AmeriCorps National Service Program, 39562-39607 [05-13038]

Agencies

• Corporation for National and Community Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39562-39607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13038]



[[Page 39561]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Corporation for National and Community Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



45 CFR Parts 2510, 2520, 2521, etc.



AmeriCorps National Service Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 39562]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

45 CFR Parts 2510, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2540 and 2550

RIN 3045-AA41


AmeriCorps National Service Program

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service 
(hereinafter the ``Corporation'') is amending several provisions 
relating to the AmeriCorps national service program, and adding rules 
to clarify the Corporation's requirements for program sustainability, 
performance measures and evaluation, capacity-building activities by 
AmeriCorps members, qualifications for tutors, and other requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 6, 2005, with specific 
sections becoming applicable according to the implementation schedule 
in part VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for 
Policy, Department of AmeriCorps, Corporation for National and 
Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525, 
(202) 606-5000, ext. 132. T.D.D. (202) 606-3472. Persons with visual 
impairments may request this rule in an alternative format.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Topics

I. Background
II. Preliminary Public Input and Public Comments
III. Terminology Change: FTE to MSY
IV. Highlights of Proposed Rule
V. Broad Policy Issues
    A. Sustainability Generally
    B. Intermediaries
    C. Education Award Program
    D. Professional Corps
VI. Specifics of Final Rule and Analysis of Comments
    A. Definitions of ``Target Community'' and ``Recognized 
Equivalent of a High-School Diploma''
    B. Member Service Activities
    C. Increase in Required Grantee Share of Program Costs
    D. Cap on Childcare Payments and Corporation Share of Health 
Care Benefits
    E. AmeriCorps Grants Selection Process and Criteria
    F. Corporation Cost per Member Service Year (MSY)
    G. Performance Measures and Evaluation
    H. Qualifications for Members Serving as Tutors and Requirements 
for Tutoring Programs
    I. Non-Displacement of Volunteers
    J. Transitional Entities
    K. State Commissions Directly Operating Programs
VII. Effective Dates
VIII. Non-Regulatory Issues
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    Under the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended 
(hereinafter ``NCSA, or the Act,'' 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), the 
Corporation makes grants to support community service through the 
AmeriCorps program. In addition, the Corporation, through the National 
Service Trust, provides education awards to, and certain interest 
payments on behalf of, AmeriCorps participants who successfully 
complete a term of service in an approved national service position.
    On February 27, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13331 aimed at making national and community service programs better 
able to engage Americans in volunteering, more responsive to State and 
local needs, more accountable and effective, and more accessible to 
community organizations, including faith-based organizations. The E.O. 
directed the Corporation to review and modify its policies as necessary 
to accomplish these goals.
    In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2004, Congress directed 
the Corporation to reduce the Federal cost per participant in the 
AmeriCorps program and to increase the level of matching funds and in-
kind contributions provided by the private sector. The Conference 
Report accompanying the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed 
the Corporation to engage in notice and comment rulemaking around the 
issue of ``sustainability.''
    On September 23, 2003, the Corporation's Board of Directors (the 
Board) had directed the Corporation to ``undertake rulemaking to 
establish regulations on significant issues, such as sustainability and 
the limitation on the Federal share of program costs, consistent with 
any applicable directives from Congress.'' On August 12, 2004, the 
Corporation published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Federal Register for public comment (69 FR 50124).
    This rulemaking process is one of two the Corporation initiated in 
2004, and addresses several significant and time-sensitive issues. The 
Corporation intends to implement these changes over the next year, with 
some taking effect in the AmeriCorps 2005 program year, and the 
remainder in the 2006 program year (See section VII. Effective Dates). 
The second process stemmed from a recommendation by the Board's 
Taskforce on Grant-making and is largely an effort to streamline and 
improve our current grant-making processes. That effort is already 
underway, and we plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for that 
purpose later this year. The two rulemakings address distinct and 
separate issues.

II. Preliminary Public Input and Public Comments

A. Preliminary Public Input

    On March 4, 2004, the Corporation published a notice in the Federal 
Register inviting informal preliminary public input in advance of 
rulemaking (69 FR 10188). The notice outlined the general topics the 
Corporation was interested in addressing through rulemaking and posed 
questions for the public to consider in providing input. Following the 
notice, the Corporation held four conference calls and five public 
meetings across the country in Columbus, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; 
Boston, Massachusetts; Washington, DC; and Arlington, Texas, to frame 
the issues and collect public input. Through the hearings, conference 
calls, and e-mail and paper submissions, the Corporation received 
comments from nearly 600 individuals and organizations, and used this 
input to inform the drafting of the proposed rule.

B. 60-Day Comment Period

    In the Federal Register of August 12, 2004 (69 FR 50122), the 
Corporation published the proposed rule with a 60-day comment period. 
In addition to accepting comments in writing, the Corporation held 
three conference calls and five public meetings across the country in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Atlanta, Georgia; Portland, Oregon; Denver, 
Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois. During the public comment period, the 
Corporation received 217 written comments and 78 oral comments from 
grantees, foundations, State governments, non-profits, Members of 
Congress, and other interested individuals and organizations.
    The comments express a wide variety of views on the merits of 
particular sections of the proposed regulations, as well as some 
broader policy statements and issues. Acknowledging that there are 
strong views on, and competing legitimate public policy interests 
relating to, the issues in this rulemaking, the Corporation has 
carefully considered all of the comments on the proposed regulations.

[[Page 39563]]

    The Corporation has summarized below the major comments received on 
the proposed regulatory changes, and has described the changes we made 
in the final regulatory text in response to the comments received. In 
addition to the more substantive comments discussed below, the 
Corporation received some editorial suggestions, some of which we have 
adopted and some of which we have not. The Corporation has made a 
number of other minor editorial changes to better organize or structure 
the regulatory text. Finally, the Corporation received a number of 
comments on issues outside the scope of the proposed rule, which the 
Corporation does not address in the discussion that follows.

III. Terminology Change: FTE to MSY

    In the proposed rule, the Corporation defined cost per full-time 
equivalent (FTE), and referred to cost per FTE throughout the 
regulation. Until now, the Corporation has used the term FTE to 
describe the number of service years performed by a full-time 
AmeriCorps member (each service year being equal to 1,700 hours of 
service). Because the term FTE is most often associated with budgeting 
for employee payroll, we are replacing ``FTE'' with ``Member Service 
Year'' (MSY). We think this term more accurately describes units of 
AmeriCorps service, and we want to avoid any misimpression that 
AmeriCorps members are Federal employees. Consequently, the Corporation 
has amended the final rule to refer to cost per MSY, and uses MSY and 
cost per MSY throughout this final rule in lieu of FTE and cost per 
FTE, respectively.

IV. Highlights of Final Rule

    This final rule includes a targeted series of reforms designed to 
strengthen the impact, efficiency, and reach of AmeriCorps, our 
AmeriCorps grantees, and the Corporation. Our primary objectives are 
to:
     Create a framework for long-term growth and sustainability 
of the AmeriCorps program as a public-private partnership;
     Provide consistency, reliability, and predictability for 
AmeriCorps grantees;
     Enhance the measurable positive impact of the AmeriCorps 
program on:

--Communities and beneficiaries that receive service;
--Non-profit organizations and community infrastructures that host 
service; and
--AmeriCorps members who serve;

     Resolve longstanding issues relating to Federal share, 
Corporation cost per member service year (MSY), and sustainability of 
AmeriCorps projects to minimize uncertainty about annual grantee 
funding levels and restrictions;
     Assure fiscal and programmatic accountability and 
effective performance measurement for the Corporation, AmeriCorps, and 
grantees; and
     Generate additional and wider varieties of grant applicant 
organizations. In addition, wherever possible, this rule reflects the 
Corporation's determination to:
     Eliminate unnecessary paperwork burdens on Corporation 
grantees;
     Strengthen AmeriCorps' ability to respond to State and 
local needs;
     Engage more community volunteers;
     Include community organizations, including faith-based 
organizations, in all Corporation programs; and
     Invigorate the competitive grant-making process.
    Existing and potential AmeriCorps grantees are a strong and diverse 
group of talented and innovative forces for change, with different 
needs, circumstances, and abilities. Therefore, the Corporation has 
endeavored, throughout these regulations, to:
     Use competitive criteria to foster and encourage, rather 
than require, desired actions or activities; and
     Tailor implementation of the regulatory requirements based 
on the unique goals and circumstances of grantees, including limited 
waivers if appropriate.
    The Corporation has focused reforms in the final rule on four main 
areas: Sustainability of AmeriCorps programs, including decreasing 
grantee reliance on Federal resources and decreasing Corporation costs 
per MSY; Grant selection criteria; Performance measures and evaluation; 
and Tutor qualifications and other requirements for tutoring programs. 
The proposed rule also included a discussion in some detail of several 
non-regulatory issues including the Corporation's goal of streamlining 
continuation applications and adjusting grant cycles. As discussed in 
the proposed rule, the Corporation is undertaking both those reforms 
outside of these regulations.
    The Corporation is publishing these regulations pursuant to the 
Chief Executive Officer's statutory authority to ``prescribe such rules 
and regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
national service laws.'' 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c). The Corporation intends 
to monitor the impact of this final rule on grantees.
    The next section of this preamble, section V, addresses 
sustainability, and specific issues concerning intermediaries, 
Education Award Program grantees, and professional corps programs. 
Section VI includes a section-by-section summary and analysis of the 
major comments we received and the Corporation's response. Section VII 
of this preamble addresses implementation of the final rule. Section 
VIII addresses several non-regulatory policy issues the Corporation 
considered in light of the public input and comments we received.

V. Broad Policy Issues

A. Sustainability

    Many of the comments the Corporation received addressed the issue 
of sustainability. Many suggested that the Corporation had too narrowly 
defined sustainability in the proposed rule as only including financial 
or monetary measures, and had given insufficient consideration to other 
measures of sustainability, such as community support and partnerships, 
and program quality. Those commenting on the definition generally 
suggested various revisions on the same theme of defining 
sustainability broadly and beyond just financial commitments. Two 
commenters suggested that sustainability be measured by criteria that 
capture capacity in terms of program quality and cost structure, fiscal 
and community support, partnerships, and leveraged resources, including 
volunteer hours and in-kind goods and services. The Corporation agrees 
that sustainability includes many elements beyond cost, and has 
modified the rule language in several places to bring greater emphasis 
on multiple and diverse measures of sustainability.
    The Corporation did not intend for the proposed rule to define 
sustainability solely in terms of money, nor did we intend for 
sustainability itself to be viewed as the only factor in the grant 
selection process. The Corporation's intent was to broadly define 
sustainability and to specify measures of sustainability in the grant 
selection criteria and program requirements. At the same time, the 
Corporation does believe that decreasing the federal share of costs for 
AmeriCorps programs is essential to sustainability, and we have, thus, 
retained increased matching requirements as a key part of our effort to 
boost program sustainability.
    As stated in the proposed rule, the Corporation's annual 
appropriation and its authorizing legislation, as well as E.O. 13331, 
support this approach to sustainability. In our annual appropriations 
act each year dating back

[[Page 39564]]

to fiscal year 1996, and most recently in the Consolidated 
Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2005, Congress directed the 
Corporation to ``increase significantly the level of matching funds and 
in-kind contribution provided by the private sector,'' and ``reduce the 
total Federal costs per participant in all programs.'' Section 
133(c)(3) of the Act requires the Corporation to include in its 
selection criteria the sustainability of the national service program, 
based on evidence such as the existence of strong and broad-based 
community support for the program, and of multiple funding sources or 
private funding for the program. Section 130(b)(3) of the Act 
authorizes the Corporation to ask an organization ``re-competing'' for 
funding after a three-year initial grant period to include a 
``description of the success of the programs in reducing their reliance 
on Federal funds.'' In addition, E.O. 13331 directs that ``national and 
community service programs should leverage Federal resources to 
maximize support from the private sector and from State and local 
governments.''
    While the Corporation is committed to meeting these goals, in our 
view, they do not require imposing across-the-board limitations on the 
number of years an organization may receive funds, particularly given 
the many organizations providing valuable infrastructure and experience 
that enable national and community service to continue to thrive across 
the country. At the national level, the Corporation continues to 
believe it unnecessary to disqualify an organization from receiving 
Federal funding based on the number of years that organization has 
received funding. To do so would ultimately result in a loss of some of 
the strongest organizations with the capacity, infrastructure, and 
experience to provide high-quality service and deliver results that 
strengthen and expand national and community service. We do believe, 
however, that the majority, if not all, of the organizations that 
receive Corporation funds can and should increase their share of 
program costs as their programs mature.
    Through increased sustainability, the Corporation seeks to expand 
the national service field and provide new organizations the 
opportunity to participate in national and community service programs. 
The Corporation also seeks to strengthen the capacity of existing 
national and community service programs by promoting an expansion and 
diversification of their non-Corporation funding sources, and 
strengthening the competitive framework. At the same time, the 
Corporation wants to treat grantees fairly and equitably and avoid 
impairing their independence, operating flexibility, and autonomy.
    As described in more detail below, the Corporation's strategy to 
increase organizational sustainability and expand national and 
community service has six main elements:
    1. Incorporates the broad spectrum of sustainability elements 
throughout the Corporation's grant selection criteria and program 
requirements.
    2. Increases the emphasis in the selection process on program cost-
effectiveness, including using Corporation cost per MSY as one of 
several measures of cost-effectiveness.
    3. Increases, based on a predictable schedule and incremental 
scale, the grantee share of program costs to a 50 percent overall level 
by the 10th year in which an organization receives AmeriCorps funding 
for the same program. Programs in severely economically distressed or 
rural areas are eligible to apply for permission to meet an alternative 
match schedule, which would increase their grantee share to a 35 
percent overall level by the 10th year in which an organization 
receives AmeriCorps funding for the same program.
    4. Requires State commissions to develop and implement a 
sustainability approach as part of their oversight function.
    5. Targets a percentage of non-continuation AmeriCorps State and 
national grant funds each year for new applicants.
    6. Provides technical support and limited exceptions to 
organizations that demonstrate hardship in meeting the increasing match 
requirements.
    With the exception of the fourth and fifth elements, which are not 
included in the regulatory language and which we address immediately 
hereafter, the individual section discussions that follow in part VI 
address each of the other elements of sustainability in more detail.
State Commission Sustainability Approaches (Sec.  2550.80(a)(3) in 
Proposed Rule)
    Part of the Corporation's sustainability strategy is to build upon 
what some States are already accomplishing in the sustainability arena. 
The Corporation understands that roughly 25 percent of the State 
commissions already have written sustainability policies or approaches 
through which they promote sustainability and encourage new programs in 
their States. Some States, for example, gradually and predictably 
reduce their subgrantees' Corporation cost per MSY over 12 years, to 
allow the commission to invest resources in new programs and encourage 
on-going programs to develop efficiencies and enhance community 
support. One State commission requires, among other things, that its 
subgrantees develop their own sustainability plans and increase the 
subgrantee share of program operating costs over a seven-year period to 
75 percent. Some States, in addition to requiring a small increase in 
program share of member support costs over a three-year period, 
actively solicit private donations to use, in part, to help local 
AmeriCorps programs develop relationships with corporate donors and 
increase private support. The Corporation praises these efforts and 
encourages State commissions to consider these and other approaches to 
promote program sustainability in their States.
    In an effort to promote these State sustainability efforts, the 
proposed rule required each State to describe its sustainability 
approach in its State-wide service plan.
    Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the proposed 
requirement. One viewed this provision as requiring States to duplicate 
the new Federal sustainability and matching regulatory requirements. 
One State commission indicated that it may develop additional 
sustainability requirements for programs in its State, but did not wish 
to report those requirements to the Corporation. Another commission 
supported the development of local sustainability plans for States, but 
sought clarifying language that would leave room for States to 
determine sustainability for themselves.
    The Corporation supports the efforts that States are making towards 
sustainability in their respective States. Furthermore, the Corporation 
notes that State commissions may generally choose to impose more 
stringent requirements on State subgrantees than the Corporation's 
requirements. The Corporation's intent in proposing the reporting 
requirement was to ensure that each State engage in meaningful 
discussions about how it should manage its portfolio to maximize long-
term impact of programs in the State. The Corporation expects State 
commissions to consider, in developing their sustainability plans, 
whether they should add any sustainability requirements to the 
Corporation's minimum requirements, as well as what strategies the 
State may use to develop capacity and sustainability of projects and 
service in the State.

[[Page 39565]]

    The Corporation has now concluded that the State-wide service plan 
(formerly ``unified State plan'') is not necessarily the best mechanism 
for obtaining this information. Rather, the Corporation believes that 
the most efficient way for commissions to report on their 
sustainability plans is through their administrative funds application. 
The Corporation plans to add one or more questions to the 
administrative application through which States will report their 
sustainability plan efforts. The Corporation is, therefore, removing 
from the final rule the requirement that State commissions submit a 
sustainability plan to the Corporation. Paragraph (a)(3) of section 
2550.80 in the proposed rule has been deleted.
Funds Targeted for New Programs
    The Corporation anticipates annually targeting a percentage of 
AmeriCorps funds for grants to new applicants. To give us the ability 
to manage our nationwide portfolio and ensure the appropriate mix of 
programs, the Corporation will determine the category of applicants 
eligible to receive the targeted funds annually and announce it in the 
relevant funding announcement.
    The target amount will vary, rather than be a fixed amount that the 
Corporation must use for new programs each year. In some years, the 
Corporation may receive enough high-quality new program applications to 
meet or even exceed the target, and in other years, if the new program 
applications are not of sufficient quality to merit funding, the number 
of new programs funded may be lower than the amount targeted for that 
purpose. The Corporation will, to the maximum extent possible, announce 
the amount targeted for new programs prior to the submission deadline.
    One commenter agreed with the Corporation's efforts to support new 
programs, but expressed concern that this support should not lead to 
replacing high-quality existing programs with new programs. This 
commenter supported the Corporation setting aside funding for new 
programs only under limited circumstances, including: (1) A year when 
``new'' funding represents the majority of the funding available for 
new and recompeting programs; or (2) a year when there is a substantial 
amount of new funding made available through an increase in 
appropriations for AmeriCorps grants of 10 percent or more. In 
addition, the commenter supported grants awarded out of set-aside funds 
based on the results of a ``truly competitive'' process.
    The Corporation disagrees with this commenter's suggestions. The 
Corporation will determine the target percentage annually based on the 
availability of appropriations and the projected number of recompeting 
applications, and publish this information, including posting it on the 
Web site at www.nationalservice.gov, in advance of the selection 
process. The Corporation will not, however, tie itself now to the 
specific parameters the commenter suggests. The Corporation will ensure 
that the process for selecting new programs is competitive and results 
in the selection of high-quality proposals, as for all its AmeriCorps 
grant competitions.
    Several commenters did not support targeting funds for new 
programs. Other commenters noted that competition is the best way to 
increase the number and diversity of organizations funded over time. 
The Corporation views targeting funds for new programs as an important 
incentive for new organizations to consider applying for AmeriCorps 
funds, when they otherwise might not. The Corporation acknowledges that 
its legislative requirements can appear daunting to organizations 
unfamiliar with AmeriCorps or new to national and community service, 
particularly when competing with existing organizations that have had 
the opportunity to learn from experience. The Corporation therefore 
hopes that, by targeting funds for new programs, more new organizations 
will apply, thereby increasing the likelihood that more new programs 
will receive funding. The Corporation will award all of its AmeriCorps 
funds, including those targeted for new programs, through rigorous 
competition, to ensure that we fund the best possible programs that 
will demonstrate strong results and help address our communities' unmet 
needs.
    One commenter asked whether the Corporation would announce the 
amount we would target for new programs before the selection of 
grantees or prior to the submission deadline. While the Corporation 
will generally announce the amount of funds we will target for new 
programs before the submission deadline, in some years, we may not 
receive our appropriation until close to the application deadline or 
after applications are due. In that case, the Corporation would 
announce the amount targeted for new programs as soon as possible after 
receiving our annual appropriation.
    Several commenters asked that the Corporation specify the annual 
percentage, or at the very least the maximum annual percentage we will 
target for new programs. The Corporation cannot specify in this rule 
how much--if any--we will target for new programs each year because the 
target amount will depend each year on the level of our annual 
appropriation, as well as the number of continuation programs and the 
level of their respective grant requests.
    One commenter asked whether States would be required to set-aside a 
percentage of their formula funds for new programs. The Corporation 
will not require States to set aside or target formula funds for new 
programs, although a State may choose to do so.
    Another commenter suggested the Corporation hold a competition to 
determine the best quality programs before targeting money for new 
programs. The Corporation intends only to fund high-quality programs 
and does not believe it necessary to determine the quality of 
applications through a separate process. As discussed above, the amount 
the Corporation annually targets for new programs will not be a fixed 
amount. If the Corporation has any remaining funds from the amount 
allocated for new high-quality programs that year, the Corporation will 
make these funds available to recompeting and continuation grantees.
Other Sustainability Issues
    Several commenters expressed concern that the Corporation's 
proposed sustainability strategy may in fact jeopardize programs in 
low-income and economically-distressed regions of the country. As 
discussed more fully in the section dealing with increased grantee 
share, the final rule accommodates programs located in rural or 
severely economically-distressed areas of the country that are unable 
to meet the higher match requirements by allowing them to request a 
waiver that would qualify them for an alternative lower match 
requirement. The rule also includes programs in rural and severely 
economically-distressed areas in the list of programs eligible for 
special consideration in the competitive selection process.
    One commenter expressed concern that fundraising costs are 
currently not included in the budgets submitted to the Corporation, 
obscuring the true cost of doing business as an AmeriCorps program. 
This commenter suggested that, given the increased emphasis on program 
fundraising and increased match, the Corporation request an exception 
from the Office of Management and Budget to allow development costs to 
count as match or be reimbursed. It is government-wide Federal policy 
that fundraising costs are not reimbursable, and the Corporation can 
find no basis upon which it may deviate from that policy. Many other

[[Page 39566]]

Federal grant programs require a 50 percent match without corresponding 
OMB waivers relating to development costs.
    Another commenter suggested that the Corporation apply different, 
presumably less rigorous, sustainability requirements and measures to 
``stand alone'' AmeriCorps programs--that is, organizations whose sole 
purpose is to carry out AmeriCorps. Again, the Corporation does not 
find sufficient merit to the suggestion to make a change in the final 
rule. Sustainability is one of the core principles of this rule. While 
the final rule carves out some limited exceptions to the sustainability 
requirements, the characteristics of a ``stand-alone'' AmeriCorps 
program are not sufficiently different from other AmeriCorps programs 
to warrant different treatment. Moreover, the Corporation wants to 
avoid creating a disincentive for an organization to diversify its 
activities.
    In several places in this final rule, the Corporation makes a 
distinction between compliance with a requirement and performance under 
the competitive selection criteria. For example, the final rule 
requires programs to recruit or support volunteers, unless the 
Corporation waives the requirement. At the same time, the selection 
criteria for AmeriCorps grants include volunteer recruitment and 
support as a competitive criterion. A proposal that does not include 
volunteer recruitment or support will potentially score lower in that 
category, regardless of whether, ultimately, the Corporation waives the 
volunteer recruitment or support requirement when making an award. 
Similarly, in the area of match, the Corporation is establishing 
minimum requirements for grantees that the Corporation will enforce, 
generally upon closing out a grant. If a grantee has not met its 
minimum required match, the grantee will have to repay funds to the 
Corporation. The selection criteria, on the other hand, look at match 
also from a performance perspective: An organization's failure to meet 
its budgeted match may negatively impact its success in the competitive 
process, but will not translate into a requirement that the 
organization repay funds. When considering the final rule, one should 
bear in mind this distinction between compliance and performance.
    The Corporation believes that its approach represents a fair, 
equitable, and authoritative resolution of the issue of programmatic, 
organizational, and financial sustainability. The rules are authorized 
by, and consistent with, our enabling legislation, and support our 
goals of supporting and strengthening high-quality programs while 
leveraging Federal resources to achieve the greatest benefit possible 
for our nation's communities. Predictability and consistency are 
crucial elements of this rulemaking. Thus, we seek to provide clear 
guidance to our grantees on our long-term expectations for 
sustainability, which we believe conclusively resolves the issue.

B. Intermediaries

    The Corporation received significant public comment regarding 
intermediaries and, in particular, the potential effect on those 
entities of efforts to promote sustainability. There is, and should 
continue to be, a prominent place for intermediaries in the national 
and community service portfolio, particularly given their important 
role in reaching smaller community organizations, including faith-based 
organizations. The Corporation recognizes that many intermediary models 
include a regular infusion of new sites, which, as with any new 
program, may have higher costs initially. In designing the selection 
criteria, the Corporation has explicitly recognized the potentially 
higher cost of some intermediary models.
    One commenter suggested that the Corporation define 
``intermediary'' as a program that ``places members in community-based 
and faith-based organizations in specific communities.'' This commenter 
indicated that these intermediary model programs are more expensive 
because they take on new partnerships each year and must manage 
multiple partnerships. The higher relative cost of these intermediary 
models should, according to this commenter, be recognized in the 
selection criteria for cost-effectiveness. As discussed in the 
selection criteria below, the cost-effectiveness criteria specifically 
take into account, among other things, the higher relative costs of 
programs that either bring on new sites or engage or serve difficult-
to-reach populations. As far as defining ``intermediary,'' the 
suggested definition is, based on the Corporation's experience, too 
imprecise. The Corporation has spent considerable effort examining 
intermediaries and has determined that its portfolio of grantees 
includes many different models of intermediary, such that including a 
cost-effectiveness criterion for a multi-faceted category of 
organizations would not be appropriate or workable.
    The Corporation has set matching requirements generally at the 
grantee or parent organization level, rather than at the member 
placement or service site level, and we have not adjusted the matching 
requirements based on the proportion of new sites in any given year. We 
believe that establishing the matching requirements at the parent 
organization level gives greater flexibility to intermediaries to 
manage and achieve a healthy mix of new and established sites. As 
discussed more fully below in section VI(C), the Corporation is 
sensitive to the fact that the increased match requirements may create 
obstacles for some intermediary organizations. In particular, the 
Corporation is concerned about intermediary organizations that place 
members in small and new grass-roots organizations in needy 
communities, and rely on those communities to contribute matching 
resources to the intermediary in order to participate.

C. Education Award Programs (EAP)

    The Education Award Program (EAP) allocates education awards to 
national, State and local community service programs that can support 
most or all of the costs associated with managing the service of 
AmeriCorps members from sources other than the Corporation. Several 
commenters recommended that the final rule clarify the extent to which 
its provisions apply to Education Award Programs (EAP). One commenter 
recommended that EAP grantees be exempted from all ``irrelevant 
sections,'' including those referring to match generation, volunteer 
generation, evaluation, and health care.
    The final rule explicitly excludes Education Award Program grantees 
from its provisions where necessary, and as described herein.
EAP--Sustainability and Cost Effectiveness
    Several commenters opined that the discussion of sustainability and 
its related implementation simply should not apply to EAP grantees. 
These commenters believe that EAP programs are the epitome of 
sustainability, because they already manage programs with minimal 
financial assistance from the Federal Government, other than the 
education award that members receive for completing a term of service. 
In particular, these commenters opposed using cost per MSY as a 
selection criterion for Education Award Program grantees, as these 
grantees receive fixed amount grants of $400 per MSY currently. Two 
commenters indicated that EAP programs invest significant amounts of 
non-Corporation resources in their programs, and they are concerned 
that the Corporation has not recognized or rewarded that investment in 
considering program sustainability.

[[Page 39567]]

    In the final rule's selection criteria, the Corporation has 
retained Corporation cost per MSY as an important factor to consider in 
determining a program's cost-effectiveness for programs other than 
Education Award Program grantees. For Education Award Program grantees, 
the Corporation has included explicit language to make clear that 
Corporation cost per MSY is not a factor in considering their cost-
effectiveness. However, other measures of cost-effectiveness will apply 
to Education Award Program grants.
    The Corporation agrees that the EAP program is a clear example of a 
sustainable program from a financial perspective. The Corporation is 
aware of the significant financial contribution and investment that 
EAPs make in their programs and the relatively small amount of money 
they receive from the Corporation. The question, in evaluating EAP 
programs in the selection process, is the extent to which they can 
demonstrate sustainability in other ways. For example, an EAP program 
will fare better in the competitive process if it can show that its 
program is having a sustainable impact in the community, or its members 
are continuing to show, post-service, an ethic of service.
    One commenter asked whether the current $400 cost per MSY for EAP 
programs would be increased. Another commenter indicated that the 
Corporation's reporting requirements have become increasingly 
burdensome, while the cost per MSY for Education Award Programs has 
steadily declined. Whether or not to increase the $400 cost per MSY is 
outside the scope of this regulation. The Corporation, as indicated 
below, is committed to streamlining its reporting requirements while 
ensuring accountability and sustainability, and will continue to work 
towards that goal for all its grantees.
EAP--Member Service Activities
    Sections 2520.20 through 2520.55 of the final rule address 
allowable member service activities, and include a requirement that 
some component of each AmeriCorps program must involve recruiting or 
supporting volunteers. As discussed in part VI, encouraging more 
Americans to engage in service and volunteer activities is one of the 
pillars of our sustainability goals. Like any other AmeriCorps 
applicant, any EAP grantee that believes recruiting or supporting 
volunteers would fundamentally alter its program model may apply for a 
waiver of this requirement.
EAP--Non-Displacement of Volunteers
    The proposed rule stated that the service of an AmeriCorps member 
must complement, and may not displace, the service of other volunteers 
in the community, including partial displacement such as reducing a 
volunteer's hours. As discussed below in the section addressing the 
non-displacement of volunteers provision (Sec.  2540.100), the 
Corporation has amended that section to remove these particular 
references to volunteer hours, in favor of a broader focus on 
addressing unmet needs. The Corporation will enforce this rule for all 
AmeriCorps programs, including EAP programs.
EAP--Performance Measures
    The Corporation expects all its grantees, including EAP grantees, 
to adhere to performance reporting requirements. Performance measures 
are critical to demonstrating that national and community service 
programs are having their intended impact in our communities.
EAP--Evaluation
    The proposed rule clearly indicated that EAP grantees would not be 
required to perform an independent evaluation of their programs. The 
final rule, while not requiring an independent evaluation, will require 
EAP grantees to perform an internal program evaluation, and submit that 
evaluation with the appropriate recompete application. This provision 
is consistent with the requirements in the NCSA.

D. Professional Corps

    Professional Corps programs place members as teachers, nurses and 
other health care providers, police officers, early childhood 
development staff, engineers, or other professionals providing service 
to meet unmet needs in communities with an inadequate number of such 
professionals. Professional Corps programs pay 100 percent of the 
member support costs, but receive operating funds and an allocation of 
education awards for their members. Several commenters reiterated their 
desire that the Corporation establish separate application guidelines 
for professional corps programs to reflect the fact that they are 
responsible for 100 percent of the benefits paid to AmeriCorps members, 
and that their program model may be inconsistent with some of the 
general program requirements, such as volunteer recruitment and 
required training. The Corporation believes, however, that most program 
requirements can and should apply to all AmeriCorps programs, including 
Professional Corps programs, and therefore does not necessarily see a 
need for separate guidelines. If a program demonstrates, in its funding 
application, that its program design is incompatible with the 
requirement to recruit or support volunteers, the Corporation will 
consider waiving the requirement that programs recruit or support 
volunteers.
    In addition, the Corporation has already taken the extra step of 
soliciting proposals for Professional Corps programs in a separate 
NOFA, and envisions doing so again in the future. The Corporation 
believes, however, that professional corps programs, particularly those 
for which the cost is largely borne by sponsoring organizations, will 
continue to compete well in all our AmeriCorps grant competitions. By 
grouping similar program models together in our selection process, the 
Corporation will ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that 
professional corps programs are evaluated together. The Corporation 
believes that all of these steps obviate the need for a separate set of 
application guidelines for professional corps programs.
    Several commenters asked whether the Corporation intends for all 
teaching fellows programs to apply under a professional corps NOFA, 
rather than as Education Awards programs. Professional corps may apply 
under other applicable NOFAs, such as AmeriCorps State, National, or 
EAP, in addition to any applicable Professional Corps only NOFA.

VI. Specifics of the Final Rule and Analysis of Comments

    As discussed in more detail below, the final rule:
     Defines the term ``target community'' as the geographic 
community in which an AmeriCorps grant applicant intends to address an 
identified unmet need.
     Defines the term ``recognized equivalent of a high-school 
diploma'' as including documents recognized for this purpose by the 
U.S. Department of Education.
     Clarifies the types of service activities in which 
AmeriCorps members may engage and explains the parameters for grantees 
and members to engage in capacity-building service activities, 
including volunteer recruitment and support.
     Increases, in an incremental and predictable fashion, the 
grantee's required share of program costs to a 50 percent overall match 
plateau over 10 years; provides alternative matching requirements for 
programs located in rural and severely economically

[[Page 39568]]

distressed communities, increasing the grantee's required share of 
program costs to a 35 percent overall match plateau over 10 years.
     Codifies that the amount of childcare payments the 
Corporation makes to an eligible provider on behalf of an AmeriCorps 
member may not exceed the amount authorized under the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508).
     Codifies the grant selection process and criteria.
     Clarifies how grantees are to calculate their budgeted 
Corporation cost per member service year (MSY).
     Codifies the Corporation's requirements for grantees to 
establish performance measures and to evaluate program outcomes, and 
establishes a grant amount threshold for required independent 
evaluations.
     Establishes qualifications for members serving as tutors 
and requirements for tutoring programs.
     Prohibits displacement of volunteers.
     Removes obsolete references to ``transitional entities'' 
serving as State commissions on national and community service.
     Broadens State commission flexibility to operate specified 
national service programs directly.

A. Definition of ``Target Community'' and ``Recognized Equivalent of a 
High-School Diploma'' (Sec.  2510.20)

Target Community
    In the proposed rule, the Corporation defined the term ``target 
community'' as the geographic community for which an AmeriCorps grant 
applicant identifies an unmet human need. The Corporation assumed that 
educational, environmental, and public safety needs were all subsumed 
within the term ``human need.''
    Two commenters interpreted this language as excluding educational, 
environmental, and public safety needs from the definition. In order to 
clarify our intent, the Corporation has amended the language to 
specifically include educational, environmental, and public safety 
needs (including disaster preparedness and response), in addition to 
other human needs. The Corporation has also made technical changes to 
the definition to make it clearer.
Recognized Equivalent of a High-School Diploma
    In reading the comments on the proposed tutor requirements, the 
Corporation concluded that grantees were not clear that the term 
``high-school diploma or its equivalent'' means more than simply a 
high-school diploma or a GED. For the sake of clarity, the Corporation 
is including a technical amendment to Sec.  2510.20 to clearly define 
what is a recognized equivalent to a high-school diploma. The 
definition incorporates the Department of Education's definition of the 
equivalent to a high-school diploma. Under the Department of 
Education's regulations (34 CFR Sec.  600.2), the equivalent to a high-
school diploma includes not only a GED, but also (1) a State 
certificate received by a student after the student has passed a State-
authorized examination that the State recognizes as the equivalent to a 
high-school diploma; (2) an academic transcript of a student who has 
successfully completed at least a two-year program that is acceptable 
for full credit towards a bachelor's degree; or (3) for a person 
seeking to enroll (or enrolled) in an educational program that leads to 
at least an associate degree or its equivalent and who has not 
completed high school but who excelled academically in high school, 
documentation that the student excelled academically in high school and 
has met the formalized, written policies of the institution for 
admitting such students.

B. Member Service Activities on Behalf of the Organization (Sec. Sec.  
2520.20 Through 2520.60)

    Except for those member activities specifically prohibited in 
sections 132 and 174 of the Act, as amended, the Corporation has broad 
authority to determine appropriate service activities for AmeriCorps 
members. In the proposed regulation, the Corporation largely codified 
and clarified the Corporation's current guidelines and grant provisions 
on this issue. Specifically, the proposed rule clarified that 
AmeriCorps members may: (1) Perform direct service activities, and (2) 
engage in other activities that build the organizational and financial 
capacity of nonprofit organizations and communities, including 
volunteer recruitment and certain fundraising activities.
    Several commenters supported allowing AmeriCorps members to be 
involved in capacity-building, including fundraising activities. Others 
expressed concern that AmeriCorps may be diluting its mission by 
allowing members to engage in capacity building activities, rather than 
direct service exclusively. One commenter opposed members engaging in 
anything other than direct service, on the basis that partner 
organizations are providing matching resources for direct services 
provided onsite, such as tutoring during the school day. Another 
commenter expressed the hope that this policy of allowing member 
capacity-building activities remain an opportunity for programs, but 
not become a mandate.
    The principal purpose of AmeriCorps is still direct service and 
``getting things done'' in our communities and our country. With the 
exception of the requirement that programs recruit or support 
volunteers, the final rule does not require that programs allow members 
to engage in any other capacity-building activities. The final rule 
merely permits members to engage in such activities, at the discretion 
of the program. That said, the Corporation believes that AmeriCorps 
members and AmeriCorps funds have the ability to leverage resources and 
increase the capacity of the organizations with, and the communities in 
which, they serve. The Corporation sees no compelling reason to limit 
members only to direct service, as valuable as that is, when they could 
also be recruiting or supporting volunteers, helping to raise funds for 
their projects, and helping to build sustainable service in their 
communities. Because these activities promote sustainability, which is 
one of the primary reasons for this rulemaking, the final rule remains 
unchanged from the proposed rule in terms of permitting members to 
engage in both direct service and capacity-building activities.
    One commenter recommended adding K-12 education as a fifth example 
under ``developing collaborative relationships with other organizations 
working to achieve similar goals in the community'' in Sec.  
2520.30(b)(4). The Corporation agrees that including K-12 education in 
that section is appropriate, but believes that the broader category of 
``local education agencies or organizations'' is the most appropriate 
descriptor. Consequently, the Corporation has added ``local education 
agencies or organizations'' as a fifth example in Sec.  2520.30(b)(4).
AmeriCorps Members Serving With Faith-Based Organizations
    The Corporation received comments from several organizations about 
AmeriCorps members serving with faith-based organizations. Of the 
comments relating to matters in the proposed rule, one recommended that 
the Corporation clarify the final rule to ensure that activities on 
behalf of participating organizations meet statutory and constitutional 
safeguards regarding religious activity. Specifically, this commenter 
recommended that Sec. Sec.  2520.20 through 2520.65 be amended to 
acknowledge the statutory restrictions on member activities. Another

[[Page 39569]]

commenter recommended that the Corporation develop and provide clear 
guidance for AmeriCorps programs working with faith-based 
organizations.
    The redesignated section 2520.65 (formerly Sec.  2520.30) of the 
regulations addresses AmeriCorps members' prohibited activities, 
including those relating to religious activities. The Corporation 
believes that these prohibitions are sufficiently clear, and further 
that it would be outside the scope of this rulemaking process to amend 
them at this time.
    One commenter suggested that the regulations require faith-based 
organizations that receive AmeriCorps funds to establish a separate 
corporate structure to receive and segregate government funds and the 
capacity-building activities thereby supported. The Corporation 
disagrees with this suggestion. While an organization is free to 
establish a separate account for its Corporation funds, it would be 
unfair to require faith-based organizations to comply with these 
additional burdens. Except for the Education Award Program, which 
offers a modest fixed amount grant, the Corporation requires all its 
grantees to track their Corporation funds separately and to ensure that 
they use their Corporation funds only for reasonable and necessary 
expenses and permissible program activities.
Volunteer Recruitment or Support (Sec.  2520.35)
    One focus of Executive Order 13331 is leveraging Federal resources 
``to enable the recruitment and effective management of a larger number 
of volunteers than is currently possible.'' The proposed regulations 
clearly directed that some component of an AmeriCorps grant must help 
build the long-term capacity of nonprofit organizations and the 
community by recruiting and supporting volunteers. While this has 
implicitly been a requirement over the past two years, clarifying and 
reinforcing this requirement in regulation is expected to encourage 
more Americans to engage in service and volunteer activities, and 
advance program goals.
    One commenter stated that its new homeland security program was 
successful because AmeriCorps became a tool for partnering with local 
American Red Cross chapters to maximize the effectiveness of community 
volunteers by offering them a structured, supervised and coordinated 
volunteer experience.
    On the other hand, several other commenters expressed reservations 
about the proposed requirement that programs recruit or support 
volunteers. One commenter stated that it would ``not be an effective 
use of resources to pull AmeriCorps into volunteer recruitment,'' and 
that the regulation should be broadened to allow AmeriCorps members to 
support existing volunteer efforts, rather than requiring every program 
to generate and recruit volunteers. The language in Sec.  2520.35 of 
the proposed rule specifically gives programs the option of recruiting 
or supporting volunteers--it does not require all programs to recruit 
volunteers. Some programs, for example, may not be able to recruit 
volunteers, but may be able to support volunteers recruited by other 
organizations. The Corporation, therefore, has not changed the language 
in this section of the final rule.
    Several commenters stated that the recruitment, supervision, and 
training of volunteers requires higher levels of training and 
management skills than members generally have, and detracts from direct 
service and service outcomes. One of these commenters suggested that 
the Corporation encourage volunteer recruitment, rather than require 
it. Another commenter stated that the Corporation should not stress 
sheer numbers of volunteers to the detriment of quality service and 
effectiveness. In particular, this commenter suggested that the 
Corporation should guard against taxing the volunteer base beyond its 
capacity, bearing in mind that all its streams of service, including 
AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps VISTA, Learn and Serve, as 
well as Citizen Corps, America's Promise, and the Points of Light 
Foundation, are recruiting from the same pool of potential volunteers.
    As stated in the proposed rule, the Corporation does not intend for 
this requirement to distract from an organization's mission, nor do we 
expect grantees to replace direct service with volunteer generation and 
other capacity-building activities. In most cases, direct service and 
volunteer recruitment or support can complement each other to 
strengthen programs and communities. When considering how an AmeriCorps 
program can promote the effective involvement of volunteers, applicants 
have the flexibility to determine the best way to enhance or build upon 
the direct service goals of the program in which the AmeriCorps members 
are serving and to propose capacity-building activities accordingly. 
The Corporation strongly believes that most, if not all, programs can 
support the goal of increasing and supporting volunteering in this 
country.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, however, the Corporation 
recognizes that some program models, such as certain professional 
corps, youth corps, and programs in some rural locations with a limited 
volunteer pool, may not be able to include significant volunteer 
recruitment or support in their program model, and the Corporation will 
take these and other factors into account in considering requests to 
waive the requirement that programs recruit or support volunteers.
    The Corporation is maintaining the requirement that programs 
recruit or support volunteers as currently drafted. We believe that 
requiring programs to recruit or support volunteers is central to the 
Corporation's mission of leveraging resources.
    One commenter was concerned that many of the member activities 
permitted by the proposed rule are currently activities performed 
either by volunteers or employees. This commenter, therefore, read the 
proposed rule as encouraging displacement of volunteers and employees. 
In fact, the Corporation prohibits displacement of volunteers and 
employees. The Corporation only funds programs whose activities add 
value beyond what would occur in the absence of our funding. Any 
program that simply replaces volunteers or staff with AmeriCorps 
members performing the same activities will, by definition, be unable 
to demonstrate that its program adds value and meets unmet needs in the 
community.
    One commenter saw a disparity between full-time programs and part-
time programs in terms of their ability to recruit and support 
volunteers, and the potential for the Corporation to favor full-time 
programs. This commenter's view was that a full-time program has more 
resources upon which to draw when recruiting volunteers and thus an 
advantage in the grant selection process. The Corporation does not 
favor full-time over part-time programs, or vice versa. The Corporation 
seeks to achieve the best use of its resources in light of priorities 
and funding constraints. In applying its selection criteria, the 
Corporation has sought to take into account similarities and 
differences between programs, including part-time and full-time 
programs. A program of members serving less than full-time would have 
the opportunity to articulate in its application the challenges it 
faces in meeting any particular requirement or selection criterion, 
including the volunteer support requirement.
    Several commenters asked whether a program in which AmeriCorps 
teaching fellows guide K-12 students in a service-learning project 
could count those students as volunteers for purposes of the volunteer 
support

[[Page 39570]]

component. These commenters said that most Teaching Fellows Programs 
have a service-learning requirement and that, given the increasing use 
of service-learning in K-12 schools as a way to connect academic 
learning to service, it would be helpful to see this reflected in the 
new rule. One commenter recommended that the section be renamed 
``Volunteer Recruitment or Service Learning'' to ensure that AmeriCorps 
won't be criticized for counting mandatory K-12 class activities as 
``volunteer'' work.
    The Corporation intends to interpret the requirement that programs 
recruit or support volunteers broadly so as to allow a program to count 
as volunteers any volunteer activity generated, supported, or 
coordinated by its AmeriCorps members for purposes of requirement. A 
program could therefore expect to count as volunteers students engaged 
in service-learning projects under the supervision of AmeriCorps 
members. The Corporation does not believe it is necessary to rename the 
regulatory section to specifically include service-learning, as we will 
broadly interpret the term ``volunteers,'' as used in this section.
Waiver of Requirement To Recruit or Support Volunteers
    Several commenters requested that the Corporation clearly define 
the method and timing for requesting a waiver from the requirement to 
recruit or support volunteers, and implement it as part of a pre-
application process. Three commenters added that the rule should 
clearly state that applying for a waiver will not negatively affect a 
proposal's success in the grant selection process.
    The Corporation views volunteer recruitment and support as both a 
requirement and a competitive criterion in the grant selection process. 
The Corporation expects that a program that believes it is unable to 
fulfill the requirement to support or recruit volunteers will address 
that inability in its application and thereby request a waiver from the 
requirement. While a waiver request itself will not disadvantage an 
applicant, failure to address volunteer recruitment or support at all 
will be a disadvantage in the grant selection process. That said, the 
extent to which a program recruits or supports volunteers is but one 
criterion in the grant selection process--the Corporation does not 
expect that every applicant will be able to meet or demonstrate it can 
fulfill every criterion. In order to succeed in a competitive grant 
making process, a program unable to include volunteer recruitment or 
support will simply have to deliver more with respect to other 
selection criteria.
    If the Corporation is ready to negotiate an applicant's award, and 
the applicant has requested a waiver, the Corporation will then decide 
whether to relieve the particular program of the requirement to support 
or recruit volunteers. The Corporation needs the flexibility, in 
building our portfolio, to balance the types of programs we will fund. 
Providing a pre-application waiver, which would essentially entail 
reviewing an applicant's entire application outside of the competitive 
process to assess the program design, would undermine our ability to 
achieve that balance. Furthermore, it would not be the best use of our 
resources to consider waiver requests for applications that we have not 
yet determined to be of sufficient quality to receive funding.
    The Corporation reiterates, however, that a State commission can 
require its subgrantees to include volunteer recruitment and support, 
without regard to whether the Corporation might be willing to waive the 
requirement. Applicants applying for funding through a State commission 
will be required to request a waiver from the requirement to support or 
recruit volunteers through the State commission. We expect a commission 
to forward requests for waivers only from those applicants for whom the 
commission has approved the initial request. The Corporation will leave 
to State commissions the determination of whether a formula applicant 
effectively makes the case for a waiver from the requirement to support 
or recruit volunteers, but expects State commissions to make these 
decisions judiciously. The Corporation will include waiver application 
instructions in the grant application instructions.
Fundraising (Sec.  2520.40)
    The proposed regulation also clarified that AmeriCorps members may 
help organizations raise resources directly in support of service 
activities that meet local environmental, educational, public safety, 
homeland security, or other human needs. The proposed rule allowed 
members to participate in a wide range of fundraising activities if 
these activities make up only a relatively small amount of any 
individual member's overall service hours. It also allowed members to 
write grant applications excepting those for AmeriCorps or any other 
Federal funding. The Corporation believes that these activities could 
enhance the use of AmeriCorps members to build the capacity of 
nonprofit organizations, and advance the professional development of 
the members themselves.
    The proposed rule's provisions governing fundraising were more 
flexible for AmeriCorps members than those for grantee staff, who are 
subject to Federal cost principles described in the Office of 
Management and Budget Circulars that generally disallow costs incurred 
in organized fundraising.
    Several commenters were supportive of AmeriCorps members being 
allowed to engage in fundraising, but had areas of concern. In 
particular, several commenters felt it was as important for program 
staff to be allowed to engage in fundraising on AmeriCorps time. 
Specifically, some commenters opined that if members may engage in 
fundraising, staff mu