A Leader’s Surprise Departure Triggers Concern About AmeriCorps

The unexpected resignation last month of the country’s top national-service official has increased anxiety among nonprofit leaders who were already worried about the future of programs like AmeriCorps that send money and low-cost workers their way.

Patrick Corvington, who had served as chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service since February 2010, told his colleagues in a letter that he would step down on May 27 to “pursue an exciting opportunity in the nonprofit community.”

The announcement came shortly after national-service advocates beat back an effort by the Republican-led House to kill off the corporation during budget negotiations for the 2011 fiscal year.

In the end, the federal agency, long a symbol of government misspending to many conservative Republicans, survived. But as one of many domestic programs that were cut as part of efforts to curb the deficit, it lost about $74-million from 2010 spending levels.

Supporters—who just six months ago were expecting the national-service budget to grow steadily over the next few years, thanks to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009—must now gear up for what is expected to be another bruising battle, over 2012 spending.

“It’s a time when we need extremely strong solid leadership to demonstrate why an investment in national service is critical at these times,” says Paula Kaiser VanDam, executive director of the Michigan Community Service Commission, a state agency that operates national-service programs. “The lack of leadership is going to put us to some extent at a major disadvantage.”

New Political Reality

Nonprofit groups have already been adjusting their plans to take account of the new political reality.

Because the national-service budget was expanding, applications for AmeriCorps competitive grants grew from 434 in 2008 to 588 this year, making the awards process more competitive.

John Gomperts, AmeriCorps’s director, said in an interview last fall that more than 50 organizations that previously got AmeriCorps grants failed to win money in 2010, even though many had good applications, because they faced new rivals. “I likened it to getting into a good college,” he says. “You can get good test scores and you can write a really good personal essay and you can have really nice letters of recommendations and you cannot get in.”

The competition for dollars will be even tougher this year, at a time when nonprofits are scrambling for money and the bad economy has increased demand for their services.

For example, before the current budget battles, Public Allies, a charity based in Milwaukee that uses AmeriCorps money to train young people for nonprofit and other public-service jobs, had adopted a strategic plan that called for a “fairly dramatic growth curve,” says Paul Schmitz, its chief executive.

He says Public Allies receives almost seven applications for every AmeriCorps position, which provides a stipend and an education grant.

The group was hoping to expand from 650 AmeriCorps slots to almost 800 next year by adding people to existing programs and opening new programs in Dallas and Detroit.

Since the federal grants require recipients to provide matching funds from other sources, the group has also been raising money from private donors to support its growth plans. But now, says Mr. Schmitz, “Our indications are we should expect a relatively flat or slightly diminished program.”

Critics, however, say the country needs to reassess whether it can afford national-service programs.

Matthew Spalding, vice president for American studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says AmeriCorps has been beset by management problems and that a “government-directed centralized program” is not the most effective way to promote civic involvement.

“The country has been overspending and doing more things that it can afford to do for some time,” he says. “Things like AmeriCorps have to be thought through anew.”

No Details

The corporation, which went without a chief executive for more than a year before Mr. Corvington was appointed, operates a range of volunteer and national-service programs, as well as the new Social Innovation Fund, which provides grants to help successful nonprofits expand their programs.

The circumstances of Mr. Corvington’s decision are somewhat murky, and surprised many in the nonprofit world.

Corporation officials would give no details beyond those in Mr. Corvington’s letter, and Mr. Corvington declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed.

Mark Gearan, chairman of the corporation’s board, says Mr. Corvington worked out his resignation with the White House and that the president’s aides were managing the search for a successor, who will require Senate confirmation. A White House spokesman declined to answer any questions about the matter.