This year has seen some triumphs and some disappointments. On the positive side, the Corporation leadership team is in place, which should enable Patrick Corvington, on behalf of the Obama Administration, to put his stamp on the Corporation. While several appointments have been made, no new appointments have been announced for Senior Corps.

Even before Mr. Corvington was sworn into office in February, CNCS had been more responsive to the concerns of NARSVPD Directors. We hope that Mr. Corvington will build on this promising new framework. CNCS:

• Accepted the arguments put forward by NARSVPD and, in early 2010, changed its policy to allow existing RSVP programs to apply for funds that it had previously restricted to new programs.

• Promised to reduce confusion by bringing consistency to the State Offices.

• Made good on its pledge to reduce paperwork in response to NARSVPD proposals made at the Fall 2009 meeting.

• Appears to have responded positively to the comments NARSVPD submitted to the Corporation concerning its proposed Stakeholder Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP grantees.

On the other hand, the Administration’s proposed freeze of RSVP funding at FY 2010 levels is a disappointment.

Funding for Existing Programs:

In December 2009, NARSVPD wrote to the Corporation to oppose its policy of not allowing existing programs to compete with new sponsors to serve previously underserved areas. Among other points, President Brian Ropp argued that “We believe that such a decision is not in the best interests of RSVP or areas of the country that want senior volunteers. We strongly urge you to enable existing programs may compete for all funds. … We are entering a new era in which RSVP programs are required to compete for grants. That being the case, we believe that to be true to the spirit of the Serve America Act, all program funds should be open to competition from all applicants and let the best program win. “ He concluded, “We certainly support the creation of new RSVP programs, but believe that the allocation proposed by CNCS will exacerbate an already difficult situation in which RSVP programs lack the resources to meet the demands of their communities. We look forward to working with you to strengthen RSVP so that it continues to provide high quality volunteer opportunities for seniors.”

In early January 2010, the Corporation informed NARSVPD that it would allow existing RSVP programs to compete for funds to serve communities that had been not been served.

As a result of NARSVPD working with the Corporation to overturn this longstanding policy, existing programs are now able to compete for all new funds, except those specifically reserved by law for new programs. In FY 2010, that amounts to $2.5 million.

Rulemaking and Proposed Assessment Tools:

 request for comments on the proposed Stakeholder Assessment tools. While NARSVPD acknowledged that CNCS did engage RSVP project directors in a committee format to provide input and feedback on the proposed assessment tools, we expressed our concern that this assessment tool will not meet the purposes for which it is designed.

 

We noted that CNCS already collects the information it was seeking. Thus, the assessment is duplicative of information that should be readily available to the Corporation from semi-annual progress reports and from annual project self-assessments. We also questioned whether the assessment could be completed as quickly as CNCS estimated and suggested that the survey may require the input of multiple partners and entities and take a great deal more than the estimated hours. Our best estimate was that the process could perhaps take as much as 20 hours or far longer than the 2.5 hours that CNCS estimates. We also suggested that one way to enhance the quality of information to be collected is to ask questions that require community partners to provide the Corporation with information it currently lacks.

 

Our comments argued that the assessment misses the substance of what RSVP is all about. It doesn’t ask community partners how effective RSVP Project Directors are in recruiting and preparing volunteers, at placing just the right volunteer in just the right setting, or at making sure that the community based organization that desperately needs RSVP volunteers are prepared to use them effectively.

 

We argued that this exercise just shifts the burden of collecting and analyzing data from the Corporation to the project level.

Finally, we argued that data be collected only once and that to save time and energy, CNCS assume that those community partners who remain affiliated with RSVP are, by definition, satisfied and not have to fill out the assessment. Finally, we suggested that CNCS develop a sample that would capture important information rather than distribute it to the thousands of individuals who serve on Community Advisory Councils or Boards of Directors, saving substantial amounts of time, effort, and money.

On April 20, the Corporation published its responses to the comments and suggestions that it had received. While we won’t know the specifics until we see the final document, CNCS does seem to have taken the comments to heart and indicated that it will make a number of changes to the assessment tool. CNCS anticipates that the assessment tool will be finalized shortly before the National Conference begins in New York and that preparing for the Stakeholder Survey will be part of the RSVP Re-competition workshops scheduled for the Conference. Recipients of grants in 2008 will receive the survey this fall.

Funding:

In FY 2010, RSVP won a 7.5 percent increase in funding from $58.6 million in FY2009 to $63 million. In its FY 2011 Budget proposal, the Administration requested $63 million for RSVP, a freeze at FY 2010 levels. The Corporation Budget Justification provides no insight into how this decision was reached and staff has been unforthcoming. Further, when the Presidents of the Senior Corps programs spoke to Patrick Corvington, he noted that the Administration position was determined well before he came on the scene. He said he thought it was too late for any change in the Administration position this year, but did call for a Corporation in which all programs were “robust.”

Perhaps the most important issue is that in FY 2011, the Administration proposes that funding for virtually every program BUT AmeriCorps, decline, be frozen, or get a single digit increase, while AmeriCorps State and National Programs get a 31 percent increase.

This disparity has been noticed on the Hill. We have written to leading appropriators arguing forcefully that RSVP cannot remain a robust program capable of meeting community needs unless there is additional funding.

 

The FY2011 Budget is now in the hands of Congress where several things are happening:

• There has been a profound shift in sentiment away from concern about the economy slipping back into recession to concern that the Congress needs to cut spending to trim the deficit. Programs for which the Administration has requested large increases may be particularly vulnerable.

• The process has slowed to a crawl. There is still no Congressional Budget Resolution to guide domestic discretionary spending. There is growing doubt as to whether the Congress can pass such a Resolution.

• There is a growing possibility that Congress will pass a Continuing Resolution that will negate many of the increases the Obama Administration has sought.

It remains important, however, that RSVP programs make their voices heard on the Hill by writing to Senators and Representatives to document the struggles that RSVP programs face, including:

• Greater demand for RSVP services as funding state and local programs are cut

• Loss of funds as the recession hits community partners and difficulty in making the match.

• Reductions in programs as RSVP programs tighten their belts

• Staff cuts

While continuing to press Congress about the FY 2011 Appropriations, we should start now to press the Administration on its FY2012 proposal to ensure that RSVP programs are adequately funded.

 

Conclusion:

The first six months of the year have included both promise and disappointment. NARSVPD won a significant victory in getting CNCS to allow existing programs to compete for funds to serve new areas.

CNCS does appear anxious to start a new page in its relationship with NARSVPD. We have been assured that “in this period of rapid change the Corporation is going to make every effort to share messages directly from DC that will be reinforced by State offices instead of our unusual practice of communicating only through State offices.”

CNCS has moved to reduce paperwork and the administrative burden on programs. 

In addition, Association leadership sits on the CNCS RSVP Re-competition Team, and CNCS does appear to have been responsive to many of the Association’s suggestions for improving the Assessment tool.

But, there can be no hiding the disappointment that many of us feel about the Obama Administration Budget, particularly since we had been assured that competition would bring new dollars to the program.