[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maryland 
[Ms. Mikulski].
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We are now back on the VA-HUD appropriations, and we 
now will be turning to a Murkowski amendment on the National Science 
Foundation. I look forward to hearing the Senator's comments, and I 
believe it will be such that I will be able to accept his 
recommendation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski]. The Chair would remind the Senator that the pending 
amendment is on page 22, line 18.


                           Amendment No. 2447

 (Purpose: To achieve funding parity between the Arctic and Antarctic 
    research programs funded under the United States Polar Research 
              Programs of the National Science Foundation)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be in order at this time for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
temporarily laid aside. The clerk will report the amendment of the 
Senator from Alaska.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2447.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, line 9, insert the following before the period: 
     ``Provided further, That not less than 50 percent of the 
     funds made available for the United States Polar Research 
     Programs shall be used for a program of Arctic research.''.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Maryland, 
the floor manager, for accommodating me on this very simple amendment 
that would require the National Science Foundation to achieve a 
reasonable balance in funding its Arctic and Antarctic research 
programs.
  As the floor manager is aware, the National Science Foundation has an 
Office of Polar Programs which runs both the Antarctic and Arctic 
research programs, and within the Office of Polar Programs and the 
polar research program line item, the Antarctic program has 
historically received the lion's share of attention, funding, and 
staff.
  The polar research program is roughly a $162 million line item. It is 
interesting to note that of that $162 million only about $27 million 
goes for Arctic research while $135 million goes to Antarctic research.
  Mr. President, as we reflect on this budget allocation, about 17 
percent of the polar programs are directed to the Arctic. That is about 
five times less than the Antarctic.
  If you look at the personnel allocated to the Arctic in the Office of 
Polar Programs compared to the Antarctic, there is an even greater 
imbalance. Of the roughly 50 personnel of the National Science 
Foundation's Office of Polar Programs, only about five are involved in 
the Arctic program on a full-time basis. That is roughly 10 percent. 
Thus, the Arctic program has been something of a lonely stepchild. This 
disparity between funding and staff has been recognized for some time.
  I have raised it on numerous occasions with three National Science 
Foundation directors. Each time I have had promises of reorganization, 
a reorientation, and a reprioritization, and I am still waiting for a 
visible change. It is this sense of frustration that has brought me to 
the floor of this body today.
  Back in 1987, in a report to the National Science Board, a special 
blue ribbon ``Committee on the NSF Role in Polar Regions,'' made a 
series of recommendations. A few of these recommendations were as 
follows:
  In 1987, the committee recommended that ``a logistics program be 
established for the Arctic to support the National Science Foundation 
research projects and scientists in the Northern Polar Regions.''
  Well, Mr. President, 7 years later, there is no such logistics 
program in the Arctic. The Antarctic program, on the other hand, has 
had one for several decades.
  This 1987 blue ribbon committee also recommended that,

       * * * a research vessel with icebreaking capability be 
     acquired for the U.S. Antarctic program, and a research 
     vessel capable of scientific and engineering research in the 
     Arctic seas should also be acquired.

  Well, Mr. President, the Antarctic vessel has been built and is 
operating today, but the Arctic vessel has not been built. It has not 
even been designed. So as we wait for the GAO to study and determine 
whether the vessel should be leased or purchased, the truth of the 
matter is we simply do not have enough money to fund it.
  Why? Because the Antarctic program gets about 83 percent of the Polar 
program funding.
  Finally, Mr. President, in 1987 the blue ribbon committee recommended 
that ``the NSF support and oversee the operation of a network of 
research support centers for the polar regions.''
  Mr. President, we have significant support infrastructure in the 
Antarctic. I have heard we are even planning to expend some $200 
million for a South Pole station--$200 million. That is not in this 
bill, to my knowledge. That is something we will be asked to fund next 
year or perhaps the year after. We have nothing even remotely 
comparable in the Arctic. The Navy once had an Arctic research 
laboratory in Barrow. It shut down in 1981. The semblance of a facility 
is being maintained by the Native Village Corp. and the Borough North 
Slope in Barrow, AK.
  But my point is a simple one, Mr. President. The NSF has adopted many 
of the recommendations of the blue ribbon committee with respect to the 
recommendations on the Antarctic but almost none with respect to the 
Arctic. The NSF would appear to have a clear bias toward the Antarctic 
program, and I wonder if this is justified.
  Is this imbalance in funding and staff justified? I know the 
committee has sought to make scientific research more relative to our 
Nation's competitiveness and other interests. That is exactly what we 
must do when we prioritize in a tight budget environment.
  What are our interests in the Antarctic versus the Arctic? We have no 
citizens living in the Antarctic. We have no strategic interests 
specifically in the Antarctic. We have no economic interests in the 
Antarctic. Under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, energy or 
mineral development is simply not permitted, and it is quite 
appropriate that that be the case.
  Then why, Mr. President, do we maintain a scientific research program 
in the Antarctic at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars?
  We do so because Antarctica is a continent dedicated to the conduct 
of international scientific research under the provisions of the 
Antarctic Treaty.
  In other words, we maintain an Antarctic scientific program to show 
the flag and keep up with the Joneses, to a degree.
  There is some worthy research that occurs in the Antarctic, and I am 
not saying it should come to an end. But in a limited budget 
environment we have to prioritize and conform our programs with our 
national interests.
  We have talked about our national interests in the Antarctic. Let us 
talk about U.S. interests in the Arctic:
  The Arctic is a storehouse of mineral and energy wealth. It produces 
a quarter of our domestic oil production and a significant amount of 
our lead and zinc production.
  The largest lead and zinc mine in North America located above the 
Arctic circle. We also have huge deposits of clean coal, and huge 
deposits of oil and gas.
  Yet, to wisely develop these resources, we need special materials, 
specialized engineering and sound science to protect the environment as 
those resources are developed.
  We need to make our decisions on sound science not emotion. Some of 
our issues relative to the Arctic, and my State of Alaska, are made on 
emotional arguments and not sound science.
  So the Arctic is many things.
  The Arctic is the key to understanding global climate change. The 
Arctic produces the cold, deep ocean currents that drive aspects of the 
ocean-atmosphere system, and impact the earth's climate. Moreover, 
nearly every global climate change model shows the first and most 
substantial climate changes, if they occur, will occur in the Arctic. 
Thus, if you want to study global climate change, there is a great deal 
of it you do in the Arctic.
  The Japanese understand this. A Japanese company has just invested 
$10 million for a program at the Poker Flat research facility near 
Fairbanks, AL to study the upper atmosphere, including ozone loss.
  The Japanese are coming over to our Arctic, and what are we doing. 
Not nearly enough.
  The Arctic is very important for other reasons, as well:
  The edge of the Arctic ice cap is a biologically-productive area that 
is the source of the nutrients that support our Nation's largest 
fisheries, and a significant percentage of the world's fish protein. 
Yet, we have seen vast fluctuations in marine life populations in the 
Arctic and North Pacific, and nobody knows why.
  We have strategic interests in the Arctic. During the cold war, it 
was our common border with the Soviet Union. Even today, Russian 
nuclear missile subs still hide under the noisy, grinding ice at the 
edge of the Arctic ice pack.
  We have pressing environmental concerns in the Arctic. Nuclear and 
environmental practices in the Former Soviet Union constitute a threat 
to the entire Arctic ecosystem.
  It does not take much history to go back and recognize that there is 
a crisis in the Russian environment today, one that is almost 
incomprehensible.
  The former Soviet Union haphazardly dumped nuclear waste in the 
Arctic and along riversheds that flow into the Arctic. This nuclear 
waste includes: 18 reactors dumped in the Arctic, including 6 with 
their nuclear fuel; up to 2 billion curies of radioactive contamination 
in the lakes, reservoirs, river sediments and groundwater from years of 
plutonium production at the ``secret Soviet cities'' of Chelybinsk and 
Tomsk.
  To make a comparison, Chernobyl released 65 million curies; Three 
Mile Island released 15 curies.
  We are talking 2 billion curies.
  The problem is not just nuclear waste.
  The air in 103 Russian cities, home to 70 million people, is unfit to 
breathe. In the Siberian city of Norilsk the children must be kept 
indoors for 90 days per year.
  Mr. President, on many spring days in Barrow, AK, we can actually 
measure contaminants in the air traced to Norilsk.
  Water pollution is also a problem. All of the major Russian rivers 
that flow into the Arctic, the Ob, the Lena, and the Yenisey, are 
filled with heavy metals, DDT, and Toxaphene.
  People's health has suffered. In Magadan, Anchorage's sister city, 
air pollution has doubled while cancer deaths have increased 73 percent 
since 1983.
  The most recent issue of National Geographic highlights many of these 
problems.
  We have a possible environmental disaster in the former Soviet Union 
that threatens the entire Arctic ecosystem, which we share with many 
countries, both in the Western Hemisphere and Europe.
  Yet, the Arctic Ocean is perhaps the least understood region of our 
planet.
  We do not understand its chemistry or its currents, and nobody can 
tell us what threat this contamination poses to American citizens.
  And that gets me to the principal difference between the Arctic and 
the Antarctic, and the primary reason I am standing here making this 
speech.
  We have people who live in the Arctic. American citizens. Indigenous 
people who subsist from Arctic living resources. Indigenous peoples 
whose way of life is threatened by the contamination that may be moving 
across the Arctic from Russia.
  So, in the Arctic, where Americans live; where we have economic 
interests; where we have strategic interests; where we have scientific 
interests, our national interests easily outweigh our interests in the 
Antarctic.
  Despite these clear national interests, most of the NSF's polar 
research dollars go to the Antarctic.
  There are a tremendous number of important scientific programs in the 
Arctic that await funding, even as we talk about spending $200 million 
for a new station at the South Pole.
  We need to build or lease the ice-strengthened Arctic Research ship 
we have needed for years. Yet we really do not know where we will 
eventually find the money to build or lease this ship.
  We have an Arctic contaminants program that is being proposed inside 
some of the agencies. It could help answer our questions about the 
threat to the Arctic and its people resulting from nuclear waste, heavy 
metals, and industrial contaminants from the former Soviet Union. Yet 
we do not know where the money will come from to fund it.
  Mr. President, I am not asking that the Antarctic program be gutted.
  I am not asking that the entire Polar Research Program be directed to 
the Arctic.
  I am just looking for some balance, and fairness.
  My amendment would direct that no less than 50 percent of the Polar 
Research Program be directed to Arctic research.
  I believe that is a fair and equitable division.
  More than fair, in fact, given the national interests we have in the 
Arctic compared to the Antarctic.
  Just because we created a large Antarctic program as a result of the 
Antarctic Treaty doesn't mean that it can continue through inertia at 
the expense of the Arctic program designed to answer scientific 
questions that are more meaningful to the lives of the citizens who 
foot the bill, namely you and me.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, it is my understanding that our staffs 
have worked out draft conference report language that would help to 
promote a logistics support program for antarctic research.
  With the assurance of the Senator from Maryland and the floor manager 
that there will be support for the development of a logistics support 
program, I hereby withdraw my amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Alaska for withdrawing his 
amendment. I agree. We should build a greater balance between the 
arctic and the antarctic research. We certainly do not want to 
``polarize'' the situation.
  With that assurance, I thank the Senator from Alaska for withdrawing 
it. In the subcommittee, I will address this matter for greater 
balance, and will discuss with the Senator from Alaska what type of 
framework he would recommend for the Congress to consider. And also we 
will have report language reflecting the policy direction that the 
Senator is recommending.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  In conclusion, may I thank my good friend, the Senator, the floor 
manager from Maryland for her accommodation and understanding, 
particularly her sensitivity to the people in my State who live in the 
Arctic and the unique conditions and circumstances that exist as a 
consequence of the harsh climate, and the realization that we clearly 
need this research.
  There is an old saying. I am sure my friend from Maryland would 
recognize that, to a degree, Charity begins at home. And Alaska is home 
to me.
  I know of the great friendship which the Senator from Maryland has 
for the people of Alaska by her willingness to accommodate the Senator 
from Alaska.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are in the final round of trying to 
clear the manager's amendment. We have only work to that end. I am 
going to suggest the absence of a quorum before we go into our next 
phase.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 gao report to help ensure national service programs spend taxpayers' 
                              money wisely

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the administration is proud of its 
national service program, AmeriCorps. However, I am concerned that we 
must take steps to ensure that AmeriCorps does not join the many Great 
Society programs that were well-intentioned but ultimately, costly 
failures.
  Fortunately, there is a blueprint to prevent this from happening. It 
is the administration's commendable efforts to reinvent government--
which I fully support. It is my concern that AmeriCorps remain close to 
the principles of reinventing government to ensure that the taxpayers' 
funds are spent wisely and the program is successful.
  Unfortunately, actions by the administration have given me concern. 
The administration has proposed a 67-percent increase in funding for 
AmeriCorps from $250 million in fiscal year 1994 to $418 million for 
fiscal year 1995. However, not a single participant has begun work 
under this program.
  What we do have is experience from a handful of AmeriCorps 
demonstration programs and some interim data. Initial calculations show 
a cost-per-participant of those who completed service of approximately 
$30,400. This is considerably more than the $21,000 per year that the 
average American worker makes.
  Clearly, the taxpayers would be troubled to learn that the cost to 
them of soliciting national service is two or even three times their 
yearly salary.
  I have written to the Corporation for National and Community Service, 
which oversees AmeriCorps, requesting figures on cost, number of 
participants and number of service hours for both the AmeriCorps 
demonstration programs and AmeriCorps.
  Unfortunately, there is a very little data available. Increasing 
funding by 67 percent for a program that has virtually no final 
performance data on the demonstration programs and so many unknowns and 
uncertainties is not a cautious and prudent approach. It is certainly 
not reinventing government.
  The administration, in a letter to me dated July 19, 1994, states 
that the Federal cost per service hour will be $6.43 for AmeriCorps. 
However, the administration does not include the costs of the 
educational awards, matching funds provided by the grantees, in-kind 
matching, Federal and State administrative costs, technical assistance 
costs incurred by other Federal agencies, and other costs.

  Therefore, I am very skeptical that when all the costs are 
considered, the taxpayer will still be paying one $6.43 per service 
hour.
  My intention was to offer an amendment today that would restrict $168 
million of the $148 million appropriated for AmeriCorps until the GAO 
had certified that costs would be less than $15 per hour of service--a 
cost equivalent of a $31,200-a-year job. My amendment was intended to 
ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely on cost-effective 
programs and that the AmeriCorps program is managed in keeping with the 
tenets of reinventing government and the National Performance Review.
  However, in discussions with my good friend, the Senator from 
Maryland, I believe a useful compromise has been reached. We have 
agreed to jointly ask the GAO to conduct a review of the AmeriCorps 
Program.
  Also, the subcommittee's bill not allow a significant share of 
AmeriCorps funds to be spent until after September 1, 1995. This will 
allow Congress to consider rescinding funds for AmeriCorps if the GAO 
report raises serious questions.
  I know the Senator from Maryland is a strong supporter of AmeriCorps, 
but she is also concerned that this program by successful. I commend 
her for doubling the administration's funding request for the Inspector 
General's Office at the Corporation and for joining me in requesting 
the GAO review. I think this is an important step in protecting the 
taxpayers' money.
  I thank again the Senator from Maryland for working with me on this 
matter.
  I ask unanimous consent that my correspondence with the Corporation 
for National and Community Service be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
     Mr. Eli J. Segal,
     Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and 
         Community Service, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Segal: I am writing to you regarding the 
     administration's ``AmeriCorps'' and ``Summer of Service'' 
     initiatives. The benefits that these programs have provided 
     or will provide are certainly to be commended.
       However, the services provided are only one aspect of these 
     programs. President Clinton stated it well in his remarks on 
     signing the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993: 
     ``We want them to help reinvent our Government, to do more 
     and cost less, by creating new ways for citizens to fulfill 
     the mission of the public.''
       The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 also 
     contained language stating that one of the purposes of the 
     Act was to ``Reinvent government to eliminate duplication, 
     support locally established initiatives, require measurable 
     goals for performance, and offer flexibility in meeting those 
     goals;.''
       It is my concern that AmeriCorps and Summer of Service are 
     not meeting these goals of reinventing government. I fear 
     that AmeriCorps and Summer of Service may join the many 
     ``Great Society'' programs that were well-intentioned, but 
     ultimately, costly failures.


                           americorps program

       My concerns about AmeriCorps are raised by the Abt 
     Associates report contracted by the Commission on National 
     and Community Service (CNCS) entitled, ``Serving America: The 
     First Year of Programs Funded by the Commission on National 
     and Community Service,'' dated March 1994.
       This report discusses the National Service Demonstration 
     programs, which, as you know, were the precursors to 
     AmeriCorps. The Abt study shows that total reported funding 
     for these demonstration programs was $18.6 million, awarded 
     in 1992 and 1993, of which 73% was from CNCS (page 18 of 
     report). This funding provided for 725 participants who 
     provided 557,587 total hours of participation, of which 
     367,614 hours were direct service.
       Thus, the cost per hour (for the 557,587 hours) for the 
     demonstration projects for AmeriCorps were $33 per hour. When 
     looking at direct service hours, the cost rises even higher 
     to $50.59 per hour (page 4 of report). Here again, this may 
     not even include additional costs for federal administration 
     of the program. It should also be noted that these claims for 
     hours served were not independently verified by Abt or CNCS 
     (page 30). Therefore, the cost per hour could be even higher.
       Of concern to me also is the number of participants in 
     these demonstration programs who ultimately completed their 
     service. The demonstration programs started with 725 
     participants (page 4) and only 447, or 62%, completed their 
     service. And of these 447, only 81%, or 362 completed their 
     service satisfactorily (page 20)--50% of the total 725 
     original participants. This would be a cost of $51,381 per 
     participant who successfully completed his or her service as 
     determined by CNCS' own guidelines. I recognize that these 
     are tentative figures in the Abt report; however, the general 
     picture is still troubling.
       The questions raised by the demonstration programs persist 
     with the recently announced AmeriCorps grants; for example, 
     the AmeriCorps USA direct grant to the ``American Farmworkers 
     Opportunity Program'' (AFOP), mentioned in your June 17, 1994 
     letter to me.
       Based on consultations my staff had with the grant 
     recipient, it is my understanding that, in addition to the 
     $1.2 million that AmeriCorps awarded to AFOP, AFOP also has 
     to match these funds with approximately $564,000 in funds 
     from state and other sources for a total program cost of 
     approximately $1.7 million.
       The program will provide for 61 AmeriCorps participants, 
     according to your office. Given the $1.7 million program 
     cost, that equates to a total cost of $28,929 per member or 
     $17 per hour per member. These figures assume that each 
     member works a total of 1700 hours as required of full-time 
     members of AmeriCorps. These figures do not include the 
     AmeriCorps Educational Awards of $4,725 per full-time member 
     that these individuals will be eligible to receive, nor do 
     they include federal administrative costs. I have several 
     questions regarding this program (see question 1 of attached 
     sheet) that I would appreciate your answering.
       Not only am I concerned about the general high costs of 
     AmeriCorps, I am particularly troubled by the amount of 
     funding that is going into bureaucratic overhead. In your 
     written testimony of June 13, 1994 before the Senate 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
     Agencies, you stated that full-time participants would 
     receive a stipend of approximately $7,640. Thus, in the 
     AFOP program, the AmeriCorps participant see only $7,640 
     of the $28,929 spent per participant.
       My question is how is the other $21,289 being spent? While 
     the grantee receives the equivalent of $17 per hour, the 
     participant only sees $4.50, according to your testimony. I 
     recognize that the participant is provided additional 
     benefits, such as child care, but this cannot explain away an 
     overhead cost of nearly 75 percent. And again, let me state, 
     an overhead that does not even include federal administrative 
     costs. These overhead costs are not in keeping with many 
     federal programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children, which has an administrative overhead of 
     approximately 13%.


                        SUMMER OF SERVICE (SOS)

       It is my understanding that in FY '93 SOS was funded at $10 
     million. The program provided services for 8 weeks and 
     involved approximately 1,464 young people. These young people 
     worked a total of 466,191 service hours. This would equate to 
     a total cost to the U.S. government of $6,830.60 per 
     volunteer or $21.45 per hour.
       My source for this information is the Congressional 
     Research Service Issue Brief: ``The national and Community 
     Service Trust Act of 1993: Description and Related 
     Programs,'' January 6, 1994, and a second report the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 
     contracted Abt Associates Inc. to produce: ``Evaluation of 
     the Summer of Service Program,'' dated October 25, 1993. I 
     have several questions regarding SOS attached (see question 
     3).
       In reviewing the second Abt report, my concerns about the 
     SOS program are heightened. The Abt report notes that $6.3 
     million in awards were made to 16 sites. Please detail how 
     the remaining $3.7 million was spent. Assuming only the $6.3 
     million in awards to the program sites, the cost per 
     participant per hour is $13.51 given 466,191 service hours 
     (page 8). However, this does not reflect the federal 
     administrative costs as well as any matching funds.
       The Abt report also asked SOS participants whether their 
     experience had met their expectations. In 13 of the 16 
     categories of expectations for the SOS program, according to 
     the participants themselves, the SOS program did not meet 
     their expectations, or the stated goals of the program, in 
     such areas as improving the lives of children, learning about 
     health issues or obtaining marketable job skills (page 48).
       The Abt report is critical of the administration of the SOS 
     programs in the following areas:
       ``At some sites, negotiations with project partners and 
     specifications of objectives were still in an (sic) 
     rudimentary stage when the program began.''
       ``Many sites were not fully prepared for the extent of the 
     administrative demands of the Summer of Service.''
       ``Some sites did not fully accept the record-keeping and 
     reporting responsibilities involved in the national 
     evaluation.''
       ``If the Corporation is interested in assessing program 
     experience according to certain attributes, it should ensure 
     that the grantees' programs are structured and funded in a 
     way that allow those attributes.''
       What steps has the Corporation taken to address these 
     fundamental problems raised by the Abt report (pages 57-64)? 
     Also, I am concerned that it appears that the Abt report has 
     provided no independent evaluation of the claimed outcomes 
     made by grantees. What independent verification has been made 
     of the claimed program outcomes? What audits have been 
     performed on the expenditure of funds by the grantees? Was 
     this performed by Abt? Was Abt awarded this contract on a 
     competitive basis?
       Enclosed are further questions I have about the Corporation 
     for National and Community Service (CNCS), AmeriCorps, SOS, 
     the Demonstration Programs and the National Service Trust 
     Fund.
       I appreciate your fimely response to the questions and 
     concerns that I have raised. I would ask for a response prior 
     to Senate consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill.
       In reviewing AmeriCorps and SOS, I am concerned that the 
     objective of reinventing government is not being met. It 
     seems the laudable goals of community service and reinventing 
     government, which perhaps AmeriCorps and SOS were created, in 
     part, to advance, are being undermined by the establishment 
     and funding of a large and costly bureaucracy. Furthermore, 
     the success of these programs must also be measured by their 
     ability to foster in our young people a longterm desire to 
     voluntarily serve their community without compensation. I am 
     concerned that from what I've seen these programs may not 
     achieve this goal.
       If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Dean Zerbe of 
     my staff at 224-6135.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                      U.S. Senate.
                                  ____


                               Questions

       (1) It is my understanding that AFOP intends to meet part 
     of its matching requirement by using other federal funds. Is 
     this correct?
       Please provide a complete breakdown of all estimated 
     expenditures for this program including federal health care 
     contributions, administrative costs, child care, and travel. 
     Also, please confirm that while the 61 AmeriCorps 
     participants will not begin work until March, 1995, the 
     program staff will begin work in September, 1994--a 6-month 
     start-up period. What are the number of service hours that 
     will be provided?
       Related to the above, what is AmeriCorps' estimate of the 
     amount of federal funds that will be used by all grantees for 
     the purposes of meeting matching requirements?
       (2) Your June 17, 1994 letter also mentioned a $2.6 million 
     grant to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
     Please inform me of the number of participants and the number 
     of hours worked. Also, what funding will be provided by USDA, 
     by other federal agencies, and by state and local governments 
     as well as private sources. In addition, what is the cost to 
     the USDA Director of National Service and all support staff? 
     Finally, do other government departments and agencies have 
     offices for national service?
       (3) Please verify all of the figures I cite regarding SOS 
     (and if any of the these individuals are going to receive an 
     educational award). Also, were any other federal funds used 
     by the state programs; if so, where did the funds come from, 
     and what, if any, matching funds were the states required to 
     provide? In addition, please provide any and all evaluations 
     of SOS conducted by the SOS programs, independent 
     organizations, the Kennedy school, CNCS progress reports and 
     the local evaluations. Finally, of the 466,191 hours 
     performed, how many hours were spent in training participants 
     and other activities that do not provide services to the 
     public?
       Please also provide a complete breakdown of all 
     expenditures, especially state and federal administrative 
     costs. Finally, please provide the above information for the 
     ``Summer of Safety'' (SOS) program for FY 94.
       (4) There were several AmeriCorps demonstration programs. 
     Please provide me a listing and description of these 
     demonstration projects, total dollar expenditures (all 
     sources), individual program expenditures, as well as the 
     number of full-time and part-time participants and number of 
     hours worked for each program and number of service hours 
     provided.
       (5) It is my understanding that there were audits and 
     evaluations of these demonstration programs. These 
     evaluations should be reviewed by the administration and the 
     Congress in considering funding for this program. Please 
     provide copies of all completed evaluations and audits and 
     estimated completion dates for draft evaluations and audits. 
     In particular, your testimony of June 13 mentioned a 
     ``detailed report on the subtitle D's, which were the 
     demonstration programs'' which would be available in July--
     please provide a copy of that report. Also, were these audits 
     and evaluations conducted by organizations independent of 
     CNCS? Do any of these evaluations independently verify the 
     claims of service hours and accomplishments made by the 
     grantees? Finally, what are your plans for independently 
     evaluating and verifying the work of FY '94 grantees?
       (6) The FY '94 budget justification estimated 20,000 
     participants in the AmeriCorps program. Will you meet this 
     goal of 20,000 participants by October 1, 1994?
       (7) What is the total number of AmeriCorps programs 
     approved for FY '94? What is the total dollar amount in 
     grants awarded? What is the total amount of matching dollars 
     provided? What is the total number of participants? How many 
     participants will be full-time or part-time? What will be the 
     total hours worked and total service hours provided? What 
     percentage of the total AmeriCorps budget will be for 
     salaries and benefits for AmeriCorps participants? If you do 
     not have specific figures, please provide projections.
       (8) Please provide a more complete breakdown of the CNCS 
     budget. Specifically, all funding provided to AmeriCorps or 
     in support of AmeriCorps programs. For example, what 
     percentage of the FY '95 budget, Activity 4: ``Audits and 
     Evaluations'' supports AmeriCorps? Please provide the 
     percentage of all budget activities.
       (9) Please provide me the number of Presidential Appointee 
     positions for CNCS and the number of Senior Executive Service 
     employees. Also, how many employees have been hired to 
     implement AmeriCorps and the summer service programs? Please 
     provide a breakdown of the number of these employees that are 
     hired under Schedule C and Schedule A. For all Schedule A 
     employees, please provide a copy of their SF-171.
       (10) Please provide a state-by-state estimate of the number 
     of AmeriCorps participants for FY '94 and FY '95. Please 
     provide the amount of funding provided to states for 
     administration of AmeriCorps. What are the number of 
     AmeriCorps program employees state-by-state (federal/state/
     local/nongovernmental)? What other funding, such as 
     development grants or planning grants, have been provided to 
     assist states or organizations in establishing programs?
       (11) Please provide the estimated number of educational 
     awards to be granted for FY '94 programs.
                                  ____



                                  AmeriCorps National Service,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your July 14 letter. 
     We appreciate your interest in the past and future of 
     national service, and our staff has produced the attached 
     information in answer to the questions you have posed. I want 
     to give you my personal summary.
       First, I share your belief in the principles of reinventing 
     government. For us, as you correctly note, this means 
     blending national standards with local initiative, and 
     demanding real results and not just rhetoric. National 
     service will be judged in large part on how well we meet 
     these goals.
       Second, I share your belief that cost-effectiveness is an 
     essential test for any government program. Taxpayers have a 
     right to know that we're working as hard to spend their money 
     wisely as they had worked to earn it. The attached responses 
     demonstrate that your staff's calculations substantially 
     overstated actual per participant costs in both past and 
     proposed national service programs.
       Third, I share your belief that big overhead means bad 
     management. Lean and efficient staffing was important to the 
     success of my businesses over the years. We are applying the 
     same logic here. I am happy to report that we have launched 
     AmeriCorps and several related programs with minimal new 
     hiring--and that our FY '95 budget request does not ask for 
     any real dollar increase in administrative funding, despite 
     our intention to increase greatly our grants to local 
     programs.
       These materials help answer your questions about what we're 
     spending. Just as essential is the question: ``What are we 
     getting for the money?'' As a new program, AmeriCorps will 
     demonstrate its results over time, but I am convinced that 
     the Congress' investment in national service will make 
     taxpayers' funds work at least four times:
       Because we insist on direct and demonstrable community 
     results from our programs, our funds buy safer streets, 
     smarter students, cleaner parks, and healthier babies.
       Because we engage tens of thousands of AmeriCorps members 
     in substantial efforts to help our nation and their 
     neighborhoods, our funds work a second time, helping to 
     instill habits of citizenship that produce results throughout 
     lifetimes.
       Because we make college or training easier to attain for 
     those who have served, our funds work a third time, creating 
     tens of thousands of better-educated and more-productive 
     Americans, for the benefit of all.
       Because we engage communities directly in the collective 
     effort to reclaim their future, our funds work a fourth time, 
     strengthening civic organizations and reknitting the frayed 
     ties of community.
       We have many examples of national service getting things 
     done for Iowa. Our special support of flood relief efforts 
     includes a partnership with the Norwest Bank Iowa fielding a 
     total of 427 Iowa Conservation Corps members, who provided 
     over 60,000 hours of direct service during the course of the 
     last two summers, including delivery of 4 million gallons of 
     water and the repair of over 40 miles of public trails. Their 
     efforts are continuing.
       Also continuing are national service grants to Iowa public 
     schools through the State Department of Education. Our 
     programs will involve over 370,000 Iowa school children (and 
     1,500 adult volunteers) over the course of the next three 
     years.
       They join more than 17,500 of Iowa's senior citizens and 57 
     AmeriCorps*VISTAs serving their communities and the country 
     through programs we operate.
       We don't sugar-coat things. In preparing for AmeriCorps' 
     formal launch, we have learned a great deal from our own and 
     others' programs, and some of those lessons are reflected in 
     our answers to your questions. We know that national service 
     will benefit from your active--and direct--engagement. Please 
     don't hesitate to call me whenever you have suggestions or 
     questions.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Eli J. Segal,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


Response to Letter of Inquiry Dated July 14, 1992 From Hon. Charles E. 
                                Grassley


                     a. from the text of the letter

1. Topic: Demonstration Programs of the Bush-era Commission on National 
                         and Community Service.

       Letter calculates costs per hour variously as $33 or 
     $50.59.
       Response: The calculations are incorrect. Methodological 
     errors include using funding (rather than the lower actual 
     expenditures); failing to adjust for multi-year grants; 
     calculating hours of service as of June 30 rather than after 
     a full program-year (particularly since full program costs 
     are used); and failing to include the more than 100,000 hours 
     of direct service that the Abt report indicates were provided 
     just through June 30, 1993 by individuals working with the 
     programs without compensation. Their involvement was an 
     intended and vital part of the programs, and contributed to 
     the results achieved by each.
       Conclusion: The Abt report expressly (p. 17) made it clear 
     that they were not showing cost per hour--and that it was 
     erroneous to extrapolate such figures from the materials they 
     provided. Abt indicates that future reports will include cost 
     information. As indicated in the demonstration program 
     materials attached hereto, the average federal cost per FTE 
     for demonstration programs receiving FY '92 grants was 
     $17,340. AmeriCorps programs are anticipated to yield lower 
     per participant costs, and AmeriCorps requires more actual 
     service hours per participant (1700 hours, minimum), 
     specifically to increase the cost-effectiveness of national 
     service. For some programs, this nearly doubles the service 
     hours performed.
       Letter calculates completion rate at 50%.
       Response: The calculations are incorrect. Abt's completion 
     data reflected only those participants who completed service 
     through June 30, 1993; many participants were still enrolled 
     at that date and later finished service in accordance with 
     program requirements. The letter improperly compares total 
     enrollment with mid-term completion numbers.
       Conclusion: The Abt report indicates that, of those 
     participants who had enrolled and exited during the reporting 
     period, 81% satisfactorily completed their program (p. 20). 
     Some of the best Commission demonstration programs, such as 
     the Delta Service Corps, reported only a 6% overall attrition 
     rate.

    2. Topic: Association of Farmworkers Opportunity Programs Grant

       Letter calculates cost at $28,929/participant.
       Response: The calculation is incorrect. This 18 month 
     program--the first in the nation intended to train state-
     certified pesticide trainers, as required by EPA guidelines--
     includes six months of planning plus one year of service. The 
     full grant (including the planning period) is $1,123,941 and 
     there will be 75 FTEs in the operational phase. For that 
     phase, not including the education award, the per participant 
     cost is $13,839.
       Letter calculates overhead at $21,289 per participant.
       Response: The calculation is incorrect. Administrative 
     overhead of AmeriCorps grantees is capped by law at 5%. For 
     this grant (still subject to final grant negotiation), 
     current figures indicate participant-related AmeriCorps costs 
     (including the stipend, healthcare, FICA, childcare allowance 
     and participant training) will equal $11,229 per participant, 
     out of total per-participant costs of $13,839. The remaining 
     $2,610 AmeriCorps cost per participant will fund direct 
     program staffing and a budget for evaluation, and $644.21 in 
     per-participant administrative costs.
       Conclusion: AmeriCorps grants will vary in per-participant 
     costs, but the federal share should not exceed $13,000 on 
     average. The value to the community will exceed this cost. 
     For example, the 75 AmeriCorps members in this program will: 
     Be trained in pesticide safety and receive state 
     certification in their state; in turn train upwards of 45,000 
     farmworkers, including an estimated 15% of Iowa's 
     farmworkers, about the safe use of pesticides; and train 
     1,500 staff members of service providers who work with 
     farmworkers how to recognize and treat pesticide-related 
     illnesses. The program will thus reduce health care costs to 
     farmers and farmworkers alike, and increase productivity by 
     reducing absences due to illness.
       And in every AmeriCorps grants program, no more than 5% of 
     the AmeriCorps share of a program budget can be spent on 
     administrative or overhead costs.

                    3. Topic: Summer of Service 1993

       Letter calculates cost per hour of $21.45 or $13.51.
       Response: Both calculations are incorrect. Neither includes 
     117,000 hours of training and service-learning (related to 
     the direct service provided) of the stipended participants 
     nor the 92,533 hours of direct service provided by the non-
     stipended participants (who also received 3,577 hours in 
     training). Programs were required to provide these service-
     learning opportunities (as they are under the current 
     legislation).
       The Summer of Service 1993 leveraged federal funding by 
     combining an average of approximately 2.5 non-stipended 
     participants with each paid participant. The work product of 
     these unstipended participants was certainly part of the 
     value of the program to the community; and involving the 
     community directly in community revitalization through 
     collective service was a direct goal of the program--and will 
     remain one of AmeriCorps'.
       The federal cost per program hour accordingly was $9.27 
     ($6.3 million in SOS grant costs divided by 679,301 total SOS 
     grant program hours).
       Letter asserts Commission's 1993 Summer of Service didn't 
     meet participant's expectations.
       Response: Abt was particularly disturbed by this 
     misrepresentation. ``The section of the analysis to which 
     Senator Grassley's letter was referring (pp. 43-56) had 
     nothing to do with evaluating the achievement of overall 
     program goals . . . [but measured how] the participants' 
     perceptions of the relative importance of various personal 
     benefits from participation had changed over the course of 
     the summer.'' [italics in original]
       Only 12% of participants indicated dissatisfaction.
       Conclusion: Costs were far lower than asserted. 
     Satisfaction was extremely high.
       Letter asserts there were management problems in 1993 
     summer programs.
       Response: We generally agree with Abt's comments, as quoted 
     in Senator Grassley's letter (and note that Abt expressly 
     applied each criticism only to some, rather than all, 
     programs). One purpose of the Summer of Service 1993 was to 
     forecast possible problems that could arise for AmeriCorps. 
     It was useful in this respect. That's why the Commission 
     asked Abt to study the Summer of Service.
       Letter requests detailing of steps taken to address 
     specified problems identified in Abt report.
       Response: The Corporation's response is indicated below for 
     each quoted Abt finding:
       Quoted Abt Finding: ``At some sites, negotiations with 
     project partners and specifications of objectives were still 
     in a rudimentary stage when the program began.''
       Abt Recommendation: ``In the interests of improved program 
     planning and focusing of resources at the local level, prior 
     to the execution of further grant agreements the Corporation 
     may want to be more systematic about confirming the formal 
     status of inter-agency agreements, project objectives and 
     workplans, and the measures of progress to be employed. If 
     any of these elements is determined to be inadequately 
     specified, it can be addressed through a special condition in 
     the grant agreement.''
       Response: Prior to the final negotiation of 1994 Summer of 
     Safety (``SOS '94'') grant awards, senior members of the 
     Corporation staff conducted preliminary site visits to the 
     organizations selected as finalists to receive SOS '94 grant 
     awards. The primary purpose of those visits was to determine 
     if the applicant had the capacity to implement and manage a 
     successful SOS '94 program. Emphasis was placed on visiting 
     those sites that had never been the recipient of a national 
     service grant and/or those that had never received any 
     federal support.
       A ``Protocol for Discussion With Potential Grantees'' was 
     developed to examine management issues; issues related to the 
     safety of participants; programmatic issues (e.g., staffing, 
     supervision of participants; training of participants, and 
     the strength of local partnerships); recruitment of 
     participants; and potential technical assistance needs.
       Given this preparation, these focused site visits provided 
     the Corporation for National Service with greater information 
     upon which to make a final grant decision than that available 
     to the old Commission for its Summer of Service in 1993. The 
     site visits also provided potential grantees with a greater 
     understanding of what the Corporation would expect and 
     require of SOS '94 grantees.
       Quoted Abt Finding: ``Many sites were not fully prepared 
     for the extent of the administrative demands of the 'Summer 
     of Service.''
       Abt Recommendation: ``To help reduce such stresses on 
     program sites in the future, the Corporation should conduct 
     an explicit examination of what these administrative demands 
     will be, and what level of administrative staffing and 
     capabilities need to be available at the local sites to 
     comply with them. The Corporation should also take steps 
     through its funding process to ensure that the necessary 
     resources are in place as a condition of the grant award.''
       Response: The Corporation's staff worked closely throughout 
     the grant review and grant selection process to identify 
     areas which would place potentially excessive administrative 
     demands on grantees. In addition to communicating the 
     Corporation's administrative expectations to SOS '94 
     finalists during preliminary site visits, each SOS '94 
     grantee was immediately assigned a program officer who will 
     work closely with each project throughout the summer, 
     beginning with the grant negotiation process.
       Each program officer will conduct a minimum of two site 
     visits to each project and speak weekly by phone to each 
     local project director. A ``Start-UP Phase Protocol'' was 
     developed to offer program officers guidance on how to track 
     each SOS '94 project's progress. It is also the 
     responsibility of the program officer to work with grantees 
     to make certain that they receive a timely response to any 
     administrative or programmatic concerns.
       In addition to the ongoing assistance and support SOS `94 
     projects receive from their program officers, technical 
     assistance is also available to grantees on an as-needed 
     basis from the National Crime Prevention Council. The Council 
     has the expertise to respond rapidly to both administrative 
     and programmatic issues and their availability to SOS `94 
     projects will continue throughout the summer.
       Finally, to reduce the ``stress of administrative demands'' 
     on SOS `94 grantees, a Summer of Safety Project Director's 
     Workshop was conducted in May, 1994 for the purpose of 
     providing grantees with information on a range of 
     programmatic issues (e.g., recruitment, training and 
     supervision of participants) as well as administrative 
     guidance (e.g., how to administer grant awards and how SOS 
     `94 projects would be evaluated).
       Quoted Abt Finding: ``Some sites did not fully accept the 
     record-keeping and reporting responsibilities involved in the 
     national evaluation.''
       Abt Recommendation: ``To dispel such confusion, and to 
     ensure more timely and complete grantee compliance with 
     reporting requirements in the future, program sites should 
     receive a clearer statement from the Corporation regarding 
     the specific record-keeping and reporting responsibilities 
     that will be associated with the grant, the priority that the 
     Corporation attaches to such responsibilities, and the 
     sanctions that will be imposed if they do not fulfill them. . 
     . .''
       Response: In order to address this problem, the 
     Corporation, prior to the beginning of SOS `94, forwarded to 
     each program a summary of the planned evaluation process and 
     its responsibilities. The Corporation also presented a 
     briefing to program directors on the evaluation during the 
     directors' May conference. Finally the Corporation 
     substantially reduced this summer's reporting burden for 
     grantees. Much of the necessary descriptive information that 
     the Commission asked for in its evaluation materials is 
     available to the Corporation from the grant application. 
     Participant data collection instrument were simplified and 
     placed into a format which may be scanned. Finally, a draft 
     comprehensive accomplishment survey is currently being 
     distributed to programs, for an early indication of what 
     information will be required of them at the end of the 
     summer.
       Quoted Abt Finding: ``If the Corporation is interested in 
     assessing program experience according to certain attributes, 
     it should ensure that grantees' programs are structured and 
     funded in a way that allow those attributes to be more easily 
     measured.''
       Abt Recommendation: ``In future community service funding 
     rounds, if the Corporation feels that funded activities 
     should be tracked by particular attributes such as Service 
     Areas, it would be helpful to require applicants to design 
     their programs, budgets, and record-keeping systems with 
     explicit recognition of such categories.''
       Response: SOS '94 is focused on one program area: public 
     safety. The Notice of Funds Available published in the 
     Federal Register to begin the program competition for SOS '94 
     stated clear objectives for programs to achieve for the 
     summer.
       The application form required potential grantees to provide 
     a detailed description of their institutional capacity to 
     achieve these objectives, and required detailed responses 
     indicating the program's ability to manage the program; to 
     produce direct and demonstrable results; to administer 
     payments to stipended participants; and to develop and 
     sustain good working relationships with appropriate community 
     organizations and public agencies (especially law 
     enforcement) to help reduce crime and violence.
       Peer review panels, including law enforcement and youth 
     development professionals, conducted the first level of 
     application review and recommendation, based on the 
     applicant's ability to meet the criteria indicated above. 
     Finally, grant negotiation clarified program objectives and 
     monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
       Conclusion: We learned a great deal from the Commission's 
     1993 Summer of Service and have already applied those 
     lessons. Continuous improvement is an essential aspect of 
     reinventing government, and we intend to keep at it.
       Letter questions veracity and completeness of Abt 
     evaluation.
       Response: For the Abt report to be useful as a management 
     tool for AmeriCorps, it had to be prepared in far less time 
     than a full program audit would have required. The report 
     clearly indicates that it uses self-reporting of results by 
     programs; in many cases, the Corporation sent field 
     investigators to observe program performance, and they have 
     corroborated the Abt data.
       Abt was competitively selected by the Commission for 
     National Service to evaluate its grants programs; the 
     contract was extended to include the evaluation of the 1993 
     Summer of Service.
       The Corporation's Office of the Inspector General will 
     conduct financial, compliance and performance audits under 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The office 
     functions independently, and is currently conducting routine 
     audits of two former Commission year-round programs, both in 
     preliminary stages. Certain 1993 Commission Summer of Service 
     grantees are institutions of higher education receiving 
     multiple federal grants, and as such will be audited by their 
     lead federal agency. Copies of such audits, if they have been 
     conducted, have not yet been forwarded to the Corporation.

     4. Topic: Letter calls for the creation of a service ethic in 
                              participants

       Response: The President has consistently indicated that one 
     goal of national service is to encourage an ethic of service 
     among Americans of all backgrounds. We believe that 
     AmeriCorps will help to achieve this goal.
       In a program that does not officially launch for another 
     two months, it is obviously premature to judge success. 
     Nonetheless, the Abt report so frequently cited in the letter 
     indicates that participation in the 1993 Summer of Service 
     did help to foster a long-term commitment to service, even 
     without compensation: 96% of participants ``indicated that 
     they expected to perform additional volunteer or community 
     service in the future'' with 88% anticipating ``doing so 
     within the next year'' (p. 53). This is the result the 
     Senator and we desire.


                    b. questions attached to letter

    1. Topic: Association of Farmworkers Opportunity Programs Grant

       Attachment questions whether grantee will meet its match 
     requirement with other federal funds.
       Grantee may use $123,000 of EPA funds to purchase training 
     materials, tools and other needed program items; this funding 
     would then count toward the AmeriCorps matching requirement 
     (the 1994 Act allows federal funds to be used to meet the 25% 
     program match, but not the 15% cash match for the participant 
     stipend). The training grantee will provide is required under 
     EPA Worker Protection Standards, which take effect January 1, 
     1995. Grantee has applied for private foundation support, 
     which (to the extent received) would be used instead of the 
     EPA funds to be put toward the AmeriCorps matching 
     requirement.
       Attachment requests complete breakdown of all estimated 
     expenditures for this grantee.
       Response: We can estimate the Corporation's share of 
     estimated expenses, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Planning    Project             
                                         period     period       Total  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participant training cost and                                           
 materials............................        $0    $157,404    $157,404
Staff cost............................    68,210     136,420     204,630
Operational costs--Project related                                      
 staff travel and office supplies.....     1,722      15,394      17,116
Internal evaluation and monitoring....         0      31,500      31,500
Administration--office space, postage,                                  
 printing, copying....................    16,105      32,211      48,316
Participant living allowance and                                        
 health benefits......................         0     605,575     605,575
Child care for participants...........         0      59,400      59,400
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................    86,037   1,037,904   1,123,941
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Attachment asks for program and staff start dates.
       Response: As indicated above, this grant is for 18 months, 
     including a six-month planning period (which begins in 
     September, 1994). Only a portion of the staff will be 
     retained during this period. Activities during the planning 
     phase will include orientating and training staff, assisting 
     in sites' participant recruitment and placement; coordinating 
     with state authorities procedures for pesticide safety 
     trainer certification; notifying agricultural employers of 
     AmeriCorps members' imminent availability to conduct 
     pesticide safety training; etc.
       The program begins full operation in March, allowing 
     AmeriCorps members to be trained before the prime 
     agricultural season; they will then be ready when farmworkers 
     will be accessible at worksites to learn safe pesticide 
     procedures.
       Attachment asks for number of service hours.
       Response: The National and Community Service Trust Act of 
     1993 requires successful completion of a minimum of 1700 
     service hours for a participant to qualify for the education 
     benefit. The subject grantee's participants will meet or 
     exceed this minimum.
       Attachment asks for amount of federal funds used by all 
     grantees for purposes of meeting the matching requirements.
       Response: None of AmeriCorps grants have yet been awarded; 
     final grant negotiations are not underway with national non-
     profits, multi-state programs, federal agencies and other 
     direct applicants (this category represents roughly one-third 
     of total AmeriCorps grants), with the remainder to begin 
     grant negotiation next month. We will provide the requested 
     information as soon as grants are finalized and it can be 
     calculated.

              2. Topic: Grant to Department of Agriculture

       Attachment requests number of participants and hours.
       Response: The Department of Agriculture's grant is in 
     negotiation. Current information indicates the program will 
     involve 1,200 participants and provide 2.04 million service 
     hours.
       The Department of Agriculture notes that the Youth 
     Conservation Service (run by its Forest Service) had 1,003 
     participants in 1993, and accomplished $1.43 worth of work 
     for each dollar invested.
       Attachment asks about funding by non-Corporation sources.
       Response: The Department of Agriculture informs us that its 
     funding level is contingent upon its own FY '95 
     appropriations and final grant negotiations with the 
     Corporation. We understand that the Department is also 
     considering other funding sources to support the program.
       Attachment asks about federal agencies' national service 
     staff.
       Response: Until final grants are negotiated, agencies will 
     not firmly establish staffing levels.

        3. Topic: The former Commission's 1993 Summer of Service

       Attachment requests Corporation to verify all cited 
     figures.
       Response: The responses given above indicate the 
     methodological errors in the use of the source material and 
     correct the conclusions.
       Attachment asks about other federal funds and state 
     matching funds.
       Response: Employees of the former Commission are not aware 
     of any other such funds.
       Attachment asks about evaluations.
       Response: Given the limited term of the program, the 
     Commission selected only one independent evaluation firm 
     (Abt) to conduct the comprehensive evaluation of the Summer 
     of Service. As indicated above, Abt was competitively 
     selected by the Commission for National Service to evaluate 
     its grants programs; the contract was extended to include the 
     evaluation of the 1993 Summer of Service.
       Attachment asks about training and other non-service hours.
       Response: Given above. Like any other endeavor, national 
     service participants have to be trained to provide the 
     specified service; the amount of training required varies 
     widely. Nonetheless, AmeriCorps grants will require 1700 
     hours per full-time participant per year, of which 80% (1360 
     hours) must be in direct service.
       Attachment asks about administrative costs.
       Response: We find no indication that there were any state 
     administrative costs associated with the Commission's 1993 
     Summer of Service program. The Commission did not separately 
     delineate its administrative costs.
       Attachment asks for Corporation's budget for 1994 Summer of 
     Safety.
       Response: The Corporation's 1994 Summer of Safety budget 
     (in thousands) is as follows:

Program costs:
  3,200 full-time participants\1\..............................$7,504.6
  4,000 part-time participants\2\.................................800.0
Federal administrative costs\3\...................................605.4
Training and technical assistance.................................850.0
                                                             __________

   Total costs..................................................9,760.0
Educational award\4\............................................3,200.0

\1\Includes stipend, health and child care, training and supervision, 
project director salary, and grantee administration.
\2\Of the 4,000 part-time participants, approximately 2,000 are 
stipended and 2,000 are non-stipended. Half are senior citizen 
participants and half are school-age children volunteers.
\3\Estimate of staff time of Corporation's Washington, D.C. and field 
staff.
\4\Assumes all 3,200 full-time stipended participants complete service 
and use the $1,000 education award; not all will.

                    4. Topic: Demonstration Programs

       Attachment requests program and financial information about 
     these Commission grantees.
       Response: The Commission on National and Community Service 
     awarded a total of fifteen planning and operating grants over 
     two fiscal years (1992 and 1993) to support national service 
     demonstration programs under Subtitle D of the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990. Program summaries are attached 
     hereto.
       The FY 1992 appropriation for Subtitle D programs was $22.5 
     million. Of this amount, $20,266,680 was awarded in operating 
     and planning grants to seven grantees leaving a balance of 
     $2,233,320. Of this balance, $517,179 (3%) was allocated to 
     program evaluation (partial funding of the Abt Associates 
     contract), technical assistance and outreach for the grant 
     application process, and costs associated with reviewing the 
     actual grant proposals. The remaining $1,716,141 was brought 
     forward to FY 1993.
       The FY 1993 appropriation for Subtitle D was $22.5 million, 
     making a total of $24,216,000 (including FY 1992 carry-over) 
     available for award. Of this amount, $23,819,419 was awarded 
     to six continuing and seven new grantees, leaving a balance 
     of $396,581. Of this amount, approximately $135,000 (.6% of 
     the total appropriations) was allocated for costs associated 
     with the grant review process and for technical assistance to 
     grantees, and all remaining funds reverted to the Treasury 
     upon the expiration of the Commission on September 30, 1993.
       Programs that received operating grants in FY 1992 and 1993 
     began operations at various times throughout the year, and 
     thus the program year (the year in which participants serve 
     in the program) does not correspond with the fiscal year. 
     Calculation of aggregate hours of service or activity within 
     a given calendar year (or about a program still in the midst 
     of the program year) is accordingly impossible.
       Calculations of service/non-service hours for Commission 
     programs will be available at the end of September for a 
     sample of the Commission's subtitle D (demonstration) 
     programs, in the Abt report described below.
       Unlike demonstration programs funded by the Commission, by 
     law all AmeriCorps programs will require full-time 
     participants to perform a minimum of 1700 service hours.

                    5. Topic: Audits and evaluations

       Attachment requests demonstration programs' audits and 
     evaluations.
       Response: Abt Associates is preparing an interim report on 
     the Subtitle D programs, which should be available in 
     September (we hope to receive a draft of this interim report 
     by the end of this month). As part of their work, Abt will 
     verify the claims of service hours and accomplishments for a 
     sample of projects completed by subtitle D programs in the 
     Commission's second grant year (covering parts of calendar 
     years 1993 and 1994).
       The Corporation's Office of the Inspector General will 
     conduct financial, compliance and performance audits under 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The office 
     functions independently, and is currently conducting routine 
     audits of two former Commission year-round programs, both in 
     preliminary stages.
       Attachment inquires about plans for evaluating 1994 
     grantees.
       Response: The Corporation is in final stages of a public, 
     competitive process to select independent contractor(s) to 
     evaluate 1994 grantees, based on extensive criteria included 
     in the public solicitation documents.
       The foundation of our evaluation system will be a 
     comprehensive data system containing socio-demographic data 
     on participants, local programs, and the communities in which 
     they serve.
       Building on this data, we will survey programs regarding 
     their accomplishments. This survey will focus on results: 
     what AmeriCorps gets done in communities and in the lives of 
     AmeriCorps members.
       To analyze that latter impact of national service better, 
     we will also study a sample of national service participants 
     and a comparison group of similar non-participants. We will 
     track changes in their education, careers, values, and 
     service activities.
       We will carry out cost-benefit studies of our programs. We 
     will use this information to make informed choices about 
     areas where changes are needed and to learn what works well 
     and what may not.

                6. Topic: First year size of AmeriCorps

       Response: We anticipate that grants to all first year 
     AmeriCorps*USA programs will be awarded before October 1, 
     1994 and the majority of those programs will begin operation 
     prior to that date. Where a new program requires more time in 
     order to assure quality, the Corporation will make the 
     funding commitment in this fiscal year and allow start-up 
     within the following six months. As indicated in an 
     attachment hereto, the National Service Trust contains funds 
     for the education awards for 20,000 AmeriCorps members, who 
     will participate in these first year AmeriCorps*USA grants 
     programs, AmeriCorps*VISTA and AmeriCorps*NCCC (in the 
     numbers indicated therein).

                      7. Topic: AmeriCorps*USA '94

       Attachment requests a large amount of financial and program 
     data.
       Response: At this time, the national direct grantees have 
     been announced, but the details of each grant are still 
     subject to grants negotiation. This means that the following 
     numbers are interim figures only (and only for this 
     category):
       Number of programs: 57.
       Aggregate grants announced: $47,933,334.
       Amount of match: Minimum of 25% of operational costs and 
     15% of stipend. Programs which exceeded matching requirements 
     were viewed favorably during the competition. Aggregate match 
     amounts cannot be determined until negotiations are 
     completed, but will exceed minimum requirements.
       Total number of participants: Estimated at approximately 
     7000, subject to negotiation.
       Full/part-time split: Estimated to be 4902 full time and 
     2193 part-time.
       Total estimated hours worked: 4902 FT X 1700 hrs=8,333,400; 
     2193 PT X 450 hrs=986,850=9,320,250 total hours.
       With 80% required to be direct service=7,456,250 service 
     hours.
       Federal cost per service hour: $6.43.
       Percentage of budget for participant salaries and benefits: 
     Impossible to project until negotiations are completed; 
     programs will vary widely.
       We are in the process of reviewing the states' submittals 
     of their formula and inter-state competitive programs. The 
     following are accordingly only initial rough estimates for 
     these categories:
       Number of programs: Estimate 240 formula programs and more 
     than 50 competitive programs.
       Aggregate grants awarded: Subject to final negotiation, but 
     approximately $100 million.
       Amount of match: Minimum of 25% of operational costs and 
     15% of stipend. Programs which exceeded matching requirements 
     were viewed favorably in the competitive portion. Aggregate 
     match amounts cannot be calculated until negotiations are 
     concluded.
       Total number of participants: Estimated at approximately 
     10,000, subject to negotiation.
       Full/part-time split: We estimate that there could be twice 
     as many full-timers as part-timers.
       Total estimated hours worked: We would expect these 
     categories to reflect the pattern of the national direct 
     grants.
       Percentage of budget for participant salaries and benefits: 
     Impossible to project until negotiations are completed; 
     programs will vary widely.

           8. Topic: Break-down of FY '95 Corporation budget

       Response: The Corporation provides an itemized budget in 
     the justifications of appropriations estimates provided to 
     the Congressional appropriations subcommittees. These 
     documents have also been made available to all Congressional 
     staff; please let us know if your office needs a copy.
       If the question's intent is to separate AmeriCorps 
     activities from other programs of the Corporation, then the 
     attached table provides estimates of these costs for FY '95, 
     assuming funding at the full level provided in the 
     administration's budget. AmeriCorps consists of the grant 
     programs (grouped under the umbrella ``AmeriCorps*USA''), 
     AmeriCorps*NCCC (the National Civilian Community Corps) and 
     AmeriCorps*VISTA. Programs such as Learn and Serve and the 
     National Senior Volunteer Corps are part of the Corporation, 
     but not under the AmeriCorps umbrella.
       Many departments of, or teams within, the Corporation 
     (including the Office of the Inspector General, the 
     evaluation and audit team, and others) have responsibilities 
     regarding all of the Corporation's programs, not merely 
     AmeriCorps. For such line items, we have tried to estimate 
     those costs which relate only to AmeriCorps; the Corporation 
     does not so segregate its financial or other data, and 
     accordingly, the attached should be regarded only as 
     estimates, provided in short order in response to this 
     inquiry.

                          9. Topic: Personnel

       Response: The Corporation is authorized five Presidential 
     appointments (not including the 15 member Board of 
     Directors), and has six SES employees (all of them former 
     ACTION employees). Seventeen employees have been hired solely 
     to implement AmeriCorps*USA and SOS '94, all under Schedule A 
     authority. An additional eight employees with exclusive 
     responsibilities in one or both of these areas were formerly 
     employed by the Commission or ACTION (none of these 
     individuals is a Schedule C employee). Finally, we estimate 
     that perhaps 15 other Corporation staff members provide some 
     support to AmeriCorps*USA and/or SOS '94 as a major part of 
     their duties.
       We believe that employees' rights to privacy under the 
     Privacy Act would be violated by releasing items from their 
     personnel files. Perhaps a specific question could be posed 
     that we could answer, consistent with these rights.

                    10. Topic: States and AmeriCorps

       Attachment requests a state-by-state estimate of AmeriCorps 
     participants for 1994 and 1995.
       Response: It is impossible to answer this question until 
     all grants are fully negotiated. Even with the announced 
     national direct grants, negotiations may lead to the dropping 
     of one or more states as sites for an individual grantee.
       Each state complying with the Corporation's regulations is 
     guaranteed a minimum of 20 AmeriCorps members. Formula 
     allocations per state, assuming full compliance, are 
     indicated in the attached (again, this category represents 
     roughly a third of the total grants funding).
       Attachment requests funding amounts for state 
     administrative costs.
       Response: Details of FY '94 funding are attached.
       Attachment requests details about total AmeriCorps program 
     employees (all levels of government and non-government, by 
     state).
       Response: We have no information to answer this inquiry. 
     Because national service is neither an entitlement nor an 
     unfunded mandate, no entity is required to participate in the 
     program and assemble a staff. And because grants are awarded 
     after intensive competition which evaluates (inter alia) 
     budgets on the ratio of staff-related to participant-related 
     costs, programs have an incentive to keep staff levels at the 
     minimum effective levels.
       Attachment inquires about other funding (eg., planning 
     grants).
       Response: In the national direct competition, the 
     Corporation awarded ten planning grants; state program 
     planning grants have not yet been determined.
       Each State Commission has been allowed up to $10,0000 to 
     contract for technical assistance and training for their 
     successful AmeriCorps grantees.
       After final grant decisions are made, and upon submittal of 
     detailed technical assistance and training plans, states may 
     request additional resources (not to exceed $90,000 for any 
     state); awards will be made on the basis of the number and 
     size of AmeriCorps grantees.
       After final grant decisions are made, and upon submittal of 
     detailed technical assistance and training plans, states may 
     request additional resources (not to exceed $90,000 for any 
     state); awards will be made on the basis of the number and 
     size of AmeriCorps programs in the state, and the excellence 
     of the state's plan.

                11. Topic: Educational awards for FY '94

       Response: A detailed breakdown of estimated educational 
     awards is attached.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1994.
     Mr. Eli J. Segal,
     Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and 
         Community Service, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Segal: Thank you for your July 19 letter in reply 
     to the questions I raised about the AmeriCorps and Summer of 
     Service programs.
       Your response attempts to rebut the cost-per-participant 
     and cost-per-service-hour presented in my letter that were 
     calculated using figures from your own reports.
       But your response fails to provide the necessary data to 
     corroborate or refute the analysis I presented. Meanwhile, 
     your refutation seems predicated on two questionable 
     assumptions. Your calculations merely shift the baselines of 
     the different components that comprise an accurate cost 
     analysis. In the process, you seem to conveniently paint a 
     rosier picture than reality.
       As a result, I am not persuaded that these two programs are 
     cost-effective, or that they will attain the lofty goals and 
     match the high-minded rhetoric established by the President.
       My request to you was for actual and projected figures for 
     matching funds, in-kind matching, educational awards, federal 
     and state administrative and grant support funds, and federal 
     funds provided outside the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service. It was also for the number of direct 
     service hours, and the number of participants.
       I asked for these figures to acquire complete data related 
     to all three of these cost components to determine the cost-
     per-service hour and/or the cost-per-participant for these 
     programs.
       While I appreciate the extensive effort you and your staff 
     devoted to responding to my request, it fails to provide a 
     complete picture for such a determination.
       Meanwhile, your refutation is based on two questionable 
     assumptions: (1) It includes volunteers in the pool of 
     ``participants,'' which has the effect of expanding the 
     number of recipients and the number of service hours; and (2) 
     It excludes certain cost elements of the program, which has 
     the effect of shrinking the total dollars used in your 
     calculation.
       The result is, more ``participants'' and more service hours 
     are divided into fewer dollars in your calculation. 
     Therefore, the concerns I raised on behalf of the taxpayer, 
     which question the cost-effectiveness of these programs, 
     remain heightened.
       Even for those programs in which actual results should be 
     available--the AmeriCorp demonstration programs for FY 1992--
     the picture is incomplete.
       From the Abt report, we have certain interim findings--a 
     20% dropout rate of participants, and the fact that 27% of 
     costs come from non-federal sources. Based on information 
     provided in your response, I learn that total federal grants 
     were $20.2 million for FY 1992 demonstration programs.
       Using these figures, the cost per successful participant 
     for the FY 1992 demonstration grants is $30,400. (See my 
     attachment 1.A for calculation.)
       The reason this figure would be of such great concern to 
     the American taxpayer, and my Iowa constituents, is that the 
     average yearly wage for workers--say, in my state--is about 
     $14,700.
       This trend of high costs seems to continue with some of the 
     demonstration programs for FY 1993. For example, I learn from 
     your response that you have provided a federal grant of $2.9 
     million to the Northwest Service Academy (attachment 4 of 
     your letter). When costs are calculated based on historical 
     trends (see my attachment 1.B), the cost per successful 
     participant is $45,000.
       If these calculations are correct, clearly the taxpayers 
     would be troubled to learn that the cost to them of 
     soliciting national service is two or even three times their 
     yearly salary.


                      two questionable assumptions

       The first questionable assumption is your inclusion of 
     volunteers in per-hour cost calculations. Yet, this appears 
     to run counter to President Clinton's declaration of the 
     program's goals: ``I hope that some day the success of this 
     program will make it possible for every young American who 
     wishes to serve and earn credit against a college 
     education or other kinds of education and training, to do 
     that.''
       The President does not discuss volunteers, or ``non-stipend 
     participants,'' as you have called them; rather he refers to 
     those who ``earn credit''. And your own report from Abt 
     Associates recognizes that the proper calculation is 
     comprised of participants, not volunteers (p. 17 of report). 
     The inclusion of volunteers also inflates the number of hours 
     used in calculating costs per hour of service provided by 
     paid participants.
       Furthermore, this program was presented to Congress as one 
     that would provide jobs to young people. We were told that 
     the jobs would involve performing community service. Each job 
     pays approximately $7.27 an hour, including wages and 
     educational award. In addition, medical benefits and child 
     care are provided.
       Set aside the merits of whether Congress should support 
     such a jobs program; my concern is that the vast majority of 
     dollars do not end up in the pockets of the participants. And 
     the $7.27 per hour does not begin to reflect the actual cost 
     to the taxpayers.
       The second questionable assumption is your contention that 
     the cost data should be limited to only federal grant costs. 
     This is the equivalent of telling a prospective car buyer 
     that a car costs only $12,000, though conveniently forgetting 
     to mention the costs for destination, taxes, tags, dealer 
     mark-up and other overhead making the real cost $16,440--
     assuming the $12,000 is only 73% of the costs, as is the case 
     in the AmeriCorps demonstration grants.
       The only relevant cost to the car buyer is the bottom line. 
     Your calculations do not provide that same bottom line. Your 
     calculations omit the cost of educational awards, matching 
     funds, in-kind matches, administrative costs, technical 
     assistance, and so on. These are all sources of funding for 
     grantees.
       Beyond these notable problems with your response, you also 
     state that costs cannot be determined because grantees may 
     actually serve more individuals or return unused grant funds. 
     My experience is that this would have only a marginal impact 
     on estimates. Otherwise, it raises the question of why 
     additional funding is needed if grantees are returning 
     substantial monies.
       Finally you appear to discount the cost findings in the Abt 
     report. Comments that there is not sufficient data to make 
     analysis only raises the question of why the report was 
     issued at cost to the taxpayer and why the administration is 
     going forward with a request for a sharp increase in funding 
     without final data available.
       The Abt report covers 725 of the 1162 participants (62%) 
     and 67% of federal funds ($13.6 million of $20.2 million). 
     Only one grantee did not provide data. Is it unreasonable 
     to analyze cost data from such a report, in your view?
       I would note that concerns about the findings in the Abt 
     report were not apparent in your testimony to the Senate, 
     where you and your staff discussed at length the lessons 
     learned from the material and data provided in the report.
       Yet you appear to recognize that the demonstration programs 
     have weaknesses by stating on page 1 of the attachment to 
     your July 19 letter: ``AmeriCorps programs are anticipated to 
     yield lower per participant costs [than the demonstration 
     programs], and AmeriCorps requires more actual service hours 
     per participant (17 hours, minimum), specifically to increase 
     the cost-effectiveness of national service. For some 
     programs, this nearly doubles the service hours performed.''
       I remain concerned that we may spend too much money on 
     these programs much too quickly. Reinventing government is 
     not about doing more with more; it is about doing more with 
     less.
       Your comments during Senate testimony speak to this: 
     ``Again, I have no problems starting small or comparatively 
     small to make sure we have a mechanism for training people 
     properly, and doing all else that we can to make sure that in 
     a time of some cynicism about whether the Government spends 
     its money well we spend it well.''
       The administration's request for these national service 
     programs is not consistent with your words of caution. 
     Increasing funding by 67% for a program that has virtually no 
     final performance data and so many unknowns and uncertainties 
     is not a cautious and prudent approach.
       Please find attached detailed comments and additional 
     questions. I would ask that you provide as many answers as 
     possible prior to consideration of the VA/HUD appropriation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles E. Grassley,
                                                       U.S. Senate
                                  ____


                     Further Comments and Questions


                          1. cost calculations

       A. Calculation of $30,400 per successful participant in FY 
     `92 demonstration projects: Assuming that the $20.26 million 
     in federal funds is only 73% of actual costs as stated on 
     page 18 of the report, total funding is $27.75 million plus 
     $510,000 for federal grant support for a total of $28.26 
     million (not including federal administrative costs and any 
     educational awards). Total full-time equivalent participants 
     is 1,162 (number of full-time 999 and number of part-time 
     490; part-time is calculated at one-third the rate of full-
     time per your office's footnote number 1 on page one of 
     attachment to question 4). Assuming, per the Abt report, that 
     20% of participants fail to successfully complete the 
     program, only 929 participants of 1,162 successfully 
     completed. Thus, cost per successful participant based on 
     these numbers appears to be approximately $30,400, based on 
     my calculations.
       B. Several of the FY `93 demonstration grants continue the 
     trend of high costs. For example, you have provided a grant 
     of $2.936 million to the Northwest Service Academy 
     (attachment 4 of your letter). This will be for 112 
     participants (12 of whom are part-time). The cost per 
     participant for just the AmeriCorps dollars will be $26,214. 
     This does not include the funding provided by the U.S. Forest 
     Service, state governments, nonprofits, AmeriCorps 
     administrative and support costs and any educational awards.
       However, using figures from the Abt report, which states 
     that non-federal resources have been 27% of total costs in 
     the demonstration programs, estimated total costs for the 
     Northwest Service Academy grant would be $4.02 million or 
     $35,900 per participant. Projecting a drop-out rate of 20% as 
     shown on page 20 in the Abt report, the cost per successful 
     participant would be approximately $45,000 based on these 
     calculations. The fact that these are only informed estimates 
     based on your own reported findings only heightens the need 
     for complete data on expenditures.


                          2. summer of service

       Your office has failed to respond meaningfully to my 
     questions regarding Summer of Service (SOS). Your intent 
     appears to be to deny the calculations made based on your own 
     report without providing any substantive numbers to back up 
     your own claims or allow independent calculations. Until you 
     provide such additional information, the numbers calculated 
     based on the report contracted by your office with Abt 
     Associates: ``Evaluation of the Summer of Service Program'' 
     of October 25, 1993 must still be considered valid. 
     Unfortunately, it appears that given the high non-grant costs 
     associated with the FY `94 SOS program, the estimate 
     of $21.45 per hour of service for the FY '93 SOS program 
     may actually be low. A higher figure assumes similar non-
     grant costs associated with the FY '93 SOS program.
       I repeat my request for a complete accounting of the $10 
     million appropriated in FY '93 for the SOS program. You state 
     that $6.3 million was allocated to grants but give no 
     indication of how the remaining $3.7 million in funds were 
     spent. The likelihood that other funds were spent in FY '93 
     on SOS is heightened by your FY '94 budget for SOS that 
     provided $605 thousand in federal administrative costs, $850 
     thousand for training and technical assistance and $3.2 
     million for educational awards--none of which are mentioned 
     in your FY '93 budget. Thus, in FY '94 $4.65 million of the 
     $12.9 million in costs for Summer of Service were not grant 
     funds. If these figures are available for FY '94, why are 
     they not included in the FY '93 budget? In addition, your 
     office provides no figures for direct service hours provided 
     by paid participants in SOS FY '94, thus preventing any cost-
     per-participant analysis. Please provide the hours of service 
     for paid participants, as was requested earlier. Additional 
     comments and questions to your letter regarding SOS are 
     provided at number 3 on the attached sheet.
       Regarding non-service hours by paid participants, this 
     program has been presented to Congress as youth providing 
     services of benefit to the community. Your testimony of June 
     13 mentions at length the work to be performed under SOS for 
     the benefit of the community. I find no discussion of 
     training in your testimony regarding SOS. ``Reinventing 
     Government'' is about measuring output. The output of SOS and 
     AmeriCorps is service hours provided to the community by 
     participants. It is for these reasons that cost per direct 
     hour of service is a crucial measurement.
       If your intent now is that SOS is a job training program 
     such as Jobs Corps and the approximately 100 other jobs 
     programs the federal government funds, then it would be 
     helpful to inform the Congress so that your program's funding 
     and outcomes can be considered in that light.
       B. Regarding the findings on page 48 of the Abt report that 
     in 13 of the 16 categories of expectations for the SOS 
     program, according to the participants themselves, the SOS 
     program did not meet their expectations, or the stated goals 
     of the program. You asked Abt Associates to respond; please 
     provide a copy of their letter. Abt's quoted comments seem to 
     be in direct conflict with the plain meaning of their own 
     report. As the Abt report itself states on page 45:
       ``Some of the more specific or detailed potential benefits 
     didn't materialize to the extent participants expected, 
     particularly learning about educational and health issues and 
     getting a job.''
       ``Even though some participants who hoped to improve 
     children's lives didn't feel they did so, most of them did 
     and the population as a whole felt this was the most 
     important benefit.''
       C. I'm pleased that your office has attempted to take steps 
     to rectify the management problems in the SOS program raised 
     by the Abt report. I'm hopeful that the steps taken will 
     solve the many problems cited by the report. However, whether 
     the problems are solved will not be known for some time. This 
     underscores the importance of not throwing additional money 
     at a new program like AmeriCorps until we are certain funds 
     will not be mismanaged or wasted.
       D. I asked whether any additional funds were used by SOS 
     grantees, such as private funds, in-kind contributions, 
     state/local or other federal funds. I would appreciate a 
     direct answer to the question and would suggest that, if 
     necessary, you contact the grantees for a definitive answer. 
     Please provide for both FY '93 and '94 SOS grantees.


                   3. AmeriCorps Demonstration Grants

       A. I appreciate your clarifying that 1 out of 5 or 
     approximately 20 percent of participants in the demonstration 
     programs did not satisfactorily complete the program. 
     Moreover, as you noted earlier, the number of hours of work 
     required for AmeriCorps participants will be significantly 
     higher than for the demonstration programs. This increase may 
     unfortunately lead to an even lower completion rate, such as 
     the 43% completion rate experienced by the Conservation and 
     Youth Service Corps (page 20 of Abt report). Regardless, I 
     question whether having 20 of participants not successfully 
     complete the program is a success and should be the basis for 
     expanding the program.
       B. You comment that Abt will verify claims of service hours 
     and accomplishments for a sample of projects from the second 
     year of demonstration projects. Will there be no similar 
     verification for projects from the first year on which the 
     Abt report was based? Please provide a complete description 
     of how this verification will be accomplished and how 
     demonstration projects will be selected for verification.
       C. I repeat my earlier request that you provide me the 
     anticipated total dollar expenditures, including the dollar 
     value for in-kind contributions, for all demonstration 
     programs (not just the federal grant your office provided) as 
     well as the number of direct service hours that will be 
     provided under each grant.
       D. I would appreciate your clarifying whether or not the FY 
     '93 demonstration grant to the State of Arizona will provide 
     for a total of 100 participants. Your letter states that the 
     grant will provide for 100 full-time participants per 
     year. However, in year 1, the state is given only a 
     $271,222 planning grant. In year 2, the state is provided 
     an operating grant award of $2.6 million. Is this year 2 
     grant a multi-year grant? in sum, what are the total 
     number of participants under this grant and the number of 
     direct services hours to be provided?


                             4. americorps

       A. I appreciate your office providing the breakdown of the 
     FY '95 budget for AmeriCorps. I would appreciate your 
     providing an estimate of the number of consultants, 
     contractors and any other non-government personnel that your 
     office intends to hire in support of AmeriCorps. In addition, 
     have any federal agencies directed employees to work for your 
     office or assist your office? If so, please provide that 
     number and what agencies they are from. Also, if your office 
     is required to file an IRS 990 form, please provide copies of 
     all forms filed. Finally, your breakdown of costs for 
     AmeriCorps includes funding for National Civilian Community 
     Corps, Serve America and other programs. I would ask for 
     those costs, including educational awards, administrative, 
     technical assistance and other support costs, that are 
     associated solely with the 33,000 AmeriCorps participants in 
     FY '95 and the 20,000 AmeriCorps participants in FY '94.
       B. Could you please clarify why in your attached ``State 
     Commission Administrative Funding in FY '94'' the State of 
     Maryland was the only state to receive two grants, one for 
     $209 thousand and one for $339 thousand? This provided 
     Maryland approximately $548 thousand in total administrative 
     funding. By contrast, the State of New York only received 
     $489 thousand.
       C. Your letter mentions that planning grants were awarded 
     but does not provide any details. Please inform me as to who 
     was awarded planning grants or grants for technical 
     assistance and the dollar amounts. When the information is 
     available for the states, please provide dollar amounts 
     state-by-state. In addition, you comment that each state 
     commission is allowed up to $10,000 to contract for technical 
     assistance and training for their successful AmeriCorps 
     grantees. Please clarify whether that is total or for each 
     grantee in the state. Where does this funding come from in 
     your budget?
       D. The education award breakdown you provide is only the 
     formula amount for the states. I would request a complete 
     breakdown state-by-state for all awards when that is 
     available.
       E. Congress will have more confidence if provided the 
     measurable performance goals and standards you have 
     established for this program, as required by the Act. For 
     example, what does AmeriCorps estimate its successful 
     completion rate will be? What does AmeriCorps believe the 
     cost-per-successful participant and cost-per-direct 
     service hour must be for these programs?


                       5. evaluations and audits

       A. Your letter states on page 6 of the attachment that your 
     office sent field investigators to observe program 
     performance of SOS. Please provide copies of all their 
     findings and reports from the field. In particular, please 
     detail what steps they took to independently verify 
     performance claims made by the grantees.
       My letter asked for all evaluations/audits done on SOS and 
     the demonstration programs. Is it correct that the Abt 
     studies are the only evaluations or audits done on these 
     programs given that no additional material was provided to 
     me?
       Your letter's comment on page 6 of the attachment--that 
     audits may have been conducted of SOS grantees by other 
     federal agencies, but that your office doesn't know--does not 
     reflect a high degree of management oversight over the 
     taxpayer's funds. I would suggest that it would be prudent 
     for your office or contractors to make a more definite 
     determination of whether audits have been conducted in regard 
     to funds you have awarded, and establish what the findings 
     are of those audits.


           6. association of farmworkers opportunity program

       Regarding actual costs of the grant to the Association of 
     Farmworkers Opportunity Programs (AFOP): As your own letter 
     states on page 8 of the attachment, ``We can estimate the 
     Corporation's share of estimated expenses. . . '' Your 
     funding estimate does not include approximately $350,000 for 
     educational awards--from your own office. In addition, the 
     costs you cite also do not include matching funds 
     (approximately $300,000), and in-kind support from JTPA and 
     EPA. It is my understanding that JTPA and EPA will provide 
     office space and transportation costs. These additional funds 
     certainly increase the costs of the program.
       I would appreciate your providing final and complete 
     funding estimates when the AFOP grant is awarded and for 
     every other AmeriCorps grant awarded (broken down by the 
     accounts you provided for the AFOP program) as well as an 
     estimate of direct service hours to be provided by each 
     grant. Funding should include a cost-estimate of in-kind 
     support.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to say to the Senator from Iowa that I do join 
with him in asking for a GAO report on this. This is a new program. We 
want not only to get off on the right track, but we want it to stay on 
track. I want to make sure that type of inquiry that will make sure the 
taxpayers' dollars are being spent well.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her assurance, 
her cooperation, and for working with me on this matter. I think this 
is a very good compromise and, hopefully, the General Accounting Office 
will come back with a recommendation to make sure that this program is 
conducted in a cost effective way. If they do not come back with that 
certainty, we will make some changes a year from now to reflect that.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________