[Federal Register: August 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50122-50141]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13au04-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
45 CFR Parts 2510, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2540 and 2550
RIN 3045-AA41
AmeriCorps National Service Program
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service
(hereinafter the ``Corporation'') proposes to amend several provisions
relating to the AmeriCorps national service program, and to add rules
to clarify the Corporation's requirements for program sustainability,
performance measures and evaluation, capacity-building activities by
AmeriCorps members, qualifications for tutors, and other requirements.
DATES: To be sure your comments are considered, they must reach the
Corporation on or before October 12, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail or deliver your comments to Kim Mansaray,
Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20525. You may also send your comments by facsimile
transmission to (202) 565-2767, or send them electronically to
proposedrule@cns.gov or through the Federal government's one-stop
rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Members of the
public may review copies of all communications received on this
rulemaking at the Corporation's Washington DC headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Mansaray, Docket Manager,
Corporation for National and Community Service, (202) 606-5000, ext.
236. TDD (202) 565-2799. Persons with visual impairments may request
this proposed rule in an alternative format.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments about these proposed regulations.
To ensure that your comments have maximum value in helping us develop
the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
section or sections of the proposed regulations that each comment
addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the
proposed regulations. During and after the comment period, you may
inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations in room
8417, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
In addition, the Corporation is planning five public meetings and
three conference calls during August and September for purposes of
soliciting input on this proposed rule. Please visit our Web site at
http://www.americorps.org/rulemaking for information on the dates,
places, and times of these meetings and calls.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. Background
Under the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended
(hereinafter ``NCSA, or the Act,'' 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), the
Corporation makes grants to support community service through the
AmeriCorps program. In addition, the Corporation, through the National
Service Trust, provides education awards to and certain interest
payments on behalf of AmeriCorps participants who successfully complete
a term of service in an approved national service position.
On February 27, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13331 aimed at making national and community service programs better
able to engage Americans in volunteering, more responsive to State and
local needs, more accountable and effective, and more accessible to
faith-based and grassroots organizations. The E.O. directed the
Corporation to review and modify its policies as necessary to
accomplish the goals of the E.O.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2004, Congress required
the Corporation to reduce the Federal cost per participant in the
AmeriCorps program and to increase the level of matching funds and in-
kind contributions provided by the private sector. The Conference
Report accompanying the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed
the Corporation to engage in notice and comment rulemaking around the
issue of ``sustainability.''
On September 23, 2003, the Corporation's Board of Directors (the
Board) directed the Corporation to ``undertake rulemaking to establish
regulations on significant issues, such as sustainability and the
limitation on the Federal share of program costs, consistent with any
applicable directives from Congress.'' On June 21, 2004, the Board
approved draft specifications for the proposed rule, and directed the
Corporation to develop and submit a proposed rule based on those
specifications.
The Corporation is initiating two separate rulemaking processes in
2004. This first one will address significant and time-sensitive issues
with the goal of incorporating them, to the extent practicable, into
the AmeriCorps 2005 program year. The second process grows out of a
recommendation by the Board's Taskforce on Grant-making and is largely
an effort to streamline and improve our current grant making processes.
That streamlining effort is already underway, and we plan to issue a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for that purpose later in the year. These
two rulemakings address distinct and separate issues.
III. Preliminary Public Input
On March 4, 2004, the Corporation published a notice in the Federal
Register inviting informal preliminary public input in advance of
rulemaking. The notice outlined the general topics the Corporation was
interested in addressing through rulemaking and posed questions for the
public to consider in providing input. Following the notice, the
Corporation held four conference calls and five public meetings across
the country in Columbus, Ohio, Seattle, Washington, Boston,
Massachusetts, Washington, DC, and Fort Worth, Texas, to frame the
issues and hear public input. Through the hearings, conference calls,
and e-mail and paper submissions, the Corporation received responses
from nearly 600 individuals, and has used
[[Page 50123]]
this input to inform the drafting of this proposed rule.
IV. Proposed Rule
This proposed rule includes a targeted series of reforms designed
to strengthen the impact, efficiency, and reach of the AmeriCorps
program, our AmeriCorps grantees, and the Corporation. Our primary
objectives are to:
Create a framework for long-term growth and sustainability
of the AmeriCorps program as a public-private partnership;
Provide consistency, reliability, and predictability for
AmeriCorps grantees and State commissions;
Enhance the demonstrable positive impact of the AmeriCorps
program on:
[ctrcir] Communities and beneficiaries that receive service;
[ctrcir] Non-profit organizations and community infrastructures
that host service; and
[ctrcir] AmeriCorps members who serve;
Resolve longstanding issues relating to Federal share,
cost per full-time-equivalent member, and sustainability of AmeriCorps
projects in a way that minimizes annual uncertainty about grantee
funding levels and restrictions; and
Assure fiscal and programmatic accountability and
performance measurement for the Corporation, the AmeriCorps program,
and grantees.
In addition, wherever possible, this rule reflects the
Corporation's determination to:
Decrease the bureaucratic and paperwork burdens on
Corporation grantees;
Strengthen the program's ability to respond to State and
local needs;
Engage more community volunteers;
Include faith-based and grassroots community organizations
in all Corporation programs; and
Invigorate the competitive grant-making process.
Existing and potential AmeriCorps grantees constitute a rich and
diverse group of talented and innovative forces for change, with
different needs, circumstances, and abilities. Therefore, the
Corporation has endeavored, throughout these regulations, to:
Use competitive criteria to encourage, rather than
require, desired actions or activities, wherever possible; and
Calibrate implementation of the regulatory requirements
based on the unique goals, circumstances, and limitations of grantees,
including waivers where appropriate.
As announced in the March 4, 2004, Federal Register notice, the
Corporation is focusing these reforms on five main areas: (1)
Sustainability of AmeriCorps programs, including decreasing grantee
reliance on Federal funds and decreasing Federal costs per full-time
equivalent; (2) Selection criteria; (3) Performance measures and
evaluation; (4) Tutor qualifications and requirements for tutoring
programs; and (5) Streamlining continuation applications and grant
cycles. The following discussion addresses the issues of sustainability
and intermediaries generally, and then addresses the specifics of the
proposed rule in more detail. Section V of this preamble addresses
implementation of the proposed rule, and section VI addresses several
policy issues we have considered in light of the public input we
received.
Sustainability
The issues about which we received the most input were those
relating to sustainability, Federal share, and cost per full-time-
equivalent (FTE). Much of the input sought to define sustainability in
broad terms, and included many elements, other than finances, as part
of the definition. While the Corporation agrees that there are many
measures and elements of sustainability, the most recent discussion has
focused on the monetary aspects of sustainability--Federal share and
cost per FTE.
The Corporation understands that other forms of sustainability are
important; they are reflected in the proposed changes to the selection
criteria so that an organization achieving sustainability through any
or all of those measures will be more competitive when applying for an
AmeriCorps grant. But ultimately, we believe that the focus of Congress
in this discussion of sustainability is at the organizational or
program level--specifically on the financial resources of the
organization or program. In other words, how can organizations that the
Corporation supports better leverage Federal dollars by expanding and
diversifying their non-Federal funding? To the extent that this is a
broader question, we would frame it as: how much more national service
can AmeriCorps provide across the country with the Federal dollars
available to it?
The Corporation's annual appropriations and its authorizing
legislation, as well as E.O. 13331, support this approach. In our
annual appropriations act each year dating back to fiscal year 1996,
Congress directed the Corporation to ``increase significantly the level
of matching funds and in-kind contribution provided by the private
sector,'' and ``reduce the total Federal costs per participant in all
programs.'' Section 130(b)(3) of the Act, as amended, authorizes the
Corporation to ask an organization ``re-competing'' for funding after a
three-year initial grant period to include a ``description of the
success of the programs in reducing their reliance on Federal funds.''
In addition, E.O. 13331 directs that ``national and community service
programs should leverage Federal resources to maximize support from the
private sector and from State and local governments.''
While the Corporation is committed to meeting these goals, they do
not require imposing limitations on the number of years an organization
may receive funds, particularly given the many organizations providing
valuable infrastructure and experience that enable national and
community service to continue to thrive across the country. At the
national level, we do not think it necessary to disqualify an
organization from receiving Federal funding based on the number of
years that organization has received funding. To do so would result, in
future years, in a loss of some of the strongest organizations with the
capacity, infrastructure, and experience to provide high-quality
service and deliver results that contribute to the strengthening and
growth of national and community service. We do believe, however, that
most, if not all, organizations that receive Corporation funds can and
should contribute a higher share of program costs over time.
The Corporation's objectives in the proposed rule relating to
sustainability are to make more resources available in order to
increase national service activities and opportunities. In addition, we
seek to strengthen existing national and community service programs by
encouraging grantees to expand and diversify their non-Federal funding
sources while strengthening the competitive framework. At the same
time, we want to strengthen the independence, operating flexibility,
and autonomy of grantees, and treat grantees fairly and equitably.
The Corporation's strategy to increase organizational
sustainability and expand national and community service has six main
elements:
1. Incorporates the broad spectrum of sustainability criteria
throughout the Corporation's grant selection criteria.
2. Makes an applicant's budgeted Corporation cost per full-time-
equivalent (FTE) a more meaningful factor in the selection process. All
else being equal, the lower a program's cost per FTE, the better chance
it will have to receive Corporation funding. At the
[[Page 50124]]
same time, the Corporation will explicitly take into account the goals,
performance outcomes, and the individual circumstances of programs and
the communities in which they operate, thereby considering both costs
and benefits.
3. Increases, based on a predictable and incremental schedule, the
grantee share of program costs to a 50 percent aggregate level by the
10th year in which an organization receives an AmeriCorps grant for the
same program.
4. Expects State commissions to develop and implement a
sustainability approach as part of their oversight function.
5. Reserves a percentage of non-continuation AmeriCorps State and
national grant funds each year for applicants that have not received
AmeriCorps competitive funding from the Corporation for at least five
years.
6. Builds meaningful tools, including limited exceptions, for
accommodating organizations that have demonstrated hardship in meeting
the increasing match requirements.
With the exception of the fourth element--reserving a percentage of
non-continuation funds each year for applicants new to the
Corporation--we address each of the elements in more detail in the
individual section discussions that follow. On the issue of reserving a
percentage of funds for applicants new to the Corporation, we
anticipate reserving annually a percentage of AmeriCorps funds for
grants to new applicants--i.e., applicants who have not received an
AmeriCorps State or national competitive grant for at least five years.
The Corporation will determine this percentage annually based on the
availability of appropriations and the projected number of recompeting
applications, and publish this information, including posting it on the
Web site at http://www.nationalservice.org, in advance of the selection
process.
The Corporation believes that its sustainability approach
represents a fair, equitable, and authoritative resolution of the issue
of organizational financial sustainability. The proposed rules are
authorized by, and consistent with, our enabling legislation, and
strike a reasonable balance between our objectives of supporting and
strengthening high-quality programs while leveraging Federal resources
to achieve the greatest benefit possible for our nation's communities.
Predictability and consistency are crucial elements of this rulemaking.
Thus, we seek to provide clear guidance to our grantees on our long-
term expectations for sustainability, which we believe decisively
resolves the ongoing discussion on the issue.
Intermediaries
The Corporation received a substantial amount of input regarding
intermediaries and, in particular, the potential effect of efforts to
promote sustainability on those entities. We believe that there is and
should continue to be a prominent place for intermediaries in the
national and community service portfolio, particularly given their
important role in reaching faith-based and small community-based
organizations. The Corporation understands that many intermediary
models include a regular infusion of new sites, which, as with any
start-up, may have higher costs initially. In designing the selection
criteria, we have explicitly included that feature of intermediaries as
a possible factor in considering several of the cost-effectiveness
competitive factors.
We note, however, that we have set matching requirements at the
grantee level, rather than at the placement or operating site level,
and we have not adjusted the matching requirements based on the
proportion of new sites in any given year. We believe that establishing
the matching requirements at the grantee level gives greater
flexibility to intermediaries to manage and achieve a mix of new and
older sites.
Specifics of the Proposed Rule
As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule:
1. Defines the term ``target community'' as the geographic
community for which an AmeriCorps grant applicant identifies an unmet
need to be addressed.
2. Clarifies the types of service activities in which AmeriCorps
members may engage and explains the parameters for grantees and members
to engage in capacity-building service activities, including volunteer
recruitment and support.
3. Increases, in an incremental and predictable fashion, the
grantee's share of program costs to a 50 percent aggregate plateau over
10 years.
4. Codifies that the amount of childcare payments the Corporation
makes on behalf of an AmeriCorps member may not exceed the amount
provided under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-508).
5. Codifies the grant selection process and criteria, and aligns
the criteria with indicators of high-quality and sustainable programs.
6. Clarifies how grantees will calculate their budgeted Corporation
cost per FTE.
7. Codifies the Corporation's requirements for grantees to
establish performance measures and to evaluate program outcomes, and
establishes grant size threshold for evaluations.
8. Establishes qualifications for members serving as tutors and
requirements for tutoring programs.
9. Prohibits displacement of volunteers.
10. Removes obsolete references to ``transitional entities''
serving as State commissions on national and community service.
11. Broadens State commission flexibility to directly operate
national service programs, except to the extent prohibited by statute.
12. Modifies State commission State plan requirements to include a
description of their program sustainability approach.
Member Service Activities on Behalf of the Organization (Sec. Sec.
2520.20 Through 2520.65)
Except for those member activities specifically prohibited in
sections 132 and 174 of the Act, as amended, the Corporation has broad
authority to determine appropriate service activities for AmeriCorps
members. The proposed regulation largely codifies and clarifies the
Corporation's current guidelines and grant provisions on this issue.
Specifically, this regulation clarifies that AmeriCorps members may:
(1) Perform direct service activities, and (2) engage in other
activities that build the organizational and financial capacity of
nonprofit organizations and communities, including volunteer
recruitment and certain fundraising activities.
Volunteer Recruitment
One focus of Executive Order 13331 is leveraging of Federal
resources ``to enable the recruitment and effective management of a
larger number of volunteers than is currently possible.'' The proposed
regulations more clearly direct that some component of an AmeriCorps
grant must help build the long-term capacity of nonprofit organizations
and the community by recruiting and supporting volunteers. While this
has implicitly been a requirement over the past two years, clarifying
and reinforcing this requirement is expected to encourage more
Americans to engage in service and volunteer activities, and advance
President Bush's call to service.
[[Page 50125]]
The Corporation does not, however, intend for this requirement to
distract from an organization's mission, nor is our goal to replace
direct service with volunteer generation and other capacity-building
activities. In most cases, direct service and volunteer leveraging can
complement each other to strengthen programs and communities. When
considering how an AmeriCorps program can promote the effective
involvement of volunteers, applicants have the flexibility to determine
the best way to enhance or build upon the direct service goals of the
program in which the AmeriCorps members are serving and to propose
capacity-building activities accordingly.
The Corporation recognizes, however, that some program models, such
as certain professional corps, youth corps, and programs in some rural
locations with a limited volunteer pool, may not be able to include
volunteer recruitment and support in their program model, and the
Corporation will take these factors into account in considering
requests to waive the volunteer leveraging requirement.
Fundraising
The proposed regulation also clarifies that AmeriCorps members may
help organizations raise funds directly in support of service
activities that meet local environmental, educational, public safety,
homeland security, or other human needs. Members may participate in a
wide range of fundraising activities if these activities make up only a
relatively small amount of any individual member's overall service
hours. Members may write grant applications excepting those for
AmeriCorps or any other Federal funding.
The rule's provisions governing fundraising are more flexible for
AmeriCorps members than those for grantee staff, which are subject to
Federal cost principles described in the Office of Management and
Budget Circulars that generally disallow costs incurred in organized
fundraising. The Corporation believes that these activities will
enhance the use of AmeriCorps members to build the capacity of
nonprofit organizations, as well as advance the professional
development of the members themselves.
Finally, the rule codifies the Corporation's existing so-called
``80/20'' rule, which limits a program's aggregate number of hours for
education and training activities to not more than 20 percent of its
members' total service hours. The rule also clarifies that capacity-
building activities count towards the 80 percent and not the 20 percent
education and training hours.
Increase in Grantee Share of Program Costs (Sec. Sec. 2521.40 Through
2521.60)
Sections 121 and 140 of the Act, as amended, establish a ceiling on
the Corporation share for program operating costs and the Federal share
for member support costs of 75 percent and 85 percent, respectively. In
other words, at a minimum, the statute requires an AmeriCorps grantee
to provide not less than 25 percent of operating costs, and 15 percent
of member support costs. While the Act does not allow the Corporation
to decrease the grantee share requirements below the statutory minimum,
the Corporation has the discretion under the statute to increase the
grantee share of costs, and did so in 1996, when we increased the
grantee share of operating costs from 25 percent to 33 percent.
As discussed earlier, the Corporation believes that the essence of
the current public discussions of sustainability relates to the
financial resources of our grantee organizations. Section 130 of the
Act, as amended, explicitly authorizes the Corporation to ask an
organization applying for renewal of assistance (``recompete'' funding)
after an initial three-year grant period to describe how it has
decreased its reliance on Federal funding. In addition, in our annual
appropriations act each year dating back to fiscal year 1996, Congress
has directed the Corporation to ``increase significantly the level of
matching funds and in-kind contribution provided by the private
sector,'' and to ``reduce the total Federal costs per participant in
all programs.'' Finally, E.O. 13331 directs that ``national and
community service programs should leverage Federal resources to
maximize support from the private sector and from State and local
governments.''
Consequently, this proposed rulemaking would increase, in a
predictable and incremental fashion, the grantee share of program costs
to a 50 percent aggregate level in the 10th year that an organization
receives an AmeriCorps grant. Each grantee will be required to meet the
current minimum requirements of 33 percent match (cash or in-kind) for
operating costs and 15 percent match (non-Federal cash only) for member
support costs. After meeting those minimum requirements, the grantee
may meet the balance of its aggregate share of costs through any
combination of operating or member support matching funds. The grantee
aggregate share will apply beginning in the fourth year and increase in
each year thereafter in which an organization receives a program grant
as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Aggregate Share................... N/A N/A N/A 26% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule establishes that a current grantee who has
received an AmeriCorps grant for 4 years or more, must begin meeting
the match requirements at the year three-level. For the first two
years, that organization will be required to meet current, or
marginally higher, match requirements, before its required share begins
to increase more systematically.
The Corporation intends to provide training and technical
assistance to grantees to assist them in achieving their matching
goals. For example, we may provide training on documenting in-kind
match to enable grantees to maximize their ability to use in-kind
towards their overall matching requirements. We will consult with
grantees to determine the most useful and appropriate training and
technical assistance.
We believe, based on our research into current grantee match
levels, that it is reasonable to expect all grantees, even those
operating in remote or impoverished communities, to achieve this level
of matching, and we expect State commissions to continue managing their
portfolios to achieve even higher match levels. However, to the extent
that an organization is unable to achieve or increase its share of
costs, we intend to consider targeting the following assistance to
organizations that are demonstrably at risk of not meeting the matching
requirements:
1. Providing additional training and technical assistance: The
Corporation plans to provide training and technical assistance to help
grantees identify new strategies to raise matching funds and community
support.
2. Redirecting Corporation assets: The Corporation will consider
using, on a
[[Page 50126]]
short-term basis, other program assets to help an organization
struggling to meet its match requirements. For example, we might
temporarily allocate a VISTA member to help build the capacity and
broaden the community support of a VISTA-eligible organization.
3. Conducting Corporation outreach to the regional and national
philanthropic community: The Corporation will seek to broaden its
outreach to the philanthropic community to promote those national and
community service programs that are potentially at risk and explain the
impact of the changes we are implementing.
4. Allowing State commission portfolio flexibility: If a subgrantee
of a State commission is not meeting its minimum matching requirements,
we are providing the State commissions the ability to make up for the
short-fall in a low-matching grantee's matching funds by pairing that
grantee up with one or more grantees that are meeting more than the
required level of matching funds. This will provide some flexibility to
State commissions to manage their formula and, to some extent,
competitive portfolios, while effectively reducing Federal share.
5. Allowing a waiver: On a limited basis, the Corporation will use
its current statutory waiver authority for those satisfactorily
performing and otherwise compliant programs that demonstrate an
inability, in spite of reasonable efforts, to achieve sufficient
financial support to meet the increased matching requirements. This
waiver would be granted on an annual basis and subject to revision or
revocation based on grantee performance and resources.
The Corporation believes the increased match requirements, together
with the measures described above that are designed to assist grantees
in meeting the new requirements, represent a fair, equitable, and
authoritative resolution of the issue of organizational financial
sustainability, such that additional measures in annual appropriations
bills, or through rulemaking, are not necessary. We intend to make
public information on an annual basis reporting the progress that
grantees are making in leveraging Federal resources.
Codifying the Cap on Child-Care Payments (Sec. 2522.250)
Section 140(e) of the Act, as amended, authorizes the Corporation
to establish guidelines on the availability and value of child-care
assistance. By current regulation, child-care payments for AmeriCorps
State and National members are ``based on'' amounts authorized under
the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990. The Corporation is
proposing to eliminate any ambiguity in the current language by
explicitly capping the amount of child-care benefits for any individual
AmeriCorps member at the level established by each State under the
Child Care and Development Block Grant.
AmeriCorps Grants Selection Process and Criteria (Sec. Sec. 2522.400
Through 2522.470)
In addition to establishing specific AmeriCorps grant application
requirements, section 130 of the Act, as amended, gives the Corporation
broad authority to set additional application requirements and to
establish the selection process. We are proposing adjustments to our
grant selection criteria to meet three objectives: (1) To better align
the selection criteria with elements that predict program success; (2)
To incorporate into the selection criteria greater emphasis on
sustainability; and (3) To provide transparency, predictability, and
consistency for organizations applying for AmeriCorps funds.
The proposed rule describes the Corporation's processes and
criteria for selecting grantees. In selecting AmeriCorps programs, the
Corporation generally needs to know four things: (1) An organization's
plan and its expected outcomes; (2) Whether the organization has the
capability to manage Federal funds, and operate and support the
proposed program; (3) The cost implications of the proposed program;
and (4) For an existing program, whether the organization has
implemented a sound program, including achieving strong outputs and
outcomes, organizational capability, and cost-effectiveness.
To address these issues, the proposed rule modifies the current
structure of three overall categories of criteria--Program Design,
Organizational Capability (formerly Organization Capacity), and Cost-
Effectiveness (formerly Budget/Cost-Effectiveness). We have adjusted
the weights of the three categories to better balance program design
against organizational strength, which is reflected through
organizational capability, and cost-effectiveness. Consequently,
Program Design is 50 percent of the score (as opposed to
60 percent currently),
Organizational Capability remains at its current 25
percent weight, and
Cost-Effectiveness is 25 percent (as opposed to 15 percent
currently).
The Corporation's focus within Program Design is now on the
relationship between an applicant's rationale and approach, and the
outputs and outcomes to be achieved for members and the community. Most
of the criteria from the Corporation's current AmeriCorps 2004
guidelines remain part of the revised selection criteria, although they
may now appear under a different category. (Please visit our Web site
at http://www.nationalservice.org to view the AmeriCorps 2004
guidelines). We have also added criteria across all three categories to
better reflect our focus on outcomes and sustainability. With respect
to financial sustainability, we have included a specific criterion on
Corporation cost per FTE, so that, all things being equal, an applicant
proposing a lower cost per FTE will be more advantaged in the selection
process, in the context of fully weighing the benefits, contributions
and circumstances of each program.
In applying the selection criteria, the Corporation intends to
ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that similar program models are
evaluated together. This will help to ensure equity and fairness. The
proposed rule would allow the Corporation to also consider relevant
information it has received or that is otherwise available during the
grant review process--the proposed rule sets out in detail the type of
information that the Corporation may choose to consider.
After the Corporation applies the basic selection criteria, we may
then apply one or more of the Corporation's selection priorities, as
described in this proposed rule. The Corporation may also announce
additional priorities in the Notice of Funding Availability, or other
notice to the public. Our intent, however, in codifying the selection
priorities in these regulations is to provide transparency and baseline
consistency for current and prospective grantees. This list of
selection priorities reflects several long-standing Board priorities as
well as new priorities that we believe are appropriate as a matter of
policy--and for the Programs Supporting Distressed Communities, as a
matter of law.
The proposed rule reaffirms that the Corporation will seek to
ensure innovation and diversity across its portfolio of AmeriCorps
programs. In addition, we are requiring State commissions to prioritize
their State competitive proposals in rank order to help inform our
selection process. While the Corporation will not be bound by the
commissions' rankings, we may consider them when making
[[Page 50127]]
funding decisions. We may, in the future, choose to limit the number of
proposals any one State may submit for State competitive funding to
streamline the selection process and make optimal use of outside peer
review panels. If so, we will announce the limitation in the
appropriate Notice of Funding Availability.
The input we received raised some questions over State commission
peer review requirements and why the Corporation conducts peer reviews
of proposals that State commissions may have already peer reviewed.
While the regulatory language does not specify this, we wish to clarify
that the Corporation does not require State commissions to peer review
AmeriCorps State competitive proposals. The Corporation conducts peer
reviews of those proposals at the national level to ensure equitable
consideration of all applications. However, a State commission may be
required, under State law, to peer review proposals, or it may choose
to do so on its own.
Cost Per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) (Sec. 2522.485)
As discussed earlier, the proposed rule strengthens the
Corporation's basic selection criteria, and explicitly includes a
program's proposed Corporation cost per FTE as an indicator of cost-
effectiveness at Sec. 2522.435. The proposed regulations also quantify
an individual program's Corporation cost per FTE. For individual
programs, the Corporation cost per FTE is the budgeted grant costs
divided by the number of member FTEs awarded in the grant. The budgeted
grant costs exclude: (1) Child-care for individual members, for which
the Corporation pays directly; and (2) The education award a member may
receive from the National Service Trust after fulfilling a term of
service.
The Corporation will announce annually any changes in a program's
Corporation cost per FTE. We anticipate that making cost per FTE a
competitive factor and gradually decreasing the Federal share of
grantee costs will cause the cost per FTE for most programs to decrease
over time. Generally, however, the Corporation will consider granting
continuation and recompete program requests to increase their
Corporation cost per FTE up to the statutorily-required percentage
increase in their previous year's AmeriCorps member living allowance.
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 12594(a)).
The Corporation will continue to hold State commissions and
national direct grantees to a maximum average Corporation cost per FTE.
State commissions and national direct grantees will calculate their
portfolio's average Corporation cost per FTE by dividing the budgeted
grant costs for all their AmeriCorps programs by the number of member
FTEs awarded across their portfolio of AmeriCorps programs, including
Education Award programs. The budgeted grant costs do not include
child-care for individual members, the education award a member may
receive from the National Service Trust for fulfilling a term of
service, or non-program grant funds such as a State commission's
administrative grant or Program Development and Training (PDAT) funds.
We encourage State commissions and national direct grantees to use the
Education Award Program as a way to lower their average Corporation
cost per FTE, to the extent feasible while maintaining high quality
programs.
Currently, the average cost per FTE for each commission includes
the formula funds they use for planning grants. Some of the input
suggested that the Corporation give States more leeway to use planning
grants to foster new AmeriCorps programs by taking the cost of planning
grants out of the average cost per FTE calculation for each commission.
The Corporation is considering allowing commissions, in calculating
their average Corporation cost per FTE, to exclude some amount of
planning grants from their budgeted grant costs, in an amount to be
determined by the Corporation each year. The Corporation plans to study
the budgetary and National Service Trust implications of this approach
in the coming months. However, we invite the public to suggest other
ideas for expanding the use of planning grants.
The Corporation will announce in the Federal Register and on its
Web site at http://www.nationalservice.org the annual maximum average
Corporation cost per FTE for State commissions and national direct
portfolios. For the 2004 and 2005 program years, the maximum average
Corporation cost per FTE for both State commissions and national
directs will remain at the current level of $12,400. The Corporation
recognizes that the member living allowance may increase and we will
review the maximum average cost per FTE annually with this and other
changes to program costs in mind.
While we acknowledge that cost per FTE may be defined in several
different ways, our proposed calculations of Corporation cost per FTE
are primarily to enable grantees and subgrantees to manage Corporation
costs at the program and State commission level, and to estimate costs
for the grant selection process.
Performance Measures and Evaluation (Sec. 2522.500 Through 2522.740)
To ensure that the Corporation continues to demonstrate the true
impact of national service, and that programs continue to improve, as
well as to fulfill the expectations laid out in the Government
Performance Results Act of 1993 and OMB's Program Assessment Rating
Tool (or PART), we are continuing to build on the progress we have made
in demonstrating results. The proposed rule codifies the Corporation's
current requirements for performance measurement, focuses independent
evaluation requirements on large grantees, and generally reflects
current Corporation practice. In addition, the proposed rule clearly
describes the relationship between performance measures, evaluations,
and funding decisions. The Corporation believes that a stronger
emphasis on performance measurement and evaluation will strengthen
AmeriCorps programs and foster continuous improvement. In line with
E.O. 13331, emphasizing performance measures and evaluation will also
help us identify both best practices and models that merit replication,
and programmatic weaknesses that can be corrected most effectively when
identified early.
The proposed rule distinguishes performance measurement from
program evaluation, while making explicit that grant funds used to pay
for either activity are not considered ``administrative costs'' or
subject to the 5 percent statutory cap. A grantee would be allowed to
use grant funds to pay for performance measurement and evaluation up to
the approved amounts for such activities in its grant.
While the proposed rule allows an applicant organization to propose
and negotiate performance measures unique to the applicant's program,
the rule provides that the Corporation will establish one or more
national performance measures on which all grantees would have to
report. The Corporation will establish a national performance measure
on volunteer leveraging, and may establish performance indicators of
member satisfaction. The Corporation will develop national standardized
performance measures in consultation with AmeriCorps grantees.
Section 131(d)(1) of the Act specifies that an applicant must
arrange for an independent evaluation of an AmeriCorps national service
program receiving assistance under Subtitle C of Title I of the Act,
unless the applicant obtains Corporation approval to conduct an
internal evaluation. The statute also
[[Page 50128]]
authorizes the Corporation to make alternative evaluation requirements
``based upon the amount of assistance'' a grantee receives.
In light of these provisions, the Corporation is revising its
current requirement that all grantees arrange for evaluations every 4
years. The proposed rule requires that only grantees receiving an
average annual program grant of $500,000 or more conduct an evaluation
that covers a period of at least 5 years, and submit the evaluation
results with their application for recompete funding. The Corporation
intends to strictly enforce this requirement. Our rationale for this
approach is that it is burdensome to require evaluation for smaller
grants, and, for larger grants, we want to give a grantee enough time
to complete a rigorous evaluation, and ensure that the Corporation
receives it in time to consider with a grantee's second recompete
application for funding. The Corporation will not consider for funding
any recompete application that does not include the required evaluation
summary, or results, as applicable.
For grantees that do not meet the dollar threshold, the Corporation
encourages (but does not require) them to perform evaluations and may
consider the results of these evaluations when making decisions on an
organization's application for funds. See our Web site (http://www.nationalservice.org
), under the AmeriCorps application guidelines
and AmeriCorps application instructions for the relevant program year
for information on how to submit evaluation materials.
To continuously improve the results of programs for both
participants and the people they serve, we encourage all grantees to
provide for evaluations as part of their programs.
Qualifications for Members Serving as Reading Tutors and Requirements
for Tutoring Programs (Sec. Sec. 2522.900 Through 2522.950)
E.O. 13331 directs that school-based national and community service
programs ``should employ tutors who meet required paraprofessional
qualifications, and use such practices and methodologies as are
required for supplemental educational services.'' The Corporation
believes strongly that it is important to maintain consistency with the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and ensure that children who need
tutoring are receiving the best possible support.
At the same time, we recognize that thousands of AmeriCorps members
are providing invaluable support to children through a wide range of
activities. In setting qualifications, we have narrowly defined
``tutor'' in these regulations to include only individuals whose
primary goal is to increase academic achievement in reading or other
core subjects through planned, consistent, one-to-one or small-group
reading, or other small-group sessions, that build on students'
academic strengths and target students' academic needs. We do not
intend to establish qualifications for national service participants
who engage in other school-related support activities, such as homework
help provided as part of a safe-place-after-school program.
The proposed rule also confirms that the qualification requirements
for tutors and other paraprofessionals under the NCLBA apply to tutors
who are employees of the Local Education Agency (LEA) or school, but do
not apply to AmeriCorps members serving as tutors under the sponsorship
of an organization other than the school district.
Under the NCLBA, paraprofessionals who provide instructional
support in Title I schools must have a secondary school diploma or its
equivalent and must have: (a) Completed two years of study at an
institution of higher education; or (b) Obtained an associate's or
higher degree; or (c) Met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to
demonstrate the appropriate and relevant job skills through a formal
State or local academic assessment. As stated above, these requirements
apply only to tutors who are employees of the LEA or school, but do not
apply to AmeriCorps members serving as tutors under the sponsorship of
an organization other than the school.
For a member serving as a tutor, other than one employed by the LEA
or school, the proposed rule requires either that the member has a high
school diploma (or its equivalent), or that the member passes a
proficiency test that the grantee has determined effective in ensuring
that the member has the necessary skills to serve as a tutor. A member
serving as a tutor would also have to successfully complete any pre-
and in-service specialized training required by the program.
In addition, tutoring programs are required to show competency to
provide tutoring service through their recruitment, specialized
training, performance measures, and supervision. We believe that these
requirements will help improve the overall quality of tutoring and
literacy programs in which AmeriCorps members serve.
Non-Displacement of Volunteers (Sec. 2540.100)
The Corporation's focus has always been, pursuant to the Act, to
fund programs meeting unmet needs in their communities. The non-
displacement rules are one way to ensure that programs are meeting
unmet needs, rather than needs that employees or volunteers are meeting
already. Consequently, we are proposing to clarify, in the regulation,
that the service of an AmeriCorps member must complement, and may not
displace, the service of other volunteers in the community. This
clarification is consistent with the directive in E.O. 13331 that
national and community service programs avoid or eliminate any practice
that displaces volunteers.
Transitional Entities (Sec. Sec. 2550.10 Through 2550.80)
The National Service Trust Act of 1993 and the Corporation's
regulations, originally issued in 1994, contemplated the existence of
transitional entities, in addition to State commissions and alternative
administrative entities, as State bodies that could be eligible to
receive Corporation funding and administer national service programs on
an interim basis. The provisions relating to transitional entities,
however, sunsetted 27 months after the passage of the Act, or December
1995. The proposed rule amends the regulations to remove any obsolete
references to transitional entities.
State Commission Sustainability Approaches (Sec. 2550.80(a)(3))
Part of the Corporation's sustainability strategy is to build upon
what some States are already doing in the sustainability arena. Through
the public input process and follow-up discussions, we learned that
roughly one-quarter of the State commissions have written
sustainability policies or approaches through which they promote
sustainability and encourage new programs in their States. Some States,
for example, gradually and predictably reduce their programs'
Corporation cost per FTE over 12 years, to allow the commission to
invest funds in new programs and encourage on-going programs to develop
efficiencies and enhance community support. Other State commissions
require, among other things, that their subgrantees develop their own
sustainability plans, and increase the subgrantee share of program
operating costs over a seven-year period to 75 percent. Some States, in
addition to requiring a small increase in program share of member
support
[[Page 50129]]
costs over a three-year period, actively solicit private donations to
use, in part, to help AmeriCorps programs meet corporate donors and
improve private support.
We expect these States to continue their sustainability efforts,
and other States to begin planning how they can help make national and
community service sustainable at the state level. For this reason, the
proposed rule requires each State to describe its sustainability
approach in its State plan. To address this requirement, States will
need to consider how best to use the Corporation's sustainability
approaches in conjunction with State needs to achieve sustainable
national and community service programs, and the Corporation will have
the opportunity to learn from what the States are doing and to share
best practices.
State Commissions Directly Operating Programs (Sec. 2550.80(j))
The Corporation proposes to ease the restriction on State
commissions directly carrying out national and community service
programs. Under the Act, a State commission or alternative
administrative entity may not directly carry out any national service
program that receives assistance under subtitle C. 42 U.S.C. 12638(f).
Currently, however, 45 CFR 2550.80 goes further than the statute by
prohibiting State commissions from directly operating any national
service program receiving assistance, in any form, from the
Corporation. This means that, currently, a State commission is
prohibited from operating not only a subtitle C AmeriCorps program, but
also any subtitle H, Learn and Serve, or Senior Corps program. The
Corporation is relaxing the restriction by amending the regulations to
conform to the Act and to give commissions more flexibility to directly
operate programs other than subtitle C AmeriCorps programs.
V. Effective Dates
The Corporation intends to make any final rule based on this
proposal effective no sooner than 30 days after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register. We will include an implementation
schedule in the final rule, based on the final rule's date of
publication.
VI. Significant Non-Regulatory Issues
The Corporation announced in its March 4, 2004 Federal Register
notice that we would not respond to the input we received during the
preliminary input process, but that we would use it to inform our
drafting process. That said, we received sufficient input on certain
issues that we feel we should address here, even in the absence of
regulatory language.
A. Streamlining Grantee Requirements and Aligning Them With Grantee
Needs
Much of the public input we received focused on suggestions for
streamlining our grant application and grant-making processes, and
streamlining and aligning with grantee needs our reporting and other
requirements. The following are some of the issues we considered and
our response.
Revising the Timing of the Grant Cycle
During the preliminary public input process, we heard that our
current grant calendar is not optimal for many organizations with start
dates in the fall. To the extent that appropriations are made
available, we intend to move application deadlines and grant awards to
earlier in the fiscal year. Our goal is to execute grant awards to
allow grantees as much time as possible from the time they receive the
grant to the date that they start their programs. Part of this process
will also include revisiting our current application requirements to
tailor them more closely to the information we reasonably need to make
decisions.
The Corporation received several requests to authorize grantees to
allow members to begin serving before we actually execute the grant
award. By law, the Corporation cannot meet this request. The Strengthen
AmeriCorps Act re-emphasizes the statutory requirement that the
obligational event for an education award is the execution of the grant
award. Thus, we cannot allow programs to enroll members before we have
awarded both the grant and the member FTEs associated with the grant.
Streamlining Continuation Grants and Reporting Requirements
Section 130 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as
amended, authorizes the Corporation to determine the timing and content
of applications for AmeriCorps funding. The public input we received
overwhelmingly indicated that we should streamline our current process
for applying for continuation funding in years two and three of a
three-year grant period. We agree and intend to change our continuation
application requirements to minimize the burden on grantees, while
ensuring that the Corporation receives the information it needs to make
fiscally responsible continuation awards. Our intent is to streamline
the application, reporting requirements, and the review process for
continuations, as well as to give grantees more predictability over the
three-year grant cycle.
We propose:
Allowing grantees, generally, to request their
continuation award on a rolling basis, according to their needs, rather
than by a specific due date;
Requiring grant applicants to submit a three-year budget
and three-year plan for performance measures with their initial
application for funding, and to update it annually when they request
additional funds for years two and three of the grant;
Requiring grantees to submit their progress report and, if
applicable, a narrative describing any proposed changes in the scope of
the program with their request for continuation funding;
Eliminating the requirement that grantees submit a new SF
424 Face sheet, a complete program narrative, and other information
that we determine to be unnecessary; and
Eliminating the requirement that State commissions provide
annual summaries, and other information we determine to be unnecessary
for their State competitive programs.
Accordingly, the Corporation will be revising and streamlining many
of the information collection requirements related to grant
applications. The Corporation intends, to the maximum extent possible,
to award continuation grants within one month of a grantee's request,
or within one month of the Corporation's receipt of its annual
appropriation, whichever is later. This means that, as a general rule,
the Corporation intends to award continuation requests on a rolling
basis, rather than requiring all applications to be submitted on a
specific day and considering them at the same time. We intend to work
with State commissions on a schedule that accommodates the different
start dates of programs within a State's portfolio. Because of the
uncertainties of annual appropriations, however, we are reviewing how
this process would affect continuation requests that include an
expansion request (including both requests for more program funds and
requests for more member FTEs), and may establish an alternate
timetable for considering those requests.
The Corporation intends to approve continuation requests based on:
1. The Grantee's satisfactory performance, as demonstrated in the
progress report and other information the Corporation may have
obtained;
2. Whether the grantee is in compliance with its grant provisions;
3. Any proposed changes to the grantee's program or budget; and
[[Page 50130]]
4. The availability of appropriations.
To make this new process work, the Corporation intends to tie
reporting requirements, such as the progress report, to the start date
of individual grants, rather than setting an arbitrary deadline for all
grantees. We anticipate issuing a three-year schedule of reporting due
dates with each initial grant award so that the grantee will know what
is expected at the outset. This will also ensure that the Corporation
receives the reports at the optimal point in time for making funding
decisions. In addition, we are committed to focusing and streamlining
our current reporting requirements to reduce grantee burden.
In sum, these anticipated changes are expected to decrease the
burden on grantees, increase the efficiency of the grant-making
process, and increase the utility of what grantees report. We will
inform our grantees once we have finalized our continuation request
processes.
Providing Three-Year Funding for Three-Year Grants
The input we received indicated a strong preference for providing
three years of funding up front to a grantee. However, funding three-
year grants up front would necessarily decrease the size of the
national service field, at least initially, as we would only be able to
award about a third of the annual grants we award now. We, therefore,
decline to accept this suggestion and do not anticipate providing three
years of funding up front for a three-year grant.
Clarifying and Streamlining Guidance
As mentioned earlier, the Corporation is initiating a second
rulemaking process this year to rewrite and reorganize our current
regulations, and streamline and incorporate the grant provisions and
guidelines into regulation. We believe that this will result in much
clearer, more focused, and transparent guidance for applicants and
grantees and a decrease in grantee burden.
B. Maximizing a Grantee's Ability To Meet Objectives and Achieve Strong
Outcomes
Re-Fill Rule
Since last year, the Corporation has prohibited programs from re-
filling a slot when a member left without completing a term of service.
We received a significant amount of input asking that we revisit this
policy. We are still examining this possibility for the 2004 program
year and will issue more specific guidance on this issue in the near
future. We will address this issue outside of rulemaking.
Challenge Grants
Many individuals who provided input saw challenge grants as a way
to increase the capacity of the national and community service field.
The Corporation supports making challenge grants under certain
circumstances. Under the VA/HUD appropriation, however, challenge
grants are currently authorized and funded under subtitle H of the Act,
as amended, and are not available for the purpose of supporting
AmeriCorps programs. To date, we have not had authority in our
appropriations statute to fund challenge grants with AmeriCorps State
and National funds and are, therefore, unable to accept this
suggestion.
Professional Corps
The Corporation received a substantial amount of input on behalf of
professional corps grantees requesting separate application guidelines
and requirements for professional corps programs. We have concluded
that we do not need to establish separate guidelines in regulation. The
Corporation believes, however, that professional corps programs,
particularly those for which the cost is largely borne by sponsoring
organizations, will continue to compete well in our AmeriCorps grant
competitions. By using an ``apples to apples'' approach during our
selection process, we will ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that
we evaluate professional corps programs together. In addition, for a
program able to demonstrate the requirement to leverage volunteers is a
fundamental program structure alteration, we will consider a request to
waive such leveraging requirement.
Finally, we recently issued a Notice of Funding Availability
directed only at professional corps, and would consider doing so again
in the future.
C. Improving the AmeriCorps Member Experience
We received input from current and former AmeriCorps members asking
us to focus on their experience and the resources available to them.
The Corporation has a strong interest in the AmeriCorps member
experience and intends to further explore ways to improve it.
In particular, we intend to explore creating a member satisfaction
survey through which AmeriCorps members would be able to evaluate their
programs and their AmeriCorps experience.
D. Issues That the Corporation Cannot Address Under Current Law
The Corporation received many suggestions for reforms that it is
unable to address without legislation. The following table lists
examples of these proposed reforms and the associated statutory
constraints.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public input proposal Statutory constraint Statutory citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase amount of education award.... Amount for a full-time term of 42 U.S.C. 12603(a).
service is fixed at $4,725.
Education award should be exempt from Internal Revenue Code......... 26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
taxation.
Permit transfer of education award.... Recipient must be AmeriCorps 42 U.S.C. 12602.
member.
Permit education award to be used for Limited to costs of attending 42 U.S.C. 12604.
additional purposes. Title IV institutions of
higher education and
repayment of qualified
student loans.
Permit AmeriCorps members to receive Limit is two education awards 42 U.S.C. 12602(c).
more than two education awards as for the first and second
long as the total amount does not terms of service, regardless
exceed the value of two full-time of length.
education awards.
Make payment of education award Disbursement must be to 42 U.S.C. 12604.
directly to AmeriCorps member. institution of higher
education or loan holder.
Permit AmeriCorps members to enroll as Approval of position does not 42 U.S.C. 12581;
soon as the grant selections are occur until grant award is 42 U.S.C. 12605.
announced. executed.
Increase percentage of grant costs Limit is five percent of grant 42 U.S.C. 12571(d).
that may be spent on administrative amount.
functions.
Grant period should be up to 5 years.. Grant period may not exceed 42 U.S.C. 12574.
three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50131]]
Executive Order 12866
The Corporation has determined that this rule, while a significant
regulatory action, is not an ``economically significant'' rule within
the meaning of E.O. 12866 because it is not likely to result in: (1) An
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and
material effect on a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious
inconsistency or interference with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) a material alteration in the budgetary impacts of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
The proposed rule requires all grantees and subgrantees of the
Corporation to increase, based on a predictable and incremental
schedule, the grantee share of program costs. After the initial three-
year grant period, a Corporation program in its fourth year of
operation must provide at least 26 percent of their overall program
budget in matching money. During years five through ten of Corporation
sponsorship, the program's required matching percentage increases
gradually to 50 percent.
The initial impact of this change will be small. During the 2000-
2002 grant period--the most recent three-year period where we have
complete data on program budgets--about 20.6 percent of all AmeriCorps
grantees and subgrantees had match percentages less than 26 percent. On
average, about 146 programs per grant year would be affected. Among
these programs, the average amount of matching money needed to reach
the 26 percent level is about $20,250 per program, or about $2,950,000
per year across all AmeriCorps programs. However, the median program
would require about $14,200 in additional matching money to reach the
26 percent level. All told, this analysis indicates that the programs
that would be affected would require very little additional money to
achieve a 26 percent match, and that the overall impact of the rule on
Corporation programs falls well short of $100 million annually.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Corporation has determined that this regulatory action will not
result in (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic and export markets. Therefore, the Corporation has not
performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for major
rules that are expected to have such results.
Other Impact Analyses
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, information collection
requirements which must be imposed as a result of this regulation have
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB nos.
3045-0047 and 3045-0065 and these may be revised before this rule
becomes effective.
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this
regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100
million on the private sector.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 2510
Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 2520
Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 2521
Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 2522
Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 2540
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-social
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 2550
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-social
programs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corporation for
National and Community Service proposes to amend chapter XXV, title 45
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 2510--OVERALL PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2510 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.
2. Amend Sec. 2510.20 by adding the definition ``target
community'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 2510.20 Definitions
* * * * *
Target community. The term target community means the geographic
community for which an AmeriCorps grant applicant identifies an unmet
human need to be addressed.
* * * * *
PART 2520--GENERAL PROVISIONS: AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 2520 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595.
2. Add a new Sec. 2520.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 2520.5 What definitions apply to this part?
You. For this part, you refers to the grantee or an organization
operating an AmeriCorps program.
3. Revise Sec. 2520.20 to read as follows:
Sec. 2520.20 What service activities may I support with my grant?
(a) Your grant must initiate, improve, or expand the ability of an
organization and community to provide services to address local
environmental, educational, public safety, homeland security, or other
human needs.
(b) You may use your grant to support AmeriCorps members:
(1) Performing direct service activities that meet local needs.
(2) Performing capacity building activities that improve the
organizational and financial capability of nonprofit organizations and
communities to meet local needs by achieving greater organizational
efficiency and effectiveness, greater impact and quality of impact,
stronger likelihood of successful replicability, or expanded scale.
Sec. 2520.30 [Redesignated as Sec. 2520.70]
3. Redesignate Sec. 2520.30 as Sec. 2520.70, and add the
following sections: Sec. Sec. 2520.25, 2520.30, 2520.35, 2520.40,
[[Page 50132]]
2520.45, 2520.50, 2520.55, 2520.60, and 2520.65.
Sec. 2520.25 What direct service activities may AmeriCorps members
perform?
(a) The AmeriCorps members you support under your grant may perform
direct service activities that will advance the goals of your program,
that will result in a specific identifiable service or improvement that
otherwise would not be provided, and that are included in, or
consistent with, your Corporation-approved grant application.
(b) Your members' direct service activities must meet local
environmental, educational, public safety, homeland security, or other
human needs.
(c) Direct service activities generally refer to activities that
provide a direct, measurable benefit to an individual, a group, or a
community.
(d) Examples of the types of direct service activities AmeriCorps
members may perform include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Tutoring children in reading;
(2) Helping to run an after-school program;
(3) Removing garbage and debris from a park;
(4) Providing health information to a vulnerable population;
(5) Teaching as part of a professional corps;
(6) Providing relief services to a community affected by a
disaster; and
(7) Conducting a neighborhood watch program as part of a homeland
security or law enforcement effort.
Sec. 2520.30 What capacity-building activities may AmeriCorps members
perform?
Capacity-building activities that AmeriCorps members perform should
enhance the mission, strategy, skills, and culture, as well as systems,
infrastructure, and human resources of an organization. Capacity-
building activities help an organization gain greater independence and
sustainability.
(a) The AmeriCorps members you support under your grant may perform
capacity-building activities that advance your program's goals and that
are included in, or consistent with, your Corporation-approved grant
application.
(b) Examples of capacity-building activities your members may
perform include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Strengthening volunteer management and recruitment, including:
(i) Enlisting, training, or coordinating volunteers;
(ii) Helping an organization develop an effective volunteer
management system;
(iii) Organizing service days and other events in the community to
increase citizen engagement;
(iv) Promoting retention of volunteers by planning recognition
events or providing ongoing support and follow-up to ensure that
volunteers have a high-quality experience;
(v) Assisting an organization in reaching out to individuals and
communities of different backgrounds when encouraging volunteerism to
ensure that a breadth of experiences and expertise is represented in
service activities.
(2) Conducting outreach and securing resources in support of
service activities that meet specific needs in the community;
(3) Helping build the infrastructure of the sponsoring
organization, including:
(i) Conducting research, mapping community assets, or gathering
other information that will strengthen the sponsoring organization's
ability to meet community needs;
(ii) Developing new programs or services in a sponsoring
organization seeking to expand;
(iii) Developing organizational systems to improve efficiency and
effectiveness;
(iv) Automating organizational operations to improve efficiency and
effectiveness;
(v) Initiating or expanding revenue-generating operations directly
in support of service activities; and
(vi) Supporting staff and board development.
(4) Developing collaborative relationships with other organizations
working to achieve similar goals in the community, such as:
(i) Faith-based and other community organizations;
(ii) Foundations;
(iii) Local government agencies; and
(iv) Institutions of higher education.
Sec. 2520.35 Must my program recruit or support volunteers?
(a) Unless we approve otherwise, some component of your program
that is supported through the grant awarded by the Corporation must
involve recruiting or supporting volunteers.
(b) If you demonstrate that requiring your program to recruit or
support volunteers would constitute a fundamental alteration to your
program structure, the Corporation may waive the requirement in
response to your written request for such a waiver in the grant
application.
Sec. 2520.40 Under what circumstances may AmeriCorps members in my
program raise funds?
(a) AmeriCorps members may raise funds directly in support of your
program's service activities.
(b) Examples of fundraising activities AmeriCorps members may
perform include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Seeking donations of books from companies and individuals for a
program in which volunteers teach children to read;
(2) Writing a grant proposal to a foundation to secure resources to
support the training of volunteers;
(3) Securing supplies and equipment from the community to enable
volunteers to help build houses for low-income individual;
(4) Securing financial resources from the community to assist a
community-based organization in launching or expanding a program that
provides social services to the members of the community and is
delivered, in whole or in part, through the members of the community-
based organization;
(5) Seeking donations from alumni of the program for specific
service projects being performed by current members.
(c) AmeriCorps members may not:
(1) Raise funds for living allowances or for an organization's
general (as opposed to program) operating expenses or endowment;
(2) Write a grant application for AmeriCorps funding or for any
other Corporation or Federal funding.
Sec. 2520.45 How much time may an AmeriCorps member spend
fundraising?
An AmeriCorps member may spend no more than ten percent of his or
her term of service performing fundraising activities, as described in
Sec. 2520.40.
Sec. 2520.50 How much time may AmeriCorps members in my program spend
in education and training activities?
(a) No more than 20 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps
member service hours in your program may be spent in education and
training activities.
(b) Capacity-building activities and direct service activities do
not count towards the 20 percent cap on education and training
activities.
Sec. 2520. 55 When may my organization collect fees for services
provided by AmeriCorps members?
We encourage you, where appropriate, to collect fees for direct
services provided by AmeriCorps members if:
(a) The service activities conducted by the members are allowable,
as defined
[[Page 50133]]
in this part, and do not violate the non-displacement provisions in
Sec. 2540.100 of these regulations; and
(b) You use any fees collected to finance your non-Corporation
share, or as otherwise authorized by the Corporation.
Sec. 2520.60 What government-wide requirements apply to staff
fundraising under my AmeriCorps grant?
You must follow all applicable OMB circulars on allowable costs
(OMB Circular A-87 for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, OMB
Circular A-122 for Nonprofit Organizations, and OMB Circular A-21 for
Educational Institutions). In general, the OMB circulars do not allow
the following as direct costs under the grant: costs of organized
fundraising, including financial campaigns, endowment drives,
solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar expenses incurred
solely to raise capital or obtain contributions.
Sec. 2520.65 What other member activities are not permissible?
In addition to the activities prohibited under Sec. 2520.70 of
this subpart, you may not assign members to permanent duties that are
solely clerical. However, you may have members perform administrative
duties associated with the projects financed by the grant temporarily
at your discretion as long as:
(a) Any one member does not spend more than 10 percent of his or
her term of service on these duties; and
(b) Allowing a member to perform these duties does not keep you
from meeting the performance goals in your approved grant application.
PART 2521--ELIGIBLE AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND
TYPES OF GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR AWARD
1. The authority citation for part 2521 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595.
2. Add a new Sec. 2521.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 2521.5 What definitions apply to this part?
You. For this part, you refers to the grantee, unless otherwise
noted.
3. Establish a new Sec. 2521.95 with the heading as set forth
below.
Sec. 2521.95 To what extent may I use grant funds for administrative
costs?
* * * * *
Sec. 2521.30 [Amended]
4. Transfer the text of paragraph (h) of Sec. 2521.30 to new Sec.
2521.95, and
a. Redesignate paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2) and (h)(3) introductory
text as (a), (b), and (c), respectively;
b. Redesignate (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(i)(A), and (h)(3)(i)(B) as (c)(1),
(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), respectively; and
c. Redesignate (h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) as (c)(2), and (c)(3),
respectively.
5. Amend Sec. 2521.30 by removing paragraph (g).
6. Add the following sections: Sec. Sec. 2521.40, 2521.50,
2521.60, 2521.65, 2521.70, 2521.80, and 2521.90.
Sec. 2521.40 What are the statutory limitations on the Federal
government's share of program costs?
The statutory limitations on the Federal government's share are
different--in kind and amount--for member support costs and program
operating costs.
(a) Member support: The Federal share, including Corporation and
other Federal funds, of member support costs, which includes the living
allowance required under Sec. 2522.240(b)(1), FICA, unemployment
insurance (if required under State law), worker's compensation (if
required under State law), and health care, is limited as follows:
(1) The Federal share may not exceed 85 percent of the minimum
living allowance required under Sec. 2522.240(b)(1), and 85 percent of
other member support costs.
(2) If you are a professional corps described in Sec.
2522.240(b)(2)(i), you may not use Corporation or any other Federal
funds for the living allowance.
(3) Your share of member support costs must be non-Federal cash.
(b) Program operating costs: The Corporation share of program
operating costs may not exceed 67 percent. These costs include costs
other than member support costs, staff, operating costs, and internal
evaluation and administration costs.
(1) You may provide your share of program operating costs with
cash, including other Federal funds, or third party in-kind
contributions.
(2) Contributions, including third party in-kind must:
(i) Be verifiable from your records;
(ii) Not be included as contributions for any other federally
assisted program;
(iii) Be necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient
accomplishment of your program's objectives; and
(iv) Be allowable under applicable OMB cost principles.
(3) You may not include the value of direct community service
performed by volunteers, but you may include the value of services
contributed by volunteers to your organizations for organizational
functions such as accounting, audit, and training of staff and
AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 2521.50 If I am an Indian Tribe, to what extent may I use tribal
funds towards my share of costs?
If you are an Indian Tribe that receives tribal funds through
Public Law 93-638 (the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act), those funds are considered non-Federal and you may use
them towards your share of costs, including member support costs.
Sec. 2521.60 To what extent must my share of program costs increase
over time?
If your program continues to receive funding after an initial
three-year grant period and continues to meet the minimum requirements
in Sec. 2541.40 of this part, your required share of program costs,
including member support and operating costs, will increase to a 50
percent aggregate for the tenth year that you receive a grant, and any
subsequent year without a break in funding of two years or more. In
other words, by your tenth year as a grantee without a break in funding
of two years or more, you will be required to match $1 for every $1 you
receive from the Corporation.
(a) Minimum Organization Share: Subject to the requirements of
Sec. 2521.40 of this part, and except as provided in paragraph (d) of
this section, the aggregate amount of your share of program costs will
increase as of the fourth consecutive year that you receive a grant
without a break in funding of two years or more, according to the
following timetable:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum member support...................................... 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Minimum operating costs..................................... 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
Minimum aggregate share..................................... NA NA NA 26% 30% 34% 38% 42% 46% 50%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50134]]
(b) Schedule for current program grants: If you have completed one
or more three-year grant cycles on the date this regulation takes
effect, you will be required to provide your share of costs beginning
at the year three level, according to the table in paragraph (a) of
this section, in the first program year in your grant following the
regulation's effective date, and increasing each year thereafter as
reflected in the table.
(c) Flexibility in how you provide your share: As long as you meet
the minimum match requirements in Sec. 2521.40, you may use cash or
in-kind contributions to reach the aggregate share level. For example,
if your organization finds it easier to raise member support match, you
may choose to meet the required aggregate match by raising only more
member support match, and leave operational match at the minimum level,
as long as you provide the required aggregate match.
(d) Reporting excess resources.
(1) The Corporation encourages you to obtain support over-and-above
the matching fund requirements. Reporting these resources may make your
application more likely to be selected for funding, based on the
selection criteria in Sec. Sec. 2522.430 and 2522.435 of these
regulations.
(2) You must comply with Sec. 2543.23 of this title in documenting
cash and in-kind contributions and excess resources.
Sec. 2521.65 What flexibility does a state commission have for a
grantee that is unable to meet the required matching levels?
If a State commission determines that a particular grantee is
unable to meet its required matching levels because it operates in a
resource-poor community, the State commission may deem grantee's
matching requirements to have been satisfied if one or more grantees in
the State commission's portfolio are over-matching and therefore able
to make up the difference in the lower grantee's matching requirements.
Sec. 2521.70 To what extent may the Corporation waive the matching
requirements in Sec. Sec. 2521.40 and 2521.60 of this part?
(a) The Corporation may waive, in whole or in part, the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 2521.40 and 2521.60 of this part if the
Corporation determines that a waiver would be equitable because of a
lack of available financial resources at the local level.
(b) If you are requesting a waiver, you must demonstrate:
(1) The lack of resources at the local level;
(2) The efforts you have made to raise matching funding; and
(3) How much of the matching funds you have raised or reasonably
expect to raise.
(c) You must provide with your waiver:
(1) A request for the specific amount of matching funds you are
requesting that the Corporation waive; and
(2) A budget and budget narrative that reflects the requested
change in matching funds.
Sec. 2521.80 What matching level applies if my program was funded in
the past but has not recently received an AmeriCorps grant?
If your program has not received an AmeriCorps grant for five years
or more, you may begin matching at the year one level, as reflected in
the timetable in Sec. 2521.60(a) of this part, upon receiving your new
grant award.
Sec. 2521.90 If I am a new or replacement legal applicant for an
existing program, what will my matching requirements be?
If your organization is a new or replacement legal applicant for an
existing program, you must provide matching funds at the level that the
previous legal applicant was at the time you took over the program.
PART 2522--AMERICORPS PARTICIPANTS, PROGRAMS, AND APPLICANTS
1. The authority citation for part 2522 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595
2. Add a new Sec. 2522.10 to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 2522.10 What definitions apply to this part?
You. For this part, you refers to the grantee, unless otherwise
noted.
3. Amend Sec. 2522.250 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(3) revise the text to read as follows; and
b. In paragraph (b)(3) revise the paragraph heading, and paragraph
(b)(3)(i), to read as follows:
Sec. 2522.250 What other benefits do AmeriCorps participants serving
in approved AmeriCorps positions receive?
(a) * * *
(3) * * * The amount of the child-care allowance may not exceed the
applicable payment rate established by the State for child care funded
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(4)(A)).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Federal share. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)
of this section, the Federal share of the cost of health coverage may
not exceed 85 percent.
* * * * *
4. Revise Sec. 2522.400 and Sec. 2522.410 to read as follows:
Sec. 2522.400 What process does the Corporation use to select new
grantees?
The Corporation uses a multi-stage process including peer
reviewers, Corporation staff review, and approval by the Chief
Executive Officer or the Board of Directors, or their designee.
Sec. 2522.410 What is the role of the Corporation's Board of
Directors in the selection process?
The Board of Directors has general authority to determine the
selection process, including priorities and selection criteria, and has
authority to make grant decisions. The Board may delegate these
functions to the Chief Executive Officer.
Sec. 2522.480 [Redesignated from Sec. 2522.420]
5. Redesignate Sec. 2522.420 as Sec. 2522.480 and add the
following sections: Sec. Sec. 2522.415, 2522.420, 2522.425, 2522.430,
2522.435, 2522.440, 2522.445, 2522.450, 2522.455, 2522.460, 2522.465,
2522.470, and 2522.475.
Sec. 2522.415 How does the grant selection process work?
The selection process includes:
(a) Determining whether your proposal complies with the application
requirements, such as deadlines and eligibility requirements;
(b) Applying the basic selection criteria to assess the quality of
your proposal;
(c) Applying any applicable priorities or preferences, as stated in
these regulations and in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability;
and
(d) Ensuring innovation and geographic, demographic, and
programmatic diversity across the Corporation's national AmeriCorps
portfolio.
Sec. 2522.420 What basic criteria does the Corporation use in making
funding decisions?
In evaluating your application for funding, the Corporation will
assess:
(a) Your program design;
(b) Your organizational capability; and
(c) Your program cost-effectiveness.
Sec. 2522. 425 What does the Corporation consider in assessing
Program Design?
In determining the quality of your proposal's program design, the
Corporation considers your rationale and approach for the proposed
program, member outputs and outcomes, and community outputs and
outcomes.
[[Page 50135]]
(a) Rationale and approach. In evaluating your rationale and
approach, the Corporation considers the following criteria:
(1) Whether your proposal describes and adequately documents a
compelling need within the target community, including a description of
how you identified the need;
(2) Whether your proposal includes well-designed activities that
address the compelling need, with ambitious performance measures, and a
plan or system for continuous program self-assessment and improvement;
(3) Whether your proposal describes well-defined roles for
participants that are aligned with the identified needs and that lead
to measurable outputs and outcomes; and
(4) The extent to which your proposed program or project:
(i) Effectively involves the target community in planning and
implementation;
(ii) Builds on (without duplicating), or reflects collaboration
with, other national and community service programs supported by the
Corporation; and
(iii) Is designed to be replicated.
(b) Member outputs and outcomes. In evaluating how your proposal
addresses member outputs and outcomes, the Corporation considers the
extent to which your proposal or program:
(1) Includes effective and feasible plans for, or evidence of,
recruiting, managing, and rewarding diverse participants, including
participants from the target community, and demonstrating member
satisfaction;
(2) Includes effective and feasible plans for, or evidence of,
development, training, and supervision of participants;
(3) Demonstrates well-designed training or service activities that
promote and sustain post-service, an ethic of service and civic
responsibility, including structured opportunities for participants to
reflect on and learn from their service; and
(4) Has met well-defined, member-based performance measures,
including outputs and outcomes, if applicable.
(c) Community outputs and outcomes. In evaluating whether your
proposal adequately addresses member outputs and outcomes, the
Corporation considers the extent to which your proposal or program:
(1) Is successful in meeting targeted, compelling community needs,
or if you are a current grantee, the extent to which your program has
met its well-defined, community-based performance measures, including
outcomes, in previous grant cycles, and is continually expanding and
increasing its reach and impact in the community;
(2) Has an impact in the community that is sustainable beyond the
presence of Federal support (For example, if one of your projects is to
revitalize a local park, you would meet this criterion by showing that
after you have completed your revitalization project, the community
will continue its upkeep on its own);
(3) Generates and supports volunteers to expand the reach of your
program in the community; and
(4) Enhances capacity-building of other organizations and
institutions important to the community, such as schools, homeland
security organizations, neighborhood watch organizations, civic
associations, and faith-based and other community organizations.
Sec. 2522.430 How does the Corporation assess my organizational
capability?
(a) In evaluating your organizational capability, the Corporation
considers the following:
(1) The extent to which your organization has a sound structure
including:
(i) The ability to provide sound programmatic and fiscal oversight;
(ii) Well-defined roles for your board of directors,
administrators, and staff;
(iii) A well-designed plan or systems for organizational (as
opposed to program) self-assessment and continuous improvement; and
(iv) The ability to provide or secure effective technical
assistance.
(2) Whether your organization has a sound record of accomplishment
as an organization, including the extent to which you:
(i) Generate and support diverse volunteers who increase your
organization's capacity; and
(ii) Demonstrate leadership within the organization and the
community served.
(3) The extent to which you are securing community support that
becomes stronger and more diverse, as evidenced by--
(i) Collaborations that increase the quality and reach of service
and include well-defined roles for faith-based or other community
organizations;
(ii) Local financial and in-kind contributions; and
(iii) Supporters who represent a wide range of community
stakeholders.
(b) In applying the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section to
each proposal, the Corporation may take into account the following
circumstances of individual organizations:
(1) The age of your organization and its rate of growth; and
(2) Whether your organization serves a resource-poor community,
such as a rural or remote community, a community with a high poverty
rate, or a community with a scarcity of corporate resources.
(c) When reviewing a proposal submitted by a state commission, the
Corporation may consider the State commission's financial management
and monitoring capabilities, and may turn down a program application if
the Corporation determines that the State commission's capabilities are
materially weak.
Sec. 2522.435 How does the Corporation evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of my program?
(a) In evaluating the cost-effectiveness of your proposed program,
the Corporation considers the following:
(1) Whether your budget is adequate to support your program design,
and
(2) Cost-effectiveness indicators that include, at a minimum:
(i) Your program's proposed Corporation cost per FTE, as defined in
Sec. 2522.485;
(ii) The extent to which your program demonstrates diverse non-
Federal resources for program implementation and sustainability;
(iii) The extent to which you are increasing your share of costs to
meet or exceed program goals; and
(iv) The extent to which you are proposing deeper impact or broader
reach without a commensurate increase in Federal costs.
(b) In applying the cost-effectiveness criteria in paragraph (a) of
this section, the Corporation will take into account the following
circumstances of individual programs:
(1) Program age, or the extent to which your program brings on new
sites;
(2) Whether your program or project is located in a resource-poor
community, such as a rural or remote community, a community with a high
poverty rate, or a community with a scarcity of corporate or
philanthropic resources;
(3) Whether your program or project is located in a high-cost,
economically disadvantaged community, measured by applying appropriate
Federal and State data; and
(4) Whether the reasonable and necessary costs of your program or
project are higher because they are associated with engaging or serving
difficult-to-reach populations, or achieving greater program impact as
evidenced through performance measures and program evaluation.
[[Page 50136]]
Sec. 2522.440 What weight does the Corporation give to each category
of the basic criteria?
In evaluating applications, the Corporation assigns the following
weights for each category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Design............................................. 50
Organizational Capability.................................. 25
Cost-Effectiveness......................................... 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2522. 445 What weights does the Corporation give to the
subcategories under Program Design?
The Corporation gives the following weights to the subcategories
under Program Design:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program design sub-category Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale and Approach..................................... 10
Member Outputs and Outcomes................................ 20
Community Outputs and Outcomes............................. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2522.450 What types of programs or program models may receive
special consideration in the selection process?
Following the scoring of proposals under Sec. Sec. 2522.440 of
this part, the Corporation may give special consideration to the
following categories of programs to ensure a balanced portfolio:
(a) Program models:
(1) Programs operated by faith-based and small community-based
organizations, or programs that support the efforts of faith-based and
small community-based organizations, to solve local problems;
(2) Lower-cost professional corps programs, as defined in paragraph
(a)(3) of Sec. 2522.110 of this chapter.
(b) Program activities:
(1) Programs that serve or involve children and youth, including
mentoring of children of prisoners;
(2) Programs that address educational needs, including those that
carry out literacy and tutoring activities generally, and those that
focus on reading for children in the third grade or younger;
(3) Programs that focus on homeland security activities that
support and promote public safety, public health, and preparedness for
any emergency, natural or man-made (this includes programs that help to
plan, equip, train, and practice the response capabilities of many
different response units ready to mobilize without warning for any
emergency);
(4) Programs that address issues relating to the environment;
(5) Programs that support independent living for seniors or
individuals with disabilities; and
(6) Programs that involve community-development.
(c) Programs supporting distressed communities: Programs or
projects that will be conducted in:
(1) A community designated as an empowerment zone or redevelopment
area, targeted for special economic incentives, or otherwise
identifiable as having high concentrations of low-income people;
(2) An area that is environmentally distressed, as demonstrated by
Federal and State data;
(3) An area adversely affected by Federal actions related to
managing Federal lands that result in significant regional job losses
and economic dislocation;
(4) An area adversely affected by reductions in defense spending or
the closure or realignment of military installation; or
(5) An area that has an unemployment rate greater than the national
average unemployment for the most recent 12 months for which State or
Federal data are available.
(d) Other programs: Programs that meet any additional priorities as
the Corporation determines and disseminates in advance of the selection
process.
Sec. 2522.455 How do I find out about additional priorities governing
the selection process?
The Corporation publishes a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
in advance of a grant competition, addressing the Corporation's
priorities and additional requirements, including those directed by
annual appropriations. We also post the NOFA on our Web site at http://www.nationalservice.org and at http://www.grants.gov.
Sec. 2522. 460 To what extent does the Corporation consider
priorities other than those stated in these regulations or the Notice
of Funding Availability?
The Corporation may give priority consideration to a national
service program submitted by a State commission that does not meet one
of the Corporation's priorities if the State commission adequately
explains why the State is not able to carry out a program that meets
one of the Corporation's priorities.
Sec. 2522.465 What information must a State commission submit on the
relative strengths of applicants for State competitive funding?
(a) If you are a State commission applying for State competitive
funding, you must prioritize the proposals you submit in rank order
according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you submit this number of State
competitive proposals to the Then you must rank this number
corporation: of proposals:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 12................................ At least top 5.
13 to 24............................... At least top 10.
25 or more............................. At least top 15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) While the Corporation will not be bound by the rankings you
submit, we may consider them in our selection process.
Sec. 2522.470 What other factors or information may the Corporation
consider in making final funding decisions?
(a) The Corporation will seek to ensure that our portfolio of
AmeriCorps programs is programmatically, demographically, and
geographically diverse and includes innovative programs and projects in
areas with the highest rates of poverty.
(b) In applying the selection criteria under Sec. Sec. 2522.420
through 2522.435, the Corporation may, with respect to a particular
proposal, also consider one or more of the following:
(1) Progress reports;
(2) Corporation site visit reports, including grantee responses;
(3) Member satisfaction indicators;
(4) Program evaluations;
(5) Member-related information from the Corporation's systems;
(6) Other evaluation material, including IG reports, and
administrative standards for State commissions, reports on program
training and technical assistance;
(7) Grantee communications with the Corporation;
(8) Financial Status Reports (FSR);
(9) Audits;
(10) Information for an applicant organization's Web site;
(11) IRS Tax Form 990;
(12) HHS Account Payment Data Report of the HHS Payment Management
System;
(13) Federal Cash Transaction Report (SF-272);
(14) An applicant organization's annual report;
(15) An applicant organization's Financial Management Survey;
(16) Financial Management Training and Technical Assistance Report;
(17) Publicly available socio-economic and demographic data, such
as poverty rate, unemployment rate, labor force participation, and
median household income;
(18) Publicly available information on where an applicant and its
activities fall
[[Page 50137]]
on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's urban-rural continuum (Beale
codes);
(19) Publicly available information on the nonprofit and
philanthropic community, such as charitable giving per capita;
(20) U.S. Department of Education data on Federal Work Study and
Community Service; and
(21) Other information, following notice in the relevant Notice of
Funding Availability, of the specific information and the Corporation's
intention to be able to consider that information in the review
process.
Sec. 2522. 475 If I am a state commission or a national direct
grantee, to what extent must I use the Corporation's selection criteria
and priorities when selecting formula programs or operating sites?
While the Corporation does not require you to use the Corporation's
selection criteria and priorities in selecting your state formula grant
programs or operating site, we encourage you to do so.
6. Add new Sec. 2522.485 to read as follows:
Sec. 2522.485 If I am an AmeriCorps national and community service
program, how do I calculate my budgeted Corporation cost per full-time-
equivalent (FTE)?
If you are an AmeriCorps national and community service program,
you calculate your Corporation cost per FTE by dividing your budgeted
grant costs by the number of member full time equivalents you are
awarded in your grant. You do not include child-care or the cost of the
education award a member may earn through serving with your program.
Sec. Sec. 2522.800, 2522.810, 2522.820 [Redesignated from Sec. Sec.
2522.540, 2252.550, 2522.560]
7. Amend subpart E of part 2522 as follows:
a. By redesignating Sec. 2522.540, Sec. 2522.550, and Sec.
2522.560 as Sec. 2522.800, Sec. 2522.810, and Sec. 2522.820
respectively;
b. By revising Sec. Sec. 2522.500, 2522.510, 2522.520, and
2522.530;
c. By adding Sec. Sec. 2522.540, 2522.550, 2522.560, 2522.570,
2522.580, 2522.590, 2522.600, 2522.610, 2522.620, 2522.630, 2522.640,
2522.650, 2522.650, 2522.700, 2522.710, 2522.720, 2522.730, and
2522.740; and
d. By adding undesignated center headings preceding Sec. Sec.
2522.650 and 2522.700.
The added and revised text reads as follows:
Sec. 2522.500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
(a) This subpart sets forth the minimum performance measures and
evaluation requirements that you as a Corporation applicant or grantee
must follow.
(b) The performance measures that you, as an applicant, propose
when you apply will be considered in the review process and may affect
whether the Corporation selects you to receive a grant. Your
performance related to your approved measures will influence whether
you continue to receive funding.
(c) Performance measures and evaluations are designed to strengthen
your AmeriCorps program and foster continuous improvement, and help us
identify best practices and models that merit replication, as well as
programmatic weaknesses that need attention.
Sec. 2522.510 To whom does this subpart apply?
This subpart applies to you if you are a Corporation grantee
administering an AmeriCorps grant, or if you are applying to receive
funding from the Corporation.
Sec. 2522.520 What special terms are used in this subpart?
The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart of
the regulations:
(a) Approved application means the application approved by the
Corporation or, for formula programs, by a State commission.
(b) Community beneficiaries refers to persons who receive services
or benefits from a program, but not to AmeriCorps members or to staff
of the organization operating the program.
(c) Output indicators are the amount or units of service that
members or volunteers have completed, or the number of community
beneficiaries the program has served. Output indicators do not provide
information on benefits or other changes in the lives of members or
community beneficiaries. Examples of output indicators might include
the number of people a program tutors, counsels, houses, or feeds.
(d) Intermediate-outcome indicators specify a change that has
occurred in the lives of community beneficiaries or members, but is not
necessarily a lasting benefit for them. They are observable and
measurable indications of whether or not a program is making progress.
An example would be the number and percentage of students who report
reading more books as a result of their participation in a tutoring
program.
(e) End-outcome indicators specify a change that has occurred in
the lives of community beneficiaries or members that is significant and
lasting. These are actual benefits or changes for participants during
or after a program. For example, in a tutoring program, the end outcome
might be the percent and number of students who have improved their
reading scores to grade-level, or other specific measures of academic
achievement.
(f) Grantee includes subgrantees and projects.
(g) You refers to the reader, either as a grantee or applicant
organization.
Sec. 2522.530 What basic requirements must I follow in measuring
performance under my grant?
All grantees must establish, track, and assess performance measures
for their programs. As a grantee, you must ensure that any program
under your oversight fulfills performance measures and evaluation
requirements, and ensure that you take appropriate steps to correct any
problems that develop. You must:
(a) Establish ambitious performance measures in consultation with
the Corporation, or the State commission, as appropriate, following
Sec. Sec. 2422.560 through 2422.660 of this subpart;
(b) Ensure that any program under your oversight collects and
organizes performance data on an ongoing basis, at least annually;
(c) Ensure that any program under your oversight tracks progress
toward meeting your performance measures;
(d) Ensure that any program under your oversight corrects
performance deficiencies promptly; and
(e) Accurately and fairly present the results in reports to the
Corporation.
Sec. 2522.540 May I use the Corporation's program grant funds for
performance measurement and evaluation?
If performance measurement and evaluation costs were approved as
part of your grant, you may use your program grant funds to support
them, consistent with the level of approved costs for such activities
in your grant award.
Sec. 2522.550 Do the costs of performance measurement or evaluation
count towards the statutory cap on administrative costs?
No, the costs of performance measurement and evaluation do not
count towards the statutory five percent cap on administrative costs in
the grant, as provided in Sec. 2540.110 of this chapter.
[[Page 50138]]
Performance Measures: Requirements and Procedures
Sec. 2522.560 What information on performance measures must my grant
application include?
You must submit all of the following as part of your application
for each program:
(a) Proposed performance measures, as described in Sec. 2522.570
through Sec. 2522.590 of this part.
(b) Estimated performance data for the program years for which you
submit your application; and
(c) Actual performance data, where available, for the preceding
completed program year.
Sec. 2522.570 What are performance measures and performance
measurement?
(a) Performance measures are measurable indicators of a program's
performance as it relates to member service activities.
(b) Performance measurement is the process of regularly measuring
the services provided by your program and the effect your program has
on the intended beneficiaries' lives.
(c) The main purpose of performance measurement is to strengthen
your AmeriCorps program and foster continuous improvement and to
identify best practices and models that merit replication. Performance
measurement will also help identify programmatic weaknesses that need
attention.
Sec. 2522.580 What performance measures am I required to submit to
the Corporation?
(a) When applying for funds, you must submit at least one of each
of the following types of performance measures:
(1) Output measures;
(2) Intermediate-outcomes; and
(3) End-outcome measures.
(b) Your measures need not cover the scope of your entire program,
but they should give a clear indication of your program's primary
purpose and objectives.
(c) You must include at least one end-outcome measure that captures
the results of your program's primary activity.
(d) The measures you choose must be aligned with one another. For
example, a tutoring program might use the following aligned performance
measures:
(1) Output: Number of students tutored;
(2) Intermediate Outcome: Percent of students reading more books;
and
(3) End Outcome: Percent of students reading at or above grade
level.
(e) The Corporation may include additional requirements for
performance measures on a periodic basis through program guidance and
related materials. This information will be available at the
Corporation's Web site at http://www.nationalservice.org.
(f) The Corporation encourages you to exceed the minimum
requirements expressed in this section and expects, in second and
subsequent grant cycles, that you will more fully develop your
performance measures, including establishing multiple performance
indicators, and improving and refining those you used in the past.
Sec. 2522.590 Who develops my performance measures?
(a) You are responsible for developing your program-specific
performance measures through your own internal process.
(b) In addition, the Corporation may, in consultation with
grantees, establish performance measures that will apply to all
Corporation-sponsored programs, which you will be responsible for
collecting and meeting.
Sec. 2522.600 Who approves my performance measures?
(a) The Corporation will review and approve performance measures,
as part of the grant application review process, for all programs
submitting applications for funding directly to the Corporation. If the
Corporation selects your application for funding, the Corporation will
approve your performance measures as part of the negotiation process
before we award the grant.
(b) If you are a program submitting an application under the State
formula category, the applicable State commission is responsible for
reviewing and approving your performance measures. The Corporation will
not separately approve these measures.
Sec. 2522.610 What is the difference in performance measurements
requirements for competitive and formula programs?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, State
commissions are responsible for making the final determination of
performance measures for State formula programs, while the Corporation
makes the final determination for all other programs.
(b) The Corporation may, through the State commission, require that
formula programs meet certain performance measures above and beyond
what the State commission has negotiated with its formula grantees.
(c) While State commissions must hold their sub-grantees
responsible for their performance measures, a State commission, as a
grantee, is responsible to the Corporation for its formula programs'
performance measures.
Sec. 2522.620 How do I report my performance measures to the
Corporation?
The Corporation sets specific reporting requirements, including
frequency and deadlines, for performance measures in the grant award.
(a) In general, you are required to report on the actual results
that occurred when implementing the grant and to regularly measure your
program's performance.
(b) Your report must include the results on the performance
measures approved as part of your grant award.
(c) At a minimum, you are required to report on outputs at the end
of year one; outputs and intermediate-outcomes at the end of year two;
and outputs, intermediate-outcomes and end-outcomes at the end of year
three. We encourage you to exceed these minimum requirements and report
results earlier.
Sec. 2522.630 What must I do if I am not able to meet my performance
measures?
If you realize that you are not on track to meet your performance
measures, you must develop a plan to get back on track, or submit a
request to the Corporation to amend your requirements.
The request must include all of the following:
(a) Why you are not on track to meet your performance requirements;
(b) How you have been tracking performance measures;
(c) Evidence of the corrective steps you have taken;
(d) Any new proposed performance measures or targets; and
(e) Your plan to ensure that you meet any new measures.
Sec. 2522.640 Under what circumstances may I change my performance
measures?
(a) You may change your performance measures only if the
Corporation or, for formula programs, the State commission, approves
your request to do so based on your need to:
(1) Adjust your performance measure or target based on experience
so that your program's goals are more realistic and manageable;
(2) Replace a measure related to one issue area with one related to
a different issue area that is more aligned with your program service
activity. For example, you may need to replace an objective related to
health with one related to the environment;
(3) Redefine the service that individuals perform under the grant.
For example, you may need to define your service as tutoring adults in
English, as opposed to operating an after-school program for third-
graders;
[[Page 50139]]
(4) Eliminate an activity because you have been unable to secure
necessary matching funding; or
(5) Replace one measure with another. For example, you may decide
that you wish to replace one measure of literacy tutoring (increased
attendance at school) with another (percentage of students who are
promoted to the next grade level).
Sec. 2522.650 What happens if I fail to meet the performance measures
included in my grant?
(a) If you are significantly under-performing based on the
performance measures approved in your grant, or fail to collect
appropriate data to allow performance measurement, the Corporation may
specify a period of correction, after consulting with you. As a
grantee, you must report results at the end of the period of
correction. At that point, if you continue to under-perform, or fail to
collect appropriate data to allow performance measurement, the
Corporation may take one or more of the following actions:
(1) Reduce the amount of your grant;
(2) Suspend or terminate your grant;
(3) Use this information to assess any application from your
organization for a new AmeriCorps grant or a new grant under another
program administered by the Corporation;
(4) Amend the terms of any Corporation grants to your organization;
or
(5) Take other actions that the Corporation deems appropriate.
(b) If you are a State commission whose formula program(s) is
significantly under-performing or failing to collect appropriate data
to allow performance measurement, we encourage you to take action as
delineated in paragraph (a) of this section.
Evaluating Programs: Requirements and Procedures
Sec. 2522.700 How does evaluation differ from performance
measurement?
(a) Evaluation is a more in-depth, rigorous effort to measure the
impact of programs. While performance measurement and evaluation both
include systematic data collection and measurement of progress,
evaluation uses scientifically-based research methods (i.e., random
assignment) to assess the effectiveness of programs by comparing the
observed program outcomes with what would have happened in the absence
of the program. Unlike performance measures, evaluations estimate the
impacts of programs by comparing the outcomes for individuals receiving
a service or participating in a program to the outcomes for similar
individuals not receiving a service or not participating in a program.
For example, an evaluation of a literacy program may compare the
reading ability of students in a program over time to a similar group
of students not participating in a program.
(b) Performance measurement describes the effects of the program on
the population being served through the systematic collection of data
on a continual basis. Performance measures may include counts of
activities and people served, and changes in the level of knowledge or
behavior of people being served. For example, a performance measure for
a literacy program may include the percentage of students who increase
their reading ability from ``below grade level'' to ``at or above grade
level''. In contrast to an evaluation, performance measurement does not
generally compare the impact of the program on community beneficiaries
or participants with those who are not part of AmeriCorps.
Sec. 2522.710 What are my evaluation requirements?
(a) If you are a State commission, you must establish and enforce
evaluation requirements for your State formula subgrantees, as you deem
appropriate.
(b) If you are a State competitive or direct Corporation grantee,
and your average annual program grant is $500,000 or more, you must
arrange for an independent evaluation of your program covering a period
of at least 5 years, and you must submit the evaluation with any
application to the Corporation for competitive funds as required in
Sec. 2522.730 of this subpart.
(c) If you are a State competitive or direct Corporation grantee
whose average annual program grant is less than $500,000, or an
Education Award Program grantee, the Corporation does not require that
you conduct an evaluation of your program. However, the Corporation
encourages you to conduct or arrange for an evaluation and may consider
any such evaluation in assessing the quality of your program in any
future grant competitions.
(d) The Corporation may, in its discretion, supercede these
requirements with an alternative evaluation approach, including one
conducted by the Corporation at the national level.
Sec. 2522.720 How often must I conduct an evaluation?
(a) If you are a State formula grantee, you must conduct an
evaluation, as your State commission requires.
(b) If you are a State competitive or direct Corporation grantee,
and are required to arrange for an independent evaluation under Sec.
2522.710(c) of this subpart, you must arrange for such an evaluation at
least every 5 years.
Sec. 2522.730 If I am required to arrange for an independent
evaluation, how and when do I submit my evaluation to the Corporation?
(a) If you compete for AmeriCorps funds after an initial three-year
grant cycle, you must submit a summary of your evaluation efforts to
date, and a copy of any evaluation that has been completed, as part of
your application for funding.
(b) If you again compete for AmeriCorps funding after a second
three-year grant cycle, you must submit the completed evaluation with
your application for funding.
Sec. 2522.740 How will the Corporation use my evaluation?
(a) If you are required to arrange for an independent evaluation
under Sec. 2522.710(c) of this subpart, the Corporation will consider
the evaluation you submit with your application as follows:
(1) If you do not include with your application for AmeriCorps
funding a summary of the evaluation, or the evaluation itself, as
applicable, under Sec. 2522.730, the Corporation will not consider
your application.
(2) If you do submit an evaluation with your application, the
Corporation will consider the results of your evaluation in assessing
the quality and outcomes of your program.
(b) If you are not required to arrange for an independent
evaluation under Sec. 2522.710(c) but have nonetheless completed one,
the Corporation may consider the results of your evaluation in
assessing the quality of your program. Your inclusion of an evaluation
with your application may make your application more likely to be
selected.
8. Add subpart F to part 2522 consisting of Sec. 2522.900 through
Sec. 2522.950, to read as follows:
Subpart F--Program Management Requirements for Grantees
Sec.
2522.900 What definitions apply to this subpart?
2522.910 What basic qualifications must an AmeriCorps member have to
serve as a tutor?
2522.920 Are there any exceptions to the qualifications
requirements?
2522.930 What is an appropriate proficiency test?
2522.940 What are the requirements for a program in which AmeriCorps
members serve as tutors?
[[Page 50140]]
2522.950 What requirements and qualifications apply if my program
focuses on supplemental academic support activities other than
tutoring?
Subpart F--Program Management Requirements for Grantees
Sec. 2522.900 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tutor is defined as someone whose primary goal is to increase
academic achievement in reading or other core subjects through planned,
consistent, one-to-one or small-group reading or other small-group
sessions that build on students' academic strengths and target
students' academic needs. A tutor does not include someone engaged in
supplemental academic support activities whose primary goal is
something other than increasing academic achievement. For example,
providing a safe place for children is not tutoring, even if some of
the program activities focus on homework help.
Sec. 2522.910 What basic qualifications must an AmeriCorps member
have to serve as a tutor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the tutor must meet the following
If the tutor is: qualifications:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Hired by Local Education Paraprofessional qualifications under No
Agency or school. Child Left Behind Act, as required in 34
CFR 200.58.
(b) Not hired by Local (1)(i) High School diploma or its
Education Agency or school. equivalent, or a higher degree OR
(ii) Proficiency test, as described in
Sec. 2522.930 of this subpart; and
(2) Successful completion of pre- and in-
service specialized training, as
required in Sec. 2522.940 of this
subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2522.920 Are there any exceptions to the qualifications
requirements?
The qualifications requirements in Sec. 2522.910 of this subpart
do not apply to a member who is a student tutoring younger children in
the school as part of a structured, school-managed cross-grade tutoring
program.
Sec. 2522.930 What is an appropriate proficiency test?
(a) If a member serving as a tutor does not have a high-school
diploma or its equivalent, or a higher degree, the member must pass a
proficiency test that the program has determined effective in ensuring
that members serving as tutors have the necessary skills to achieve
program goals.
(b) The program must maintain in the member file of each member who
takes the test documentation on the proficiency test selected and the
results.
Sec. 2522.940 What are the requirements for a program in which
AmeriCorps members serve as tutors?
A program in which members engage in tutoring for children must:
(a) Articulate appropriate criteria for selecting and qualifying
tutors;
(b) Identify the strategies or tools it will use to assess student
progress and measure student outcomes;
(c) Certify that the curriculum and pre-service and in-service
training content are high-quality and research-based, consistent with
the instructional program of the local educational agency or with state
academic content standards;
(d) Include appropriate member supervision by individuals with
expertise in tutoring; and
(e) Provide specialized high-quality and research-based, member
pre-service and in-service training consistent with the activities the
member will perform.
Sec. 2522.950 What requirements and qualifications apply if my
program focuses on supplemental academic support activities other than
tutoring?
(a) If your program does not involve tutoring as defined in Sec.
2522.900 of this subpart, the Corporation will not impose the
requirements in Sec. 2522.910 through Sec. 2522.940 of this subpart
on your program.
(b) At a minimum, you must articulate in your application how you
will recruit, train, and supervise members to ensure that they have the
qualifications and skills necessary to provide the service activities
in which they will be engaged.
PART 2540--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2540 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: E.O. 13331, 69 FR 9911; 42 U.S.C. 12571, 12631-12637,
12651d.
2. Amend Sec. 2540.100 by redesignating paragraphs (f)(2) through
(f)(5) as f(3) through (f)(6) respectively, and adding a new paragraph
(f)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 2540.100 What restrictions govern the use of Corporation
assistance?
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) An organization may not displace a volunteer, including partial
displacement such as reducing a volunteer's hours, by using a
participant in a program receiving Corporation assistance.
* * * * *
PART 2550--REQUIREMENTS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STATE
COMMISSIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITIES
1. Revise the heading of part 2550 to read as set forth above.
2. The authority citation for part 2550 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12638.
3. Amend Sec. 2550.10 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b);
b. By revising paragraph (c);
c. By revising the last sentence of paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 2550.10 What is the purpose of this part?
* * * * *
(b) To be eligible to apply for program funding, or approved
national service positions, each State must establish a State
commission on national and community service to administer the State
program grant making process and to develop a State plan. The
Corporation may, in some instances, approve an alternative
administrative entity (AAE).
(c) The Corporation will distribute grants of between $125,000 and
$750,000 to States to cover the Federal share of operating the State
commissions or AAEs.
(d) * * * This part also offers guidance on which of the two State
entities States should seek to establish, and it explains the
composition requirements, duties, responsibilities, restrictions, and
other relevant information for State commissions and AAEs.
Sec. 2550.20 [Amended]
4. Amend Sec. 2550.20 by removing paragraph (o).
5. Amend Sec. 2550.30 by revising the section heading to read as
set forth
[[Page 50141]]
below, removing paragraphs (c) and (d), and redesignating paragraph (e)
as paragraph (c).
Sec. 2550.30 How does a State decide whether to establish a state
commission or an alternative administrative entity?
* * * * *
Sec. 2550.40 [Amended]
6. Amend Sec. 2550.40 by removing paragraph (c).
Sec. 2550.70 [Removed and reserved]
7. Remove and reserve Sec. 2550.70.
8. Amend Sec. 2550.80 as follows:
a. Revise the first two sentences of the introductory text;
b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(4);
c. Add new paragraph (a)(3); and
d. Revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 2550.80 What are the duties of the State entities?
Both State commissions and AAEs have the same duties. This section
lists the duties that apply to both State commissions and AAEs--
collectively referred to as State entities. * * *
(a) * * *
(3) The plan must include a summary of the State commission's
program sustainability approach.
* * * * *
(j) Activity ineligible for assistance. A State commission or AAE
may not directly carry out any national service program that receives
financial assistance under section 121 of the NCSA.
* * * * *
Dated: August 10, 2004.
Frank R. Trinity,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 04-18594 Filed 8-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P