Detailed Information on the
Learn and Serve Assessment

Collecting reliable data on the effects of service-learning methods and variables on the outcomes Learn and Serve America is designed to achieve.

Developing a standard measure of service-learning activity, rather than the current measure of only service activity, which occurs as a result of program funds.

Ensuring all grantees commit to the program's two new long-term and three new short-term goals through the grant application and approval process.

Measure: The percentage of youth (ages 16-19) volunteering in the U.S. through organizations.

Explanation:In response to the program's identified need to increase the civic engagement of young people, the program uses the U.S. Census' measure of youth volunteering rates, which groups those ages 16-19 into one category, as an indicator of civic engagement.

Measure: The percent of K-12 public schools that offer service-learning opportunities.

Explanation:Data was collected by the Department of Education in 2004 an will be collected in 3-year intervals. Targets are not set for years in which data collection is not planned.

Measure: Percent of organizations funded through the Learn and Serve America grant program that have adopted at least 6 of the 9 institutional supports that lead to sustainability for service-learning.

Explanation:This measures the program's progress in creating sustainable service-learning programs. The institutional supports for service-learning are: Institutional supports for service-learning include: (1) service-learning as part of the strategic plan; (2) service-learning as part of the official core curriculum/program or department in the organization; (3) service-learning included in professional development plans; (4) service-learning as part of new staff/faculty/teacher orientation; (5) service-learning as one of the criteria for faculty/staff/teacher evaluation/promotion and/or tenure; (6) financial support for planning, training, and implementation of service-learning projects; (7) reductions in course load/work load for service-learning program development; (8) technical assistance on planning or implementation of service-learning; and (9) presence of a coordinator who spends at least 20 hours on week on service learning. These supports are based on research and evaluations that have shown these practices and policies are linked to the sustainability of service-learning programs. Analysis of which supports are the best predictors of sustainability is ongoing. Cf. A. Furco, (2002) Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education; M.S. Ammon, A. Furco, B. Chi, and E. Middaugh (2003) Service-Learning in California : A Profile of the CalServe Service-Learning Partnerships (1997-2000); M. Kramer (2000) Make It Last Forever: The Institutionalization of Service Learning in America; Education Commission of the States (2002) Learning That Lasts: How Service-Learning Can Become an Integral Part of Schools, States, and Communities (2002).

Measure: Percent of K-12 schools with Learn and Serve America funding where 50% or more of the students are eligible for the free or reduced price lunch program.

Explanation:The program uses this information to measure its annual progress towards targeting grant resources to help it engaging more low-income youth in service opportunities.

Measure: Cost per participant service hour.

Explanation:This measure tracks the per service hour cost of program activities.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America promotes service learning to increase the likelihood that student participants will become more civically engaged and volunteer more in their communities. 42 U.S.C §12521-12561 authorizes the Corporation for National and Community Service to: 1. Build the capacity of states, tribes, local education agencies, and youth-serving nonprofit organizations to implement, operate, and/or plan service-learning programs; 2. Support and facilitate the integration of innovative higher education community service programs that meet the human, educational, environmental, or public safety needs of neighboring communities, into academic curricula, and strengthen the capacity of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary teachers to use service-learning methods; and 3. Manage a clearinghouse with respect to the collection, development, organization and dissemination of information about service learning. The statute does not state, however, what specific outcomes the Learn and Serve America program is designed to achieve. By definition, service learning engages young people in addressing community needs. Learn and Serve America promotes use of service learning, though, to also address larger societal needs??to motivate and engage students, in order to increase the likelihood they will be civically engaged and volunteer in their communities.

Evidence: 42 U.S.C §12521-12561. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode//html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_129_20_I_25_B_30_I.html "Service learning" is defined by 42 U.S.C. §12511 (23) as a method- (A) under which students or participants learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service that (i) is conducted in and meets the needs of a community; (ii) is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school, institution of higher education, or community service program, and with the community; and (iii) helps foster civic responsibility; and (B) that- (i) is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students, or the educational components of the community service program in which the participants are enrolled; and (ii) provides structured time for the students or participants to reflect on the service experience.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Learn and Serve is necessary because it provides leadership and a national infrastructure to connect entities that promote, operate, and improve service-learning programs that otherwise would not exist. In 2004, it was estimated that only 28% of schools provided service-learning activities, and it was estimated that in 2003, only 50% of community colleges offered service-learning activities. Service-learning programs are designed to improve civic engagement and volunteerism among its participants. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in 2002, 28.7 percent of Americans 25 and over volunteered through organizations, whereas 22.2 percent of Americans 16 to 24 years of age volunteered through organizations. Voter turnout among 18-24 year-olds, for example, is not strong. In 1972 52% of 18-24 year-olds voted as compared to recent presidential election year rates of 36% in 2000 and 47% in 2004. In contrast the national adult volunteer rate in 2006 was 26.7% (61.2 million), which reflects a 3.1 percent increase between 1974 and 2006, and 6.3 percent increase between 1989 and 2006. Service-learning programs are also designed to improve academic-related participant outcomes. In October 2004, approximately 3.8 million (10.3 percent) of Americans ages 16-through 24, were not enrolled in high school and had not earned a high school diploma or alternative credential such as a GED. Similarly, in 2004, over 60 percent of the U.S. population between the ages of 25-64 had no postsecondary educational credential.

Evidence: (1) Prevalence of Service Learning: 2004 Search Institute estimate of service learning among K-12 public schools http://www.search-institute.org/whatsnew/2004G2GCompleteSurvey.pdf; 2003 American Association of Community Colleges estimate of service learning among community colleges, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourceCenter/Projects_Partnerships/ Current/HorizonsServiceLearningProject/Publications/2003_Survey_RB.pdf ; See also long-term outcome measure 2. (2) Civic Engagement and Volunteerism: Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972-2004. http://www.census.gov/cps/; The National Adult Volunteer Rate, Corporation for National and Community Service, 2007. Volunteering in America: 2007 State Trends and Rankings in Civic Life. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/VIA/VIA_fullreport.pdf (based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics through a "volunteering supplement" to the Current Population Survey (CPS) from 2002 to 2006. http://www.census.gov/cps/. 2002 Data can be found at http://www.bls.gov/cps/volun.pdf) (3) Academic measures High school graduation: In October 2004, approximately 3.8 million (10.3 percent) of Americans ages 16-through 24, were not enrolled in high school and had not earned a high school diploma or alternative credential such as a GED. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch; College attendance and graduation: Over 60 percent of the U.S. population between the ages of 25-64 had no postsecondary education credential in 2004. U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/education/

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America is the only federal program that: (1) focuses on building the capacity of states, tribes, local education agencies and youth-serving organizations to implement, operate, and/or plan service-learning programs; (2) supports the integration of innovative higher education community service and service-learning programs; and (3) manages a clearinghouse that collects, develops, organizes and disseminates information about service learning. Because Learn and Serve America: (1) only provides grants for the development of service-learning programs where a specific need that can be addressed through service learning has been established; and (2) provides grants that proscribe the duplication of services that are available in the locality of a program or project and that grantees cannot conduct activities that are substantially equivalent to activities provided by another agency, it complements rather than duplicates state and local education, civic engagement, and youth development initiatives. For example, Learn and Serve America grants encourage organizations that have not previously used service learning to adopt it as a strategy for meeting their own missions. In addition, at an operational level, Learn and Serve America grants include a displacement condition that funds cannot be used to supplant, duplicate, or displace existing local staff and resources. There are, however, other public and private efforts that complement the work of Learn and Serve America. The National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC), for example, is a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to "increase the capacity of schools and communities to engage young people in active learning and service." NYLC's current grants focus on HIV/AIDS, teen driver safety, disaster relief, St. Paul, MN schools. NYLC convenes an annual service-learning conference of approximately 3,000 attendees, about one-third of whom are youth. Learn and Serve America staff serves on the NYLC conference planning committee to ensure the conference's content supplements, rather than duplicates, Learn and Serve's training efforts. NYLC staff and the staff of Learn and Serve America meet as needed, but at least 6 times a year, to discuss available resources and to prevent duplication. Another partner, the National Service Learning Partnership (NSLP), is a membership organization of young people, teachers, parents, administrators, policymakers, education leaders, community partners, businesspeople, and researchers, whose mission is to "strengthen the impact of service learning on young people's learning and development, especially their academic and civic preparation." NSLP was created in 2001 as an outgrowth of the National Commission on Service Learning, supported by a private foundation. Staff of Learn and Serve America participated in the working group that created NSLP. While NSLP does help disseminate information on effective service learning practices, research, and advocates for funding of service learning, it does not provide program grants. The director of Learn and Serve America serves as an ex officio member of NSLP's Board of Directors, which meets monthly, and the staff of NSLP and Learn and Serve coordinate through various working groups as needed to minimize duplication and maximize effectiveness of efforts. The majority of partner organizations carry out activities that the program does not. For example, Learn and Serve America does not fund national training and technical assistance of educational and community institutions. Campus Compact, a membership organization of college presidents with a network of 31 affiliates (many of which were developed and expanded with seed money from Learn and Serve grants), offers fee-based technical assistance to individual institutions and convene regional gatherings of practitioners.

Evidence: Non-displacement and non-duplication conditions of the Learn and Serve America Grant Provisions. Grantees bear the responsibility for ensuring subgrantee compliance with the grant provisions. http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/sea_prov_06.pdf Website of the National Youth Leadership Council. http://www.nylc.org Website of the National Service-Learning Partnership. http://www.service-learningpartnership.org

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There are no known major flaws in the program design that limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency. Learn and Serve America manages a national portfolio of grants that address the program purpose and the agency's strategic plan goals while providing grantees with the flexibility to meet local and state priorities.

Evidence: There is no evidence that a different approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Because the majority of the funding distributed by a competitive grants, the program can ensure its grants increase the likelihood that student participants will become more civically engaged and volunteer more in their communities through grant application guidance, review of applications, grantee training and technical assistance, dissemination of effective practices and solid grant oversight policies and practices.

Evidence: 42 U.S.C §12521-12561 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode//html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_129_20_I_25_B_30_I.html

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America has identified two outcome-based long-term performance measures: (1) to increase the percent of American youth, ages 16-19, who volunteer through organizations from the 2006 baseline; and (2) increase the percent of public K-12 schools that offer service learning opportunities. The percent of American youth who volunteer through organizations is measured by an annual survey conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), and reflects progress made by Learn and Serve America toward increasing the civic engagement of students. The percent of public K-12 schools that offer service learning opportunities was previously been measured, in 1999 by The National Center for Education Statistics of the U. S. Department of Education, and in 2004 by the National Youth Leadership Council in partnership with the Search Institute, using similar samples and methodology. The Corporation for National and Community Service has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Education in 2007 to ensure this information continues to be collected.

Evidence: The first measure has thus far not been included, but will henceforth be included in the Corporation for National and Community Service's strategic plans and congressional budget justifications. The second measure was included as a Strategic Goal in the Corporation for National and Community Service's 2006-2010 Strategic Plan (http://www.cns.gov/about/focus_areas/index.asp) and will be included henceforth in the Corporation for National and Community Service's congressional budget justification. Summaries of the 1999 and 2004 surveys can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/1999043/ and http://www.search-institute.org/whatsnew/2004G2GCompleteSurvey.pdf respectively. See also Question 4.1.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets established by Learn and Serve America's long-term measures are: (1) to increase the percent of American youth, ages 16-19, who volunteer through organizations from the 2006 baseline to 30 percent over five years; and (2) to increase the percent of America's K-12 public schools that offer service-learning opportunities to 50 percent over seven years. Based on the 2006 dip in the percent of American youth ages 16-19 who volunteer through organizations, the program's target, to increase the percent of youth who volunteer from the 2006 baseline by more than 13% over four years, appears ambitious. The program should reevaluate these targets based on further information about the 2006 dip and based on the 2007 data when it becomes available. This data is collected as part of the Bureau of Census' Current Population Survey, which also indicated that youth, ages 16-19, who volunteered through organizations in 2005 exceeded 30%, the 2010 target. The targets for the second measure, the percent of K-12 public schools offering service-learning, are clearly ambitious. Learn and Serve's 2010 target, to ensure 50% of K-12 schools offer service learning, represents nearly a 79% increase from the 2004 baseline, which was established based on a national survey conducted by National Youth Leadership Council and State Farm Companies Foundation. This target is especially ambitious considering the results of 1999 survey by NCES that employed similar methodology. Together, those serveys estimate that the prevalence of service learning in K-12 public schools declined by 12.5% from 1999-2004.

Evidence: (1) The Bureau of Census' Current Population Survey. http://www.bls.gov/cps/ (2) Search Institute, NYLC, and State Farm Companies Foundation's survey of service learning in K-12 public schools is part of the 2004 study Service and Service-Learning in U.S. Public Schools. http://www.search institute.org/whatsnew/2004G2GCompleteSurvey.pdf The comparable 1999 report can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/1999043/

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America measures progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals with three output measures and one efficiency measure: (1) to increase the percent of organizations supported by Learn and Serve America that have adopted at least six of the nine institutional supports shown to lead to program sustainability; (2) to increase the percent of K-12 schools with Learn and Serve America funding where 50% of more of the students are eligible for the free or reduced price lunch program; and (3) to reduce the cost per participant service hour. Because Learn and Serve America has long-term impacts on the percent of youth that volunteer and the percent of K-12 public schools that offer service-learning opportunities, the program uses these annual output measures as an indicator of the extent to which (1) participant institutions may sustain their service-learning those programs over time (2) the program targets resources where there is likely to be greater need for service-learning programs; and (3) the program distributes resources in a cost-effective manner. Each of these measures indicates the program's annual performance is contributing toward long-term achievement of the program's long-term goals. An organization's adoption of at least six of the nine institutional supports from the sustainability index demonstrates the extent to which service learning is integrated into an organization's policies and practices. Items on the index include organizations' inclusion of service learning in their school strategic plans and the presence of a service-learning coordinator. The presence of six of the nine index components indicates that the organization has made a substantial commitment to service learning. However, the program should conduct an evaluation(s) to establish a stronger link between the presence of index components and the likelihood service learning will continue beyond the presence of federal funding, and thus this measure's effectiveness in indicating progress towards the program's long-term goals. Because youth from families with incomes of less than $25,000 are less likely to report current or past participation in service-learning activities, or participation in planning or service that lasts a semester or longer, the program targets resources toward K-12 schools where 50% of more of the students are eligible for the free or reduced price lunch program. This targeting directs resources where they can contribute more directly to populations less likely to already participate in service learning activities. However, the program should conduct an evaluation(s) to establish a stronger link between free and reduced price lunch program eligibility and the absence of service-learning programs, and thus this measure's effectiveness in indicating progress towards the program's long-term goals. Learn and Serve America's efficiency measure, cost per participant service hour, demonstrates the cost-efficiency of program administration, which means that more funding is available for program activities. However, the program should work to establish an efficiency measure that better captures the level of service-learning that occurs as a result of programming, rather than simply the level of service that occurs. None of these measures have thus far not been included, but will henceforth be included in the Corporation for National and Community Service's Strategic Plan and Congressional Budget Justification.

Evidence: Data for the two annual output measures and the hours of service aspect of the efficiency measure are collected annually through the Learn and Serve America System for Information Exchange, a web-based survey completed by all sites implementing service-learning activities supported by Learn and Serve America (grantees and subgrantees) each year. www.lsareports.org, http://www.learnandserve.gov/about/role_impact/index.asp. A 2006 study by the Corporation for National and Community Service found that youth from families with incomes of less than $25,000 are less likely to report current or past participation in service-learning activities, or participation in planning or service that lasts a semester or longer. Educating for Active Citizenship: Service-Learning, School-Based Service, and Civic Engagement. Brief 2 in the Youth Helping America Series. (see page 31) http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0323_SL_briefing.pdf

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has established baselines and targets for each of its annual measures, but only the targets for the second measure are both ambitious and set at levels that ensure continued improvement and realization of efficiencies. The first measure tracks the percent of funded learning institutions that adopt 6 of 9 identified institutional supports for service learning. Because Learn and Serve America distributes grants to promote service learning, its application guidance and review of applications should place significant weight on grantees' commitment to adopt institutional supports for the funding. Currently, less than one third of the selected learning institutions adopt sufficient institutional supports. While the targets reflect incremental increases from the current level, the targets are not ambitious, and would still have less than a third of grantees adopting institutional supports for service learning by 2010. The current application of this measure does not help ensure efficient use of program dollars. Targets for the second measure reflect the program's commitment to increase the percent of low-income schools in its grant portfolio. Currently, the majority of the student body at more than 43% of K-12 schools with Learn and Serve funding are eligible for free or reduced price lunches through the National School Lunch Program. The targets for this measure, to steadily increase this percentage to 55% by 2010, reflect more than a 27% increase over four years. These goals ensure continued improvement and realization of efficiencies, and are ambitious. The third measure tracks the cost per participant service hour over the next three years. Over the past two years, Learn and Serve America has reduced this cost by 23.4%. While it may not be possible for the program to continuously realize this level of improved efficiency, the targets for this measure would have the program achieve only a .6% reduction in service hour cost from FY07-FY10, with no improvement from 2008-2010.

Evidence: Data for the two annual output measures and the hours of service aspect of the efficiency measure are collected annually through the Learn and Serve America System for Information Exchange, a web-based survey completed by all sites implementing service-learning activities supported by Learn and Serve America (grantees and subgrantees) each year. www.lsareports.org, http://www.learnandserve.gov/about/role_impact/index.asp.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: In 2007, all grantees will commit to working toward the program's two long-term and three short-term goals through the grant application and approval process. Prior to the program's establishment of these long-term and annual goals in conjunction with the 2007 PART process, all grantees committed to working toward one of two long-term, and two of three short term goals, as established in the 2006 Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) Strategic Plan and the FY2008 CNCS Congressional Budget Justification. Grantees are responsible for holding subgrantees accountable for working toward those goals, and Learn and Serve Program Officers review grant applications annually for the adequacy of performance measures and monitor grantee progress toward meeting those measures through progress reports. In addition, grantees nominate performance measures that are aligned with their individual project designs at the time of application submission (including one standardized performance measure, specific to the program, for participant outcomes) for inclusion in the progress reports. Progress reports are submitted via eGrants to provide overall accountability for activities and grant funds from the legal applicant. By signing the grant application's assurances and certifications, the designated Project Director and Authorized Representative commit to the program activities and outcomes described in their proposals and are responsible for the oversight of subgrantee activities. Grant Provisions included as part of the Notice of Grant Award list reporting requirements. Detailed implementation level (primarily subgrantees') performance data is collected through the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE). This web-based survey allows the program to collect the information needed to track progress toward the program's overall annual and long-term goals. Grantees are held accountable to goals outlined in their grant applications, which include progress toward the annual and long-term goals of the program. Continuation and renewal funding decisions are made based on adequate program progress, fiscal and financial accountability, and funding availability.

Evidence: 2006 Corporation for National and Community Service Strategic Planhttp://www.cns.gov/about/focus_areas/index.asp FY2008 Corporation for National and Community Service Congressional Budget Justificationhttp://www.cns.gov/about/role_impact/budget.asp 2006 Notice of Funding Availability and Performance Measure Guidance. http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php Learn and Serve America Progress Report - OMB Control No. 3045-0089http://www.cns.gov/egrants/index.asp Learn and Serve America Program Performance Report - OMB Control No. 3045-0095 www.lsareports.org(the survey contained within the web-based data collection system, LASSIE).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope are not conducted on a regular basis.

Evidence: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning's 2007 Working Paper, Engagement Civic Engagement and High School Academic Progress: An Analysis Using NELS Data. http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP52Mora.pdf National Evaluation of Learn and Serve America. Center for Human Resources at Brandeis University and Abt Associates Inc. 1999. http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/lsa_evaluation.pdf

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America's budget requests are not explicitly tied to the program's long-term performance goals. This is an area for program improvement. Budget requests do include: (1) targets for some of the annual performance goals at requested funding levels, (2) unit cost information that allows for estimates of how funding changes would impact program outputs and outcomes, and (3) discussion of how proposed program activities relate to meeting performance goals.

Evidence: The Corporation for National and Community Service FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/2007_budget_justification.pdf (Exhibit 20 on page 45 presents 2005-2007 funding levels for both Learn and Serve America grants and administration costs, which are funded from the Corporation's Salaries and Expenses account; Exhibit 21 on page 46 shows how funding levels from 2003-07 translate into grant awards and program participants, and shows the cost per participant; pages 51-53 describe the relationship between proposed program activities and performance goals; and exhibit 78 on page 165 presents full-cost allocations for the Corporation's major programs.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program regularly improves internal processes that contribute to achievement of annual and long-term performance goals. During the spring of 2004, Learn and Serve America, in conjunction with all agency programs, defined its strategic goals in terms of output measures. Corresponding annual performance measures and targets were linked to the Corporation's Strategic Plan. In 2003, Learn and Serve America transitioned from the use of goals and objectives to performance measures for all grantees. The former practice of allowing grantees to nominate individualized measures led to challenges in aggregating participant outcomes on a national level. With the 2006 grant cycle, Learn and Serve America implemented standardized grantee performance measures related to participant outcomes. Depending on the program design, grantees target: (1) increased civic engagement, (2) improved academic achievement, or (3) reduction of risk behaviors (e.g., truancy, teen pregnancy, drop-outs, etc.). Improvements in the program's ability to monitor and improve progress toward the achievement of annual and long-term goals are the result of focused enhancements to the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE). Continuous reassessment of the LASSIE data collection tool allows for the incorporation of service learning research and evaluation findings. For example, questions are annually reviewed and refined as needed to ensure questions are targeting the most effective practices for institutionalizing and sustaining service-learning activities. The program also established a new long-term performance measure related to youth volunteering in 2007. These new measures were set to improve the program's ability to demonstrate success in achieving program goals. Learn and Serve America has also completed an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education to measure the prevalence of service learning in K-12 schools. The survey will replicate a 1999 study, conducted jointly by Education and CNCS, which targeted a sample of 2,000 K-12 schools nationally. The 1999 study was replicated in 2004 by a nonprofit, the National Youth Leadership Council in partnership with the Search Institute. The program will continue to work with its budget office to improve the presentation of a program budget explicitly tied to accomplishments of the annual and long-term performance goals, and the resource needed.

Evidence: The Learn and Serve America application guidance and performance measurement toolkit contain details about the standard performance measures. External advisors assisted in the development of age-appropriate instruments for grantees to use with participants. Sample approved instruments are available at: http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/lsa_page/instruments.php Learn and Serve America Program Performance Report - OMB Control No. 3045-0095 (the survey contained within the web-based data collection system, LASSIE) The effectiveness of the standardized measures will be assessed when grantees first report against them through their July 2007 Reports - OMB Control No. 3045-0089

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: While the program regularly collects timely and credible grant performance information that is used to assess grant progress, set targets, adjust grant priorities and goals, and allocate resources, the utility of this information in helping the program reach its goals is limited. The program does not currently require grantees to collect information on whether or not their service-learning projects contribute to the existing problems, interests, and needs identified in 1.2. The program has also never collected reliable data on the effects of service-learning methods and variables on the outcomes Learn and Serve America is designed to achieve. All grantees and subgrantees do report implementation-level data on an annual basis, though, through the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE), a web-based survey. The information is used to assess individual grant accomplishments, identify trends in practice, and make adjustments in the allocation of resources. A full-time program manager also monitors information collected and disseminated by the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, and review it on a monthly basis to determine where there are strengths as well as gaps in the resources available to the public. A working group of approximately 10 researchers provides both program staff and the field of service learning with up-to-date information on service-learning projects. This information is also used by the program to inform the grant application guidance. Since the inception of Learn and Serve America, grants have been distributed in order to increase the reach and visibility of service learning as well as to address a broad range of specific community needs, rather than towards the long-term goals of Learn and Serve America. Data from service-learning prevalence studies in 1999 and 2004 informed the program's 2006 grant application guidance that prioritized the expansion of service learning to new institutions, disciplines, and populations. The program also exchanges information with partners. Staff frequently provide reciprocal training activities and serve on panels at events sponsored by groups, such as the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Learn and Serve subgrantees often cooperate with researchers such as The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, and Learn and Serve uses those findings to plan improvements to the management of the full grant portfolio and to integrate effective practices into application guidance. Surveys conducted by partners such as Campus Compact add to the program's understanding of trends in higher education around campus supports for service and civic engagement. Learn and Serve staff also actively contribute to working groups and special committees to develop practice standards and strategic planning related to education, youth development and service.

Evidence: LASSIE-based grant performance reports. www.lsareports.org National Service State Profiles. http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/state_profiles.asp The Corporation for National and Community Service FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, http://www.volunteeringandservice.org/ Program Performance Report (LASSIE survey): OMB Control No. 3045-0095. http://www.lsareports.org/downloadableForms.aspx Progress Reports: OMB Control No. 3045-0089

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Congress gave CNCS legal authority to devise and maintain its own excepted service personnel system, generally distinct from the common "title 5" personnel system set forth for many federal agencies. This Alternative Personnel System (APS) authority requires that the agency make each manager's job performance a basis for his or her compensation. The performance of all employees is evaluated annually and a mid-year progress report is conducted. As part of this system Learn and Serve America managers are held accountable for cost, schedule, and individual grant performance results through the agency's newly strengthened Management Appraisal System. Annual performance plans include criteria that measure the performance of each manager and employee on the completion and quality of essential duties and responsibilities, including oversight of grants and achievement of key program milestones on schedule and within budget. Program managers meet weekly, and in more depth, quarterly, to assess timelines, budget, and operations status. The Director convenes weekly program staff meetings to ensure any issues are identified and plans and timelines are developed to address them. The Corporation for National and Community Service's (CNCS) executive work plans of department heads currently address former annual and long-term goals of the program. The Director of Learn and Serve America meets bi-weekly with the Chief Operating Officer to identify challenges and progress toward meeting those objectives, which are linked to the CNCS Strategic Plan. All grant applications are also reviewed for quantifiable grant performance measures against which progress will be measured, details on previous accomplishments, and a three-year plan. Targets for outputs are negotiated with program staff, taking into account factors specific to the program design, such as the location of the project and demographics of the target population. Grantee budgets are carefully reviewed prior to selection and award for cost-effectiveness and the alignment of the budget with the program design. The past compliance of organizations that reapply for grants after the three-year grant period is also taken into consideration during the selection process. By signing the grant application's assurances and certifications, the designated Project Director and Authorized Representative, commit to the program activities and outcomes described in their proposals and are responsible for the oversight of subgrantee activities. The Grant Provisions, included as part of the Notice of Grant Award, detail reporting requirements. Annual progress reports ensure accountability for grant performance goals and semi-annual Financial Status Reports provide accountability for grant expenditures and matching funds. Grantees that do not comply with the grant provisions or fail to demonstrate adequate progress are subject to delays in continuation funding or the suspension or termination of their grants. Annual risk assessments are jointly conducted by program and grants management staff for all active grants according to published criteria. Risk assessment results form the basis of the annual monitoring plan and prioritize on-site compliance visits for grantees that are identified as "high priority". All grantees receive the program-specific "Core Competencies for Grants Management" document and training on how to conduct ongoing self-assessment and test internal controls.

Evidence: Authority for the excepted service personnel system can be found in 42 U.S.C § 12529. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode//html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00012529----000-.html CNCS Management Appraisal system policies and procedures. http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/MAS_05.pdf Match funding requirements can also be found in 42 U.S.C § 12529 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode//html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00012529----000-.html CNCS Risk Assessment Criteria and Process Guide. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf Learn and Serve America Grant Provisions: http://www.learnandserve.gov/for_organizations/manage/index.asp Grant application guidance: http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php Core Competencies for Grants Management document and agenda for Learn and Serve America Grantee Training.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America funds are obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose, and accurately reported. The program provides funds to State Education Agencies, non-profits, and institutions of higher education as formula and competitive grants. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) obligates the program's funds according to an annual plan approved by the agency's Board of Directors. Key dates for notifications, budget negotiations, and awards are established as part of the grant application and review process. Agency policy dictates that funds must be obligated at least ten days prior to the grantees' scheduled start date. An electronic database tracks the deadlines and verifies compliance. Obligation plans for program funds are developed by quarter and apportioned via the SF-132. It should be noted that CNCS does not currently report Learn and Serve's balances on the SF-133 quarterly reports to the U.S. Treasury, but is in the process of updating its accounting system to enable such reporting beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Program funds are allotted in the CNCS accounting system by program, project, and activity (PPA). These allotments are tracked as separate accounting line items by quarter, and cumulatively, for posted (available) budget levels, commitments, obligations and expenditures. The Corporation assesses planned versus actual obligations by program allotment on a quarterly basis to assess progress in meeting goals and targets. The program's year-end unobligated funds have generally been less than 10% . One notable exception was 2003, when more than 21% of program funds for K-12 competitive grants were obligated in 2004 through a special competition targeting schools that would engage students in disaster service activities. Grantees are required to report expenditures on semi-annual Financial Status Reports (FSR). CNCS staff track grantee expenditures and matching funds through review of the FSRs, and freezes access to funds for any grantee whose report is more than 45 days overdue and does not issue continuation awards until all reports are submitted. Grantees are required to monitor and approve subgrantee budgets and expenditures on a consistent basis; the majority manages subgrants on a reimbursement basis after matching expenditures with the approved project budgets. Grantee records are reviewed during on-site compliance visits or through desk reviews scheduled by the Office of Grants Management to ensure funds are expended for intended purposes. All funds must be expended during the approved performance period of the grant. Any funds not expended and reported by the end of the close-out period (90 days from the end of the budget period) are de-obligated. Each quarter CNCS submits grant award information to the U.S. Census Bureau for the Federal Assistance Award Data System.

Evidence: Learn and Serve America's 2006 Grant Application and Grant Review Guidance. http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php (see "Application Instructions and Guidance" heading. A-133 Audits of Grantees. http://harvester.census.gov/sac/ Semi-annual Financial Status Reports. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf269.pdf Corporation for National and Community Service 2006 Audit Results. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/par_2006_part2.pdf

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Centralized administrative operations (human capital, accounting, budget, procurement, IT, etc.) serve all Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) programs. CNCS contracts for certain services for purpose of cost efficiency, including various IT functions, call centers, grant audit resolution, conference logistics, and grant peer review logistics support. The FY 2008 President's Budget reflects $1.5 million in cost savings from management efficiencies. CNCS has also engaged its programs, including Learn and Serve America, in a grants streamlining initiative over the past year. The program regularly reviews its grant requirements and business processes, looking for ways to reduce grantee burden. Learn and Serve America has already reduced application, reporting, and data collection requirements of its grantees through this process. CNCS also has an electronic grants management system (eGrants), which replaced numerous paper- and labor-intensive manual processes, and has been fully integrated into the application submission, review and award, annual risk assessment, and financial and program report processes. Each year, CNCS invests IT resources to tap more of eGrants' potential, most recently to automate grant oversight and monitoring functions. The Corporation's IT program is overseen by an Investment Review Board, which ensures that investments are consistent with the IT strategic plan and architecture and make good business sense (e.g., have a positive return on investment, sound acquisition, and risk mitigation plans). In 2003, Learn and Serve converted its grantee data collection tool, LASSIE (Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange) from a paper to web-based survey. This innovation reduced data processing costs and has enabled the program to accurately report implementation-level data and connect grant funding to project results. Ongoing reviews of the system and survey inform continuous improvement efforts. Learn and Serve America has also initiated the use of an annual operational efficiency measure (cost per participant service hour) that will help Learn and Serve America track the level of service activity resulting from its programs. The program should plan to work with grantees in the coming months to identify a measure of service-learning activity that result from program dollars.

Evidence: Savings from management efficiencies are addressed on page 9 of the Corporation for National and Community Service FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/2007_budget_justification.pdf Learn and Serve America Program Performance Report - OMB Control No. 3045-0095 is the survey contained within the web-based data collection system, LASSIE. It is available at www.lsareports.org The Corporation for National and Community Service's 2006-2010 Strategic Plan. http://www.nationalservice.org/about/focus_areas/index.asp Learn and Serve America's 2006 Grant Application and Grant Review Guidance. http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php (see "Application Instructions and Guidance" heading.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program promotes and participates in collaborative and effective partnerships with other programs and initiatives. At the national level, the program participates in a number of collaborative efforts with other federal agencies, offices, and initiatives, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Education, the USA Freedom Corps (USAFC), and the White House Helping America's Youth (HAY) Initiative. Following the hurricanes of 2005, for example, Learn and Serve America and HUD developed the Universities Rebuilding America Partnership. As part of this initiative, the Corporation worked with HUD, the U.S. Department of Education and Campus Compact to create the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll to support and recognize college students and staff community service efforts, including rebuilding efforts along the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. Learn and Serve America played the coordinating role in this initiative that supports the Strategic Plan goal of Engaging Students in Service. The program allocated considerable program staff time as well as funds to conduct outreach, create an application and review process, and hold an event, in the inaugural year. Over 500 higher education institutions submitted applications and were publicly recognized in the first year; a second year application is in progress. In addition, grantees in the region were awarded supplemental grant funds for recovery efforts. In 2002, Learn and Serve America and USAFC developed a Students in Service to America Toolkit that was distributed to every public school in America and all U.S. Department of Education partners. The program committed significant resources to this project, including the program director's time to develop materials, collaborate with USAFC and others, and providing funding for its creation and demonstration. The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse created the website for the project and continues to fulfill requests for the toolkit. In 2004, Learn and Serve staff also worked closely with USAFC to launch the USAFC Kids website. Through the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, Learn and Serve America extends the reach of the program and promotes service learning to the public at large. The Clearinghouse is the largest national source of service-learning materials such as sample curriculum, toolkits, sample service site agreements and scholarly articles. Program funds maintain the Clearinghouse in support of program purposes. In addition, the list serv is organized by sector??community-based, school-based, higher education, Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories??and provides a cost-effective and structured forum for a national discussion and exchange of information on service learning. By statute, Learn and Serve America projects are implemented at the local level through partnerships among schools, community and faith-based organizations, institutions of higher education and businesses. Through grant reporting mechanisms, and the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE), Learn and Serve staff learn about innovative and successful local and State partnerships that they then share with other grantees.

Evidence: USA Freedom Corps Website. www.usafreedomcorps.gov HAY initiative website. www.helpingamericasyouth.gov The Afterschool.gov website. www.afterschool.gov The National Conference on Volunteering and Service website. http://www.volunteeringandservice.org/ The President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll website. http://www.learnandserve.gov/about/programs/higher_ed_honorroll.asp National Service-Learning Clearinghouse website. http://www.servicelearning.org/ USA Freedom Corps Kids website. http://www.usafreedomcorpskids.gov/home.htm

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Corporation for National and Community Service and its programs use strong financial management practices. Financial Management practices of the agency comply with (1) Federal financial management system requirements, (2) Federal accounting standards, and (3) the Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. Financial Management practices applicable to the program are established in program regulation and OMB Circulars. Financial management systems meet all statutory requirements and financial information is accurate and timely. The program has procedures in place to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purpose to minimize erroneous payments. It should be noted, though, that CNCS currently takes several months to implement basic funds control functions on its accounting system, including the introduction of new fund symbols, apportionments, allotments, and sub-allotments. The Corporation is making efforts to improve its quarterly SF-133 reporting, making it more informative and fully synchronized with apportionments. Auditors have not reported any material weaknesses or internal control weaknesses related to the Learn and Serve America program. The Corporation continues to develop systems to maintain a strong internal control environment. The agency maintains an Internal Control Improvement Plan to track progress in addressing potential internal control weaknesses. Potential weaknesses are identified through IG audits, the Corporation's own testing program, and management reviews. Our goal is to build sound internal controls and correct potential weaknesses before they result in audit findings. The Corporation maintains a comprehensive oversight and monitoring approach to ensure strong grantee financial management. The Corporation conducts oversight and monitoring on a regular basis and remains engaged with grantees to ensure grantee compliance. As an example, grantees report the programmatic and financial status of grants and grant activities to Learn and Serve in accordance with grant provisions. The program routinely performs an array of office-based and on-site monitoring activities to review grantee performance and compliance. Annual risk assessments are completed for all active grants, and program staff completed 100% of the on-site compliance visits included in the FY2006 monitoring plan.

Evidence: The Corporation for National and Community Service FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, (esp. pgs.76-78). http://www.volunteeringandservice.org/ Corporation for National and Community Service 2006 Audit Results and Improvement Plans. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/par_2006_part2.pdf (starting pg. 64) CNCS Risk Assessment Criteria and Process Guide for eGrants. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf Grantee Progress Reports (OMB Control No. 3045-0089). http://servicelearning.org/nslc/lsa_page/index.php Semi-annual Financial Status Reports: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf269.pdf

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Regular assessment of program operations enables the timely identification and resolution of any management deficiencies. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) monitors and corrects management deficiencies through our Board Annual Plan process, which provide a blueprint of grantmaking and other activities that support the CNCS Strategic Plan. The plan is updated by the programs and approved by the agency's Board of Directors annually. CNCS also uses employee and manager appraisal systems (EAS/MAS) to track employee progress towards meeting goals put forth in individual workplans, which are tied directly to the CNCS Operating Plan. The Operating Plan tracks program and administrative fund expenditures on a quarterly basis and is tied to agreed upon performance and efficiency measures. Employee appraisals are completed annually and include a midyear check-in. In addition, staff meetings at the program level, and with unit directors at the Chief Operating Officer level, are held weekly at which time status reports on major initiatives and projects are provided. Where deficiencies are identified, agreed upon timeframes for corrections are established. Individuals not performing adequately can be placed on a program improvement plan (PIP) in an effort to increase performance. All project and initiatives undertaken by teams of staff that work under standard project management methodologies, are monitored closely by CNCS executives, and operate under a continuous improvement model that allows for immediate feedback and course corrections as needed. In FY 2006, the agency succeeded in removing a long-standing audit reportable condition on its oversight and monitoring of grantees. The new Oversight and Monitoring system includes an agency-wide set of risk assessment criteria used for all active grants. Results of the risk assessment form the basis of an annual monitoring plan and prioritize on-site compliance visits to "high priority" grantees. This process has improved the program's ability to ensure strong grant oversight and target resources, such as technical assistance and travel funds. As part of the agency's management agenda, all programs are held accountable for customer service. Each year, an independent contractor surveys grantees about customer service provided by program and other agency staff. Learn and Serve America managers evaluate the results and outline plans to address areas for improvement, particularly in the area of streamlining grant processes. Initial accomplishments in this area include the consolidation of grant provisions, the transition to annual progress report submissions and the simplification of grant continuation requests.

Evidence: CNCS Risk Assessment Process and Criteria. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf The 2006 America American Customer Satisfaction Index. http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=62 The 2007 Learn and Serve reporting requirements. http://servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php (See Grant Provisions) Management improvement priorities are included in the work plans of program managers, MAS. http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/MAS_05.pdf

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America procedures and reporting requirements provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities from application through close-out. Applicants describe a 3-year project plan and develop annual budgets to which are held accountable, and changes in the scope or design of the project or reallocation of funds must be approved by the Corporation through an amendment. The past compliance and performance of organizations reapplying is taken into consideration during the selection process and again when continuation funds are requested. Grantees submit annual progress reports through the agency's electronic grants management system, eGrants. In addition, they submit semi-annual Financial Status Reports (FSR) via eGrants that document grant expenditures and matching funds. Program and grant staff review reports and provide feedback to the grantees related to any compliance issues, areas for continuous improvement and project accomplishments. CNCS staff freeze access to funds for any grantee whose FSR is more than 45 days overdue and does not issue continuation awards until all reports are submitted. In addition, the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE) tracks the flow of grant funds to subgrantees and collects annual data from all grantees and subgrantees through an online survey. Annual risk assessments are jointly conducted by program and grants management staff for all active grants according to published criteria. Risk assessment results form the basis of the annual monitoring plan and prioritize on-site compliance visits for grantees that are identified as "high priority". Additional site visits for both compliance and/or training and technical assistance are scheduled as needed in between assessments.

Evidence: Learn and Serve America reporting requirements are included in Grant Provisions: http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php CNCS Risk Assessment Process and Criteria: http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Through a web-based data collection system, Learn and Serve America grantees and subgrantees provide grant performance information on an annual basis. Data is compiled and then disseminated via annual Program Performance Reports posted to the program's website. (Complete data sets are available from the agency's Office of Research and Policy Development upon request.) State profiles detailing the location of projects and the number of participants are also available on the agency's website and are frequently useful in directing public inquiries to local programs. Resources developed through Learn and Serve America grants must be shared with the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse and accessible to the general public.

Evidence: Grantee performance data is collected through an annual web-based survey, the Learn and Serve America Program Performance Report (OMB No. 3045-0095). www.lsareports.org National Service State Profiles. http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/state_profiles.asp. Annual Program Performance Reports. http://www.learnandserve.gov/about/role_impact/index.asp Public reports with performance data collected through LASSIE. www.lsareports.org National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. www.servicelearning.org

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America selects new grantees every three years. Applications include proposed grant performance measures, a three-year project plan, and past performance data where applicable. On other years, selected grantees submit applications for non-competitive continuation funds. These applications are assessed based on adequate progress made toward goals established in the three-year plan. All competitive grant applications are peer reviewed according to published selection criteria that include program design, organizational capacity, and budget/cost effectiveness. The highest quality grant applications from the peer review are advanced to staff review and, as indicated in the Notice of Funding Availability, are analyzed by Learn and Serve and other Corporation staff for evidence of quality, innovation, potential for replicability, and sustainability plans of the proposed grant projects. Consideration is also given to whether applicants are: (1) geographically diverse, including projects in both urban and rural areas, and (2) in areas of high concentration of low-income residents. The past compliance and performance of organizations reapplying is taken into consideration during the selection process. The program's competitive grant application and review process conducted through extensive outreach, guidance, and technical assistance calls, and is based on a qualified assessment of merit. Learn and Serve widely announces and promotes grants competitions. For example, outreach for the 2006 competition was conducted in 2005 through the listservs of other federal agencies (HUD, OJJDP, etc.), Grants.gov, the CNCS webpage, the White House Historically Black Colleges and Universities list, the White House Tribal Colleges list, the White House Hispanic Serving Institutions list, and an advertisement in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Evidence: 45 CFR XXV §2516.500. How does the Corporation review the merits of an application? (School-Based) §2517.500. How is an application reviewed? (Community-Based) §2519.500. How does the Corporation review an application? (Higher Education) During the 2006 grant competition, over 500 competitive grant applications were received, and 58 awards were made. All sections available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/45cfrv4_01.html

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Learn and Serve America procedures and reporting requirements provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities from application through close-out. Applicants describe a 3-year project plan and develop annual budgets to which are held accountable, and changes in the scope or design of the project or reallocation of funds must be approved by the Corporation through an amendment. The past compliance and performance of organizations reapplying is taken into consideration during the selection process and again when continuation funds are requested. Grantees submit annual progress reports through the agency's electronic grants management system, eGrants. In addition, they submit semi-annual Financial Status Reports (FSR) via eGrants that document grant expenditures and matching funds. Program and grant staff review reports and provide feedback to the grantees related to any compliance issues, areas for continuous improvement and project accomplishments. CNCS staff freeze access to funds for any grantee whose FSR is more than 45 days overdue and does not issue continuation awards until all reports are submitted. In addition, the Learn and Serve System for Information Exchange (LASSIE) tracks the flow of grant funds to subgrantees and collects annual data from all grantees and subgrantees through an online survey. Annual risk assessments are jointly conducted by program and grants management staff for all active grants according to published criteria. Risk assessment results form the basis of the annual monitoring plan and prioritize on-site compliance visits for grantees that are identified as "high priority". Additional site visits for both compliance and/or training and technical assistance are scheduled as needed in between assessments.

Evidence: Learn and Serve America reporting requirements are included in Grant Provisions: http://www.servicelearning.org/nslc/dir_handbook/index.php CNCS Risk Assessment Process and Criteria: http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Through a web-based data collection system, Learn and Serve America grantees and subgrantees provide grant performance information on an annual basis. Data is compiled and then disseminated via annual Program Performance Reports posted to the program's website. (Complete data sets are available from the agency's Office of Research and Policy Development upon request.) State profiles detailing the location of projects and the number of participants are also available on the agency's website and are frequently useful in directing public inquiries to local programs. Resources developed through Learn and Serve America grants must be shared with the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse and accessible to the general public.

Evidence: Grantee performance data is collected through an annual web-based survey, the Learn and Serve America Program Performance Report (OMB No. 3045-0095). www.lsareports.org National Service State Profiles. http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/state_profiles.asp. Annual Program Performance Reports. http://www.learnandserve.gov/about/role_impact/index.asp Public reports with performance data collected through LASSIE. www.lsareports.org National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. www.servicelearning.org

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program established targets in 2007 for its long-term performance goals in conjunction with the PART assessment. While the program cannot receive credit for historical trends reflected by new performance measures, it is noteworthy that random sample telephone surveys of 7,913 grade-6-12 students, conducted in 1996 and 1999 by the National Center for Education Statistics suggest that the prevalence of service learning increased during that period. Also, a 1999 Department of Education study, with a targeted sample size of 2,000 K-12 schools, indicated that approximately 32% of K-12 schools offered service learning. A 2004 nonprofit study that replicated the 1999 methodology, however, estimated the prevalence of service learning in these schools had decreased by four percentage points from 1999-2004. The Department of Education will begin regularly collecting data on the prevalence of service learning in 2007 through X.

Evidence: National Household Education Surveys of 1999 and 1996, conducted for the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000028.pdf 1999 National Student Service-Learning and Community Service Survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U. S. Department of Education using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS): http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/1999043/ 2004 Community Service and Service-Learning in U.S. Public Schools Survey, conducted by the National Youth Leadership Council: http://www.search-institute.org/whatsnew/2004G2GCompleteSurvey.pdf

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program identified new measures for the 2007 PART because its 2005-2007 measures were not sufficiently outcome-oriented. Performance against the new measures cannot yet be assessed. During the 2005-2007 period, however, the program met two of its nine annual measure targets. In 2005, the program met a target for one of its three annual measures. 66% of higher education institutions receiving grant funding that included service learning in their core curricula. The target percent for that year was 66%, an increase of 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 actual (baseline) percent. The program published targets for three additional annual measures for 2006 and again met and exceeded its target for the percent of higher education institutions receiving grant funding that included service learning in their core curricula. In 2006 the target percent was 68% and the actual data reflected that 71% of higher education institutions receiving grant funding that included service learning in their core curricula.

Evidence: Page X of the Corporation for National and Community Service's X (published X) includes the FY05 targets for the program: (insert address) Page 50 of the Corporation for National and Community Service's 2007 Congressional Budget Justification (published February 6, 2006) includes the FY06 targets for the program: http://www.nationalservice.org/pdf/2006_budget_justification.pdf

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Because Learn and Serve America established targets in 2007 for its efficiency measure in conjunction with the PART assessment, no data is available to suggest the program has demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its efficiency target. The program should plan to work with grantees in the coming months to identify a measure of service-learning activity, rather than service activity, which result from program dollars. The 2006 grant guidance emphasized the goal of involving more economically disadvantaged youth in the program and grantees were directed to prioritize subgrants to applicants with the greatest need of assistance, such as programs targeting low-income areas. Because youth from families with incomes of less than $25,000 are less likely to report current or past participation in service-learning activities, or participation in planning or service that lasts a semester or longer, this guidance helps target grant funds to those who may profit more from Learn and Serve America's programs. To ensure a fair and competitive grant competition, the program utilizes a peer review process for all eligible applications. In the past, Learn and Serve America recruited reviewers and conducted an on-site training and review. Through the use of an agency investment in web-based conferencing software, the program conducts reviewer training online and records the presentation if the time is not feasible for participants. The Peer Review module in the electronic grants management system, eGrants, allows a secure connection for reviewers to download applications, enter review scores and complete consensus summaries. The integration with the Staff Review module and other screens used for notification and award creates greater efficiencies for those applications that advance in the process. Over the last year, the Corporation for National and Community service implemented agency-wide policies and processes to improve the cost and time efficiency of its program oversight and monitoring. For example, program and grants management staff jointly conduct annual risk assessments for all active awards, taking into account grant performance and financial management issues. That assessment helps the program develop its annual monitoring plan, and allows it to identify grantee monitoring priorities and practices (e.g., on-site compliance visits, office-based desk reviews, and routine monitoring). The program's oversight and monitoring is more cost efficient and better coordinates its program and grants management components due to the development of this standard processes to address monitoring needs.

Evidence: The Corporation for National and Community Service FY 2008 Congressional Budget Justification (p.46). http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/2007_budget_justification.pdf The Corporation for National and Community Service's 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 44. http://www.nationalservice.org/pdf/par_2006_full.pdf Overview of the Corporation for National and Community Service 2007 Update to the Agency-wide Risk Assessment Process. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0324_cncs_riskassessment.pdf A 2006 study by the Corporation for National and Community Service found that youth from families with incomes of less than $25,000 are less likely to report current or past participation in service-learning activities, or participation in planning or service that lasts a semester or longer. Educating for Active Citizenship: Service-Learning, School-Based Service, and Civic Engagement. Brief 2 in the Youth Helping America Series. (see page 31) http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_0323_SL_briefing.pdf

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Learn and Serve is the only federal program that provides grants to build the capacity of schools, higher education institutions, and youth serving community-based organizations to plan, implement, operate, and replicate service-learning activities. There are also no similar state, local or private-sector programs.

Evidence: Because there is not comparable program, a comparison is not possible.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality do not indicate that the program is effective and achieving results related to its purpose and the needs the program is designed to address. More importantly, studies of sufficient quality have raised important questions about the impacts of service learning, which warrant further evaluation. For example, a January 2007 paper by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement suggests that (among a sample students who did not drop out of high school) that those required to perform community service for a class are more likely to earn a college degree than those who were not. However, the CIRCLE paper, which is based on 1988-2000 longitudinal data, noted that positive correlations between service learning classes and certain measures of civic engagement and between service learning classes and certain measures of academic performance could simply reflect that more civically-motivated or academically-inclined students enrolled in classes or activities that required community service. While data on the outcomes associated with service learning are incomplete, it is also noteworthy that several studies have indicated that service learning may hinder academic progress. The CIRCLE study found, for example, that "individuals who participated in community service made lower progress in reading during high school than other students; the uninvolved improved their reading scores by nearly 25 percent on average between 1988 and 1992, compared to the 22 percent gain experienced by civically-engaged youths. Progress in the other three [academic] disciplines [studied], however, did not significantly differ on the basis of civic engagement." While it is unclear if these findings reflect the time constraints service learning imposes on other learning, these questions deserve more research. The impact of Learn and Serve's programs on career orientation and risk behaviors is another area that needs to be explored. For example, a 1998 Brandeis University study looked at the short and long term impacts of service-learning programs that were identified by Learn and Serve as "well designed" or "high quality" at 17 middle and high schools. The programs evaluated were not representative, and its methodology was biased to find higher correlations between outcomes and program participation, but still found no statistically significant impacts on personal development or social measures, including communications skills, work orientation, or involvement in risk behaviors. Also, while the study found that while some students exhibited that the program had a positive impact on their civic attitudes and educational development one year after participation, the only impacts evident two years after participation were marginally significant positive impacts on service leadership, school engagement, and science grades. Follow-up data also indicated a decline in English grades for participants. Finally, the impact of Learn and Serve's grants on the institutionalization of service learning deserves greater attention. The Brandeis study noted "few of the (surveyed) sites engaged in organized efforts to expand the use of service within the school or the district, and during the two years in which the sites were followed, there was no significant increase in the proportion of teachers using service-learning or measurable change in teaching methods or school climate."

Evidence: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning's 2007 Working Paper, Engagement Civic Engagement and High School Academic Progress: An Analysis Using NELS Data. http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP52Mora.pdf National Evaluation of Learn and Serve America. Center for Human Resources at Brandeis University and Abt Associates Inc. 1999. This two-year limited longitudinal, control group evaluation examined the impacts of the Learn and Serve America programs in 17 middle schools and high schools across the country, and concluded that at the end of one year of service, the program had a positive impact on participants' civic attitudes, involvement in volunteer service, educational attitudes and school performance. http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/lsa_evaluation.pdf