To: NARSVPD

From: Gene Sofer

Re: RSVP Year-END Report

 

This year was a challenging one for the National Association of RSVP Directors (NARSVPD) largely because the House Education and Labor Committee proposed to introduce competition into the RSVP program and because the Corporation proposed to establish a so-called “Boomer Corps” outside of the existing RSVP structure.
 

Reauthorization:
 

Eleven years after the expiration of the authorization of the National and Community Service Trust Act, the Congress turned its attention to reauthorizing national service programs. The Healthy Families and Communities subcommittee of the House Education and Labor reported out the HR 2857, the GIVE Act (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act) on June 27, 2007. As introduced, the GIVE Act included language to have RSVP grantees compete for new grants starting in 2010:
 

(e) Competitive Re-Evaluation-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 412, a grant or contract shall not, in fiscal year 2010 or any fiscal year thereafter, be awarded or renewed under this section unless the program for which the award or renewal is made is competitively re-evaluated in comparison to other programs.

(2) REQUIREMENTS- Each competitive re-evaluation required by paragraph (1) shall be carried out through a process that ensures that--

(A) the resulting grants (or contracts) support no less than the volunteer service years of the previous grant (or contract) cycle in a given service area;

(B) the resulting grants (or contracts) maintain a similar program distribution; and

(C) every effort is made to minimalize the disruption of volunteers.
 

As you well know, many elements of the reauthorization process have been troublesome and disappointing. Nevertheless, I believe we have made real progress in making the best of a bad situation.
 

In assessing our success, it is important to recognize that both Chairman Miller (D-CA) and ranking member McKeon (R-CA) supported the competition provisions.

 

Status of the National Service reauthorization and the GIVE Act:
 

For the last six months, we have consistently opposed competition, while working to maintain good working relations with the House Committee. We have made clear our concerns about competition, but we have also been working hard to narrow the scope of the competition proposals, minimize the impact of competition on volunteers, and authorize a new “incentive grant program” to help provide additional funds for RSVP programs.
 

The Congress left Washington without having taken up the GIVE Act. At year’s end, the Committee was still trying to address three major issues in the GIVE Act: the AmeriCorps funding formula, the restructuring of the Learn and Serve America program, and the introduction of competition into the RSVP program.

 

The House Committee’s intent was to create a bi-partisan “Manager’s Amendment” that would include changes made to the GIVE Act in the last few months.
 

The Senate HELP Committee has not yet begun to write a national service reauthorization bill, but hopes to do so in the spring of 2008.
 

NARSVPD Activities regarding the GIVE Act:

At subcommittee Committee markup in June, the Association worked with Reps. Scott (D-VA) and Hare (D-IL) to amend the GIVE Act with language that stated, “PRIORITY CONSIDERATION- The competitive re-evaluation shall include some form of priority consideration for existing grantees in good standing.”

The NARSVPD immediately told the House Committee it was opposed to the competition language, even as modified, and would oppose the GIVE Act. The House staff asked that NARSVP work with the Committee to try to find a mutually acceptable resolution to the issue. We made several proposals to the Committee that would both delay the onset of competition and focus competition on “underperforming” programs.

It is worth noting that Voices for National Service made opposition to competition one of its three highest priorities.
 

In October, the House Committee shared a proposal with NARSVPD that showed substantial movement from the original bill. In that proposal, and as a result of subsequent discussions:

1. Within six months after the bill becomes law, CNCS and the RSVP Program Directors will work together to establish performance measures and evaluation processes.

2. Programs would begin to work with the new measures while CNCS provides Training and technical assistance for 1 year to all programs to educate them about the performance measures.

3. Two years after date of enactment and for the two subsequent years, CNCS would evaluate those grantees that are not meeting performance measures and subject them to competition. Programs that meet or exceed performance measures will have their grants renewed.

4. Competition of all programs does not begin until 6 years after date of enactment. Until that time, competition is limited to programs that are deemed to be underperforming.

5. To ensure that an area doesn't lose its program if there is no new sponsor available, the Committee accepted our suggestion that CNCS have the authority to continue to fund such a program if there is no appropriate competitor in order to minimize the disruption to volunteers for 18 months at which time it would be eligible to compete to retain its program.

6. CNCS will publish a Resource guide or notification of available training and TA so that all programs will be aware of their availability.

7. The Committee agreed to specify that members of peer review panels that will evaluate RSVP programs had to have expertise in senior service and aging issues.

8. The Committee agreed to require CNCS to report to it on such items as the number of underperforming programs and their geographical distribution as well as how the process was implemented.

9. The Committee staff also agreed that when the GIVE Act went to the Floor of the House language would be included in a Floor statement that referred specifically to NARSVP Directors to make it clear that the program directors cited would be members of the Association.

In October, the NARSVPD wrote the Committee, “We have come to the conclusion that to truly achieve the across-the-board excellence we all want, it is crucial to establish an incentive program that will reward programs that meet or exceed well-defined standards.” Since then, we have been working with the Committee to see that the “Managers’ Amendment” includes the Incentive Grant program. According to House Democratic Committee staff, they are making headway on getting the Incentive Grants into the Managers’ Amendment.

 

Our Incentive Grant program would include:
 

1. A separate “such sums” authorization creating a new funding stream specifically for Incentive grants that programs could apply for to improve themselves. A percentage of this funding stream would be available to increase funding through existing PNS.

2. Funds per new volunteer.

3. Some recognition of the need to ensure that the incentive grants aren’t eroded by inflation.

4. Incentive grant in effect for three years and eligibility to receive such grants for two consecutive cycles.

5. A list of actions that program sponsors would undertake to improve the volunteer experience for seniors.

6. A sustainability plan describing how they would make up for the absence of the incentive grant.
 

Conclusions on the GIVE Act:
 

The Committee proposal for competition focuses on identifying under-performing programs for the first five years after date of enactment. It does not get to full-fledged competition until the sixth year. Our proposal delayed full-fledged competition for 8 years. We moved the Committee a long way from its original position of re-competing all programs two years from now. We got at least 2/3 of what we proposed.
 

If the Committee does, in fact, agree to the Incentive Grant program, I believe that we will have to support the GIVE Act in the House. At that point, the GIVE Act will have created a new funding stream unique to RSVP. While we will have to fight for this money in the appropriations process, it offers the possibility that only RSVP could get new money for programs based on our commitment to excellence.
 

Supporting the House bill doesn’t commit us to supporting re-competition in the Senate. Lobbying the Senate would be easier than lobbying the House because while many House members don’t have RSVP programs in their district, every Senator has RSVP in his/her state. If the Senate does a bill, our support for the bill would strengthen our position in conference. Opponents are always treated worse than supporters.
 

The Boomer Corps:
 

The Corporation proposed the creation of a new program focused on recruiting and providing volunteer opportunities for baby boomers. The Senate Labor-HHS bill specifically barred CNCS from using funds “for a baby boomer initiative that would compete and be administered separately from the current program,” essentially stopping the proposal in its tracks. The Omnibus Appropriations bill signed on December 16, included language which stated that “[Sec. 403.] The Corporation for National and Community Service shall make any significant changes to program requirements, service delivery or policy only through public notice and comment rulemaking,” which should preclude the Corporation from establishing a separate boomer corps.

 

Appropriations:
 

While the Administration proposed a $6 million increase in RSVP funds for the boomer corps, none of that money materialized. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees froze funding at the 2007 level. The 1.75 percent across the board cut included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act had the effect of reducing RSVP funding for FY 2008 from $59.7 million to $58.6 million.

2008:

We need to remain vigilant about any initiatives coming from the Corporation, although the Administration’s lame duck status will become even more pronounced as the year goes on. We need to be engaged in the reauthorization process in the House to ensure that the GIVE Act is improved by the inclusion of the Incentive Grant program and we need to work with Senate HELP Committee so that its bill does not include competition. We need to work with the Appropriations Committees to get some new money into RSVP and to be alert for other places (like energy legislation) that might be amended and have a role for RSVP.

 

© Paktec Inc.

Revised