<aside> 💡 Consider different climate corps design concepts to help define an approach that aligns with your organizational and state priorities

</aside>

🔽 Explore Further | Action Steps

There are a range of approaches being tested across the country. Various models have emerged from different goals, relationships, and funding opportunities. Broadly speaking, it seems there are two primary approaches: a flagship or singular program focus and an umbrella or network approach. A flagship design puts more of the emphasis and support behind a single program that represents the essence of a climate corps in a state. A flagship will have more direct connection with specific state offices and ideally will be funded more directly by a state agency. An umbrella or network approach is a more distributed approach in which guiding principles are defined for a climate corps in a state that are realized through a network of aligned programs. The network approach allows for a larger number of participating programs, but may not be as well or directly connected to state agencies and funding.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to each of these approaches across a variety of dimensions including administration challenges, visibility of the initiative, breadth of impact, and diversity of participation opportunities. In the appendices, you can find an illustrative summary of these pros and cons. Which design approach works in your state will depend on a number of factors that should be considered in the design process.

State climate goals — The goals you have, the priorities for those goals, and how closely you want to align with a specific set of climate goals might strongly determine your design. If there’s a major push to focus on clean energy in homes, that might strongly push you towards an initiative that almost solely focuses on energy efficiency and renewable energy support programs. If your priorities are more focused on general climate resilience, that might push you towards a diverse set of programs encompassing disaster response, urban greening, and wildfire prevention.
Funding support and scale — Almost directly connected to climate goals will be your funding support and scale of intended program. Who may support this initiative from within other state agencies and what they have to offer might determine the approach you take as much as broader goals and/or ideal design approach. On the one hand, if you can identify robust resources from a specific agency, but only for a specific set of activities, that might push you towards a flagship program approach. However, if you have diverse resources from multiple agencies or less targeted funding, you may want or need to adopt a network model in order to respond to the needs of different agencies. At the other end of the spectrum, if there’s very limited funding for a statewide climate initiative, it’s going to be imperative to work closely with existing program bases to craft an initiative that is value-added to them and will almost of necessity require a network approach to succeed. An additional aspect of funding to consider, which can impact your design options, is the availability of support for coordination efforts. How different agencies or sources distribute funding and what is available for the initiative as a whole (and to whom it goes) may influence some design decisions. For example, if there’s very limited funding for coordination at the commission level, this will likely put them in the position of being more of a facilitator of activities rather than a significant organizer. On the other hand, limited funding for coordination may drive a commission or other leading organization to focus on more singular programming as it will be easier to support with less resources.
Legislative or political priorities — A state climate corps cannot operate in isolation. To operate at scale and be connected to pressing state priorities (and ideally tap into supporting resources), a state climate corps initiative has to respond to legislative and political priorities. While perhaps less “ideal” to some, ignoring these priorities is unlikely to lead to an aligned and scaled climate corps. If your legislative and political landscape favors a heavy emphasis on clean energy and workforce development, it may be important to center these concepts in your climate corps design. Alternatively, your state’s environmental justice community may be highly active and influential, and being responsive to equity considerations may be key to obtaining support and funding. Irrespective of the priorities in your state, engaging in communication with legislators and considering the political landscape is likely to lead to design changes. For example, if legislators call for service to address specific industry sectors, or if there’s a premium placed on visibility through public events, the design process will need to figure out how to incorporate these elements. Navigating the delicate balance of creating a robust initiative within the service community while also accommodating external political influences without compromising the impact and experience of members can be a challenging endeavor that requires dedicated time.