General Powell’s About-Face on Private Aid

PABLO EISENBERG

America’s Promise, the national organization led by Gen. Colin Powell, was created to mobilize private funds and other resources to help disadvantaged youths. Now the organization is doing an about-face and is eager to accept $7.5-million in federal support that Congress is expected to approve this fall — an amount greater than the organization’s entire operating budget last year.

This transformation of an organization so rooted in private philanthropy to an organization that is dependent on federal funds is disturbing, especially because this poor use of scarce federal aid seems to be the result mainly of political maneuvering by the head of the Corporation for National Service, Harris Wofford.

Started with great fanfare and expectations at the Presidents’ Summit on Volunteering, held in Philadelphia three years ago, America’s Promise was supposed to be the catalytic engine that would attract new corporate and philanthropic dollars to expand youth services and programs throughout the country. An impressive list of corporations and foundations responded to the call and pledged their support.

Some of the commitments never materialized. But General Powell’s enormous prestige and stature were sufficient to attract many new supporters from corporations, foundations, and individual donors.

While some of the large foundations that initially supported America’s Promise — including Carnegie, Casey, Kauffman, Kellogg, and Pew — have not renewed their pledges for the current year, new donors appear to have made up for this loss, and a spokesman says the group hopes to secure additional funds that will allow it to expand. Not bad for an institution that announced at its creation that it planned to go out of business after three years.

To meet its budget of $7.3-million in 1999, America’s Promise raised a little more than $9-million (counting new funds and multiple-year commitments made in 1998).

Even though it took in more than it needed for last year, the organization is slated to receive an additional $2.5-million from the Defense Department’s Division of Operations and Maintenance and $200,000 from the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs during the current year. And in fiscal 2001, America’s Promise is likely to receive $7.5-million of the funds that Congress approves for the Corporation for National Service, which runs the AmeriCorps and VISTA national-service programs.

Given the organization’s popularity in corporate America, the fund-raising charisma of General Powell, and the proven ability of the charity to raise more than enough in private donations to cover its operating budget, why is it now so anxious to get a federal handout?

And a more serious question: Why are the White House and Congress giving their support to the request for federal aid?

At a time when federal resources to help poor and troubled youngsters are scarce, it should be of great concern to the Clinton administration and to lawmakers that America’s Promise continues to face serious questions about its performance.

The organization’s persistent refusal to fully report staff salaries and benefits has raised questions of transparency and accountability.

So has the organization’s management contract with a billion-dollar for-profit professional employer, Administaff, based in Kingwood, Tex.

According to the terms of its contract with America’s Promise, Administaff not only handles the payroll and other administrative responsibilities but is considered to be an official co-employer of the America’s Promise staff. Because of its status as a commercial organization, Administaff does not have to disclose to the public the salaries it pays.

In newspaper reports and elsewhere, critics have charged that 50-plus staff members at America’s Promise have had little experience in youth services. In addition, local youth-service organizations frequently complain that “Communities of Promise,” groups created by the national organization, have failed to generate additional resources for their work, have not included grassroots groups or young people in their efforts, and have only benefited established youth organizations.

Lack of diversity has also characterized the America’s Promise board, which, according to some of the organization’s trustees, has been more of a rubber-stamping instrument than a true governing board that sets policy and oversees operations.

Aside from doing a poor job of helping local grassroots groups expand the services available to young people, America’s Promise can also be criticized for failing to push for legislation and government programs that could substantially increase the resources available to help far more of the nation’s youngsters than any private group ever will.

Nevertheless, the organization has suddenly taken an interest in Capitol Hill lobbyingfor its own self-interest.

Harris Wofford, director of the Corporation for National Service, started the move to give America’s Promise $7.5-million, according to sources at America’s Promise.

Figuring that a Republican victory in the November elections would probably lead to a major appointment for Mr. Powell in a new administration, Mr. Wofford seems to be worried that America’s Promise would be in trouble without the general.

A federal commitment to America’s Promise would not only ensure the future of the organization but also make it easier to attract a prominent leader to replace Mr. Powell.

As for the general, he has indicated that he would be happy to spend less time raising private funds.

Whatever the reason, the funds earmarked for America’s Promise would be better used if they were spent on AmeriCorps and VISTA volunteers, who are at the heart of national service. Since the volunteers cost about $15,000 per person to maintain for a year, the $7.5-million could put another 500 volunteers to work for a full year.

For an administration that prides itself in having galvanized a sense of public service among our nation’s young people, supporting more volunteers would be the right thing to do.

Propping up a non-profit organization that can and should attract substantial private resources is not doing the country a service, national or otherwise.

Pablo Eisenberg is senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute and vice-chair of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. He is a regular contributor to these pages.