Addressing traditional service program barriers

Those outside of the service community are often unclear about how service programs, particularly AmeriCorps, operate. More importantly, historical understanding (not entirely unwarranted) has created a perception for some that service programs are universally challenging because of low stipends and high administrative burdens. Finally, climate change efforts, especially those focused on community level engagement, are increasingly concerned with equity and addressing environmental justice. As such, climate focused stakeholders may be reluctant to consider utilization of service programs they perceive as inequitable, or inaccessible, to the communities and community members they most want to serve.

When endeavoring to establish a statewide climate corps and foster connections with state climate agencies, supporters, and stakeholders, it’s important to facilitate their embrace of service as a strategy for climate change, and that means being prepared to address concerns upfront.

Below we outline three general barriers you might want to be prepared to address and some initial thoughts on response ideas.

Administrative complexity — AmeriCorps is a federal program with a reputation for being complicated to navigate and work with. Additionally, it can be seen as unreasonably punitive, inflexible, and compliance focused. Climate change by contrast is a dynamic and ever-evolving issue with a wide array of possible response strategies that encompasses many aspects of people’s lives. Climate-focused organizations, agencies, and stakeholders are likely to be interested in AmeriCorps’ ability to activate people power, but if it seems challenging functionally, they may turn to simpler approaches.

• When engaging with partners and stakeholders, it is vital to present solutions and showcase examples that demonstrate the existing successful climate service work taking place in their state. This entails highlighting the presence of AmeriCorps programs with proven administrative experience and showcasing community partners with positive outcomes that offer effective models to replicate, expand, or build upon.
• A commission can play a key role in bridging the gap between the administrative requirements of AmeriCorps and the climate community, thereby potentially shouldering some of the burden of building rapport. It’s not the responsibility of the climate community to understand the key operations of AmeriCorps; that lies within the program itself. Instead, the focus should be on helping climate community partners understand how this fits into their broader initiatives and build trust that commissions and service programs will manage the administrative aspects. Commissions can utilize their grantmaking powers to foster relationships and develop common ground. For example, planning grants can demonstrate commitment to the service community, allow time to build relationships, and create space to identify the most effective areas for integration of service into climate efforts across the state.
• Where applicable, it’s important to highlight program and commission level creativity and innovation. Some AmeriCorps rules are fixed, others are more a result of historical practice. Both programs and commissions are increasingly exploring creative ways to leverage service and foster partnerships, mostly in the environmental space. Highlighting these opportunities as examples and ways to demonstrate that existing barriers may not be barriers in the future is important to build engagement.

Funding gaps — Service programs generally need to layer funding, are often under-resourced, and have historically relied on low participant stipends as a means to deliver service programming. State service commissions also have limited strategic resources from which to support deep engagement with funders or agencies around specific issues. AmeriCorps funding specifically is subject to changes in federal budget and policy. Support for climate and environmental issues has shown variability from one administration to another, impacting the level of support provided to these areas. Furthermore, the overall funding for AmeriCorps has faced potential risks and uncertainties at times. Additionally, since inception, the relative contribution of federal AmeriCorps funding to total program operation needs has not kept pace (and has in fact been throttled by cost per MSY and match ratio guidance). With equity often a cornerstone of climate response efforts, addressing member stipends is critical to diversifying corps participation. Simultaneously, many programs currently rely on service fees or host fees to round out their budget, which can limit their capacity to deliver services to underserved communities, further exacerbating equity concerns.

• Building a state climate corps will require additional resources. So the lack of adequate funding should not be avoided but confronted head-on. An important reason to focus on a state level climate corps is the alignment between potential resource availability and program fit. While seeking support for this effort, it is important to emphasize that you offer a means to help meet a diverse set of state goals, particularly those related to engagement and localized support, in a potentially more cost-effective manner compared to other available options. Relative to other climate investments (i.e., sea-walls, building decarbonization, electric vehicles), addressing service program funding gaps may be quite modest. However, it’s critical that the funding help advance the state climate goals, not just close service program funding gaps. The key to making the case for investment is to be prepared to highlight how any necessary funding can catalyze service, reduce barriers to participation, support under-resourced communities, and align with state goals.
• Stipends are a major concern in the climate world and throughout the service world. Developing a plan of action that specifically addresses stipend concerns, taking into account history, changing practices, and goals set by the program or commission will demonstrate a clear awareness of this particular issue and commitment to resolving it.
• It’s also important to dispel common misconceptions about service program funding, especially AmeriCorps. It’s not uncommon for individuals unfamiliar with AmeriCorps to hold the misconception that it is a program that simply assigns individuals to service roles and handles all operational aspects behind the scenes. Most people are not aware that AmeriCorps is essentially a funding stream which universally has to be layered with other funds. When seen from that perspective the question can shift from “what can this program do for climate change for what it costs today?” to “how can I combine service programming (and resources) with other resources to address my needs?” While this may be evident from within the service community, it’s surprising how ambiguous this understanding can be for individuals outside the service community. Without this clarification, climate partners may look at service programs as one of several tools with different fixed costs rather than a strategy they can consider layering into their overall efforts in a more integrated way.
• While asking for support, you are also bringing resources to the table. Whether at the program or commission level, service programs have administrative, financial, and human capital that they offer. They may need additional support, but from a complete resource perspective, it’s likely to be less than is needed to launch something new. They may offer actual match funding, community connections, and in-kind support to state agencies or other partners that strengthen their own requests for support (from federal, state, or philanthropic partners). By identifying the relative contributions and strengths of service programs and commissions, partners can better appreciate the significant benefits these programs bring. This shift in perspective transforms the conversation from one where programs or commissions are viewed as seeking assistance to a partnership dynamic where each party brings valuable resources and strengths to contribute towards a larger collective impact.

Unfamiliar program structures — Service programs have a few unique structural qualities that may be perceived as barriers. Notably, a service program is not a consultancy or a contractor but has elements of both. Most service programs have deliverables or project outcomes they offer to community partners. While many of them are very effective in this space, they do have other goals and constraints. Service programs are generally leveraging emerging talent and include learning objectives and support for the participants that a contractor would not necessarily include. Service members themselves turn over each term, and project scopes are often tied to terms of service, which affects start and completion timing. Additionally, there are restrictions on allowable activities, which may be confusing to partners. All of these operational structures are what make service programs so important and valuable. However, for a partner looking at approaches to addressing climate change and comparing service programs with other possible implementation partnerships, such structures may be perceived as a barrier.

• Generally, external partners are less interested in program structure than outcome and complexity of working with a program. There are a wealth of relevant programs that effectively and consistently address a range of climate issues — often in partnership with other agencies and partners. To help partners understand how and where service programs fit in, it is crucial to organize examples of relevant projects and outline the path to successful completion with the skills and capacities of a service program and within the time frame of an AmeriCorps member’s service.
• Without a good sense of how service programs operate, partners may have expectations that are not well-aligned with the capabilities of those programs, potentially hindering effective partnership development. Devote time at the outset to define areas within your state’s climate space where service programs will excel and identify situations where they may not be the most suitable fit. Helping partners understand the best use-case for service to meet their needs may assist them in getting around perceived structural barriers. For example, this assessment can be based on geographic considerations, such as having strong programs operating effectively in a specific region, or it can be subject based, focusing on areas of strength in energy programs.
• Lean into the differences of service programs by highlighting leadership development benefits for climate work more broadly. Identify programs and alumni who can speak to the value of the service accomplished within the existing structure, while also illustrating the additional benefits that come with a service program.
• Structural barriers can be both perceived and real. Working collaboratively within the service community to adjust or clarify program structures, such as performance expectations, training, or support, can help bridge the gap between people’s perceptions and the actual capabilities of service programs thereby reducing both perceived and real structural barriers.