These state commissions, in turn, subgrant AmeriCorps funds to local community service projects. Table 1 lists the Corporation’s and the states’ responsibilities. National Service Statute Provides State Control

The National and Community Service Trust Act provides for extensive state control of AmeriCorps. Commission Budgets and Staffing Vary

State commissions’ administrative budgets and their staffing levels varied significantly among the seven states. Number of State Commission Projects Varied

During the 1995-96 program year, the number of AmeriCorps projects in the seven states varied depending on (1) the number of projects commissions financed with their allotted formula funds, (2) the number of projects that won competitive funding, and (3) the number of projects funded directly by the Corporation rather than by the state commissions. Project Expenditures

Project-level expenditures also varied widely. Officials Agree Federal Role Needed, but Differ on Degree of State Control

State commissioners and executive directors in all seven states agreed with senior Corporation officials that a federal role in the AmeriCorps program is needed. Corporation officials believed that a federal role is needed for conducting nationwide data gathering on the AmeriCorps program, evaluating the performance of AmeriCorps projects and state commissions, and providing a central repository of information on the “best practices” of individual AmeriCorps projects and state commission operations. Federal Role Needed

All seven state commission executive directors agreed that a federal role is necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity. They told us that national identity provides AmeriCorps participants with a sense that the benefits of their service extend not only to themselves and their communities, but to the whole nation. Corporation officials agreed that a national identity for the AmeriCorps program is important and that a federal role provides it. They also noted that the federal government has a vital role in evaluating the AmeriCorps program, sharing evaluation results with others, and developing and increasing the evaluation capacity of state commissions. Federal Grant Allocation

Commission officials in the seven states disagreed on whether states should have more control over federal grant funds, particularly in terms of allocating federal funds. Officials in Maryland and Texas told us that the Corporation should allocate federal AmeriCorps grants to states on the basis of commissions’ demonstrated ability to effectively manage quality national service projects in their states. Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed state commissions' capacity to absorb additional AmeriCorps program management responsibility, focusing on: (1) the statutory role of state commissions; (2) state commission operations, including project-level outputs from national service projects within their purview, such as participant enrollment and expenditure data; and (3) extending state commissions' administrative and oversight role over AmeriCorps and correspondingly decreasing the federal government's role.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) by assigning state commissions significant responsibilities, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, in effect, emphasizes state control of the AmeriCorps program; (2) these responsibilities include developing a statewide service infrastructure, selecting and funding AmeriCorps projects, and monitoring and evaluating projects; (3) state commissions directly control two-thirds of the federal funds available for AmeriCorps projects; (4) for fiscal year 1995, state commissions received $131 million of $192 million available in federal funding; (5) GAO's review of seven state commissions indicated that all are performing program management activities envisioned by the act, but vary in terms of their infrastructures and project outputs; (6) operational resources of the state commissions in GAO's sample varied widely; (7) for selected projects, outputs also varied both within and among the state commissions; (8) officials from the seven state commissions agreed on the need for a federal role in AmeriCorps, but disagreed on how much federal control is desirable; (9) on one hand, all officials agreed that only a federal entity can provide AmeriCorps with a national identity, which they considered essential; (10) on the other hand, they disagreed on the role the Corporation for National and Community Service should play in allocating AmeriCorps funding grants; (11) senior Corporation officials agreed with state officials that a federal role is necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity; (12) they also stated that a federal role is necessary to conduct performance evaluations of national service projects and state commissions; (13) these officials acknowledged that changes to the funding allocation process might better achieve the Corporation's quality control objectives and said they may recommend changes to Congress when it considers reauthorization of the act; and (14) Corporation officials noted that, notwithstanding their view that the act gave the states a substantial degree of control over the program, they have initiated actions to increase state commissions' autonomy.