<aside> 💡 Outline considerations for working with service commissions and/or programs that may be unfamiliar to outside organizations to facilitate understanding and engagement

</aside>

🔽 Explore Further | Action Steps

As noted in the article on barriers, few individuals unfamiliar with the service world know how service programs operate. From funding to administration to reporting, it’s very complex and can be difficult to explain. For people without experience working with service programs or commissions, they will approach the conversation using more familiar models (i.e., interns, contractors, consultants). Clear communication of the similarities and differences is crucial to avoid issues that may arise later on. For example, when an agency hires a consultant, their scope is not constrained by a list of allowable activities. When budgeting for services provided, most organizations will ask for or require use of hourly rates. Stipends which are not tied to hours of service provided may be difficult for them to accommodate.

When trying to reach out to state agencies or legislative champions to garner support for a climate corps initiative, it is essential to emphasize that collaboration is not only possible but encouraged, dispelling any perception that it will pose an overwhelming challenge. With the recent passage of BRIC, IIKA, and IRA, state agencies have more resources for climate projects at a larger scale than what would be required for a climate corps initiative. To ensure a seamless integration of service, it is crucial to proactively bring the service opportunities to state agencies and legislative champions, rather than expecting them to navigate the nuances of the service world on their own. Without taking proactive steps to bring service opportunities to them, it is unlikely that they will recognize the value and significance of service, as they may already have alternate methods to allocate resources and take actions that are thought of as less complex or challenging.

Some of the areas discussed under barriers are tied to the structure of service programs. Being mindful that these are unfamiliar elements (member turnover, timeframes, etc.) can go a long way to clarify ways to work with a commission or program. However, there’s additional elements that are not necessarily barriers, but may be unclear and worth explaining. A few are mentioned below.

Commissions — It’s not uncommon for state agencies to be quite siloed. Generally, they likely will be familiar with their more obvious or significant peers. (Most anyone knows there’s a department of transportation or public health). But a service commission is generally not going to be well known. Questions that may arise include: What is a commission? How does it work? Is it a state entity or a nonprofit? Who are the commissioners? Does the commission run AmeriCorps? Being prepared to outline basic functions, governance, powers, and activities can significantly help to understand who a commission is and where they fit within state structures. For states with nonprofit commissions, this might be even more challenging, but the same general principle applies. Understanding commission structures and resources becomes critical when entering into a conversation about layering resources. The federal/state partnerships that guide commission funding, including amount, timing, and requirements, can be perplexing. Critically, AmeriCorps programs in particular are not readily deployable resources. They require an application, approval, and funding — a process often taking up to a year. During discussions with climate partners, such as other state agencies, it is important to recognize that they may have a pressing need for timely implementation of initiatives. As peer agencies might be operating with mostly general funds and some specific grants, they may not understand the processes and constraints that come with AmeriCorps funding.

Programs — Service programs have features (often tied to AmeriCorps as well, but not exclusively) that outsider organizations might need to understand before being able to work with them effectively. Member terms and timing are often fixed for service programs, as they operate on a cohort cycle annually. This may not align with project or program timelines. Crew based and/or fee for service programs are more likely to fit into defined project timeframes and can be deployed incrementally, but also have some constraints. Ideally, projects are lined up well in advance to enable the program to recruit members and be ready. So they may not be accessible in shorter windows. Additionally, some crew programs require housing be provided which might not fit into organizational budgeting structures. For all service programs, the member development goals and structure may require clarification upfront. The types of members serving, the expectations for support from hosts or community partners, and constraints on allowable activities to accommodate service goals may require explanation and examples to help new partners understand how they can meet their goals within the program boundaries. Budgeting service programs into state programs and invoicing for activities completed can require a significant back and forth to meet the needs of the agency and also comply with the service program requirements. Service members do not fit neatly into existing categories from a fiscal and risk management perspective. Therefore, working through stipends, minimum wage requirements, and rules on state use of contractors takes time and effort that is best done upfront so partners do not assume they can apply the same systems and practices they use for other types of entities.