# Corporation Grant Programs and Support and Investment Activities; Final Rule CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6580

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** March 23, 1994

## Text

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (the
Corporation) is issuing this final rule concerning the Corporation's
grantmaking programs and various support and investment activities as
authorized by the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as
amended by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (the
Act). The activities and grants described in this rule are designed to
help address the Nations education, public safety, human, and
environmental needs through national and community service. This rule
describes the different types of national and community service
programs the Corporation may support, the funding available for those
programs, the processes by which grants will be awarded, the training
and technical support services available for program development and
applications, and the Corporation's plans to invest in service
infrastructure.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Russell, (202) 606-4949 (Voice)
or (202) 606-5256 TDD), between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time. For individuals with disabilities, information will be
made available in alternative formats upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information

The Corporation's Mission

The Corporation's mission is to engage Americans of all ages and
backgrounds in community-based National service. This service will
address the Nations education, public safety, human, and environmental
needs to achieve direct and demonstrable results. In doing so, the
Corporation will foster civic responsibility, strengthen the ties that
bind us together as a people, and provide educational opportunity for
those who make a substantial commitment to service.

The Purpose of This Rule

The purpose of this rule is to establish policies and procedures
for the activities that the Corporation will undertake to achieve the
goals described above. This rule should serve as a guide to explain the
eligibility requirements, application processes, selection criteria,
program requirements, and other relevant information for individuals,
programs, public and private nonprofits, institutions of higher
education, States, Indian tribes, and other entities wishing to
participate.

Impact of Programs

All programs under the National and Community Service Act have in
common the goal of achieving three types of impact: ``getting things
done'' through direct and demonstrable service, strengthening
communities, and developing the leadership and other skills of
participants. All programs, whether they involve elementary school
children or senior citizens, are equally able to achieve the goal of
strengthening communities `` by involving people of different
backgrounds together in a common effort, by promoting civic
responsibility so that every member of a community feels responsibility
for its stewardship, and by breaking down barriers of mistrust and
misunderstanding. The other two impacts are weighted differently for
different program types based on the age and experience of the
participants.
At the one extreme, the service-learning programs for school-age
youth may indeed help to solve the pressing problems of communities,
but their primary impact will be, and should be, on the lives of the
participants. They should improve their educational motivation and
achievement, citizenship skills, teamwork, and problem solving
abilities. At the other extreme, for a professional corps of adults who
are highly educated and highly skilled, the primary impact must be on
getting things done in communities. Given the higher costs of these
programs and the advanced education level of the participants, it is
imperative that the work they do be highly valued by communities and
the Nation. Programs like youth corps, which lie somewhere in the
middle in terms of age and education level of participants, should
achieve a balance of impacts by getting things done and meeting the
educational or training needs of participants. By keeping this calculus
in mind, potential applicants can gauge the appropriate amount of
program resources that should be dedicated to participant education,
life skills training, and other types of participant support.

Proposed Regulations

On January 7, 1994, the Corporation for National and Community
Service published in the Federal Register (59 FR 1194) a proposed rule
implementing the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as
amended. In response to the proposed rule, the Corporation received
over 280 comments from, among others, States, Indian tribes, schools,
institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, public
and private nonprofit organizations, volunteer organizations, and
individuals.

Summary and Analysis of Public Comment

Many comments suggested changes to Corporation policies that were
discussed in the preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking but that
were not addressed by the rule itself. Although the Corporation is not
required to discuss these comments here, they have been considered
carefully and some changes have been made. The most salient of these
issues, along with updates to other non-regulatory Corporation
policies, are discussed separately in the section on Preamble Issues.
The Regulations Issues section summarizes substantive comments
received on the regulatory provisions of the Corporation's proposed
rule. Each issue that was raised in the comments is identified and
discussed, and, where appropriate, any changes to the regulations are
noted with regulatory citations.
Finally, the Corporation received a significant number of comments
that suggested changes to regulatory provisions that reflect statutory
requirements. None of these is discussed here. Also not discussed are
any technical, non-policy changes that were made either in response to
comments or as a result of internal review.

I. Preamble Issues: Comments on and Updates to Non-Regulatory
Corporation Policies

(A) Comments on Non-Regulatory Corporation Policies

Application Deadlines and Availability
A number of commenters requested that the Corporation move back the
deadlines for its various applications. The Corporation has done so.
The new deadlines for the announced competitions are as follows (please
note that the applications must be received by the Corporation by 6
p.m. Eastern time of the announced due dates):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Application due dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer of Safety............................... March 14, March 21
Learn & Serve K-12, School-based............... April 22
Learn & Serve, Higher Education................ April 25
AmeriCorps National Direct..................... April 29
Innovative and Demonstration................... May 16
Learn and Serve K-12, Community-based.......... May 27
AmeriCorps State............................... June 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applications may be obtained by writing the Corporation at 1100
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525; by sending a fascimile
request to (202) 606-4871; or by calling (202) 606-4949. Applications
are also available on Internet. To retrieve applications via Internet,
please send a blank electronic message to: [email protected]. There
should be no text in the body of the message. An automatic response
will be sent back with information on how to retrieve the applications
through electronic mail, gopher and anonymous file transfer protocol
(ftp).
Since most local Americorps applicants (other than professional
corps) will be applying through their respective States, they should
contact their State Commissions to obtain applications.
National Priorities
The statute and regulations give the Corporation the authority to
establish priorities governing the competitive distribution of funds--
both directly and through the States. The Corporation received a number
of comments suggesting changes to and clarifications of both the
applicability and content of the national priorities. (Programs
included in the State formula application are not governed by these
priorities but rather by priorities established by the State consistent
with part 2513 of this rule.) The national priorities, which have been
slightly revised, are as follows:
Education. School Readiness: Furthering early childhood
development; and
School Success: Improving the educational achievement of school-age
youth and adults who lack basic academic skills.
Public safety. Crime Prevention: Reducing the incidence of
violence; and
Crime Control: Improving criminal justice services, law
enforcement, and victim services.
Human needs. Health: Providing independent living assistance and
home- and community-based health care; and
Home: Rebuilding neighborhoods and helping people who are homeless
or hungry.
Environment. Neighborhood Environment: Reducing community
environmental hazards; and
Natural Environment: Conserving, restoring, and sustaining natural
habitats.
Two changes were made to the priorities. Within the education
priority, the former priority, ``School success: improving the
educational achievement of school-age children,'' was changed to
``School success: improving the educational achievement of school-age
youth and adults who lack basic academic skills.'' Within the human
needs priority, ``Home: Rebuilding neighborhoods and helping people who
are homeless,'' was changed to ``Home: Rebuilding neighborhoods and
helping people who are homeless or hungry.'' This amendment was made to
clarify that, as commenters suggested, programs designed to provide
basic academic skills to adults and hunger programs are included.
There were many suggestions for further changes to the priorities,
including the following: within Education, add priorities for English
as a Second Language, school-to-work transition, and programs targeting
out-of-school youth; within Public Safety, add programs that include as
participants former gang members and other troubled youth, as well as
fire-safety programs; within Environment, there were suggestions for
specific language changes. Similarly, there were suggestions for
additional priority categories: One commenter suggested adding programs
that target individuals with disabilities, and another suggested making
economic development a national priority.
After careful consideration, the Corporation did not make
additional changes to the national priorities. Most suggested changes
would have narrowed the priorities by delineating subcategories of
programs that already fit under the priorities as drafted. For example,
programs that include gang members as participants might apply under
the education priority as programs that prepare youth for school
success, under the public safety priority as programs that reduce
violence, or, depending on the activities of the participants, under
the human needs or environmental priorities. Indeed, quality programs
often involve an holistic approach to meeting local needs and thus
often address more than one national priority. The priorities are
designed to allow programs maximum flexibility to respond to unique
local needs but, concomitantly, to focus the investment of limited
Corporation funds to achieve demonstrable impact. To further narrow the
priorities would undermine these objectives. Programs should be aware
that the priorities are intended to provide parameters within which to
focus their efforts; more specific activities within these parameters
are allowable.
Several commenters expressed concern about whether every
participant or every project in a given program had to address one or
more of the priority areas in order for the program as a whole to
qualify. Every project and every participant in a program do not have
to be working in a priority area in order for the program to be
considered to meet a national priority; rather, the program as a whole
must substantially address one or more priority areas. The Corporation
intentionally has not attempted to quantify the definition of
``substantially address.'' Instead, the Corporation will make this
judgment on a case-by-case basis to allow for flexibility.
AmeriCorps State Applications
The Corporation has changed the State AmeriCorps application
process. The Corporation's previous plan considered the formula and
competitive components of a State's application to be discrete.
Programs had to be placed in one component or the other, and States did
not have the flexibility to rearrange the components of their
applications once submitted.
There were a number of reasons behind this policy. First, it is the
Corporation's policy to distribute competitive funds only to States
that receive their formula allocations; this suggests evaluating the
formula component of the applications prior to the competitive
component. Second, programs should know up front which component of the
State application they are in to be able to estimate accurately their
chances of receiving funding. Third, because State priorities may
differ from national priorities, some programs may not be eligible for
both formula and competitive funding. Fourth, it gives autonomy to the
States, allowing them to decide where to place programs. Finally, from
a logistical standpoint, the review process is kept relatively simple
by keeping the two components of the State application separate;
therefore, the Corporation would be able to finish the reviews quickly
and meet its goal of distributing funds to programs in the field on a
timely basis.
The major drawback of this policy is that it unnecessarily would
require States to make difficult decisions that, ultimately, may not
lead to the best programs being funded. Specifically, a State would
have to decide--for every program for which it wants to seek funding--
whether that program should go into the formula or competitive
component of its application. A State would have to decide whether to
take a risk and put its best programs into the competitive pool, or to
play it safe and place those programs in the formula portion of its
application. If the State gambled, put its best programs in the
competition, and those programs did not receive funding, then the best
programs in that State would go unfunded. That is not a desirable
outcome either for the States or for the Corporation.
For the above reasons, the Corporation has revised the application
process so that States will have the opportunity to replace programs
included in the formula portion of their application with programs that
were unsuccessful in obtaining competitive funding. The application and
simultaneous review processes will be as follows: (a) States will
submit applications consisting of the State Plan, formula programs,
and, at the State's discretion, competitive programs and a request for
program development assistance;
(b) If the State Plan is approved, and if a State's formula
programs meet a minimum quality threshold, that State's competitive
programs will be entered into the State competition;\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Those States that do not submit programs for competitive
funding, as well as those States that notify the Corporation in
advance that they will not want to revise their formula application
regardless of whether any or all programs they have submitted for
competitive funding receive funding, will have the formula
components of their applications processed before other States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Through a peer and staff review process, the competitive
programs will be selected;
(d) States will be notified of which programs were selected in the
competition and given an opportunity to revise their formula
applications to include programs that were not selected in the
competition. (The Corporation will be neutral here--neither encouraging
nor discouraging States to put rejected competitive programs into the
revised formula list. This is the States' choice completely, although
at the request of the States the Corporation may provide review forms,
etc. which may aid States in assessing the quality of those programs);
and
(e) The formula portions of the State applications will receive
final approval from the Corporation.
It is the Corporation's view that this revision to the State
application process will leave most decisions in the hands of the
States, allow for the best programs to be funded, and still get
programs up and running quickly.
Eligibility of U.S. Territories for State Competitive Funds
At the request of one commenter, the regulations (Sec. 2521.30)
have been amended to clarify that U.S. Territories are eligible to
apply for State Competitive funds and educational awards if they
receive their formula allotments. Each eligible Territory may include
up to three programs in its application for State competitive funds.
Timeline
One commenter objected to the timelines established for the
completion of the State Plan and State applications. In particular, the
commenter stated that the tight timelines would make it difficult to
coordinate State grant applications with the State Plan. Several
commenters noted that the timing of notification of funding will make
it difficult to hire staff, which usually happens in the spring.
The Corporation agrees that the timeline is very tight and regrets
any inconveniences it will cause. In future years, programs will have
significantly longer to prepare applications. However, in fiscal year
1994, the current timeline is necessary in order for Corporation-funded
programs to be up and running by the Fall.
Starting Dates and Attrition Policies
One commenter suggested that all participants should not be
required to start at the same time and that vacancies be filled on a
rolling basis. Another commenter suggested the option of a mid-year
starting date to fill vacant positions.
The regulations allow for policies to change over time if
experience demands a revision. The current policy allows programs to
begin terms of service in June, September or January. All participants
in a program need not start simultaneously--thus one class could serve
September-September, another January-January, thereby allowing the
option of a mid-year starting date to fill vacancies. In addition, if a
program can demonstrate a compelling reason for alternative starting
dates, including the need for rolling admissions, the Corporation may
waive this requirement.
Allocation of Educational Awards Within Programs
One commenter expressed concern that not treating all participants
the same in terms of educational awards might be a disadvantage in the
selection process. The commenter suggested that it should not be a
selection criterion.
Because of the limited amount of funding available for program
assistance, the Corporation anticipates that in some cases programs
(especially existing programs) may not apply for or receive adequate
support for all participants enrolled in the program, and the potential
thus may arise for some participants (who are serving in approved
AmeriCorps positions) to receive AmeriCorps educational awards while
other similar participants do not. The Corporation is therefore
requiring every applicant to describe the rationale for its
distribution of educational awards to program participants in those
cases where distinctions among participants are necessary. In general,
this distribution should treat equally all participants doing the same
or essentially similar work. This reflects a matter of principle as
well as a pragmatic concern for the equal treatment of participants
within a single program.
The Corporation recognizes that equal treatment may not be feasible
or desirable in some instances. For example, an intergenerational
program or a program with a specialized component or division assigned
special projects may make distinctions among participants that justify
the provision of educational awards to some but not to others. An
example of the latter of these is a corps where team leaders receive
AmeriCorps education awards whereas regular corps participants do not.
Similarly, a program may choose to offer alternative post-service
benefits to participants in lieu of the AmeriCorps educational awards
provided by the Corporation. AmeriCorps programs are strongly
encouraged to offer alternative post-service benefits from non-
Corporation funds to participants who will not receive AmeriCorps
educational awards. The Corporation will evaluate on a case-by-case
basis the rationales of programs that do not plan to provide all
participants with educational awards. However, the Corporation will not
approve rationales based solely on a determination of economic need of
participants.
The existence of a reasonable method of allocating educational
awards will still be a selection criterion; however, in cases where
programs have legitimate reasons for not offering educational awards to
all participants, those programs will not be disadvantaged in any way
in the selection process.
AmeriCorps Priorities for Existing Grantees and for Programs Targeting
Participants with College Experience
Some commenters suggested that programs involving college-educated
participants should not be given priority for funding in the national
direct competition.
Although current grantees of the Commission on National and
Community Service--which have a high percentage of participants without
college experience--are not guaranteed funding, they receive a priority
for funding. The special consideration for programs involving
individuals with college experience was provided in order to achieve
the overall goal of diversity across programs based on many factors. An
alternative would be to drop both the priority for existing grantees
and the special consideration for programs involving individuals with
college experience. However, given the need to include a base of
experienced programs and the advisability of completing the third year
of programs that received three-year grants from the Commission, the
applications retain the first alternative.
Potential applicants should be aware that special consideration is
not the same as an absolute preference. Nor does it mean that every
participant must be college-educated in order for a program to receive
special consideration, or that no programs involving youth who have not
attended college will be funded in the national direct competition.
Rather, the purpose of the special consideration is to ensure that
participants with and without college experience are both represented
in National service.
Small State Priority in the AmeriCorps State Competition
Several commenters requested that the regulations be revised to
increase from 20 to 50 both the recommended minimum number of
participants in a program and the priority for small states in the
State competition.
After careful consideration, the Corporation has not changed these
policies. Because there are many high-quality programs with between 20
and 50 participants, and because the Corporation does not want to send
the message that these programs should consider expanding to 50
participants, the recommended minimum size of a program has not been
raised to 50. Similarly, the Corporation chose not to raise the small
State priority to 50 participants because it would have resulted in
approximately half the States receiving the priority. States with
widely disparate populations thus would be treated equally. This is not
only unfair to the larger of these States but undermines Congress'
intent of distributing these AmeriCorps funds in proportion to
population.
Relocation Expenses
In the preamble to the January 7 notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Corporation stated that it would pay for the relocation expenses of
participants who are recruited by the Corporation or the State
Commissions and need to move in order to participate. One commenter
argued that this is a poor use of scarce resources.
The Corporation has revised this policy such that the Corporation
will only pay reasonable relocation expenses in instances where
participants would not be able to participate without this support.

(B) New and Updated AmeriCorps Tables

Maximum Number of Programs in the AmeriCorps Competitive State
Applications
One commenter suggested that the Corporation revisit whether any
restrictions should be placed on how many AmeriCorps programs may be
submitted in a State competitive application. The Corporation has
limited the number of programs a State may include in its application
for competitive funding to three plus an additional program for each
full percentage point of the total State population (rounded to the
nearest full percentage point) that State contains.
The Corporation is not changing this policy for a number of
reasons. First, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, some sort of
limitation must be placed on the overall number of applications. If the
Corporation is inundated with applications it will be difficult to
ensure that each application is properly reviewed. Second, the
Corporation wants to encourage States to submit only their very best
programs. Finally, it is likely that with the restriction now in place
only about one in five programs submitted will actually be funded. It
would be unfair to programs to allow a significantly larger number of
submissions.
The table providing the number of programs that may be included in
the competitive component of each State application has been updated as
follows to incorporate the latest population estimates (July 1, 1993)
from the Bureau of the Census.

Maximum Number of Programs That May be Included in States Applications
for Competitive Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
State number of
programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... 5
Alaska..................................................... 3
Arkansas................................................... 4
Arizona.................................................... 5
California................................................. 15
Colorado................................................... 4
Connecticut................................................ 4
Delaware................................................... 3
D.C........................................................ 3
Florida.................................................... 8
Georgia.................................................... 6
Hawaii..................................................... 3
Idaho...................................................... 3
Illinois................................................... 7
Indiana.................................................... 5
Iowa....................................................... 4
Kansas..................................................... 4
Kentucky................................................... 4
Louisiana.................................................. 5
Maine...................................................... 3
Maryland................................................... 5
Massachusetts.............................................. 5
Michigan................................................... 7
Minnesota.................................................. 5
Mississippi................................................ 4
Missouri................................................... 5
Montana.................................................... 3
Nebraska................................................... 4
Nevada..................................................... 3
New Hampshire.............................................. 3
New Jersey................................................. 6
New Mexico................................................. 4
New York................................................... 10
North Carolina............................................. 6
North Dakota............................................... 3
Ohio....................................................... 7
Oklahoma................................................... 4
Oregon..................................................... 4
Pennsylvania............................................... 8
Puerto Rico................................................ 4
Rhode Island............................................... 3
South Carolina............................................. 4
South Dakota............................................... 3
Tennessee.................................................. 5
Texas...................................................... 10
Utah....................................................... 4
Vermont.................................................... 3
Virginia................................................... 5
Washington................................................. 5
West Virginia.............................................. 4
Wisconsin.................................................. 5
Wyoming.................................................... 3
------------
Totals................................................. 256
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formula Allocation of AmeriCorps Program Funds and Educational Awards
to States
The following table has been updated based on the latest estimates
(July 1, 1993) from the Bureau of the Census:

Formula Allocation of Program Funds and Americorps Educational Awards to
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational
State Program funds awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $830,163 60
Alaska.................................. 118,765 9
Arkansas................................ 480,610 35
Arizona................................. 780,397 57
California.............................. 6,188,252 448
Colorado................................ 707,036 51
Connecticut............................. 649,736 47
Delaware................................ 138,790 10
D.C..................................... 114,601 8
Florida................................. 2,712,156 197
Georgia................................. 1,371,444 99
Hawaii.................................. 232,374 17
Idaho................................... 217,900 16
Illinois................................ 2,319,182 168
Indiana................................. 1,132,725 82
Iowa.................................... 557,936 40
Kansas.................................. 501,825 36
Kentucky................................ 751,251 54
Louisiana............................... 851,576 62
Maine................................... 245,658 18
Maryland................................ 984,418 71
Massachusetts........................... 1,192,008 86
Michigan................................ 1,879,217 136
Minnesota............................... 895,592 65
Mississippi............................. 524,032 38
Missouri................................ 1,037,753 75
Montana................................. 166,350 12
Nebraska................................ 318,622 23
Nevada.................................. 275,399 20
New Hampshire........................... 223,055 16
New Jersey.............................. 1,562,181 113
New Mexico.............................. 320,407 23
New York................................ 3,607,947 261
North Carolina.......................... 1,376,996 100
North Dakota............................ 125,902 9
Ohio.................................... 2,199,029 159
Oklahoma................................ 640,615 46
Oregon.................................. 601,159 44
Pennsylvania............................ 2,388,775 173
Puerto Rico............................. 698,320 51
Rhode Island............................ 198,272 14
South Carolina.......................... 722,303 52
South Dakota............................ 141,764 10
Tennessee............................... 1,010,986 73
Texas................................... 3,575,033 259
Utah.................................... 368,785 27
Vermont................................. 114,204 8
Virginia................................ 1,286,980 93
Washington.............................. 1,041,917 76
West Virginia........................... 360,854 26
Wisconsin............................... 998,892 72
Wyoming................................. 93,188 7
-------------------------------
Totals.............................. 51,833,333 3,756
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formula Allocation of AmeriCorps Program Funds and Educational Awards
to Territories
In fiscal year 1994, the Corporation has set aside $1,550,000 and
up to 112 educational awards to be distributed to U.S. Territories on a
formula basis. The amount of a Territory's program funds allocation is
determined by multiplying the total amount of money available by the
ratio of that Territory's population to the population of all the
Territories. (Population figures are taken from the 1990 Census, the
most recent official figures available.) The maximum number of
educational awards for which a Territory may apply is determined by
dividing that Territory's formula funds allocation by the expected
average Federal share of program costs per participant ($13,800).

Formula Allocation of AmeriCorps Program Funds and Educational Awards to
Territories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational
Territory Program funds awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Samoa.......................... $213,104 15
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands................................ 197,485 14
Guam.................................... 606,685 44
Palau................................... 68,898 5
Virgin Islands.......................... 463,855 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competitive Distribution of AmeriCorps Program Funds and Educational
Awards to Indian Tribes
The Corporation has set aside $1,550,000 and up to 112 educational
awards for competitive distribution to Indian tribes.

II. Regulations Issues

General Comments

(1) Multiple applications. Several commenters asked for
clarification of the multiple applications rule.
This rule states that the Corporation will reject any application
for a project if an application requesting funding for that project is
already pending before the Corporation. In other words, a program can
only submit one application at a time for Corporation funds (either
directly or indirectly) for a given project.
Confusion sometimes arises over the difference between a program
and a project. For the Corporation's purposes, a program recruits and
selects participants, trains them, and places them in projects; a
project is a specific set of related activities carried out by a
program. A program may conduct or undertake more than one project and
receive Corporation funding from different pools for those projects. A
program is allowed, for example, to propose one project in a national
direct application and another project in a State formula application.
However, an applicant may not propose the same project for funding in
more than one application at the same time. Thus if a program submits
an application for a project in the national direct competition, that
project may not also be included in a State application. (Once an
applicant is notified that a proposal has been rejected, however, the
applicant is free, if time permits, to resubmit the proposal in a
different Corporation grant competition.)

Change: Secs. 2516.730, 2517.730, 2519.730 and 2522.320 have been
revised.

(2) Reinventing government. One commenter urged the Corporation to
include regulatory provisions that would encourage States to minimize
administrative burdens on grantees by streamlining reimbursement and
contracting procedures, as well as by providing cash advances to
grantees when possible.
The Corporation will issue separate administrative regulations that
will require States and other grantmaking entities receiving grants
from the Corporation to provide cash advances and prompt expense
reimbursements to subgrantees. Contracting procedures for supplies and
services are governed primarily by State regulations and OMB Circulars
102 and 110.

Part 2510--Overall Purposes and Definitions

Definition of administrative costs (Sec. 2510.20). A number of
commenters requested clarification of and suggested changes for the
definition of administrative costs. One commenter stated that insurance
costs should not count as administrative costs in certain instances;
another argued that costs such as rent, utilities, travel, supplies,
etc. should be allocated through an approved joint cost allocation
plan; another stated that indirect costs that directly support programs
should not be treated as administrative costs.
The Corporation agrees that the definition of administrative costs
was not sufficiently clear and it has been rewritten in response to
these comments.
Change: Sec. 2510.20 has been revised.

Part 2513--State Plan

(1) Coordination. Some commenters recommended including a
requirement that States include in their State Plans a description of
how their activities will be coordinated with those of the State agency
responsible for administering the Community Service Block Grant Act and
with other State agencies.
The Corporation encourages each State to develop a truly
comprehensive and coordinated national and community service effort.
However, the Corporation declines to require such coordination.
(2) Consideration of State Plan. One commenter requested that the
Corporation state in the regulations what weight the State Plan will
have in the evaluation of State applications.
The Corporation agrees that this is an important piece of
information for States as they put together applications. The
applications will indicate the extent to which the State Plan will be
considered. However, because the Corporation wishes to maintain
flexibility on this issue, it has not been incorporated into the
regulations.
(3) Consolidation. One commenter suggested consolidating the SEA
and State Commission plans into one.
Again, the Corporation encourages coordination of efforts, and a
consolidated plan perhaps would be a good means for a State to
accomplish this. However, due to the separation between State Education
Departments and other agencies in many States, this will not be
established as a requirement.

Parts 2515-2517--K-12 Learn and Serve Programs

(1) Training investment. Several commenters recommended that the
Corporation require 5-10% of a program's Learn and Serve grant to be
spent on training.
The Corporation agrees that adequate training--for both staff and
participants--is a critical component of any high-quality program. In
general, States and Indian tribes that receive K-12 school-based grants
must spend a total of between 10% and 15% of those funds on training
and capacity building. Moreover, in order to receive a grant, a program
will have to demonstrate the existence of an appropriate training
program. Because the training and capacity-building needs of the
various other entities eligible to apply for school and community-based
Learn and Serve America grants vary widely, the Corporation is not
setting regulatory guidelines on what percentage of those grants must
be spent on training and capacity building. However, the Corporation
reserves the right to set such guidelines in the applications.
(2) Partnerships. Several commenters suggested that the definition
of ``partnership'' be revised to require that the written agreement
specify the partnership's goals and activities, as well as the
responsibilities of each partner.
The Corporation has made this change.
Change: Sec. 2510.20 has been revised.
(3) Coordination. Some commenters suggested that the meaning of
coordination should be clarified so that nonprofits and grant-making
entities are required to communicate with State Commissions, but not to
receive their approval to go ahead with the program.
Coordination is not a program requirement for K-12 programs.
Rather, programs must describe in their applications the extent to
which they have coordinated with State Commissions. The regulations
have been revised to indicate that while coordination should include
meeting and consulting with State Commissions, it does not imply that
those State Commissions have the power to approve or disapprove a
program.
Change: Secs. 2516.410(a)(1) and 2517.400(a)(3) have been revised.
(4) Preselection of community-based programs. One commenter
objected to the regulatory requirements for pre-selection of programs
(Sec. 2517.400). Some commenters noted that the competitive process is
likely to be circumvented if the Corporation requires preselection
because of the tightness of the timeline.
The regulations have been revised to not require preselection.
Under the final regulations, State Commissions and grantmaking entities
applying for Learn and Serve America community-based service-learning
grants are not required to preselect their proposed subgrantees.
However, State Commissions and grantmaking entities are expected to
describe in detail the types of models that would be funded through
grants to local partnerships.
Change: Sec. 2517.400 has been revised.
(5) Components of School-based application. Several commenters
recommended that the regulations be revised to more specifically
identify the application requirements and selection criteria. For
example, one commenter suggested that the application described in
Sec. 2516.400(a) include descriptions of the following items: The
relationship between the program goals and strategic plans of the State
Plan and SEA Plan; the relationship of the SEA Plan and the strategic
goals of the SEA's systemic education reform efforts; the relationship
of the SEA Plan and the program development plan of the State
Commission's K-12 Community-based program; and the relationship of the
SEA plan and specific systemic reform and school improvement efforts in
the State or among targeted LEAs. The same commenter suggested that
under Sec. 2516.410(c) applicants be required to ensure that a
mechanism is provided by which school and community needs will guide
the integration of service-learning into existing curriculum in order
to meet those needs. Another commenter recommended a number of
additions to Sec. 2516.500.
Many of these recommendations are in fact incorporated into the
applications; however, in order to maintain flexibility in the
application and selection process, the Corporation has elected not to
include them in the regulations.
(6) Educational award eligibility. One commenter recommended
including a provision for the K-12 Learn and Serve programs analogous
to the higher education provision in Sec. 2519.310 which states that,
in general, participants are not eligible to receive educational
awards.
This recommendation has been adopted.
Change: a Sec. 2516.320 has been added to the regulations.
(7) Monitoring and evaluation. Several commenters suggested
additions to and requested clarification of the monitoring and
evaluation Secs. 2516.800-850.
In response, the Corporation has made three changes: First, because
monitoring activities go beyond those included in the proposed sections
on ``monitoring and Evaluation,'' the word monitoring has been removed
from Subparts E and H. The Corporation now refers to monitoring
functions that fall within the purview of evaluation as internal
evaluation. Second, the Corporation has added the requirement for
programs, States and grantmaking entities to cooperate fully with all
Corporation evaluation activities. Third, the Corporation has added the
requirement for the Corporation to ``study the extent to which national
service models enable participants to afford post-secondary education
with fewer student loans'' when evaluating the overall success of
AmeriCorps.
Change: Secs. 2516.800-850 have been revised.

Part 2519--Higher Education Learn and Serve Programs

(1) Application review. One commenter suggested that the review
process in Sec. 2519.500 be more specific and include peer review,
rankings and reviewer comments, and that there be a written protocol
for the CEO to cover situations where a highly ranked application is
not funded.
These are good ideas, and many of them may in fact be included in
the review process. Specifically, in fiscal year 1994 programs will
definitely be subject to peer review. However, since the Corporation
may want to improve the review process from year to year, these
provisions are not incorporated into the regulations.
(2) Where can higher education programs operate? One commenter
expressed concern that the neighboring communities language in 2519.100
would not allow a program to operate across State lines.
The Corporation's intent was that higher education programs should
address needs in the communities where the programs operate, regardless
of where the institution of higher education is located. The
regulations have been revised to make this clear.
Change: Sec. 2519.100 has been revised.

Parts 2520-2524--AmeriCorps

(1) Living Allowance Match. Under the proposed regulations,
programs receiving educational awards only grants were exempt from the
living allowance requirement. One commenter suggested that they should
not be, arguing that it would make it more difficult for low-income
individuals to participate.
The Corporation has revised its regulations to not allow this
exemption.
Change: Sec. 2522.240 has been revised.
Another commenter requested that grantees be able to provide their
15% match for living allowances on an in-kind basis.
In general, the Corporation wants to ensure that every AmeriCorps
participant receives a living allowance sufficient to meet reasonable
expenses while participating. By definition, a living allowance match
must be in cash. However, in certain instances where a program has
received a waiver from providing the minimum living allowance, the
Corporation will consider on a case-by-case basis waiving or reducing
the matching requirement. For example, a program that houses its
participants may not count that housing as an in-kind match, but it may
be eligible to apply to have the 15% matching requirement waived or
reduced.
Change: A section (5)(iii), allowing for waivers of the 15%
matching requirement, has been added to Sec. 2522.240(b).
(2) Preselection of programs. Commenters objected to the
requirement that applicants for AmeriCorps preselect and specifically
identify in their applications the subgrantees they will fund. Some
commenters argued that because of the tightness of the timeline, the
competitive process is likely to be circumvented if preselection is
required.
Although the Corporation appreciates the difficulties preselection
raises in light of the timeline, for both legal and policy reasons this
requirement has not been changed. The statute requires a State
applicant to describe the ``jobs or positions into which participants
will be placed'' (section 130(c)(1)). It is the Corporation's view that
such a description would be inadequate without a corresponding
description of the programs in which those jobs or positions would be
located. Moreover, section 130(b)(2) of the statute requires
``description of the process and criteria by which the programs were
selected.'' From a policy standpoint, preselection is required in order
to ensure that the Corporation funds only high-quality programs.
(3) Diversity. Several commenters recommended modifications to the
participant diversity provisions contained in Sec. 2522.100. One
commenter stated that programs that are unable to achieve racial and
gender diversity should not receive Federal funds. Conversely, other
commenters expressed concern that the racial diversity requirement may
exclude eligibility minority agencies that would have predominantly
minority participants. A number of commenters suggested that the
Corporation require diversity of program staff and include that as an
evaluation criterion. One commenter suggested that the Corporation
encourage programs to engage in joint activities with organizations
involving participants of different backgrounds to enhance community-
building.
The Corporation declines to make the achievement of diversity a
requirement or to establish regulatory exceptions to the mandate that
every program seek diversity. The Corporation, in establishing the
requirement that every program actively seek to be diverse in a number
of important areas, attempted to strike a balance between competing
concerns. On the one hand, diverse programs will help strengthen
communities. On the other hand, there are some very good programs that,
for legitimate substantive reasons, will not to be able to achieve
diversity in one or more ways. The requirement, as written, will lead
to diverse programs except in cases where diversity does not make sense
or is not attainable (e.g., a professional corps program requiring
specific skills or education should not be required to include as
participants individuals who do not have such skills or education).
The Corporation agrees with the suggestion that programs also
should seek actively to establish a diverse staff. In many cases where
a program's staff is very small, it may not always be possible to have
a staff that is diverse in all ways. Within these constraints, however,
programs should seek to establish a staff that is as diverse as
possible.
Finally, the Corporation agrees that--especially for programs that
lack diversity in one or more ways--it is a good idea for programs to
engage in joint activities with organizations involving participants of
different backgrounds to help build communities; programs are
encouraged to do so where possible.
Change: Sec. 2522.100(f) has been modified to include staff
diversity.
(4) 50% rule. One commenter recommended that the Corporation drop
the waiver provision from the requirement that at least 50% of funds
going to each State go to high-need areas. (Sec. 2521.30(b)(3)(iii))
In principle, the Corporation believes strongly that each State
should in fact do everything possible to comply with the 50%
requirement. Thus in order to attain a waiver from this provision, a
State will have to demonstrate in an extremely compelling manner not
only that there are not enough viable high-quality programs operating
in areas of need within the State to meet the 50% requirement, but that
it has made a good-faith effort to locate such programs. Finally, no
waivers will be granted to individual States if it would necessitate
not complying with the 50% rule in the aggregate.
The Corporation is statutorily required to ensure that a minimum of
50% of the total funds going to States go to high-need areas. And
although the Corporation is committed to meeting this requirement in
the aggregate, it may not always be possible to meet the requirement on
a State-by-State basis. For example, the Corporation's review process
may result in the selection in a given State of a high-quality program
that does not operate in an area of need. If there were not other high-
quality programs within that State that did operate in high-need areas,
without the waiver provision the Corporation would be unable to fund
the high-quality program. For this reason, the waiver provision has
been retained.
(5) Participant eligibility. (2522.200(b)) One commenter stated
that the regulations state that a participant must have a high-school
diploma to participate, whereas in fact a diploma is only required to
receive the educational award.
This section has not been changed. The regulations state that in
order to participate an individual must either have a high school
diploma or its equivalent, commit to obtaining one, or be deemed unable
to obtain one.
(6) National Leadership Pool and Recruitment. (2522.210(b)(1)(c))
The Corporation received a number of comments on the national
leadership pool and recruitment requirements. One commenter suggested
that the regulations allow anyone recruited to the national leadership
pool to be placed back into his or her original program. The same
commenter argued that programs should not be required to accept
national leadership pool participants; instead, the Corporation should
operate a pilot leadership program. Other commenters suggested that the
Sec. 2522.100 requirement that AmeriCorps programs agree to select a
certain percentage of participants from the national and state
recruiting pools be eliminated.
In order to maintain regulatory flexibility, these requirements
have not been amended. To the extent that these comments are
incorporated into Corporation policy it will not be done in regulations
but rather in application materials and other guidelines. However, two
items should be noted: (a) Although programs must agree to accept a
certain percentage of nationally recruited participants, the
Corporation may not require every program to do so, and will likely
consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis; and (b) programs will not
be required to accept leadership pool participants.
(7) Child Care. (2522.250(a)) One commenter argued that child care
benefits should go to prospective participants who have undependable
child care as well as to participants who don't have child care at all.
This regulation has not been changed; as written, it closely tracks
the statute. Programs will provide child care assistance to
participants who need it in order to participate; they will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether individuals are eligible. A prospective
participant with extremely undependable child care could certainly
argue that he or she would not be able to participate without child
care benefits.
(8) Health Care. (2522.250(b)) One commenter stated that the
regulations should clarify that AmeriCorps participants should not be
asked to pay premiums or deductibles, that the health care plan should
include preventive and pregnancy care, as well as eye and dental care
and workers compensation, and that there should be a 1-2 month delay in
eligibility, since attrition is highest during this period.
The Corporation will issue written guidelines setting forth the
required specifications of the AmeriCorps health care package. These
comments will be taken into consideration in the development of
policies at that time. In addition, the health care section of the
regulations has been rewritten to provide greater clarity.
Change: Sec. 2522.250 has been revised.
(9) State Priorities. (2522.410(b)(1)(i)) One commenter argued that
States should be encouraged to adopt priorities that fit within the
national priorities. The commenter felt that this would facilitate a
comprehensive, focused national service effort.
The Corporation agrees that requiring States to adopt national
priorities might create a more focused national effort, but this change
was not made because the Corporation strongly believes that it was
Congress' intent to maintain a large degree of State autonomy with
formula funds. States are in the best position to judge which needs are
most pressing within a State and thus what the State priorities should
be.
(10) Program types. One commenter recommended for inclusion in the
regulations additional provisions relating to the needs of inner
cities. Specifically, the commenter recommended adding an example to
Sec. 2522.110(b)(1) of a community service program in a high
unemployment, high need urban area. The commenter also suggested that
the provision describing a program for economically disadvantaged
individuals (Sec. 2522.110(b)(3)) be expanded to add a requirement that
it meet the employment needs of low income people and the business
development needs of inner city neighborhoods.
These changes have not been made. The program types included in the
regulations are all taken directly from the statute. More importantly,
as discussed in the January 7 preamble, a program does not necessarily
have to be listed as a program type in Sec. 2522.110 in order to
receive a grant. The Corporation has designated any program that meets
the minimum program requirements listed in Sec. 2522.100 as eligible to
apply for a grant.
(11) Higher education cap. Several commenters argued that the
regulations should restrict to 10% the percentage of a State's
educational award formula allotment that institutions of higher
education may receive.
The Corporation declines to regulate on this issue. Which programs
are proposed for funding in the State formula allotment, and how any
available educational awards are distributed among them, is up to the
States.
(12) Ineligible service activities. (Sec. 2520.30) A number of
commenters suggested that the Corporation revise the treatment of
provisions prohibiting lobbying by participants in the course of their
service. A number of commenters argued that the list of prohibited
activities was too large and went beyond the statute. Some commenters
stated that the proposed regulations would have an overly restrictive
impact on programs and participants.
The Corporation believes the service activity restrictions will not
have a negative impact on programs or participants and that the list
will keep programs focused on service that has direct and demonstrable
results. However, the Corporation does not intend to limit the right of
individuals to engage in any of the prohibited activities voluntarily
and on their own time. Accordingly, the regulations have been amended.
Change: Sec. 2520.30 has been revised.
(13) Selection criteria. One commenter suggested rewriting the
AmeriCorps selection criteria so that replicability and sustainability
are more closely linked with innovation, rather than listing
innovation, replicability and sustainability as separate criteria.
Another commenter suggested adding a selection criterion which would
consider the extent to which programs promote diversity, community-
building and citizenship.
The regulatory selection criteria have been drafted broadly to
allow for flexibility from year to year and therefore are not being
changed. The fiscal year 1994 selection criteria contained in the
applications will stress the extent to which programs are likely to
achieve the three desired impacts: ``getting things done,'' improving
the lives of participants, and strengthening the ties that bind
communities together.
(14) Federal agency eligibility. One commenter requested
clarification in Sec. 2523.20 on whether ``cabinet-level department''
would include an executive agency.
Executive agencies are eligible. The regulations have been revised,
replacing ``cabinet-level department'' with ``Executive Branch Agency
or Department.''
Change: Sec. 2523.20 has been amended.
(15) Approved partnerships. One commenter asked for clarification
of the term ``approved partnership or consortium'' as used in
Sec. 2523.60. Specifically, the commenter asked for an explanation of
how a partnership or consortium is approved.
Partnerships will be approved by the Corporation as part of the
application process.
Change: Sec. 2523.60 has been amended.
(16) Program requirements addition. (Sec. 2522.100) One commenter
suggested that the Corporation add a requirement that AmeriCorps
programs provide career counseling to participants.
The Corporation did not add this as a program requirement because
programs are already required under Sec. 2522.100(k)(1) to provide
support services to participants who are making the transition to
careers.
(17) National nonprofit eligibility. One commenter requested
clarification of the eligibility of national nonprofit organizations to
apply for funding through subgrants, as well as directly from the
Corporation.
Because national nonprofits are by definition nonprofit
organizations, they are eligible to apply as subgrantees to States,
Federal agencies, and other grantmaking organizations. In addition, in
fiscal year 1994 they are eligible to apply for national direct
funding.
(18) Operating grant definition. One commenter noted that the
description of operating grants in Sec. 2521.20 of the regulations
refers only to new or expanded programs. The commenter suggested adding
on-going support for existing high-quality programs.
The Corporation agrees that the statute authorizes on-going support
to operate programs.
Change: Sec. 2521.20 has been revised.
(19) National direct coordination. Several commenters were
concerned that the requirement that programs coordinate with the State
commissions places too much power in the State Commissions. One
commenter suggested that the regulations be revised to require national
program applicants to meet and consult with State Commissions and to
encourage, but not require, coordination of their efforts.
The Corporation did not intend the coordination requirement to
require State Commission approval. The regulations have been revised to
clarify the extent of coordination that is required.
Change: Sec. 2522.100 has been revised.
(20) Dissemination of information. (Sec. 2522.210) The regulations
list a number of entities through which the Corporation will
disseminate information regarding available AmeriCorps positions.
Several commenters suggested adding community-based organizations to
this list.
This change has been made.
Change: Sec. 2522.210 has been revised.
(21) Training investment. One commenter suggested that the
Corporation require the grantees to spend between 5 and 10% of any
grant on staff and participant training activities.
The Corporation agrees that adequate training--for both staff and
participants--is a critical component of any high-quality program. In
order to receive a grant, a program will have to demonstrate the
existence of an appropriate training program. But because the training
and capacity-building needs of the various other entities eligible to
apply for AmeriCorps grants vary widely, the Corporation is not setting
regulatory guidelines on what percentage of those grants must be spent
on training and capacity building. However, the Corporation reserves
the right to set such guidelines in the applications.
(22) Disaster Grants. Sec. 2524.50. One commenter suggested that we
require disaster relief grants to go through the State Commissions. The
commenter argued that this would better ensure the coordination of
activities.
The Corporation wishes to maintain flexibility on this issue and
thus is not changing the regulations. For a given disaster, disaster
grants may in fact flow through a State Commission. However, there also
may be instances during a disaster when the Corporation would wish to
distribute disaster funds directly to programs.
(23) Replication grants. One commenter wondered why the term
``replication'' does not occur in the regulations although it occurred
in the preamble.
Replication grants are allowable and they have been added to the
regulations.
Change: Sec. 2521.20 has been amended.
(24) Matching requirements. One commenter requested clarification
as to whether the general 25% match was inclusive or exclusive of the
15% living allowance and health care match.
The corporation agrees that the matching guidelines require further
clarification, and the regulations have been amended to provide
clarification. For the purposes of calculating matching requirements,
there are two broad budget categories: participant support costs and
other costs.
Participant support costs are comprised of living allowances,
health care benefits, and child care costs, each of which has a
different matching requirement as specified below:
Health Care: Corporation funds may be used to pay for no more than
85% of total health care costs.
Child Care: Corporation funds may be used to pay for 100% of child
care costs.
Living Allowances: Corporation and other Federal funds may be used
to pay for no more than 85% of living allowance costs.
``Other Costs'' are comprised of all costs attributable to the
program exclusive of the participant support costs detailed above.
Corporation funds may be used to pay for no more than 75% of the total
of these other costs. In order to avoid confusion, readers should note
that the requirement that Corporation funds not exceed 75% of the total
other costs of a program is not synonymous with a 25% matching
requirement on a grant. The 75% restriction applies to the total other
costs of a program (including non-Corporation funds). Thus, if a
program's total other costs were $100,000, then the Corporation would
provide a grant of no more than $75,000 for those costs, and the
program would have to provide for the remaining $25,000.
Changes: Sec. 2521.30 has been revised.
(25) Ineligibility. One commenter suggested that the Corporation
further clarify that a person who committed a crime prior to a term of
service is not automatically ineligible for service.
Individuals with criminal records are not, in fact, automatically
ineligible to participate in programs. Programs are responsible for
determining who shall participate. In selecting participants, programs
providing service in particularly sensitive areas, such as working with
young children, should consider whether the participation of
individuals with certain criminal backgrounds would have a significant
negative impact on the physical or psychological health of either other
participants or individuals served.
(26) Federal Agency matching requirements. One commenter requested
clarification of how Federal agencies are treated in terms of the
matching requirements. The regulations have been revised to clarify
that Federal agencies do not have to meet matching requirements if they
operate programs directly, but that if they subgrant, the subgrantees
do have to meet the matching requirements.
Change: Sec. 2523.90 has been revised.
(27) Education and Training. One commenter asked how much of a term
of service could be spent on education and training.
The proposed rule did not address this issue. Therefore, the terms
of service section of the regulations has been revised to indicate that
the Corporation may set a minimum or maximum number of hours in a given
term of service that may be spent on training, education, or similar
approved activities. Thus, the Corporation reserves the right to
establish such guidelines in the application materials.

Parts 2530-2533--Investment for Quality and Innovation

Clearinghouse eligibility. One commenter suggested that the
regulations go too far in Sec. 2532.20(n) by requiring that to be
eligible to apply as a clearinghouse, an organization must have
extensive experience in training, technical assistance, service and/or
volunteer development, management, and evaluation. The commenter argued
that the law only lists these as activities a clearinghouse could do,
not as requirements for eligibility.
The regulations have been amended to conform to the statute.
Change: Sec. 2532.20(n) has been revised.

Part 2540--Administrative Provisions

(1) Nondisplacement (Sec. 2540.100(f)(4)(i)). Once commenter
suggested that we include examples of what constitutes displacement as
described in this section. Several commenters urged that the proposed
restriction not be interpreted too strictly. One commenter pointed out
that it seems to contradict Sec. 2522.110(3), which states that
professional corps programs that recruit and place qualified
participants in positions as teachers and nurses qualify as AmeriCorps
programs. The commenter suggested that the regulations be revised to
clarify that those programs qualify because the participants don't
replace qualified and certified people.
The Corporation declines to put examples or further clarifications
of this issue in the regulations. However, it will disseminate
information clarifying these issues to all grantees.
(2) Supplantation rule. One commenter raised several concerns
regarding the supplantation requirement in the AmeriCorps regulations.
The commenter pointed out that the preamble specifically included
private sector funds in the requirement and that the proposed
regulations were unclear. The commenter suggested not extending the
rule to the private sector. Not allowing the supplantation of private
funds could create a disincentive for programs to raise private funds
because, if they lose those funds in a subsequent year, they may not be
able to maintain the same level of non-federal funds and would thus be
ineligible for AmeriCorps assistance. The commenter was also concerned
that a program could have difficulty meeting the requirement for
maintaining aggregate non-federal funding if the size of the program is
reduced. The commenter recommended that the regulations be revised to
add a sentence stating that the supplantation rule is satisfied if
funding from private sources continues to exceed the matching
requirements. The commenter also recommended that the required non-
federal expenditures be measured per capita instead of on a lump-sum
basis.
The statutory supplantation provision states that the level of
State and local public funding for a given program cannot drop below
the level of the previous year. The regulations stated this incorrectly
and have been revised to indicate that the restriction applies only to
public State and local funds. The Corporation does not have the
regulatory authority to measure the level of State and local support on
a per participant basis.
Change: Sec. 2540.100 has been revised.

Part 2550--State Commission Regulations

One commenter suggested that the State Commission regulations
(published in the November 17, 1993 Federal Register as an interim
final rule) be amended to add individuals with expertise in the field
of mental retardation/cognitive disabilities to the list of possible
members of the State Commissions.
This addition will be incorporated into the final State Commission
regulations when they are published.

Miscellaneous Requirements

Interested parties should be advised that because the assistance
provided under the authority of this rule constitutes Federal financial
assistance for the purposes of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(which bars discrimination based on race, color, or national origin),
title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (which bars discrimination
on the basis of gender), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which bars
discrimination on the basis of disability), and the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975 (which bars discrimination on the basis of age), grantees
will be required to comply with the aforementioned provisions of
Federal law.
Grant recipients will be expected to expend Corporation grants in a
judicious and reasonable manner, consistent with pertinent provisions
of Federal law and regulations. Grantees must keep records according to
Corporation guidelines, including records that fully disclose the
amount and disposition of the proceeds of a Corporation grant. The
Inspector General of the Corporation (or other authorized official)
shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to the
books and records of grantees that may be related or pertinent to the
Corporation grant.
Grantees should further be advised that Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments, and Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to other than State and Local Governments, as well as
regulations for the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, Sunshine
Act, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension, and Government-wide
Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace will also be published.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby
certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on small
business entities.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Corporation
will submit the information collection requirements contained in this
rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its review (44 U.S.C.
3504(h)). The information collection requirements are needed in order
to provide assistance to parties affected by these regulations, in
accordance with statutory mandates.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 94.003 for State
Commissions, Alternative Administrative Entities, and Transitional
Entities; 94.004 for K-12 Service-Learning Programs; 94.005 for
Higher Education Service-Learning Programs; 94.006 for AmeriCorps
Programs; 94.007 for Investment for Quality and Innovation
Programs.)

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 2510

Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2513

Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2515

Grant programs-social programs, Nonprofit organizations,
Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2516

Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs-social programs,
Indians, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2517

Community development, Grant programs-social programs, Nonprofit
organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2518

Grant programs-social programs, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2519

Colleges and universities, Grant programs-social programs,
Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2520

AmeriCorps, Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2521

AmeriCorps, Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2522

AmeriCorps, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2523

AmeriCorps, Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2524

AmeriCorps, Grant programs-social programs, Technical assistance,
Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2530

Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2531

Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2532

Grant programs-social programs, Volunteers, Technical assistance.

45 CFR Part 2533

Decorations, medals, awards, Scholarships and fellowships,
Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2540

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-social
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.

Dated: March 16, 1994.
Catherine Milton,
Vice President and Director of National and Community Service Programs.
Accordingly, the Corporation amends title 45, chapter XXV of the
Code of Federal Regulations by adding parts 2510, 2513, 2515 through
2524, 2530 through 2533, and 2540 to read as follows:

PART 2510--OVERALL PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS

Sec.
2510.10 What are the purposes of the programs and activities of the
Corporation for National and Community Service?
2510.20 Definitions.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.

Sec. 2510.10 What are the purposes of the programs and activities of
the Corporation for National and Community Service?

The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 established
the Corporation for National and Community Service (the Corporation).
The Corporation's mission is to engage Americans of all ages and
backgrounds in community-based service. This service will address the
Nations educational, public safety, human, and environmental needs to
achieve direct and demonstrable results. In doing so, the Corporation
will foster civic responsibility, strengthen the ties that bind us
together as a people, and provide educational opportunity for those who
make a substantial commitment to service. The Corporation will
undertake activities and provide assistance to States and other
eligible entities to support national and community service programs
and to achieve other purposes consistent with its mission.

Sec. 2510.20 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to terms used in 45 CFR parts 2510
through 2550:
Act. The term Act means the National and Community Service Act of
1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
Administrative costs. The term administrative costs means expenses
associated with the overall administration of a Corporation funded
program. These costs relate to the support of a programs general
operations and not to expenses identified with a specific program or
project.
(1) Administrative costs include, but are not limited to, the
following: (i) Indirect costs (i.e., costs identified with two or more
cost objectives but not identified with a particular cost objective) as
described in Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-21 (Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions), A-87 (Cost Principles for
State and local Governments), and A-122 (Cost Principles for Nonprofit
Organizations) that provide guidance on indirect costs to Federal
agencies. Copies of Office of Management and Budget Circulars are
available from the Executive Office of the President Publications, 725
17th Street, NW., room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503.
(ii) Costs for financial, accounting, auditing, internal
evaluations (except as in paragraph (2)(iii) of this definition), and
contracting functions.
(iii) Costs for insurance that protects the entity that operates
the program.
(iv) The portion of the salaries and benefits of the director and
any other program administrative staff equal to the portion of time
that is not spent in support of specific project objectives. Specific
project objectives means recruiting, training, placing, or supervising
participants.
(2) Administrative costs do not include allowable costs directly
related to program or project operations. These program costs include
the following: (i) Costs for participants, including living allowances,
insurance payments, and expense for training and travel.
(ii) Costs for staff who recruit, train, place, or supervise
participants, including costs for staff salaries, benefits, training,
and travel, if the purpose is for a specific program or project
objective.
(iii) Costs for independent evaluations and internal evaluations--
the latter to the extent that the evaluations cover only the funded
program or project and are specifically related to creative methods of
quality improvement. (Overall organizational management improvement
costs are administrative costs.) (See Sec. 2516.810 and Sec. 2522.510
for definition of independent and internal evaluations.)
(3) Particular costs, such as those associated with staff who
perform both administrative and program functions, may be prorated
between administrative and program costs if included in the budget and
approved by the Corporation grants officer.
Adult Volunteer. (1) The term adult volunteer means an individual,
such as an older adult, an individual with disability, a parent, or an
employee of a business of public or private nonprofit organization,
who--
(i) Works without financial remuneration in an educational
institution to assist students of out-of-school youth; and
(2) Is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State
in which the educational institution is located.
AmeriCorps. The term AmeriCorps means the combination of all
AmeriCorps programs and participants.
AmeriCorps educational award. The term AmeriCorps educational award
means a national service educational award described in section 147 of
the Act.
AmeriCorps participant. The term AmeriCorps participant means any
individual who is serving in--
(1) An AmeriCorps program;
(2) An approved AmeriCorps position; or
(3) Both.
AmeriCorps program. The term AmeriCorps program means--
(1) Any program that receives approved AmeriCorps positions;
(2) Any program that receives Corporation funds under section 121
of the Act; or
(3) Both.
Approved AmeriCorps position. The term approved AmeriCorps position
means an AmeriCorps position for which the Corporation has approved the
provision of an AmeriCorps educational award as one of the benefits to
be provided for successful service in the position.
Carry out. The term carry out, when used in connection with an
AmeriCorps program described in section 122 of the Act, means the
planning, establishment, operation, expansion, or replication of the
program.
Chief Executive Officer. The term Chief Executive Officer, except
when used to refer to the chief executive officer of a State, means the
Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation appointed under section 193
of the Act.
Community-based agency. The term community-based agency means a
private nonprofit organization (including a church or other religious
entity) that--
(1) Is representative of a community or a significant segment of a
community; and
(2) Is engaged in meeting educational, public safety, human, or
environmental community needs.
Corporation. The term Corporation means the Corporation for
National and Community Service established under section 191 of the
Act.
Economically disadvantaged. The term economically disadvantaged,
with respect to an individual, has the same meaning as such term as
defined in the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1503(8)).
Elementary school. The term elementary school has the same meaning
given the term in section 1471(8) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(8)).
Empowerment zone. The term empowerment zone means an area
designated as an empowerment zone by the Secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development or the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture.
Grantmaking entity. (1) For school-based programs, the term
grantmaking entity means a public or private nonprofit organization
experienced in service-learning that--
(i) Submits an application to make grants for school-based service-
learning programs in two or more States; and
(ii) Was in existence at least one year before the date on which
the organization submitted the application.
(2) For community-based programs, the term grantmaking entity means
a qualified organization that--
(i) Submits an application to make grants to qualified
organizations to implement, operate, expand, or replicate community-
based service programs that provide for educational, public safety,
human, or environmental service by school-age youth in two or more
States; and
(ii) Was in existence at least one year before the date on which
the organization submitted the application.
Higher Education partnerships. The term higher education
partnership means one or more public or private nonprofit
organizations, or public agencies, including States, and one or more
institutions of higher education that have entered into a written
agreement specifying the responsibilities of each partner.
Indian. The term Indian means a person who is a member of an Indian
tribe, or is a ``Native'', as defined in section 3(b) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(b)).
Indian lands. The term Indian lands means any real property owned
by an Indian tribe, any real property held in trust by the United
States for an Indian or Indian tribe, and any real property held by an
Indian or Indian tribe that is subject to restrictions on alienation
imposed by the United States.
Indian tribe. The term Indian tribe means--
(1) An Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States under Federal law to Indians
because of their status as Indians, including--
(i) Any Native village, as defined in section 3(c) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(c)), whether organized
traditionally or pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known
as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'', 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); and
(ii) Any Regional Corporation or Village Corporation, as defined in
subsection (g) or (j), respectively, of section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602 (g) or (j)); and
(2) Any tribal organization controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by
an entity described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
Individual with a disability. Except as provided in section 175(a)
of the Act, the term individual with a disability has the meaning given
the term in section 7(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 706(8)(B)), which includes individuals with cognitive and other
mental impairments, as well as individuals with physical impairments,
who meet the criteria in that definition.
Infrastructure-building activities. The term infrastructure-
building activities refers to activities that increase the capacity of
organizations, programs and individuals to provide high quality service
to communities.
Institution of higher education. The term institution of higher
education has the same meaning given the term in section 1201(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
Local educational agency (LEA). The term local educational agency
has the same meaning given the term in section 1471(12) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(12)).
Local partnership. The term local partnership means a partnership,
as defined in Sec. 2510.20 of this chapter, that meets the eligibility
requirements to apply for subgrants under Sec. 2516.110 or
Sec. 2517.110 of this chapter.
National nonprofit. The term national nonprofit means any nonprofit
organization whose mission, membership, activities, or constituencies
are national in scope.
National service laws. The term national service laws means the Act
and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4950 et
seq.).
Objective. The term objective means a desired accomplishment of a
program.
Out-of-school youth. The term out-of-school youth means an
individual who--
(1) Has not attained the age of 27;
(2) Has not completed college or its equivalent; and
(3) Is not enrolled in an elementary or secondary school or
institution of higher education.
Participant. (1) The term participant means an individual enrolled
in a program that receives assistance under the Act.
(2) A participant may not be considered to be an employee of the
program in which the participant is enrolled.
Partnership. The term partnership means two or more entities that
have entered into a written agreement specifying the partnership's
goals and activities as well as the responsibilities, goals, and
activities of each partner.
Partnership program. The term partnership program means a program
through which an adult volunteer, a public or private nonprofit
organization, an institution of higher education, or a business assists
a local educational agency.
Program. The term program, unless the context otherwise requires,
and except when used as part of the term academic program, means a
program described in section 111(a) (other than a program referred to
in paragraph (3)(B) of that section), 117A(a), 119(b)(1), or 122(a) of
the Act, or in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 152(b) of the Act, or an
activity that could be funded under sections 198, 198C, or 198D of the
Act.
Program sponsor. The term program sponsor means an entity
responsible for recruiting, selecting, and training participants,
providing them benefits and support services, engaging them in regular
group activities, and placing them in projects.
Project. The term project means an activity, or a set of
activities, carried out through a program that receives assistance
under the Act, that results in a specific identifiable service or
improvement that otherwise would not be done with existing funds, and
that does not duplicate the routine services or functions of the
employer to whom participants are assigned.
Project sponsor. The term project sponsor means an organization, or
other entity, that has been selected to provide a placement for a
participant.
Qualified individual with a disability. The term qualified
individual with a disability has the meaning given the term in section
101(8) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12111(8)).
Qualified organization. The term qualified organization means a
public or private nonprofit organization, other than a grantmaking
entity, that--
(1) Has experience in working with school-age youth; and
(2) Was in existence at least one year before the date on which the
organization submitted an application for a service-learning program.
School-age youth. The term school-age youth means--
(1) Individuals between the ages of 5 and 17, inclusive; and
(2) Children with disabilities, as defined in section 602(a)(1) of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1)),
who receive services under part B of that Act.
Secondary school. The term secondary school has the same meaning
given the term in section 1471(21) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(21)).
Service-learning. The term service-learning means a method under
which students or participants learn and develop through active
participation in thoughtfully organized service that--
(1) Is conducted in and meets the needs of a community;
(2) Is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school,
institution of higher education, or community service program, and with
the community;
(3) Helps foster civic responsibility;
(4) Is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the
students or the educational components of the community service program
in which the participants are enrolled; and
(5) Includes structured time for the students and participants to
reflect on the service experience.
Service-learning coordinator. The term service-learning coordinator
means an individual trained in service-learning who identifies
community partners for LEAs; assists in designing and implementing
local partnerships service-learning programs; provides technical
assistance and information to, and facilitates the training of,
teachers; and provides other services for an LEA.
State. The term State means each of the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. The term also includes Palau, until the
Compact of Free Association is ratified.
State Commission. The term State Commission means a State
Commission on National and Community Service maintained by a State
pursuant to section 178 of the Act. Except when used in section 178,
the term includes an alternative administrative entity for a State
approved by the Corporation under that section to act in lieu of a
State Commission.
State educational agency (SEA). The term State educational agency
has the same meaning given that term in section 1471(23) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(23)).
Student. The term student means an individual who is enrolled in an
elementary or secondary school or institution of higher education on a
full-time or part-time basis.
Subdivision of a State. The term subdivision of a State means an
governmental unit within a State other than a unit with Statewide
responsibilities.
U.S. Territory. The term U.S. Territory means the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and Palau, until the Compact of Free Association with Palau is
ratified.

PART 2513--STATE PLAN: PURPOSE, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND
SELECTION CRITERIA

Sec.
2513.10 Who must submit a State Plan?
2513.20 What are the purposes of a State Plan?
2513.30 What information must a State Plan contain?
2513.40 How will the State Plans be evaluated?

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.

Sec. 2513.10 Who must submit a State Plan?

The fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
through a Corporation-approved State Commission, Alternative
Administrative Entity, or Transitional Entity must submit a
comprehensive national and community service plan (``State Plan'') in
order to apply to the Corporation for support under parts 2515 through
2524 of this chapter.

Sec. 2513.20 What are the purposes of a State Plan?

The purposes of the State Plan are: (a) To set forth the States
plan for promoting national and community service and strengthening its
service infrastructure, including how Corporation-funded programs fit
into the plan;
(b) To establish specific priorities and goals that advance the
State's plan for strengthening its service program infrastructure and
to specify strategies for achieving the stated goals;
(c) To inform the Corporation of the relevant historical background
of the State's infrastructure for supporting national and community
service and other volunteer opportunities, as well as the current
status of such infrastructure;
(d) To assist the Corporation in making decisions on applications
to receive formula and competitive funding under Sec. 2521.30 of this
chapter and to assist the Corporation in assessing a State's
application for renewal funding for State administrative funds as
provided in part 2550 of this chapter; and
(e) To serve as a working document that forms the basis of on-going
dialogue between the State and the Corporation and which is subject to
modifications as circumstances require.

Sec. 2513.30 What information must a State Plan contain?

The State Plan must include the following information: (a) An
overview of a State's experience in coordinating and supporting the
network of service programs within the State that address educational,
public safety, human, and environmental needs, including, where
appropriate, a description of specific service programs. This overview
should encompass programs that have operated independently of and/or
without financial support from the State;
(b) A description of the State's priorities and vision for
strengthening the service program infrastructure, including how
programs proposed for Corporation funding fit into this vision. The
plan should also describe how State priorities relate to any national
priorities established by the Corporation;
(c) A description of the goals established to advance the State's
plan, including the strategies for achieving such goals. With respect
to technical assistance activities (if any) and programs proposed to be
funded by the Corporation, the plan should describe how such activities
and programs will be coordinated with other service programs within the
State. The plan should also describe the manner and extent to which the
proposed programs will build on existing programs, including
Corporation programs such as both the K-12 and Higher Education
components of the Learn and Serve America program, and programs funded
under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act and other programs;
(d) A description of the extent to which the State entity has
coordinated its efforts with the State educational agency (SEA) in the
SEA's application for school-based service learning funds;
(e) A description of how the State reached out to a broad cross-
section of individuals and organizations to obtain their participation
in the development of the State plan, including a discussion of the
types of organizations and individuals who were actually involved in
the process and the manner and extent of their involvement; and
(f) Such other information as the Corporation may reasonably
require.

Sec. 2513.40 How will the State Plans be evaluated?

State plans will be evaluated on the basis of the following
criteria:
(a) The quality of the plan as evidenced by: (1) The development
and quality of realistic goals and objectives for moving service ahead
in the State;
(2) The extent to which proposed strategies can reasonably be
expected to accomplish stated goals;
(3) The extent of input in the development of the State plan from a
broad cross-section of individuals and organizations including
community-based agencies; organizations with a demonstrated record of
providing educational, public safety, human, or environmental services;
residents of the State, including youth and other prospective
participants, State Education Agencies; traditional service
organizations; and labor unions;
(b) The sustainability of the national service efforts outlined in
the plan, as evidenced by the extent to which they are supported by:
(1) The State, through financial, in-kind, and bi-partisan political
support, including the existence of supportive legislation; and
(2) Other support, including the financial, in-kind, and other
support of the private sector, foundations, and other entities and
individuals; and
(c) Such other criteria as the Corporation deems necessary.

PART 2515--SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAM PURPOSES

Sec.
2515.10 What are the service-learning programs of the Corporation
for National and Community Service?

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.

Sec. 2515.10 What are the service-learning programs of the Corporation
for National and Community Service?

(a) There are three service-learning programs: (1) School-based
programs, described in part 2516 of this chapter.
(2) Community-based programs, described in part 2517 of this
chapter.
(3) Higher education programs, described in part 2519 of this
chapter.
(b) Each program gives participants the opportunity to learn and
develop their own capabilities through service-learning, while
addressing needs in the community.

PART 2516--SCHOOL-BASED SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Subpart A--Eligibility to Apply

Sec.
2516.100 Who may apply for a direct grant from the Corporation?
2516.110 Who may apply for a subgrant from a Corporation grantee?

Subpart B--Use of Grant Funds

2516.200 How may grant funds be used?

Subpart C--Eligibility to Participate

2516.300 Who may participate in a school-based service-learning
program?
2516.310 May private school students participate?
2516.320 Is a participant eligible to receive an AmeriCorps
educational award?

Subpart D--Application Contents

2516.400 What must a State or Indian tribe include in an
application for a grant?
2516.410 What must a grantmaking entity, local partnership, or LEA
include in an application for a grant?
2516.420 What must an LEA, local partnership, or qualified
organization include in an application for a subgrant?

Subpart E--Application Review

2516.500 How does the Corporation review the merits of an
application?
2516.510 What happens if the Corporation rejects a States
application for an allotment grant?
2516.520 How does a State, Indian tribe, or grantmaking entity
review the merits of an application?

Subpart F--Distribution of Funds

2516.600 How are funds for school-based service-learning programs
distributed?

Subpart G--Funding Requirements

2516.700 Are matching funds required?
2516.710 Are there limits on the use of funds?
2516.720 What is the length of each type of grant?
2516.730 May an applicant submit more than one application to the
Corporation for the same project at the same time?

Subpart H--Evaluation Requirements

2516.800 What are the purposes of an evaluation?
2516.810 What types of evaluations are grantees and subgrantees
required to perform?
2516.820 What types of internal evaluation activities are required
of programs?
2516.830 What types of activities are required of Corporation
grantees to evaluate the effectiveness of their subgrantees?
2516.840 By what standards will the Corporation evaluate individual
Learn and Serve America programs?
2516.850 What will the Corporation do to evaluate the overall
success of the service-learning program?
2516.860 Will information on individual participants be kept
confidential?
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.

Subpart A--Eligibility to Apply

Sec. 2516.100 Who may apply for a direct grant from the Corporation?

(a) The following entities may apply for a direct grant from the
Corporation:
(1) A State, through a State educational agency (SEA) as defined in
Sec. 2510.20 of this chapter. For the purpose of part, ``State'' means
one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and, except for the purpose of Sec. 2516.600 (b), U.S.
Territories.
(2) An Indian tribe.
(3) A grantmaking entity as defined in Sec. 2515.20 of this
chapter.
(4) For activities in a nonparticipating State, a local educational
agency (LEA) as defined in Sec. 2510.20 of this chapter or a local
partnership as described in Sec. 2516.110.
(b) The types of grants for which each entity is eligible are
described in Sec. 2516.200.

Sec. 2516.110 Who may apply for a subgrant from a Corporation grantee?

Entities that may apply for a subgrant from a State, Indian tribe,
or grantmaking entity are:
(a) An LEA, for a grant from a State for planning school-based
service-learning programs.
(b) A local partnership, for a grant from a State or a grantmaking
entity to implement, operate, or expand a school-based service learning
program.
(1) The local partnership must include an LEA and one or more
community partners. The local partnership may include a private for-
profit business or private elementary or secondary school.
(2) The community partners must include a public or private
nonprofit organization that has demonstrated expertise in the provision
of services to meet educational, public safety, human, or environmental
needs; was in existence at least one year before the date on which the
organization submitted an application under this part; and will make
projects available for participants, who must be students.
(c) A local partnership, for a grant from a State or a grantmaking
entity to implement, operate, or expand an adult volunteer program. The
local partnership must include an LEA and one or more public or private
nonprofit organizations, other educational agencies, or private for-
profit businesses that coordinate and operate projects for participants
who must be students.
(d) A qualified organization, as defined in Sec. 2515.20 of this
chapter, for a grant from a State or Indian tribe for planning or
building the capacity of the State or Indian tribe.

Subpart B--Use of Grant Funds

Sec. 2516.200 How may grant funds be used?

Funds under a school based service learning grant may be used for
the purposes described in this section.
(a) Planning and capacity-building for States and Indian tribes.
(1) A State or Indian tribe may use funds to pay for planning and
building its capacity to implement school-based service-learning
programs. These entities may use funds either directly or through
subgrants or contracts with qualified organizations.
(2) Authorized activities include the following: (i) Providing
training for teachers, supervisors, personnel from community-based
agencies (particularly with regard to the utilization of participants)
and trainers, conducted by qualified individuals or organizations
experienced in service-learning.
(ii) Developing service-learning curricula to be integrated into
academic programs, including the age-appropriate learning components
for students to analyze and apply their service experiences.
(iii) Forming local partnerships described in Sec. 2516.110 to
develop school-based service-learning programs in accordance with this
part.
(iv) Devising appropriate methods for research and evaluation of
the educational value of service-learning and the effect of service-
learning activities on communities.
(v) Establishing effective outreach and dissemination of
information to ensure the broadest possible involvement of community-
based agencies with demonstrated effectiveness in working with school-
age youth in their communities.
(b) Implementing, operating, and expanding school-based programs.
(1) A State, Indian Tribe, or grantmaking entity may use funds to make
subgrants to local partnerships described in Sec. 2516.110 (b) to
implement, operate, or expand school-based service-learning programs.
(2) If a State does not submit an application that meets the
requirements for an allotment grant under Sec. 2516.400, the
Corporation may use the allotment to fund applications from those local
partnerships for programs in that State.
(3) Authorized activities include paying the costs of the
recruitment, training, supervision, placement, salaries and benefits of
service learning coordinators.
(4) A grantmaking entity may also use funds to provide technical
assistance and training to appropriate persons relating to its
subgrants.
(c) Planning programs. (1) A State may use funds to make subgrants
to LEAs for planning school-based service-learning programs.
(2) If a State does not submit an application that meets the
requirements for an allotment grant under Sec. 2516.400, the
Corporation may use the allotment to fund applications from LEAs for
planning programs in that State.
(3) Authorized activities include paying the costs of--
(i) The salaries and benefits of service-learning coordinators as
defined in Sec. 2510.20 of this chapter; and
(ii) The recruitment, training, supervision, and placement of
service-learning coordinators who may be participants in an AmeriCorps
program described in parts 2520 through 2524 of this chapter or who
receive AmeriCorps educational awards.
(d) Adult volunteer programs. (1) A State, Indian tribe, or
grantmaking entity may use funds to make subgrants to local
partnerships described in Sec. 2516.110 (c) to implement, operate, or
expand school-based programs involving adult volunteers to utilize
service-learning to improve the education of students.
(2) If a State does not submit an application that meets the
requirements for an allotment grant under Sec. 2516.400, the
Corporation may use the allotment to fund applications from those local
partnerships for adult volunteer programs in that State.
(e) Planning by Indian tribes and U.S. Territories. If the
Corporation makes a grant to an Indian tribe or a U.S. Territory to
plan school-based service-learning programs, the grantee may use the
funds for that purpose.

Subpart C--Eligibility to Participate

Sec. 2516.300 Who may participate in a school-based service-learning
program?

Students who are enrolled in elementary or secondary schools on a
full-time or part-time basis may participate in school-based programs.

Sec. 2516.310 May private school students participate?

(a) Yes. To the extent consistent with the number of students in
the State or Indian tribe or in the school district of the LEA involved
who are enrolled in private nonprofit elementary or secondary schools,
the State, Indian tribe, or LEA must (after consultation with
appropriate private school representatives) make provision--
(1) For the inclusion of services and arrangements for the benefit
of those students so as to allow for the equitable participation of the
students in the programs under this part; and
(2) For the training of the teachers of those students so as to
allow for the equitable participation of those teachers in the programs
under this part.
(b) (1) If a State, Indian tribe, or LEA is prohibited by law from
providing for the participation of students or teachers from private
nonprofit schools as required by paragraph (a) of this section, or if
the Corporation determines that a State, Indian tribe, or LEA
substantially fails or is unwilling to provide for their participation
on an equitable basis, the Corporation will waive those requirements
and arrange for the provision of services to the students and teachers.
(2) Waivers will be subject to the Corporation procedures that are
consistent with the consultation, withholding, notice, and judicial
review requirements of section 1017(b) (3) and (4) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2727 (b)).

Sec. 2516.320 Is a participant eligible to receive an AmeriCorps
educational award?

No. However, service-learning coordinators who are approved
AmeriCorps positions are eligible for AmeriCorps educational awards.

Subpart D--Application Contents

Sec. 2516.400 What must a State or Indian tribe include in an
application for a grant?

In order to apply for a grant from the Corporation under this part,
a State (SEA) or Indian tribe must submit the following: (a) A three-
year strategic plan for promoting service-learning through programs
under this part, or a revision of a previously approved three-year
strategic plan. The application of a SEA must include a description of
how the SEA will coordinate its service-learning plan with the State
Plan under part 2513 of this chapter and with other federally-assisted
activities.
(b) A proposal containing the specific program, budget, and other
information specified by the Corporation in the grant application
package.
(c) Assurances that the applicant will--
(1) Keep such records and provide such information to the
Corporation with respect to the programs as may be required for fiscal
audits and program evaluation; and
(2) Comply with the nonduplication, nondisplacement, and grievance
procedure requirements of part 2540 of this chapter.

Sec. 2516.410 What must a grantmaking entity, local partnership, or
LEA include in an application for a grant?

In order to apply to the Corporation for a grant, a grantmaking
entity, local partnership, or LEA must submit the following: (a) A
detailed description of the proposed program goals and activities. The
application of a grantmaking entity must include--
(1) A description of how the applicant will coordinate its
activities with the State Plan under part 2513 of this chapter,
including a description of plans to meet and consult with the State
Commission, if possible, and to provide a copy of the program
application to the State Commission and with other federally-assisted
activities; and
(2) A description of how the program will be carried out in more
than one State.
(b) The specific program, budget, and other information specified
by the Corporation in the grant application package.
(c) Assurances that the applicant will--
(1) Keep such records and provide such information to the
Corporation with respect to the program as may be required for fiscal
audits and program evaluation;
(2) Prior to the placement of a participant, consult with the
appropriate local labor organization, if any, representing employees in
the area who are engaged in the same or similar work as that proposed
to be carried out by the program, to prevent the displacement and
protect the rights of those employees;
(3) Develop an age-appropriate learning component for participants
in the program that includes a chance for participants to analyze and
apply their service experiences; and
(4) Comply with the nonduplication, nondisplacement, and grievance
procedure requirements of part 2540 of this chapter.
(d) For a local partnership, an assurance that the LEA will serve
as the fiscal agent.

Sec. 2516.420 What must an LEA, local partnership, or qualified
organization include in an application for a subgrant?

In order to apply for a subgrant from an SEA, Indian tribe, or
grantmaking entity under this part, an applicant must include the
information required by the Corporation grantee.

Subpart E--Application Review

Sec. 2516.500 How does the Corporation review the merits of an
application?

(a) In reviewing the merits of an application submitted to the
Corporation under this part, the Corporation evaluates the quality,
innovation, replicability, and sustainability of the proposal on the
basis of the following criteria: (1) Quality, as indicated by the
extent to which--
(i) The program will provide productive meaningful, educational
experiences that incorporate service-learning methods;
(ii) The program will meet community needs and involve individuals
from diverse backgrounds (including economically disadvantaged youth)
who will serve together to explore the root causes of community
problems;
(iii) The principal leaders of the program will be well qualified
for their responsibilities;
(iv) The program has sound plans and processes for training,
technical assistance, supervision, quality control, evaluation,
administration, and other key activities; and
(v) The program will advance knowledge about how to do effective
and innovative community service and service-learning and enhance the
broader elementary and secondary education field.
(2) Replicability, as indicated by the extent to which the program
will assist others in learning from experience and replicating the
approach of the program.
(3) Sustainability, as indicated by the extent to which--
(i) An SEA, Indian tribe or grantmaking entity applicant
demonstrates the ability and willingness to coordinate its activities
with the State Plan under part 2513 of this chapter and with other
federally assisted activities;
(ii) The program will foster collaborative efforts among local
educational agencies, local government agencies, community based
agencies, businesses, and State agencies;
(iii) The program will enjoy strong, broad-based community support;
and
(iv) There is evidence that financial resources will be available
to continue the program after the expiration of the grant.
(b) The Corporation also gives priority to proposals that--
(1) Involve participants in the design and operation of the
program;
(2) Reflect the greatest need for assistance, such as programs
targeting low-income areas;
(3) Involve students from public and private schools serving
together;
(4) Involve students of different ages, races, genders,
ethnicities, abilities and disabilities, or economic backgrounds,
serving together;
(5) Are integrated into the academic program of the participants;
(6) Best represent the potential of service-learning as a vehicle
for education reform and school-to-work transition;
(7) Develop civic responsibility and leadership skills and
qualities in participants;
(8) Demonstrate the ability to achieve the goals of this part on
the basis of the proposal's quality, innovation, replicability, and
sustainability; or
(9) Address any other priority established by the Corporation for a
particular period.
(c) In reviewing applications submitted by Indian tribes and U.S.
Territories, the Corporation--
(1) May decide to approve only planning of school-based service-
learning programs; and
(2) Will set the amounts of grants in accordance with the
respective needs of applicants.

Sec. 2516.510 What happens if the Corporation rejects a State's
application for an allotment grant?

If the Corporation rejects a State's application for an allotment
grant under Sec. 2516.600(b)(2), the Corporation will--
(a) Promptly notify the State of the reasons for the rejection;
(b) Provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to revise and
resubmit the application;
(c) Provide technical assistance, if necessary; and
(d) Promptly reconsider the resubmitted application and make a
decision.

Sec. 2516.520 How does a State, Indian tribe, or grantmaking entity
review the merits of an application?

In reviewing the merits of an application for a subgrant under this
part, a Corporation grantee must use the criteria and priorities in
Sec. 2516.500.

Subpart F--Distribution of Funds

Sec. 2516.600 How are funds for school-based service-learning programs
distributed?

(a) Of the amounts appropriated to carry out this part for any
fiscal year, the Corporation will reserve not more than three percent
for grants to Indian tribes and U.S. Territories to be allotted in
accordance with their respective needs.
(b) The Corporation will use the remainder of the funds
appropriated as follows: (1) Competitive Grants. From 25 percent of the
remainder, the Corporation may make grants on a competitive basis to
States, Indian tribes, or grantmaking entities.
(2) Allotments to States.
(i) From 37.5 percent of the remainder, the Corporation will allot
to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to 37.5 percent of
the remainder as the number of school-age youth in the State bears to
the total number of school-age youth of all States.
(ii) From 37.5 percent of the remainder, the Corporation will allot
to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to 37.5 percent of
the remainder as the allocation to the State for the previous fiscal
year under Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2711 et seq.) bears to the allocations
to all States.
(iii) Notwithstanding other provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, no State will receive an allotment that is less than the
allotment the State received for fiscal year 1993 from the Commission
on National and Community Service. If the amount of funds made
available in a fiscal year is insufficient to make those allotments,
the Corporation will make additional funds available from the 25
percent described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for that fiscal
year to make those allotments.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (b) of this section, ``State''
means one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(c) If a State or Indian tribe does not submit an application that
meets the requirements for approval under this part, the Corporation
(after making any grants to local partnerships or LEAs for activities
in nonparticipating States) may use its allotment for States and Indian
tribes with approved applications, as the Corporation determines
appropriate.
(d) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, if less than
$20,000,000 is made available in any fiscal year to carry out this
part, the Corporation will make all grants to States and Indian tribes
on a competitive basis.

Subpart G--Funding Requirements

Sec. 2516.700 Are matching funds required?

(a) Yes. The Corporation share of the cost of carrying out a
program funded under this part may not exceed--
(1) Ninety percent of the total cost for the first year for which
the program receives assistance;
(2) Eighty percent of the total cost for the second year;
(3) Seventy percent of the total cost for the third year; and
(4) Fifty percent of the total cost for the fourth year and any
subsequent year.
(b) In providing for the remaining share of the cost of carrying
out a program, each recipient of assistance must provide for that share
through a payment in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including
facilities, equipment, or services, and may provide for that share
through State sources, local sources, or Federal sources (other than
funds made available under the national service laws).
(c) However, the Corporation may waive the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section in whole or in part with respect to any
program in any fiscal year if the Corporation determines that the
waiver would be equitable due to a lack of available financial
resources at the local level.

Sec. 2516.710 Are there limits on the use of funds?

Yes. The following limits apply to funds made available under this
part: (a)(1) The recipient of a direct grant from the Corporation may
spend no more than five percent of the grant funds on administrative
costs for any fiscal year.
(2) If a Corporation grantee makes a subgrant to an entity to carry
out a service-learning program, the Corporation grantee may determine
how the allowable administrative costs will be distributed between
itself and the subgrantee.
(b) (1) An SEA or Indian tribe must spend between ten and 15
percent of the grant to build capacity through training, technical
assistance, curriculum development, and coordination activities.
(2) However, the Corporation may waive this requirement in order to
permit an SEA or a tribe to use between ten percent and 20 percent of
the grant funds to build capacity. To be eligible to receive the
waiver, the SEA or tribe must submit an application to the Corporation.
(c) Funds made available under this part may not be used to pay any
stipend, allowance, or other financial support to any participant in a
service-learning program under this part except reimbursement for
transportation, meals, and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
directly related to participation in a program assisted under this
part.

Sec. 2516.720 What is the length of each type of grant?

(a) One year is the maximum length of--
(1) A planning grant

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6580. Public record. Not legal advice.