House Panel Proposes Cutting President's Budget for National Service and Social Innovation

July 10, 2009

House Panel Proposes Cutting President's Budget for National Service and Social Innovation

A House subcommittee today proposed cutting President Obama’s 2010 budget for the Corporation for National and Community Service by $90-million — including trimming the new Social Innovation Fund from $50-million to $35-million.

The House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee proposed increasing the agency’s budget from almost $890-million in fiscal year 2009 to $1.06-billion in fiscal year 2010.

But President Obama had proposed $1.15-billion, partly to expand the AmeriCorps program and create the Social Innovation Fund, which will award grants to help nonprofit groups expand innovative social projects, or start promising new ones. Both were authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that was signed into law last April.

“The subcommittee will consider further expansion of service and volunteer programs once the Corporation for National and Community Service has demonstrated that is has made improvement in its internal operations,” Rep. David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.

President Obama’s budget did not cover everything included in the Serve America Act, which created an array of new volunteer programs, due to budget constraints. (See The Chronicle’s interview with Nicola Goren, acting chief executive of the corporation, on that topic.)

But the president did include the $50-million the bill authorized for the Social Innovation Fund — and he touted the new fund at an event at the White House last week.

The spending bill now goes to the full House Appropriations Committee. The Senate will adopt its own version.

Voices for National Service, a coalition of national service programs and state service commissions, asked supporters to urge Congress to fully finance the president’s request, saying service programs can help people hit by the economic crisis.

It said in an e-mail message that the Corporation for National and Community Service had focused on improving its management practices over the past six years and that the Serve America Act would introduce new internal controls and policies to strengthen its accountability.

— Suzanne Perry

Comments

Next, the White House will appoint “ambassadors”, based on campaign contributions, who will oversee these “innovative” charities, thus rendering them no longer innovative. This is bad business. Private sector should run Philanthropy, just as the Government should run Foreign Aid. http://bobbyvassallo.org

— Bobby Vassallo Jul 13, 07:32 PM #
Does this mean that we can look forward to more organizations that are run like ACORN? It will take years to track down where all the millions of dollars went. I agree with Bobby; private sector should run Philanthropy. Will the private taxpayer be “forced” to support these “innovative” charities through higher taxes? If a charity is truly innovative, accountable, transparent in spending and filling a real need, the private sector will support it. This really is VERY bad business.

— Marie Himes Jul 14, 09:58 AM #
Your accusations that this is “very bad business” are based on false assumptions. If you read the text of the bill, you will see that most of the federal funding will be awarded to existing grantmaking organizations who fund nonprofits and provide them will strategic assistance. The Corporation for National and Community Service, who is in charge of these efforts, will select the grantmaking organizations that have a strong track record of supporting promising nonprofits. The Corporation will then work with the grantmaking organizations to make sure that the organizations select the most promising nonprofits who have proven ideas but can now be scaled up and expanded (consider Teach for America before they expanded or Harlem Children’s Zone now).

The advantage of government funding as opposed to private funding is that it can be leveraged— in this case 3:1 because both nonprofits and grantmaking organizations must match the funding. The use of grantmaking organizations to distribute funding to nonprofits will also prevent against the “ambassador” problem that is addressed.

— Janet Larsen Jul 15, 02:46 PM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: White House Gives Some Details on Social Innovation Fund
Next: Job Vacancies Persist at Government Aid Agency