty meeting the requirement.  This is particularly
true in programs that started later in the year than expected.  In
addition, we do not consider the VISTA participant data appropriate
because VISTA is a different type of program, with participation
requirements and target populations that differ from
AmeriCorps*USA's.\9 The data the Corporation provided on
AmeriCorps*USA participants was based on about 1,000 of an estimated
18,350 current AmeriCorps*USA participants, or about 5 percent. 
These participants may not be representative of those still serving. 

The Corporation also believes participants will spend substantially
less than 20 percent of their service hours on nondirect service
activities.  In calculating resources per direct service hour, we
used 80 percent of the total 1,700 hours (or 1,360 hours) as the
basis for estimating direct service.  While we recognize that the
Corporation's regulations make 20 percent the maximum amount of
service time that may be spent on training, programs we visited
appeared likely to use the full 20 percent for training.  In
addition, because programs have not all completed their first year,
the Corporation could not provide us with data on the portion of time
spent on nondirect service. 

\8 In establishing the national service program, the Congress
intended that participants engage in activities that benefit
communities (direct service) and the program participants themselves
(nondirect service).  Direct service activities include those that
address unmet human, educational, environmental, or public safety
needs.  Nondirect service activities include training participants to
carry out national service projects and assisting them in making the
transition to other educational and career opportunities after they
complete national service. 

\9 For example, VISTA volunteers specifically work to combat
poverty-associated problems.  They must live among and at the
economic level of the low-income clients they serve.  And at the time
the data were collected--1992 and 1993--an education award was not
available for VISTA volunteers upon completion of their service. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We found significant differences in levels of resources available for
nonfederal versus federal programs (see table 2).  On average,
AmeriCorps*USA programs operated by nonprofit, state, and local
agencies received about $25,800 in cash and in-kind contributions per
participant.  In contrast, programs sponsored by federal agencies
received about $31,000 in cash and in-kind contributions per
participant--about 20 percent more than programs administered by
nonfederal grantees.  In addition, federal agencies relied far more
on non-Corporation federal resources than their counterparts.  On
average, federal agency grantees had about $15,500 in cash and
in-kind contributions available per participant from federal sources
other than the Corporation.  Non-Corporation federal funds accounted
for about 50 percent of total resources available to federal
grantees.\10 Nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA grantees received resources of
less than $800 per participant from non-Corporation federal sources,
or about 3 percent of their total resources.  For more detailed
resource information and a description of AmeriCorps*USA programs
sponsored by federal agencies, see
appendix IV. 

                          Table 2
           Comparison of Resources Available for
           Nonfederal and Federal AmeriCorps*USA

                  Nonfederal        Federal
Source of            program        program    All program
contribution       resources      resources      resources
-------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
Resources            $18,602        $12,665        $17,629

Other federal
Cash                     493         11,187          2,247
In-kind                  261          4,338            930

State and local government
Cash                   2,607            564          2,272
In-kind                1,880          1,126          1,756

Cash                   1,953          1,136          1,819
Total                $25,797        $31,017        $26,654
Note:  Items may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

\10 Almost all of the non-Corporation federal cash and in-kind
contributions came from the sponsoring federal agencies themselves. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In its mission statement, the Corporation had identified several
objectives that spanned a wide range of accomplishments, from very
tangible results to those much harder to quantify.  During our site
visits, we observed local programs helping communities. 
AmeriCorps*USA has also sponsored an evaluation of its own that
summarized results at a sample of programs during their first 5
months of operation and identified diverse achievements related to
each service area.\11

\11 Aguirre International, AmeriCorps*USA at Five Months (Rosslyn,
Va.:  Mar.  22, 1995). 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

One of AmeriCorps*USA's objectives was to help the nation meet its
unmet human, educational, environmental, and public safety needs, or
as the Corporation states it, "getting things done." Our visits to
programs also identified diverse achievements.  We observed
participants renovating inner-city housing, assisting teachers in
elementary schools, maintaining and reestablishing native vegetation
in a flood control area, analyzing neighborhood crime statistics to
better target prevention measures, and developing a program in a
community food bank for people with special dietary needs.  Officials
at the sponsoring organizations spoke of being able to accomplish
tasks that their limited resources had previously prevented them from

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

AmeriCorps*USA's legislation identified renewing the spirit of
community as an objective, and the program's mission includes
"strengthening the ties that bind us together as a people." We
observed several projects focused on rebuilding communities.  For
example, a multifamily house being renovated was formerly a
congregating spot for drug dealers.  Program officials believe that
after completion, it will encourage other neighborhood improvements. 
Another team built a community farm market and renovated a municipal
stadium, both of which a town official stated will continue to
provide economic and social benefits to the community. 

Another way to meet this objective was to have participants with
diverse backgrounds working together.  Participants of several
programs we visited spanned a wide age range, from teenagers to
retirees.  Teams also showed diversity in educational, economic, and
ethnic backgrounds.  Participants said that a valuable aspect of the
program was working with others with different backgrounds and
benefiting from their strengths. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

Another of AmeriCorps*USA's program objectives was to foster civic
responsibility.  We saw evidence of this at programs such as one
where participants devoted half of each Friday to working on
community service projects they devise and carry out independently. 
Participants at another program, in which they organized meetings to
establish relationships between at-risk youth and elderly people,
commented that this work had taught them how to organize programs,
experience they believed would be helpful as they took on roles in
their communities.  Training periods included conflict resolution
techniques and team-building skills. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

Both the AmeriCorps legislation and the Corporation's mission
identified expanding opportunities as an objective.  In practice,
individuals who participate in national service have their
educational opportunities expanded by the education awards, which
help them pursue higher education or job training.  At the sites we
visited, participants indicated that the education award was an
important part of their decision to participate in AmeriCorps*USA. 

Programs also supported participants in obtaining high school degrees
or the equivalent.  According to Corporation regulations, a full-time
participant who does not have a high school diploma or its equivalent
generally must agree to earn one or the other before using the
education award.  In one program, a general equivalency diploma (GED)
candidate was receiving classroom instruction and individual
tutoring.  She had recently passed the preliminary GED test after
failing the GED test five times.  After doing some extra preparation
for the math portion, she will take the actual GED test again.  A
larger program that recruited at-risk youth, most of whom do not have
high school degrees, provided classroom instruction related to the
service that participants performed, such as a construction-based
math curriculum.  Program officials said most of the participants are
enrolled in high school equivalency courses and that at least five
have already passed the GED test. 

We also saw programs that offer participants the chance to get
postsecondary academic credit.  One such program, affiliated with a
private college, offered participants the option of pursuing an
environmental studies curriculum through which they can earn up to
six upper-level credits at a reduced tuition.  Half of the
participants have chosen to do so.  A second program allowed
participants to earn 36 credit hours toward an associate's degree in
the natural sciences through their service, which can lead to state
certification as an environmental restoration technician. 

In addition to formal education opportunities, some participants said
they were attracted to AmeriCorps*USA programs because the programs
provide service in specific fields.  We spoke with several
participants who wanted experience in those fields to improve their
skills and expand their opportunities.  For example, a community
policing program attracted 15 participants who are pursuing law
enforcement careers.  Similarly, in a youth conservation corps
program in which most participants have environmental science
degrees, many participants sought practical experience to complement
their formal education. 

For more detailed results from our site visits, see appendix V. 

------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Corporation agreed with
the amount we reported as federal (Corporation and non-Corporation)
cash resources made available to AmeriCorps*USA programs.  However,
the Corporation took exception to our including anything other than
federal cash resources in determining total resources available to
these programs.  Other program resources we included were in-kind
resources provided by federal agencies and cash and in-kind resources
provided by state and local governments as well as by private
contributors.  The Corporation also disagreed with the methodology we
employed to develop and report on total available resources per
participant and per service hour.  The Corporation believed we should
have excluded resources other than federal cash from our calculations
because these resources were not a burden to the federal taxpayer,
AmeriCorps*USA programs were legally required to obtain these
resources, and these resources should have been considered benefits
rather than costs. 

As we have clearly noted in our report, our objective was not to
determine whether AmeriCorps*USA was cost-effective.  We drew no
conclusions about the cost of the program, the value of program
benefits, or whether the program was meeting its objectives. 
Contrary to the Corporation's view, we believed that ignoring
significant amounts of AmeriCorps*USA program resources would
undermine the importance that these resources play in fielding
AmeriCorps*USA participants.  In our view, an accounting of the total
resources available to support an AmeriCorps*USA participant provides
a useful perspective on the program.  This report presents the only
information available to date on total resources available to
AmeriCorps*USA programs nationwide and captures this information by
resource stream--that is, by federal, state and local, and private
sources.  Knowing the total resources available to the program is
critical information for decisionmakers.  In addition, such
information can demonstrate the degree of partnership between the
public (federal, state, and local government) and private sectors. 

The Corporation's comments, and our assessment of these comments,
appear in appendix VI.  In addition to these comments, the
Corporation provided us with technical comments, which we have
incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

We are providing copies of this report to the appropriate House and
Senate committees and other interested parties.  Please call me at
(202) 512-7014 or Wayne B.  Upshaw, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-7006 if you or your staff have any questions.  Other GAO contacts
and contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and Employment Issues

=========================================================== Appendix I

To obtain resource and participant information, we surveyed a random
sample of nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA grantees and gathered data on all
federal grantees.  We asked these grantees to detail their sources
and amounts of available program resources and number of
participants.  To estimate program totals, we projected data from the
nonfederal grantee sample to the universe of nonfederal grantees and
combined them with federal grantee data. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

Because nonfederal programs were so numerous, we collected
information from a sample of 80 nonfederal programs.  Our sample was
randomly selected from the 284 nonfederal programs identified by
reviewing Corporation files.  We received responses from 75 of the 80
programs that we surveyed.\12 We obtained data from them on the
sources of their available resources, asking them to include all
resources "devoted specifically to your AmeriCorps program" received
"for use during your program's initial funding period." We also asked
them for information on the number of (1) full-time and part-time
AmeriCorps*USA participants who were currently enrolled or had
successfully completed service requirements and (2) additional full-
and part-time participants expected to enroll before the end of the
initial funding period.  We summed these to reflect the number of
full-time-equivalent (FTE) participants who are likely to eventually
meet service requirements this year. 

We also gathered the same data--resources available and numbers of
participants--from the 13 federal agencies administering
AmeriCorps*USA programs.\13 One agency, the Department of Health and
Human Services, operated 3 separate programs, so our information
covered 15 programs. 

Since programs are only in their first year, we could not obtain
final spending or participant totals.  We gathered information on
resources that were available to date and those the programs told us
they were certain to receive by the end of the initial funding
period.  We cannot say whether all resources will be used over the
course of the funding period.  Similarly, our FTE participant total
will not reflect either attrition that occurred after we conducted
our field work or instances in which slots expected to be filled are
ultimately unfilled. 

The data obtained were self-reported by program officials and were
not independently verified with other sources.  We provided the
grantees with a form identifying the information needed, explained
the questions on the form to them, answered their questions about our
data needs, reviewed the responses, and followed up with further
questions whenever responses were incomplete or inconsistent. 

\12 Two of the programs in our sample were not operating, two did not
respond, and one responded after our cut-off date. 

\13 A 14th agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
was on the list provided by the Corporation but was not operating its
program this year. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Several assumptions underlie our estimates of available resources per
participant.  First, we assumed that a program will return a pro rata
share of its Corporation grant if it has fewer participants than
anticipated at the time of its grant application.  The Corporation
may require a program to return the grant portion that would have
gone toward participant living expenses and benefits.  We did not
make a similar adjustment to a program's non-Corporation resources
because we obtained this information in May 1995, late enough in
programs' operating year for them to predict available resources and
participant levels.  Second, we considered contributions from public
universities as public resources, and those from private
universities, private.  We made this assumption realizing that both
public and private universities receive a mixture of public and
private support, but given the reliance of public postsecondary
institutions on public support, we believe such an assumption is
appropriate.  Third, we made no adjustment to in-kind contributions
reported to us although we recognize that these resources are
sometimes very difficult to value.  Fourth, we calculated available
resources per participant on a full-time-equivalent basis, counting a
part-time participant as 50 percent of an FTE participant.  In
calculating available resources, we excluded private in-kind
contributions from our per-participant and per-service-hour

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

To determine per-participant resources associated with the
Corporation's administrative responsibilities, we combined the
following three components.  First, we allocated fiscal year 1995
National and Community Service Trust Act appropriated funds for this
purpose across the estimated number of AmeriCorps*USA participants
and other programs covered under this appropriation.  Second, we
divided fiscal year 1994 AmeriCorps*USA program planning grants by
the number of estimated AmeriCorps*USA participants.  Third, we
divided fiscal year 1995 grants covering state commission operating
expenses by the number of estimated AmeriCorps*USA participants. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

In calculating total Corporation resources per participant, we added
$4,725 per FTE for the education award because the Corporation incurs
this liability for each full-time participant.  To the extent that
participants do not actually take advantage of their awards, funds
expended would be lower than our estimate. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

We produced estimates for nonfederal programs from our sample and
added the data on all federal programs to obtain estimated totals for
all AmeriCorps*USA programs. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.1

We used a ratio estimation methodology to estimate available
resources and participation for all nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA
programs.  This method incorporated information on anticipated
matching resources and numbers of participants from the programs'
grant applications.  To estimate resources, we computed the ratio of
actual to anticipated matching resources for our sample programs, and
we applied this ratio to total anticipated matching resources for all
nonfederal programs.  Similarly, to estimate participants, we applied
the ratio of actual to anticipated participants for the sample
programs to the number of anticipated participants in all programs. 
These estimates of resources and participants were used to calculate
the available resources per participant for nonfederal programs. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.2

To estimate total resources and participants for all AmeriCorps*USA
programs, we combined estimated totals for nonfederal programs with
federal program totals.  Our federal program information was not
projected from a sample because we had information from every federal
program.  We used the combined results to produce an overall estimate
for AmeriCorps*USA programs. 

========================================================== Appendix II

             Per                                             Per
             FTE     Per     Per     Per     Per     Per     FTE     Per     Per
             (n=   total  direct     FTE   total  direct     (n=   total  direct
          10,465  servic  servic     (n=  servic  servic  12,519  servic  servic
Source         )  e hour  e hour  2,054)  e hour  e hour       )  e hour  e hour
--------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Corporation for National and Community Service
Funding   $18,60  $10.94  $13.68  $12,66   $7.45   $9.31  $17,62  $10.37  $12.96
               2                       5                       9

Other federal
Cash         493    0.29    0.36  11,187    6.58    8.23   2,247    1.32    1.65
In-kind      261    0.15    0.19   4,338    2.55    3.19     930    0.55    0.68
Subtotal     755    0.44    0.55  15,525    9.13   11.42   3,177    1.87    2.34
Subtotal  $19,35  $11.39  $14.23  $28,19  $16.58  $20.73  $20,80  $12.24  $15.30
 federal       7                       1                       6

State and local
Cash       2,607    1.53    1.92     564    0.33    0.41   2,272    1.34    1.67
In-kind    1,880    1.11    1.38   1,126    0.66    0.83   1,756    1.03    1.29
Subtotal   4,487    2.64    3.30   1,690    0.99    1.24   4,028    2.37    2.96
Subtotal  $23,84  $14.03  $17.53  $29,88  $17.58  $21.97  $24,83  $14.61  $18.26
 public        4                       1                       4

Cash       1,953    1.15    1.44   1,136    0.67    0.84   1,819    1.07    1.34
Total     $25,79  $15.17  $18.97  $31,01  $18.25  $22.81  $26,65  $15.68  $19.60
 without       7                       7                       4
Notes:  We assumed "total service hours" equals 1,700 per
participant, while "direct service hours" equals 1,700 less 20
percent, or 1,360, per participant.

Items may not sum to subtotals or totals because of rounding. 

========================================================= Appendix III

We tested the stability of our per-participant resource estimates. 
First, we calculated a 95-percent confidence interval around our
results to examine the extent of possible sampling error.  Second, we
analyzed the effects of changing some of the assumptions we made
about AmeriCorps*USA grantees' program operations. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Because our estimates incorporated results from a sample of
nonfederal programs, a sampling error is associated with these
estimates.  We estimated both total resources and the number of
participants using a ratio methodology, and the calculation of
resources per participant is a ratio of these ratios and has its own
sampling error.  At the 95-percent confidence level, the sampling
error for our estimated resources for nonfederal programs of $25,797
per participant is plus or minus $810 (see table III.1).  The
sampling error for our total estimate of $26,654 per AmeriCorps*USA
member is about $120 lower than for the nonfederal estimate. 

                        Table III.1
          Estimated Resources Per Participant and
              Associated Bounds of 95-Percent
                    Confidence Interval

                  Nonfederal        Federal          Total
-------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Lower bound          $24,988            n/a        $25,960
Estimate              25,797        $31,017         26,654
Upper bound           26,607            n/a         27,347
n/a = Not Applicable

Note:  The lower and upper bounds refer to the limits of the
95-percent confidence interval; that is, there is a 95-percent
probability that the actual resources per participant for
AmeriCorps*USA programs fall within these bounds. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

If a program had fewer participants than anticipated when it applied
for its AmeriCorps*USA grant, grant money that would have paid for
living expenses and benefits for the participants who did not appear
could be returned to the Corporation.  Our baseline estimate assumed
that all of the per-participant grant funds from the Corporation
would be returned for each participant the program was short of its
anticipated number.  We recalculated the resources per participant
using the alternative assumption that no Corporation funds were
returned (see table III.2). 

                        Table III.2
           Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption
            Regarding Returned Corporation Funds

                                             Resources per
Assumption and funding element                 participant
----------------------------------  ----------------------
Baseline (all per-participant Corporat funds returned)
Corporation funding                                $17,629
Total resources                                    $26,654

No Corporation funds returned
Corporation funding                                $18,400
Total resources                                    $27,425
This assumption did not affect our estimates of other federal, state
and local government, and private resources.  The changes shown
affected only a small portion of the estimate of Corporation funding
per participant.  Many components of the Corporation funding
estimate--for example, the education award of $4,725 per
participant--were based on the actual number of participants. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

If a program reported a contribution from a public university, we
included it as a state or local government contribution, as
appropriate.  Because such universities receive private as well as
public support, and because the programs could not separate these
resources by private or public source, we cannot be certain these
were indeed all public resources.  We estimated resources per
participant by source again, counting public university contributions
as private contributions (see table III.3). 

                        Table III.3
           Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption
          Regarding Treatment of Public University

                                             Resources per
Assumption and funding element                 participant
----------------------------------  ----------------------
Baseline (public university contributio counted as public)
State and local government                          $4,028
Private cash                                         1,819
Total resources                                    $26,654

Public university contributions counted private
State and local government                          $3,610
Private cash                                         1,878
Total resources                                    $26,294
This assumption affected both the allocation of resources between
public and private sources and the total level of resources per
participant.  Changing the assumption decreased the level of state
and local government resources by about $420.  Of this amount, about
$60 was cash and was added to private resources.  The remainder,
about $360, was in-kind; because we did not include private in-kind
contributions, the total resources per participant using the
alternative assumption decreased by about $360. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

We were not certain that respondents valued in-kind contributions
consistently.  To see how sensitive our estimate was to the level of
in-kind contributions reported, we estimated totals again, valuing
in-kind contributions as 50 percent and then 150 percent of the
figures reported to us (see table III.4). 

                        Table III.4
           Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption
               Regarding Treatment of In-Kind

                                             Resources per
Assumption and funding element                 participant
----------------------------------  ----------------------
Baseline (in-kind contributions valued a reported)
Corporation funding                                $17,629
Other federal resources                              3,177
State and local government                           4,028
Private cash                                         1,819
Total resources                                    $26,654

In-kind contributions valued as 50 percent o reported
Corporation funding                                $17,629
Other federal resources                              2,712
State and local government                           3,150
Private cash                                         1,819
Total resources                                    $25,310

In-kind contributions valued as 150 percent reported value
Corporation funding                                $17,629
Other federal resources                              3,643
State and local government                           4,907
Private cash                                         1,819
Total resources                                    $27,997
Note:  Items may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

This assumption affected matching resource estimates for federal,
state, and local government sources, but it did not affect the
estimate for Corporation resources.  Of the approximately $9,000
match total, about $2,700, or nearly one-third, consisted of in-kind
contributions, and about $6,300 consisted of cash contributions. 
Thus, the total in each alternative differed from the baseline by
about $1,350, or one-half the approximately $2,700 in-kind total. 

========================================================== Appendix IV

AmeriCorps*USA programs operated by federal agencies, on average,
entailed a larger commitment of federal resources than nonfederal
AmeriCorps*USA programs.  The federal agencies largely used their own
resources, through either cash or in-kind contributions, to
supplement their Corporation grants.  To learn more about the funding
and operation of these programs, we spoke with officials at all 13
federal agencies that received AmeriCorps*USA grants for the 1994-95
program year. 

-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Thirteen federal agencies were awarded AmeriCorps*USA grants in 1994
to fund 15 programs.  Of the nearly $149 million awarded in
Corporation operating grants, federal agencies received about $14.6
million, or about 10 percent of the total.  About 2,400 participants,
or 16 percent of all participants, served in programs sponsored by
federal agencies.  Total resources available for federal
agency-sponsored programs ranged from about $22,200 per participant
for the National Institute for Literacy's Literacy*AmeriCorps program
to $66,700 per participant for the Department of the Navy's Seaborne
Conservation Corps (see table IV.1).  We did not analyze the reasons
for the differences in per-participant resource availability because
it was beyond the scope of this study. 

AmeriCorps*USA programs sponsored by federal agencies varied in size
from 22 full- and part-time AmeriCorps*USA participants for the
Department of Veterans Affairs' program to about 1,200 for the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program.  The number of operating
sites per program varied as well.  For example, the Navy's program
has one site in Galveston, Texas, while USDA's program operated at
326 sites across the country. 

Many of the federal agencies did not directly administer their
AmeriCorps*USA programs.  These agencies subgranted their Corporation
awards to partner organizations, usually nonprofits that have
responsibility for day-to-day operations of the programs and
oversight of AmeriCorps*USA participants.  In general, the federal
agencies served as grant administrators and liaisons between the
Corporation and the nonprofit program partners.  In addition, some
agencies provided technical assistance and training. 

                                                                      Table IV.1
                                                        Resources Available for AmeriCorps*USA
                                                        Programs Sponsored by Federal Agencies

                                                                                                                  Resources    Resources    Resources
                                                                                                                  available    available   per direct
Federal agency grantee: AmeriCorps*USA   Corporation award        Other       State/      Private    Number of          per  per service      service
program                                         (adjusted)      federal        local         cash         FTEs  participant         hour         hour
--------------------------------------  ------------------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Agriculture: AmeriCorps/USDA                    $2,467,281  $21,156,957     $979,355     $740,250      1,131.5      $29,186       $17.17       $21.46
Defense/Navy: Seaborne Conservation                650,226    2,166,338            0            0         47.0       66,715        39.24        49.06
Energy: Salmon Corps                               792,718    1,375,325            0      105,410         72.0       38,363        22.57        28.21
Environmental Protection Agency:                 1,427,335    1,083,947      351,425      106,705         92.0       39,064        22.98        28.72
 Improving Disadvantaged Neighborhoods
Health and Human Services/Agency for               506,667      393,482       82,958           50         50.0       26,450        15.56        19.45
 Children and Families: FamilyServe
Health and Human Services/                         669,300      242,868      232,508      191,536         34.5       45,519        26.78        33.47
 Administration on Developmental
 Disabilities: ADD Corps
Health and Human Services/Health                   777,833      346,047      157,315       67,191         58.5       29,837        17.55        21.94
 Resources and Services
 Administration: HRSA Model Health
 Service Corps
Interior: Interior AmeriCorps Program            1,149,467    1,776,914       67,315      720,000        155.0       30,747        18.09        22.61
Justice: JustServe                               1,277,183    1,670,000    1,227,236            0        172.5       30,987        18.23        22.78
Labor: AmeriCorps/Youth Fair Chance                542,623      299,320            0            0         50.5       23,459        13.80        17.25
National Endowment for the Arts:                   379,198      194,984       10,000      155,000         35.5       27,610        16.24        20.30
 Writers Corps
National Institute for Literacy:                   737,847       29,600       34,700      160,913         62.5       22,196        13.06        16.32
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation:                   0      566,000      144,500       30,000         28.0       33,234        19.55        24.44
 NeighborWorks Community Corps
Transportation: National Service                   270,250      420,099      182,696       56,397         42.0       28,917        17.01        21.26
Veterans Affairs: Collaboration for                423,077      159,450            0            0         22.0       33,266        19.57        24.46
 Homeless Veterans
Total                                          $12,071,004  $31,881,332   $3,470,008   $2,333,452      2,053.5    $31,017\a     $18.25\b     $22.81\c
Note:  Items may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

\a This figure is the sum of (1) Corporation award (adjusted), other
federal contributions, state and local government contributions, and
private cash, for all federal agencies together, divided by number of
FTEs for all federal agencies, plus (2) an education award of $4,725
per FTE, plus (3) Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  It is not
an average of the individual agency figures. 

\b This represents the resources per participant divided by 1,700
service hours.  It is not an average of the individual agency

\c This represents the resources per participant divided by 1,360
direct service hours.  It is not an average of the individual agency

-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

The 15 agency programs varied widely in their scope and missions. 
All information presented here, including descriptions of the agency
mission fulfilled by the AmeriCorps*USA program, participant tasks,
and funding streams, was provided by agency officials. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1

USDA had the largest of the federal agency AmeriCorps*USA programs. 
The program operated at 326 sites in 38 states, with some sites
hosting only one AmeriCorps*USA participant.  These sites, located
nationwide, emphasized one of three areas:  fighting hunger,
protecting the environment, and rebuilding rural America.  Nutrition
education is a major element of the Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and
Empowerment Team's work.  Members provide nutrition assistance to the
poor, senior citizens, and schools.  Members of the Public Lands and
Environment Team help repair and upgrade community facilities,
protect watersheds, and preserve and restore national forests.  The
Rural Development Team helps protect water quality, improve housing,
respond to disasters, and generally promote economic development. 
Most AmeriCorps/USDA participants joined the program in September

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2

The Seaborne Conservation Corps (SCC) is a military-style residential
environmental and drug awareness education project sponsored by the
Department of Defense/Department of the Navy, the Texas National
Guard, and Texas A&M University at Galveston, which has primary
responsibility for day-to-day program operations.  SCC is a 9-month
residential program, and participants are considered part time.  SCC
provides high school dropouts with an opportunity to earn their
general equivalency diploma (GED) and acquire a basic seaman's
license while performing environmental services for the community. 
SCC evolved out of the Junior Leadership Corps, a program of the
Navy's Drug Demand Reduction Task Force, which was designed to
support military dependents.  SCC supports the task force's mission
to develop and support programs that decrease the demand for illegal
drugs within and, when directed, outside of the Navy.  SCC members
joined the program in September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3

The Department of Energy's Salmon Corps aims at restoring the salmon
habitat along the Columbia River Basin in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho.  Through the coordination of its operating partner, the
Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Earth Conservation Corps, the Salmon
Corps brings together five Native American tribes located in these
three states.  At the five tribal sites, Salmon Corps participants
restore salmon habitats damaged by hydroelectricity production. 
Tasks include removing trash and debris, building fences to restrict
livestock access to salmon habitats, and renovating historically
significant properties.  As is the case with other AmeriCorps*USA
programs sponsored by federal agencies, participants do work that the
Department is already mandated by law to carry out.  The program
meets at least two departmental missions:  (1) reducing the impact of
energy production and use and (2) helping to develop a technically
trained, diverse workforce and enhance scientific and technical
literacy.  Salmon Corps participants joined in September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.4

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsors six AmeriCorps*USA
programs operated at nine sites.  Each program has a different focus
that helps fulfill EPA's missions.  Participants of the Drinking
Water Contamination program in El Paso, Texas, which is run by the
University of Texas at El Paso and the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission, identify sources of contamination in public
drinking water wells and educate the community on methods of managing
and preventing water pollution.  Another AmeriCorps*USA team,
overseen by EPA local staff, works with residents of 15 native
Alaskan villages to reduce, reuse, and recycle their waste. 
Participants in Oregon and Washington states help public schools
adopt energy-conserving technology available through the EPA's Green
Lights program.  That AmeriCorps*USA program is a partnership with
the Bonneville Power Administration and Oregon and Washington State
Energy Offices.  Revitalization of inner-city neighborhoods in
Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, is the focus of
the fourth program, which utilizes AmeriCorps*USA participants from
City Year, the nonprofit partner.  In the fifth program, which is
operated by nonprofit organizations or state or local government
agencies at four sites (Oakland, California; Newark, New Jersey;
Atlanta, Georgia; and Tacoma, Washington), AmeriCorps*USA
participants restore urban streams and educate residents about the
dangers of lead and radon contamination.  EPA's sixth program, the
Anacostia River Restoration, is run by the Metropolitan Council of
Governments in Washington, D.C.  AmeriCorps*USA participants joined
EPA's programs in September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.5

The Department of Health and Human Services' FamilyServe had
AmeriCorps*USA participants working in three Head Start programs, two
located in migrant communities in Texas and Florida and one run by a
tribal college on Indian reservations in Montana, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.  AmeriCorps*USA participants assist staff in local Head
Start child care centers by, among other things, conducting nutrition
programs, linking residents with community medical resources, and
providing recreation activities for children.  These activities
support the Department's mission to enhance the quality of early
childhood development.  Head Start FamilyServe participants joined in
September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.6

The Department of Health and Human Services' Administration on
Developmental Disabilities (ADD) operates the ADD Corps in three
states:  Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania.  Its goal is to improve
the independence, productivity, and community integration of people
with developmental disabilities.  The ADD Corps furthers ADD's
mission to support and encourage the provision of quality services to
persons with developmental disabilities.  AmeriCorps*USA participants
at the ADD Corps sites, which are run by local university-affiliated
developmental disability programs, provide support services to people
who are disabled.  ADD Corps participants, some of whom are
themselves disabled, joined the program in October 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.7

The Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Model
Health Service Corps is designed to enhance community health
resources.  Improving access to quality comprehensive primary health
care and related services is a main goal of HRSA.  Corps
participants, who are health profession students and community health
workers, work at one of three program sites:  Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Chicago, Illinois.  At each site, HRSA
has a local organization as a partner that administers the project: 
the Health Federation of Philadelphia, the Allegheny County Health
Department, and the Chicago Health Consortium.  HRSA Corps
participants provide services that increase access to health care for
community residents.  These services include home visits, referrals,
transportation, and child care.  HRSA Corps participants joined in
September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.8

The Department of the Interior funds five projects, located
throughout the country, designed to support Interior's environmental
conservation mission.  Four of the projects are partnerships of one
or more of the Department's agencies (the National Park Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Bureau of Reclamation) and nonprofit organizations that, with local
agency officials, manage the projects and provide administrative
support to the projects.  Participants in two of these projects help
restore and protect the environment in the Florida Everglades and
along the Rio Grande.  The Student Conservation Association is the
nonprofit partner for both of these projects.  Participants at a
project at Fort Ord in Monterey, California, help transform the
former military base into public recreational land.  The Califonia
Conservation Corps is the nonprofit partner.  At the Southern
California Urban Water Conservation project, located in Los Angeles,
California, a partnership with the nonprofit Executive Partnerships
for Environmental Resources Training (ExPERT), participants
distribute water-saving fixtures to low-income residents.  The fifth
project, run by the Department's U.S.  Geological Survey, has sites
in Virginia, Hawaii, California, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Georgia,
where participants help staff update national geological and
hydrological information.  AmeriCorps*USA participants joined the
Interior programs in September 1994. 

------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.9

The Department of Justice's JustServe program operates through
recipients of its Weed and Seed program grants.  Justice's Weed and
Seed program promotes community-oriented approaches to
crime-fighting.  Weed and Seed programs are designed at the local
level and run by a coalition of local government representatives and
community members.  Local Weed and Seed grant recipients were
required to incorporate a plan for using AmeriCorps*USA participants
into their Weed and Seed grant applications.  AmeriCorps*USA
participants work at one of seven Weed and Seed sites:  Seattle,
Washington; Los Angeles, California; Fort Worth and San Antonio,
Texas; Trenton, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Madison,
Wisconsin.  AmeriCorps*USA participants carry out activities in three
priority areas determined by Justice that enhance local Weed and Seed
efforts:  (1) enhancing community police efforts by working with
local police staff, (2) assisting schools by conducting conflict
mediation and drug prevention programs, and (3) supporting social
services by helping community members obtain services.  JustServe
participants joined the program in September 1994. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.10

Youth Fair Chance (YFC) is a Department of Labor pilot program
designed to concentrate resources and services in high-poverty areas
to benefit the community.  The Department awards YFC grants to local
organizations, such as private industry councils, mayor's offices, or
local nonprofit organizations, that run the YFC projects. 
AmeriCorps*USA participants augment existing YFC projects, increasing
resources available at the eight sites:  Seattle, Washington; Fresno
and Los Angeles, California; Fort Worth, Texas; Memphis, Tennessee;
New York City, New York; rural Kentucky; and Baltimore, Maryland. 
Participants' activities focus on literacy, public safety, and
assisting expectant and new teen mothers and children.  YFC
participants joined in January 1995. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.11

The National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency that supports
the visual, literary, and performing arts.  Writers Corps
participants provide programs and activities that promote
accessibility to the arts for young and old people residing in inner
cities, particularly in those neighborhoods with very limited access
to art resources.  These are mostly neighborhoods with high crime
rates and drug activity.  The Writers Corps operates at three sites: 
the Bronx, New York; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C. 
Writers Corps participants joined in September 1994. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.12

The National Institute for Literacy, created in 1991, is an
independent agency managed by the Departments of Education, Labor,
and Health and Human Services.  The Institute does not deliver
services directly but instead helps to establish collaborations among
literacy groups at the state and local level and provides technical
assistance to these collaborative programs.  The goal of the
Institute's Literacy*AmeriCorps program is to establish models of
one-on-one literacy tutoring programs at the local level that can be
replicated nationwide.  Literacy*AmeriCorps has four program sites: 
Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  At each site, a local coalition of
literacy organizations manages the program.  In addition to
one-on-one tutoring, AmeriCorps*USA participants help strengthen
local literacy coalitions and recruit students from homeless shelters
and public housing developments to participate in literacy programs. 
Literacy*AmeriCorps participants joined in September 1994. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.13

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is a federally chartered,
public nonprofit corporation that provides technical assistance to
support nonprofit organizations that make up its NeighborWorks
network.  NeighborWorks is a partnership of 173 nonprofit groups that
work with residents and government and business leaders to revitalize
urban and rural neighborhoods and make affordable housing available. 
NeighborWorks Community Corps programs operate in 16 cities: 
Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Clearwater, Florida; Las
Cruces, New Mexico; Los Angeles and Pasadena, California; New York
City, New York; Savannah, Georgia; St.  Paul, Minnesota; Allentown,
Pennsylvania; Chattanooga, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; and
Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, and Stamford, Connecticut. 
AmeriCorps*USA participants help provide affordable housing and
increase neighborhood volunteer activity to revitalize communities. 
NeighborWorks Community Corps participants joined in July 1994. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.14

The Department of Transportation funds three AmeriCorps*USA programs. 
Two, located in Baltimore, Maryland, and Vancouver, Washington, are
sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.  The third program,
located in Washington, D.C., is sponsored by the Department's Federal
Transit Administration.  Each project is administered by a nonprofit
or state or local government organization.  Community Building in
Partnership administers the Baltimore program; the Washington Service
Corps and City of Vancouver administer the Vancouver program; and the
D.C.  Service Corps administers the Washington, D.C., program.  The
three programs contribute to the Department's goal of bringing
together transportation and community service by implementing
programs that improve the safety and accessibility of transportation
systems.  AmeriCorps*USA participants at the Baltimore site help with
activities that include street maintenance, demolition, and
landscaping; at the Vancouver site, they clean up and rehabilitate
local walking trails; at the Washington, D.C., site, they assist
elderly residents in using public transportation.  AmeriCorps*USA
participants joined in September 1994. 

----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.15

The Department of Veterans Affairs' Collaboration for Homeless
Veterans program operates at two sites:  Los Angeles, California, and
Houston, Texas.  AmeriCorps*USA participants address the needs of
homeless veterans.  Some of the participants themselves are veterans. 
The Los Angeles site is managed by local nonprofit community service
organizations that provide veterans' services and the local Veterans
Affairs medical center.  There, AmeriCorps*USA participants help to
renovate a building formerly used as a corporate training site into
transitional housing for homeless veterans.  The Houston site is
jointly managed by the Department's regional office and Stand Down
Homes, a nonprofit organization.  There, AmeriCorps*USA participants
renovate foreclosed properties, turning them into housing for
homeless veterans.  AmeriCorps*USA participants joined in September

=========================================================== Appendix V

We visited seven AmeriCorps*USA grantees' programs to obtain more
detailed information on amounts and sources of available resources,
to verify program accomplishments, and to gain insight into local
program operations.\14 These programs were judgmentally selected to
provide examples of a wide range of characteristics, such as level of
Corporation funding, type of grant, program size, and mission. 

The following summaries provide information on participant
characteristics, funding sources and levels, and operations.  We have
calculated resources per participant, per service hour, and per
direct service hour.  We adjusted the Corporation's grants
proportionally based on the number of participants enrolled at the
time of our visit as compared with the number of participants
originally expected.  In calculating resources per participant, we
included dollars for two components that local programs did not
control--$2,062 for the Corporation's overhead and $4,725 for the
participant's education award.  Although some participants may not
use the full education award, the funds are held in trust and
available to those who earn them for 7 years.  In calculating
resources per service hour, we used 1,700 hours as the required
number of hours for a full-time-equivalent participant completing the
program.  In calculating resources per direct service hour, we used
80 percent of the required hours because participants must spend at
least 80 percent of their time in direct service rather than in
education, training, or similar activities. 

The information provided represents a "snapshot" of the programs at
the time of our visits, but some programs may not use all available
funding or may be given additional resources, and participant levels
may change. 

\14 We visited two sites of one grantee, the Department of
Agriculture--the Vermont Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment
Corps and the Vermont Youth Corps - National Service Academy. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

The Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department began operating
the Community Assisting Police program in January 1995.  The
program's mission is to engage in community education and outreach
projects that address the needs for crime control, prevention, and
the reduction of fear in underserved or at-risk communities.  The
Department applied for AmeriCorps*USA funding to implement a
community policing initiative that had faltered in the face of
growing cultural and language barriers between it and the community. 

                         Table V.1
              Estimated Program Resources for
          AmeriCorps Maryland Community Assisting

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s  (n=23.5)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $332,125   $14,133       $8.31        $10.39
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash            92,260     3,926        2.31          2.89
In-kind        232,550     9,896        5.82          7.28

Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind          4,286       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $661,221  $34,742\    $20.44\a      $25.55\a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.1

Participant ages range from 17 to 64.  Most are in college or are
college graduates.  A third of the original participants were
bilingual, speaking a total of six languages.  Half were pursuing law
enforcement careers.  Program officials projected that 90 percent
will use the education award. 

The program budgeted for 20 full-time and 10 part-time participants;
at the time of our visit, the program had 18 full-time and 11
part-time participants.  More recently, the program has lost six of
its original participants for reasons including insufficient
financial support, employment or education opportunities, and the
inability to function independently in an unstructured environment. 
New participants have been trained and have replaced them. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.2

Participants complete 1 week of training at the outset, which focuses
on technical skills and team-building training.  They work either as
community mobilizers or victim assistance advocates at headquarters,
six satellite facilities, five district stations, one mobile
facility, the State Attorney's Office, and the County Division of
Victim Services.  Each week, the participants meet for 2 hours of
additional training and reflection.  Participants record their hours
and activities on weekly time sheets signed by their supervisors.  In
addition, supervisors evaluate their efforts and work using a
detailed performance evaluation form after the first 2 months, after
6 months, and at the end of participants' service.  Full-time
participants received biweekly living allowance stipends of $400,
while part-timers received $140. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.3

During site visits at two satellite police stations, we observed
participants performing outreach services at schools, businesses, and
residential groups.  Participant projects included distributing
flyers to alert residents of area car thefts, coordinating a school
Crime Awareness Day, organizing a date-rape presentation at a high
school, analyzing neighborhood crime statistics to identify
developing problems, providing bilingual referrals and assistance to
crime victims, and educating senior citizens about how to protect
themselves from crime. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

The Boston University School of Public Health is the primary
administrator of the AmeriCorps Health and Housing Fellows program. 
Boston University collaborates with three partner institutions to
operate the program:  University of Alabama at Birmingham, University
of Texas at El Paso School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins
University School of Nursing at Baltimore, Maryland.  This integrated
work-service-education program uses the skills of returned overseas
Peace Corps volunteers to serve targeted communities needing
improvements in health and living conditions.  The four universities
operate the program in separate urban sites located at housing
authorities, transitional housing and homeless shelters, community
health and social service agencies, and urban health centers. 

Corporation program funds are matched by other resources from
federal, state, and county sources; service agencies; and private and
university sources. 

                         Table V.2
              Estimated Program Resources for
           AmeriCorps Health and Housing Fellows

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=17)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $290,919   $17,113      $10.07        $12.58
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash            36,000     2,118        1.25          1.56
In-kind         23,292     1,370        0.81          1.01

State and local government
Cash            28,264     1,663        0.98          1.22
In-kind        108,915     6,407        3.77          4.71

Cash            29,062     1,710        1.01          1.26
In-kind        151,111       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $667,563  $37,167\    $21.86\a      $27.33\a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1

Program participants are recruited from a pool of returned Peace
Corps volunteers with an average age of 30 and who have at least a
bachelor's degree.  AmeriCorps*USA participants undertake full-time
or part-time community service while pursuing graduate education
programs at one of the four universities.  Participants receive a
work stipend (ranging from $3,397 to $6,500 per year), financial
assistance for matriculation in a master's in public health or a
graduate nursing program, an AmeriCorps*USA education award, and, at
Boston University, program housing assistance. 

The program is funded for 36 participants:  26 full-time and 10
part-time slots.  Program officials stated that primarily because of
late funding decisions, the program was unable to meet its
participation goal; the program had only 12 full-time participants at
the time of our visit.  Boston University had 5 of 15 planned
full-time participants, Alabama had 5 of 6, and Texas had 2 of 5
planned full-time participants; Johns Hopkins had 10 part-time
participants as planned. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.2

Part-time participants must complete 900 hours of community service
for their 2-year program commitment while enrolled in a university
nursing program.  Full-time participants must complete 1,700 hours of
public health community service for each year of program
participation while enrolled in a university public health program. 

Boston University participants are required to live either in a
housing authority project or within the same community where the
authority is located; other university sites have no such

Participants are required to have daily logs of times and functions
completed and provide monthly progress reports to supervisors for
forwarding to program administrators. 

Boston University, as program administrator, has total program
oversight.  After conducting an evaluation, Boston University decided
to close the Texas site because it was not meeting program
participant goals. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3

In Massachusetts, participants implement tenant health and economic
self-sufficiency programs specified by the U.S.  Housing and Urban
Development Family Self-Sufficiency Program.  Participants live among
and provide services directly to tenants in housing authority

A housing authority official commented that these services are
provided at her complex at approximately half the cost of an employed
social worker; she also said the direct and accepted
participant-tenant relationship was a benefit. 

We spoke with one participant who stated that the program provided a
real-world application of public health education principles and made
obtaining a graduate degree possible through reduced tuition costs, a
living allowance and housing, and an education award. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

MAGIC ME America, a nonprofit organization founded in 1980 in
Baltimore, Maryland, conducts intergenerational service-learning
programs.  The organization's mission is to motivate and educate
adolescents by involving them in long-term service with elderly and
other needy groups and their communities.  MAGIC ME is designed to
recruit these groups to volunteer in their communities.  In addition
to engaging youth and elders in service, MAGIC ME involves school and
nursing home staff, high school and college interns, business
leaders, and community volunteers.  The MAGIC ME organization
operates three AmeriCorps*USA programs in San Joaquin County,
California; Boston, Massachusetts; and Baltimore, Maryland. 
AmeriCorps*USA participants establish and conduct MAGIC ME groups and
recruit and train volunteers and interns.  Program officials reported
that in the 1994-1995 period, 25 AmeriCorps*USA participants
developed 95 MAGIC ME groups involving 2,660 youth and elderly.  In
addition, they recruited and trained 500 interns and volunteers. 

                         Table V.3
          Estimated Program Resources for MAGIC ME

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=25)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $646,552   $25,862      $15.21        $19.02
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash            63,000     2,520        1.48          1.85
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash            65,500     2,620        1.54          1.93
In-kind         71,390     2,856        1.68          2.10

Cash           225,176     9,007        5.30          6.62
In-kind         40,750       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $1,112,3  $49,652\    $29.21\a      $36.51\a
                    68         a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1

Participants ranged from 20 to 40 years old and came from a wide
variety of racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and educational
backgrounds.  Program officials said that all participants plan to
use their education awards to begin or continue their postsecondary
education.  Many plan to enter fields such as teaching and social
work.  The program was budgeted for 29 full-time participants.  These
slots were initially filled, but participation had dropped to 25 at
the time of our visit because one participant successfully completed
the program, one converted to part-time, and the others left for
unstated reasons. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2

Members spend approximately 20 percent of their service time training
to develop core competencies needed for establishing and conducting
MAGIC ME programs, including topics related to gerontology, youth,
intergenerational issues, and community problem-solving. 

Participants report weekly work entries and hours to program
monitors; weekly and cumulative service and training hours are
recorded separately.  Program monitors compile monthly participant
progress reports that summarize their entries.  Progress reports are
compared with earlier monthly work goals developed jointly by the
participant and team leader or program administrator.  Participants
receive a stipend of $364 every 2 weeks for 21 biweekly periods,
totaling $7,644. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3

MAGIC ME aims to improve the program's effectiveness and expand the
program to reach youth and elderly nationwide.  AmeriCorps*USA helps
meet these goals by providing matching program funds and a national
presence.  Program officials stated that these combined resources
have made it possible to expand the number of people served by over
800 percent in the three AmeriCorps*USA program sites.  Each of these
sites uses a different operating model, which provides MAGIC ME with
the opportunity to test new program approaches designed to meet the
needs of various communities.  The sites range from inner city to
agricultural, and participating youth include gang members, gifted
and talented students, special education students, and pregnant teens
from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. 

AmeriCorps*USA participants interviewed at the Baltimore site stated
that the program has helped them to build their self-confidence and
self-esteem and to think of bigger things to do with their lives. 
All three participants interviewed planned to use their education
awards to start or return to college. 

In addition, we interviewed three staff members at Baltimore area
facilities for the elderly who spoke highly of the AmeriCorps*USA
participants and their efforts in meeting student, elder, teacher,
and care facility personnel needs.  Their presence was said to be a
key ingredient to the program. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

The Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) began operating the
Vermont Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps in December
1994.  OEO was awarded its AmeriCorps*USA grant in July 1994;
however, because this was a new effort, it used the fall of 1994 to
plan.  As one of several programs funded by a national direct federal
agency AmeriCorps*USA grant to USDA, it operates in five sites in
Vermont.  OEO signed on as an applicant for funding from the USDA's
AmeriCorps*USA grant to initiate a statewide approach to hunger that
would increase participation of low-income and rural residents in
federal food assistance programs and teach them about nutrition and
how to buy and plant food. 

                         Table V.4
          Estimated Program Resources for Vermont
          Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=33)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $660,622   $20,019      $11.78        $14.72
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash            50,000     1,515        0.89          1.11
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind        304,860     9,238        5.43          6.79

Cash            56,601     1,715        1.01          1.26
In-kind         11,587       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $1,083,6  $39,274\    $23.10\a      $28.88\a
                    70         a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.1

Participants' ages range from 19 to 67.  Most have either attended or
graduated from college.  Program officials expect all participants to
use their education awards. 

The program was budgeted for 40 full-time slots.  At the time of our
visit, there were 33 full-time participants on board.  Five original
participants had left; since our visit, six additional participants
have left.  Reasons included financial difficulties, extreme personal
needs and issues, inability to work independently without explicit
instructions, and the stress caused by living in group houses. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.2

Participants complete a minimum of 100 hours of training in areas
that include nutrition education, federal and state food assistance
policy, and community service.  They are divided into five crews of
up to eight participants that are stationed in one of five regional
sites.  Four of the five crews live together in group houses. 

Participants report weekly work entries and hours to team leaders;
weekly and cumulative service and training hours are recorded
separately.  Team leaders compile monthly team progress reports that
summarize the individual entries.  Participants receive a stipend of
$7,660 for the program year; those beginning the program after its
start receive an adjusted amount.  They receive biweekly checks from
which 25 percent of the stipend is automatically deducted to pay
their rent. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3

During site visits to a community food bank and a garden tenant
program, we saw participants providing special foods and instruction
for clients with special dietary needs, conducting outreach efforts
to establish a summer food program for the elderly and children as an
extension of the school-year program, and teaching low-income and
rural residents to plant and buy food to get more and better food for
their resources. 

One member who attended basic education classes and was individually
tutored by team members recently passed the preliminary GED test. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5

The Washington (State) Conservation Corps originated in 1983.  It is
a crew-based youth employment, education, and training program that
provides resources, conservation services, and training to meet
ecology needs.  Through 1993 state legislation, the Corps was
mandated to address watershed restoration projects and create jobs in
20 designated counties hardest hit by timber industry reductions. 
The State Department of Ecology operated the program and conducted
projects on a fee-for-service basis for federal and state agencies
and private landowners.  In 1994, the Corps became affiliated with
the AmeriCorps*USA program, thereby providing additional education
benefits to program participants. 

                         Table V.5
              Estimated Program Resources for
           Washington (State) Conservation Corps

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=91)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U      $0\a        $0          $0            $0
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash           722,200     7,936        4.67          5.84
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash          1,003,85    11,031        6.49          8.11
In-kind              0         0           0             0

Cash           147,200     1,618        0.95          1.19
In-kind              0       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $1,873,2  $27,372\    $16.10\b      $20.13\b
                    50         b
n/a = Not Applicable

\a The Corporation only provided education awards for this program. 
No operating grant was provided. 

\b Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.1

Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 28.  Most were high school
graduates and local residents. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.2

This is a 1-year program combining field work on the job and
classroom instruction.  Participants complete 160 hours of program
training in land restoration, which can be combined with a 36-hour
college credit certificate program leading to an environmental
restoration technician rating and further college education. 
Participants work in 1 of 16 crews providing land restoration
services.  The AmeriCorps*USA program only funds the cost of the
participants' education awards.  State and work site projects cover
the cost of operating the program by paying fees for the Corps'

Participants report hourly entries every 2 weeks to their site
leader, who in turn reports to the team leader.  Both leaders sign
off on each participant's cumulative service and training hours,
which are recorded and sent to the Department of Ecology. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3

Participants get a wide variety of field experiences in watershed
restoration, reforestation, stream and salmon habitat rehabilitation,
forest fire and oil spill response, plus other conservation projects
encompassing classroom and field concepts.  At the time of our site
visit, the program was active at 16 sites; 2 additional sites were
temporarily inactive because of inclement conditions.  During the
site visit, we observed a team conducting flood control area clean-up
and an ecology survey for land restoration.  A county senior
ecologist present said that the team's work was a valuable resource
for land restoration.  A program official stated that because the
program is highly rated, a large private corporation contracted for a
program crew to work on its land. 

Also, in conjunction with a state community college, the program has
developed a college credit certificate program for participants to
earn a state-certified environmental restoration technician rating. 
All 62 AmeriCorps*USA participants who registered for credits with
the college received some credit while in the program.  Thirty-six
AmeriCorps*USA participants have completed the required 36 college
credits and are state-certified environmental restoration
technicians.  The program encourages and supports crew members who
are working on their high school equivalency.  Between 75 and 85
percent of those working toward the GED have thus far obtained it. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6

The Washington (State) Service Corps originated in 1983 as a state
citizen service corps to address the needs of unemployed and needy
residents.  The present AmeriCorps*USA program began through a
competitive bid to the Washington Commission on National and
Community Service for funding.  The program is a team-based youth
employment, education, and training program providing literacy,
parenting skills, gang and substance abuse prevention, and family and
community social services. 

                         Table V.6
              Estimated Program Resources for
              Washington (State) Service Corps

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s   (n=276)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $2,855,1   $10,345       $6.09         $7.61
 SA grant           72

Other federal
Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash          1,000,00     3,623        2.13          2.66
In-kind              0         0           0             0

Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind              0       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $3,855,1  $20,755\    $12.21\a      $15.26\a
                    72         a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

The resources available to the program are 74 percent federal funds
and 26 percent state and local funds.  Its Corporation grant is the
program's only federal funding. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.1

Participants' ages range from 17 to over 60.  Most participants,
particularly those in the 18- to 21-year-old group, are from local
communities affected by the decline of the timber industry.  To a
lesser degree, some older citizens and nonstate residents participate
in the program.  Just over half of the participants have some had
some college or have college degrees.  Although the majority of the
youth are high school graduates, some participants are attempting to
complete their diplomas or obtain a GED. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.2

Participants work in teams at various community sites across the
state, including one Indian reservation.  Each participant spends
approximately 20 percent of the program time in training in areas
such as team-building, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), conflict
resolution, and self-esteem.  Participants are also trained in
specific topics related to project needs, including the natural
environment, literacy and tutoring skills, tool and construction
skills, and health care outreach. 

Participant training and work site activity are separately recorded
for each 40-hour week during the 11-month program period. 
Participation is monitored daily, and team leaders sign off on time
sheets every 2 weeks.  Each participant has a mid-program review with
his or her supervisor of events completed and scheduled activities
required to complete the program commitment. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3

Participants interviewed stated that they plan to apply the learning
skills and self-development training they receive in pursuing a
college education.  Participant program experiences include
construction trade and community development work, tutoring students
at risk of dropping out of school, and conducting outside school
recreational and support services for youth.  Many participants felt
they were making a visible difference in their communities' quality
of life, such as by building and renovating public facilities and
helping other youth.  We observed participants working on renovations
of abandoned housing, on community facilities such as a farm market
and a stadium, and in school classrooms. 

A town official commented that both the farm market and stadium
renovation projects have improved the community and are providing
economic and social benefits to citizens.  A teacher at another
location, whose classroom helper was an AmeriCorps*USA participant,
stated that the participant's work allowed students to get individual
help with their particular study problems. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:7

YouthBuild Boston is the first replication of the YouthBuild Program
that originated in Harlem in 1990.  Its AmeriCorps*USA program began
operating in October 1994 in Boston.  A large, urban program, it
received a Corporation grant through the Massachusetts National and
Community Service Commission to renovate buildings to provide
low-income housing, reduce community environmental hazards, and
conduct violence and dropout prevention programs in schools.  Its
mission is to engage disenfranchised youth in rebuilding their
communities and to provide them with the education and skills to
become self-reliant and responsible.  It applied for AmeriCorps*USA
funding to double its size, initiate a part-time YouthBuild Teens
program, in which YouthBuild graduates serve as mentors and role
models to young teens, and expand its services from housing
renovation to include environmental, public safety, and education

                         Table V.7
              Estimated Program Resources for
                     YouthBuild Boston

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=81)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps*U  $988,564   $12,204       $7.18         $8.97
 SA grant

Other federal
Cash          1,062,87    13,122        7.72          9.65
In-kind              0         0           0             0

State and local government
Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind              0         0           0             0

Cash           301,596     3,723        2.19          2.74
In-kind          5,000       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $2,358,0  $35,837\    $21.08\a      $26.35\a
                    35         a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:7.1

Participants' ages range from 18 to 24.  About 75 percent have not
completed high school; all are from Boston.  Nearly half of the men
and 80 percent of the women are young parents, and approximately
one-third receive some form of public assistance.  While historically
one-third of participants have gone on to college, a program official
projects that 40 to 50 percent of the participants will use the
education award for college or advanced skills training; the two
participants with whom we spoke both expected to do so. 

When the program began in October 1994, it budgeted for 84 full-time
and 10 part-time participants; at the time of our visit, 76 full-time
and 10 part-time participants were on board.  Since that time, a
number of participants have left for various reasons, including
full-time employment, returning to school full-time, and deciding
that the program was not for them. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:7.2

Full-time participants complete a 2-week orientation known as Mental
Toughness Training, and 1 week of Department of Labor Occupational
Safety and Health Administration safety training before beginning
field work at 2 housing projects and 10 vacant lots where they
conduct environmental testing.  During each 2-week period,
participants spend 6 full days in service and 4 days in classes in
the morning and in service in the afternoon.  While on the job, they
learn carpentry skills and how to read blueprints under the
supervision of union carpenters.  Part-time participants receive
training in conflict resolution, mediation skills, and violence
prevention.  They design and conduct workshops on violence, substance
abuse, early pregnancy, and dropout prevention programs for Boston
middle school students.  Full-time participants receive living
allowance stipends of $112.50 per week initially and are eligible to
earn bonuses and raises to bring their stipends up to $147 per week. 
Part-time participants receive stipends calculated at $7 per hour for
a 20-hour week. 

Approximately 75 percent of participants are enrolled in high school
equivalency classes.  The program combines work and academics through
a service learning curriculum in which many classes are project
related.  For example, math classes are construction or architecture
related.  Each participant has a formal learning plan, and program
staff meet weekly on case management. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:7.3

During our site visits to two housing projects, participants were
working in teams under the supervision of union carpenters on the
renovation of a two-family home that will become affordable housing
and on an abandoned five-story building that will become a
transitional dormitory for homeless youth. 

--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:8

The Vermont Youth Conservation Corps began operating the Youth Corps
- National Service Academy program in January 1995.  One of several
programs funded by a direct federal agency grant to USDA, it is based
at Green Mountain College in Poultney, Vermont.  Its mission is to
restore, maintain, and manage the Vermont National Forest and
community resources, while providing participants with opportunities
to apply their formal training and develop leadership skills.  The
Vermont Youth Conservation Corps applied to USDA for assistance to
create a program that combines conservation work, community work, and
education to reduce backlogged USDA Forest Service work requests that
the Service has been unable to address. 

                         Table V.8
           Estimated Program Resources for Youth
              Corps -National Service Academy

                 Total                   Per
Source of     resource   Per FTE     service    Per direct
contribution         s    (n=17)        hour  service hour
------------  --------  --------  ----------  ------------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps     5,185 $     305 $      0.18 $          0.22
 grant $

Other federal
Cash           450,000    26,471       15.57         19.46
In-kind         82,000     4,824        2.84          3.55

State and local government
Cash                 0         0           0             0
In-kind              0         0           0             0

Cash            74,321     4,372        2.57          3.21
In-kind         18,000       n/a         n/a           n/a
Total         $629,506  $42,758\    $25.15\a      $31.44\a
n/a = Not Applicable

\a Total includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation
overhead of $2,062 per FTE.  Total does not include private in-kind

The resources available to the program are 88 percent federal funds
and in-kind contributions, and 12 percent private funds.  Of its
federal funds, less than 1 percent comes from its Corporation grant;
the remainder comes from the USDA Forest Service, of which $405,000
is a grant to the Corps under terms of the National and Community
Service Trust Act.  The program also receives private, in-kind
contributions in the form of volunteer efforts, supplies, and
administration from Green Mountain College. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:8.1

Participants' ages range from 18 to about 50.  Three-quarters have
college degrees in the environmental sciences field and most are
seeking applied/practical experience to complement their education
and training.  A program official projects that all participants will
use the education award. 

The program is budgeted for 20 full-time participants; at the time of
our visit, there were 17 full-time participants.  Participants are
not replaced mid-cycle because training and team formation occur at
the program's outset. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:8.2

Participants complete 2 weeks of classroom training in wilderness
characteristics and survival, Red Cross first aid, team-building
techniques, the natural sciences, community policy and needs,
personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, and an orientation to
field work on forest projects.  Participants work in two crews that
are sent to the northern and southern halves of the state to complete
field projects.  Projects are typically generated from backlogged
USDA Forest Service work requests on recreational facilities and
trails; wilderness management; watershed, timber stand, and fisheries
improvements; and environmental education and interpretive programs. 
In addition to field work, participants conduct weekly environmental
literature searches; participate in a reading, writing, and
discussion curriculum; and undertake environmental education projects
for the community. 

Participants live in a dormitory at Green Mountain College.  They
receive monthly living allowance stipends totaling $7,625 for the
program's duration.  Funds for participants' meals are deducted from
the stipend. 

Work and training hours are broken down into four
components--service, education, training, and other, which includes
community environmental projects--and recorded daily.  Time sheets
are submitted to crew leaders each week and recorded for participant
tracking and program cost accounting. 

------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:8.3

During site visits we discussed participants' efforts with a Forest
Service employee and met crew members before their deployment to work
sites in Green Mountain National Forest. 

Participants have the option of pursuing a curriculum worth six
upper-level, environmental studies credits at Green Mountain College
with a reduced tuition; half have chosen to do so. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
=========================================================== Appendix V

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

Below are our responses to specific points raised by the Corporation
in its comments. 

1.  The Corporation raised concerns about our including private cash
contributions, in-kind resources, and any state or local government
resources in our calculations because in its view these resources
represent benefits, not an additional cost to the federal government. 
Our objective, however, as clearly stated in the report, was not to
identify what is or is not a cost or benefit but rather to identify
the various resources available to AmeriCorps*USA programs, including
all nonfederal funds and other support. 

In the report, we categorized all resources by their sources.  For
example, those resources provided by nongovernment sources were
labeled as private cash and in-kind contributions.  Similarly,
in-kind contributions from all levels of government were identified
separately from cash contributions.  These resources, which are
permitted to be counted toward the programs' required match, included
such things as salaries of federal agency personnel who monitored
AmeriCorps*USA programs and administered grants, state natural
resource managers' time to supervise participants, and uniforms
provided by a local police department.  By including these
contributions, we were recognizing that they represent resources
available to the programs--resources on which those programs depend. 

2.  The Corporation noted that in our calculations we assumed all
participants will use their full education awards.  We included the
full education award amount as resources available because the
Congress appropriates funds specifically for this purpose and funds
are held in trust and available to those who earn them for 7 years. 
Interestingly, in calculating its own cost estimates, the Corporation
used the full education award amount, too.  Even if we had wanted to
predict actual education award usage, there was insufficient
experience with the program to date to do so, as the Corporation
noted in its response. 

3.  The Corporation raised three concerns with the methodology we
used to develop a calculation of resources per direct service hour: 
(1) we used the minimum required service hours--1,700 hours; (2) we
reduced the 1,700-service-hour figure by 20 percent in calculating
direct service hours; and (3) we did not include service hours worked
by related but uncompensated volunteers. 

We used the 1,700-hour figure because it was the minimum established
by law and participants were only required to attain it, not exceed
it.  Although at the time of our site visits comprehensive data were
not available on completed service hours, the data we were able to
collect on participants indicated that while some would exceed the
required 1,700 hours, many others would need to put in extra hours to
meet the requirement.  Regarding the specific information the
Corporation provided on the Washington Service Corps in an enclosure
to its letter, the average of more than 1,800 hours worked may
represent the experience only of early completers.  As we stated in
the report (see p.  9), early information on those completing the
program may not be indicative of results of programs that are still
under way.  Information from our site visits indicated that when
considering all participants, it is likely the average will be closer
to 1,700 hours. 

We reduced total service hours by 20 percent in calculating direct
service hours because the Corporation allows programs to allocate
that amount of time to education, training, or similar activities. 
Several programs we visited were on track to spend 20 percent of
their service time on such activities.  Recognizing that the
Corporation does not yet have actual data on the portion of time
spent on nondirect service, we used the allowed amount in our
calculations.  In calculating resources per direct service hour, we
included all resources, including those used on nondirect activities
such as training, because those activities are an integral part of
the program and required by legislation.  The Corporation, in its
comments, also recognized that nondirect service is a required part
of the program.  It follows that resources spent on nondirect service
need to be included when analyzing resources per direct service hour. 
At the specific program the Corporation mentioned as devoting less
than 20 percent of participants' time to nondirect service (the
Washington Conservation Corps), formal training was expected to be
about 10 percent of the required hours.  However, that figure does
not include additional informal training at worksites. 

In our calculations of resources per service hour, we did not
include, as the Corporation suggested we should, hours worked by
uncompensated volunteers who were not AmeriCorps*USA participants. 
Because our objective was to identify the resources needed to field
an AmeriCorps*USA participant, including hours of service generated
by other volunteers was not relevant.  It should be noted that the
Corporation in its own estimates of cost per participant did not
include such volunteers. 

4.  The Corporation expressed concern that our estimate of $31,000 in
available resources per participant at federal agency grantee
programs was higher than its estimates.  The Corporation suggested
that our calculations did not discount resources for participant
attrition.  It provided data to us that showed an estimate of $27,600
per participant calculated by using programs' budgeted resources and
expected numbers of participants--data it obtained from grant files. 
Unlike the Corporation's estimate, ours was based on resources
programs were certain to receive and actual numbers of participants
that programs reported about halfway through the program year; we did
adjust our estimate for participant attrition.  Because the
Corporation used expected participants, a higher figure than the
actual number, its resources-per-participant figure was lower than
ours.  The example the Corporation presented (which it identified as
the Vermont Anti-Hunger AmeriCorps program but whose figures related
to the Vermont Youth Corps - National Service Academy program)
indicated that the grantee, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture
(USDA), will reduce the resources it contributes to the program to
reflect attrition.  However, Youth Corps officials reported to us in
June 1995 and confirmed in July 1995 that they expected to receive
the full $450,000 in cash from USDA despite attrition. 

5.  The Corporation expressed several methodological concerns:  (1)
that many of the data we used were self-reported, (2) that programs
may have overstated the resources they hoped to raise, and (3) that
we "expensed" start-up costs and capital costs in the first year.  As
to the first point, we used the only data available--those which we
obtained from the programs themselves--because the Corporation did
not have reliable data available.  As to the second point, the data
programs reported do not appear to be overestimated.  In fact, the
amount of non-Corporation resources the programs we sampled told us
they expected to actually receive for the program year totaled only
about 93 percent of the resources these programs' grant applications
indicated that they would raise.  As to the third point, in our
report, we clearly stated why we chose to treat start-up costs as we
did (see p.  8).  Interestingly, the Corporation in its cost
estimates included all expenses programs were expected to incur in
the first year--including start-up costs--without allocating them
over future periods. 

6.  The Corporation also was concerned about our inclusion of all
resources available to programs when some may not be used and
suggested that we should adjust the non-Corporation resources for
participant attrition.  We disagreed.  We obtained our information in
May 1995, late enough in the programs' operating year for them to
predict available resources and participant levels.  (In contrast,
the Corporation's funding was committed to the programs at the start
of the operating year before any participation rates were known;
therefore, we chose to adjust the amount of these funds.)

7.  The Corporation stated that it is not certain that all of the
resources in the "state and local" category are from public sources. 
Evidence we obtained showed that about 90 percent of the resources
were clearly from public sources; the remaining 10 percent were from
public postsecondary institutions.  Given the reliance of public
postsecondary institutions on public support, it was therefore
appropriate in our view to categorize the resources they contributed
to AmeriCorps*USA programs as public.  In any event, our sensitivity
analysis showed that categorizing resources from public postsecondary
institutions as private resources had very little impact on our
estimate (see app.  III). 

========================================================= Appendix VII


Wayne B.  Upshaw, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7006
Carol L.  Patey, Project Manager, (617) 565-7575


In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report:  C.  Jeff Appel, Nancy K. 
Kintner-Meyer, and James W.  Spaulding assisted in collecting and
analyzing the data and writing the report; Jill W.  Schamberger
helped administer the data collection instrument; Susan C.  Donna
verified site visit information; Edmund L.  Kelley helped conduct
site visits; Lena G.  Bartoli wrote computer programs to aid in our
analysis; Steven R.  Machlin performed statistical analyses and
provided methodological advice on sampling errors; and Leslie D. 
Albin did the editing.