Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

Much work is needed on the list of AmeriCorps organizations. AmeriCorps National Direct, AmeriCorps NCCC, and AmeriCorps Promise Fellows have none listed yet, and the other two sections are incomplete. I'd appreciate any help with it. -- LGagnon

Do you want to make those subpages, or just sections of the main page? I'm an NCCC applicant this year, so I can probably come up with at least a few paragraphs summarizing that branch of the program. --MC MasterChef 20:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where to go with this article at the moment. I guess keeping the NCCC info in here is ok. -- LGagnon 07:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to be listing every single AmeriCorps program. There are so many, and they're constantly changing. It would be far better to give links to some example programs and provide multiple links to the Corporation's website. As a current VISTA, I'll try to gather together some more info regarding the Corporation itself and the history of the program. treebeard

Average age of Americorps participants?[edit]

I'm 36 and wanting to spend a year trailblazing or doing some other outdoorsy environmentally focused activity, and Americorps sounded perfect until someone suggested most participants would be just out of college. I really don't want to be the grandma on the team. I'm already feeling old and freaky for not being married; I kind of wanted to be surrounded by others in my age group who are like minded about the environment and being physically active and wanting to make a positive difference. Being surrounded by kids just starting out in life I think is going to just be depressing, given I haven't really moved forward since age 22! Without going into psychology, anyone have some factoids about average age of participants in these programs (I know there are the occassional 85 year olds, but I'm talking average, or mean, not the rare exception!)

NCCC is only for 18-24 year-olds. I know plenty of older partcipants work with state and local programs. Call 202-606-5000 for more info.

I don't think the average age is needed. NCCC is age limited as are some other specific programs (I believe City Year has limits too) but most of the programs are only limited to 18 and up. The only real requirement for most programs is a Diploma or GED. There are of course exceptions. I know of one program in St Louis that the first person in the section could be excited about. Anyway, I've seen AmeriCorps work to make everyone feel included and actively seeks out people of all ages who are interested in their programs. Dividebyzero

I am currently serving a second year of AmeriCorps, and I'm 28. Last year, I had a teammate who was 57, and this year, my oldest teammate is 46 or 47. NCCC is the only one with an age requirement, and that's just for the team members. You can be a team leader at any age, I believe. I'm struggling with the same things the person above mentioned, but I said whatever, and I'm just getting stuff done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.66.65 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCCC And Weasel Words[edit]

First, this subsection has been peppered with weasel words in the past year or so. For those who don't understand what constitutes "weasel words" per Wikipedia standards, feel free to check here --> Weasel Words.

The OMB is not the Whitehouses "own" , as intimated in the article. The OMB is entirely independent, as much as certain people would like to blame "Bush" for everything under the sun. The whole "praised by some conservatives" thing is weasel-wordery to a tee, in addition to numerous other examples of WW's. Instead of editing out all of the NPOV sort of stuff, I thought i'd start a talk on the discussion page about this first. There is an undeniable political bend to most (but not all) NCCC alums, thus it is extremely easy for NPOV sort of things to slip by since most people seeking out the article will be like-minded. I think we should at least hold some heights and standards by eliminating the partisanship and simply report facts as they are. --FactsAndHonesty 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone cleaned it up. Weasel Words tag appropriately removed. --FactsAndHonesty 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

This article is a copy of the AmeriCorp website
I reverted it to a version that seemed less flagrant. I did not mean to undo any constructive changes, and am sorry if I have inadvertantly done so.
--Haikon 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You completely undid constructive changes, and it is not a copy of the website. I wrote completely new prose for it and cited a variety of references that extend beyond the AmeriCorps website. What you did was completely bogus, undoing what other editors, including myself, spent a great deal of time doing. Major revisions should be discussed before you do them, particularly when they are cited as well as that prose is. I will add more citations and rework the prose more, but wow. Mmmm. - Freechild 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I did not erase anything. I did not erase one word of anything that anyone wrote. Every link that was cited as a reference was a link to the AmeriCorps website. That's why I added the words "According to the AmeriCorps website." If you want to add other links to other websites, please go ahead. Grundle2600 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You were talking to someone else. Grundle2600 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press release, not a legitimate article. And when I added criticisms with sources, they were deleted.

I noticed that every single so-called "reference" in this article was from the AmeriCorps website. That's not an article. It's a press release.

So I added some criticisms, along with sources. But then someone erased them.

This is not an article. It's a press release.

Grundle2600 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the intro line "According to the AmeriCorps website" from the beginning of every section because its not necessary. An editor inserted the line in the lead, and that's enough; readers can locate the sources on their own.
I also cleaned up the criticism section, including the reference style used. I think its a little ironic for someone to complain about using single source when the editor who wrote this section originally used three sources for four long paragraphs of info. Alas, I will leave it stand for now. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources for one section, is a lot better than one source for the entire article! I never erase anyone's stuff. I only add stuff, so that all points of view will be present. Grundle2600 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I really like the way you fixed up that section. It's way better now! Thanks for doing that! Grundle2600 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

I removed the NPOV tag inserted into the criticism section, namely because it was put there by an anonymous IP and not explained here. I presume that it was inserted into the criticism because on WP it seems that any criticism is inherently seen as NPOV. To counter that concern I've created a section on "Successes" - however, everything I've found in a quick google search alludes to one longitudinal study that is only available on the A*C website. So the successes section should be expanded. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm fixing to remove the neutrality tag on the article. • Freechild'sup? 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight[edit]

I don't know enough about Americorps to intelligent edit the article, but I'll just throw this out. A quick readthrough makes me suspect James Bovard is being given a tad too much weight here. Americorps is , at the least, an internationally known multimillion dollar organization, but about half the article is devoted to the criticism from an author who doesn't seem _particularly_ notable.

Just my two-cents-- i'll throw it out there but I won't try to fix it myself, since pretty much all I know about Americorps is what I just read here. :). I willl put a pov-check template up. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, one quick fix, if others agree, would probably be to thin out the criticism just a tad , while still leaving the major points intact. And then to round out the successes section, which might be a bit sparse. --Alecmconroy 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criticism is out-of-balance with the rest of the article, and that the cited author is given too much credibility. However, I am sensitive to the boosterism this government program often suffers, and will cry fowl at any attempt to eradicate criticism without just cause. • Freechild'sup? 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who orignally created the criticism section. And I had a very good reason to do so. When I first read this article, it was nothing but a copy from the Americorps website. Every single source was from the Americorps website. It was nothing buy a puff piece. So that's why I added the criticism section. And even though all the praise was sourced from the Americorps website, I did not erase any of it. Whoever keeps erasing the criticism is doing so because they are afraid of people finding out the truth. Please stop erasing the criticism. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle2600, I'm glad you responded to the editing that's been ongoing. FYI, I added the original citations from the A*C website, primarily because there were no citations to begin with. However, you'll also notice I've been reverting all the attempts to eradicate the criticism section, as well. I share your concerns about the article, and will continue to watch it. • Freechild'sup? 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Americorps Alum (NCCC)- spent a year of my life, full time, in the program. Americorps programs are *severely* prone to boosterism, given the nature of most of the participants (who definitely 'trend' towards certain idealist archetypes) - Americorps is the sort of well-intentioned program that rings very profound to certain people, often times at the expense of valid criticisms. Finding a NPOV balance in Americorps articles can be damn near impossible (feel free to check the Americorps NCCC talk archives for examples of this) but thusfar, Bovard seems to be the only traditional media person who has made a point to criticize it on a formal level. --LoverOfArt (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a multi-year alum myself I understand your perspective, and have carefully edited and monitored this article for WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel and WP:Neutral. However, I believe Bovard was receiving too much attention in the criticism section, regardless of whether he was the only one saying anything - which he is not. If anyone wants to see more substantive criticism in the article, please add it, along with reliable citations from a variety of sources. After this recent cleaning though, I do notice that there is no material cited from after 1998. That might be just about the time that A*C criticism picked up and became powerful. If an editor was truly concerned with the absence of criticism in the article that would be something to contribute. • Freechild'sup? 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the criticisms back. If anyone wants to add any more examples of success to the success section, then please do so. If the evidence shows more waste than successes, then that should be reflected in the article.

So far, I haven't been able to find any evidence that Americorps is more successful or cost effective compared to private charities. All of my evidence shows that Americorps is more wasteful compared to private charities, and that it's no different than any other kind of pork barrel spending program. This evidence should be reflected in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Criticism[edit]

I just made several edits to the criticism section. I'm not affiliated with AmeriCorps, but I do know a bit about it, and I must say that the criticism section isn't being monitored carefully enough for NPOV. Sure, those criticisms are cited, but I found that the wording in the article also supports the criticism, and, in some cases, distorts the truth - as with the person that claimed that AmeriCorps was illegally hiring extra people... In that instance, for example, it was the parent company of AmeriCorps that went over budget that year - not AmeriCorps. Even the biased articles being cited aren't really saying what is appearing in this section.

The problem is that users who are politically opposed to this program are attempting to sabotage what is supposed to be an objective source of information. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't perfect. But, for example, nobody should be wasting the TALK space to discuss their feelings about how the program is "wasteful" or a "pork barrel spending program." Clearly, this is an inappropriate medium for that kind of comment, and it also shows some misunderstanding of the term "pork-barrel spending," although I understand the point being made.

You don't have to keep articles balanced, but you should try to keep them reasonably honest. If you're going to criticize something, perhaps you should refrain from taking things out of context and selectively reporting facts. It's important to put the whole thing into perspective. Thanks.

Rob Shepard (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take issue with the specific edits you made; however, I do take umbrage at your assertion that any criticism is inherently distorted. There is no such thing as "balanced" criticism; various media outlets have shown us that. The reality is that the criticisms of AmeriCorps are mostly imbalanced and impregnated with exaggeration; however, that is true of many criticisms of any government. That makes removing criticism that was cited with reliable sources is irresponsible in and of itself; perhaps the challenge becomes finding the arguments that balance that criticism - from reliable, third party sources. That is the challenge this article and its editors has not risen to - not the other way around, as you state. • Freechild'sup? 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to weigh in. I don't think AmeriCorps needs a "puff" piece, but I don't think it needs an unfair amount of criticism to "balance out the article" either. If you really want to make your opinions known, please do so in another format. This is a politically neutral organization. I don't see the need for "successes" or "criticisms" of this program at all. And if there must be - and you insist on adding criticisms, you need to balance them out with an equal amount of successes. And if you can't find a balance - then YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL. The End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyC123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "if there must be - and you insist on adding criticisms, you need to balance them out with an equal amount of successes." No. You are wrong. The article is supposed to be about facts. If the sources show that Americorps is more wasteful and less successful, compared to private charities, then that is what the article should say. The article is supposed to state the facts as they are, not as you think they should be. Do you think the article on smallpox should have an equal amount of praise and criticism? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OUTSIDE OPINION If reliable sources include criticisms, it is valid to include them. These criticisms are cited. If there is a coatrack concern; make the text brief. Don't remove it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted to put the criticisms back, then cut them down considerably. They were a lot more wordy than need be, many were based off of only a few sources, and some parts were only indirectly related to AmeriCorps. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who created the criticism section, and added everything that was in that section when it was new. Before I created the criticism section, the entire article was nothing but a puff piece for AmeriCorps, because every single source in the article was from the AmeriCorps website. But no one was complaining about that bias. It was only after I created the criticism section that people started complaining about bias. Why is that? Why is it that before I created the criticism section, no one complained about the fact that every source in the entire article was from the AmeriCorps website?
Also, everything that Americorps does, is done at a higher cost, and at a lower level of success, than what private charities do. AmeriCorps is nothing but a pork barrel spending project.
Now there is a "Successes" section. So far, it seems that the only "success" that AmeriCorps has achieved is that it gives money to other organizations. As is almost always the case with government programs, "success" is being measued by how much money is being spent, instead of on any actual real world accomplishments.
Anyway, just to repeat, because this is very important - before I created the criticism section, every source in the entire article was to the AmeriCorps website. But no one complained aboout the article being biased then. It was only after I created the criticism section that people started to complain about the article being biased. Therefore, the people who complain about bias are not really interested in the article being balanced. Instead, they want the article to go back to the way it was before I created the criticism sectrion - back to when the only source for the entire article was the AmeriCorps website. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your assertions here more than once - so you don't have any need to repeat your previous arguments.

By claiming that the federally funded AmeriCorps program is Pork Barrel spending, you uncover your disguise as someone who's intent is not to make a fair and balanced article, but to further your own agenda and view point.

Wikipedia is not the forum for such behavior. If you want to promote your watchdog organization - please do so elsewhere...on the page devoted to your organization.

If you want to include a wide variety of criticism, that would be fair.

But the fact that you've gone in and edited the success I've included - as well as factual information about the presidential candidates view on service, which were documented and cited properly...means that you are really only here to further your political agenda. MindyC123 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)MindyC123[reply]

I didn't edit the "Successes" section. The fact is that when compared to private charities, Americorps is more wasteful, and less successful. These things are fact. It is a pork barrel spending program. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a defender of AmeriCorps in public; however, on WP there is a need for unbiased perspectives that show both sides of a topic. I do not agree with the notion that A*C is a pork barrel; however, in this project I think it is more appropriate for me to assert that it does not matter what I think, per se. Rather, the topic should speak for itself. The retention of a criticism section, along with that of a successes section, should be paramount; backed up with reliable sources both are irrefutable. Grundle2600 and MindyC123, rather than getting into an egocentric argument I would suggest you spend your energies searching for more sources for the article. Don't waste your time here. • Freechild'sup? 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never actually used the phrase "pork barrel" in the article. However, it is a fact that when compared to private charities, Americorps is more wasteful, and less successful. Why does the program even exist? What has it ever done, that can't be done better and cheaper by private charities? Grundle2600 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the article's topic. The bias you've exhibited here undermines the veracity of your editing to this article and reveals your POV; please refrain from making any potentially controversial edits without reliable sources. • Freechild'sup? 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are objective, not biased. The facts show that when compared to private charities, Americorps is more wasteful and less successful. Those are facts, not opinions. The article is supposed to reflect those facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clearly I should have been watching these responses over the past several months. I have missed out on a discussion. Freechild- I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I completely agree with you, so I really don't know why you chose to take an opposition tone with me. All I am saying is that reliable sources should be used IF THEY APPLY. First of all, I don't think I made a point that criticism is inherently distorted. What I did say is that the criticism section here was distorting facts from a source that was already stretching the truth. Yes, I made a remark about how "even the biased article being cited" was being misapplied; I did not advocate the non-use of that article though. I never said we shouldn't include criticism, I am just saying that we ought to include criticism that is DIRECTLY relevant to the subject.

In this case, the criticism I came across included information obtained by committing an error in logic, attributing transitive properties where they did not apply. A news report about the parent company of Americorps going over budget in one year, for example, was presented and extrapolated as a "fact" that Americorps routinely went over-budget. IN reality, Americorps did not exceed budgeted expenses for that year. An analogy for those who aren't following: If your parent commits a crime, that does not mean you also have committed a crime, and it certainly does not mean you are a career criminal.

I do not support an equal amount of successes and criticism, either. The addition of the successes section is absurd and completely contrary to the point I was making. I think what I'm saying is pretty simple: Use real facts. If a story says "Americorps sucks," throw it in there by all means. But that's not what was going on, and I was pointing it out. Somehow what I said got taken into a tangent about how there's no such thing as objective news and blah blah blah. Where am I seriously engaging objectivity issues in media?

Again, I really don't care whether or not Americorps is successful or wasteful, but I am sensitive to what I see as blatant subjectivity in the format of an encyclopedia- and I simply called Grundle out on this. The subsequent argument among all of you, I believe, more than proves the point I was trying to make. Rob Shepard (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous discussion over an inane set of material that I am going to recuse myself from. Enjoy yourselves. • Freechild'sup? 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about being a little bit more general in the criticism section: summarizing the main areas of controversy and providing links to articles that are critical of the program, instead of providing quotes that describe some very specific examples? I think that would improve the criticism section a lot, but I'll wait to do anything until I get some feedback about this idea. SCPM08 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. • Freechild'sup? 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So very much improved. Thank you! SCPM08 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article should be specific. Simply saying that it "wastes money" is way too vague. The article should give specific, clear examples of how it is wasting money. Before I came along, this article was 100% entirely a puff piece, with all the sources being the official Americorps website. At that time, no one complained about the article being "biased." All I did was add info from other sources to make the article more balanced. And I NEVER erased any of the praise that was in the article. So you people shouldn't erase the criticism. The article should contain all points of view. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism section should stay, yes, but many of those sources cited are not reliable sources#News_organizations, since several of them (IE, Reason magazine, Citizens Against Government Waste, etc.) are written as opinion pieces, not actual statements of fact. That's not admissible here, and they should be backed up with some independent, unbiased verification or removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion columns are allowed in a criticism section. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what wikipedia says about James Bovard, the person who wrote most of those criticisms:
"He is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, and eight other books. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, The American Conservative, and many other publications. His books have been translated into Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean."
That sounds like a very credible source to me.
Grundle2600 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they are making assertions with no facts to back them up, which many of these do. I'll be going over them with a fine tooth comb and pulling out every one that does not have any corroborating information other than the author's assertion. Reading over this talk page history, you have a very strong bias against this subject. I'm not saying anything other than that, but do know that I am aware of it, as are previous editors. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of sources cited in the article are from the Americorps website. But I did not remove any of them. So please don't remove my sources. All opinions should be included. Let the readers make up their own mind about what to believe. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bovard piece is not a reliable source. It is an editorial-style opposition piece by a partisan pundit. His opinions might be noteworthy, and worth reporting, if those opinions are adequately sourced to third parties. Further, the way the information is presented looks like a WP:COATRACK. I'm not going to revert at present because this article is not a particular editing interest of mine, but I seriously doubt the material as written is appropriate. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The extent of the bias is entertaining. Putting aside that the program helps faith-based groups (which the right pretends to be all for, "faith-based") and putting aside that absurdity of calling self esteem promotion inherently and automatically "liberal" (so you're saying the political right is against self esteem? very interesting) there's this gem, which takes the cake:

"one unnamed official said the real number is probably less than a dozen,"

That's right, hundreds of thousands of volunteers working with huge numbers of groups, some of which do literacy work, and it's "less than 12" who were actually helped. What a laugh! I'm waiting for the "oh yeah, I'm even more right-wing-nutcase right-wing than YOU" article saying, "nope, it's less than 5 who were helped with reading!"

Leaving that insane quote from an unnamed official is actually a good thing- please keep it into alert the reader that the entire section is raving right wing loony, otherwise, a huge and massive overhaul would be needed to make it into a respectable one -including adding left-wing criticism of yet another device by which we can continue slashing social programs while spending almost a trillion per year on militarism (more than 600 billion directly) and prisons and other police state and Big Brother programs, while asking for "volunteerism" to fill in the gap in social programs, paying a dime on the dollar via Americorps to help the volunteers do the job that any other civilized western industrialized first world nation has federal programs to address -- every other one, except the U.S....you know, the 'socialist' idea that the public money should be spent helping it, the public, rather than just the military industrial complex, police state, tax cuts for the ultra-rich, and snotty-nosed brats called senators who hope to score a few more points from their electorate with "let's add Under God" pretended "Faith" ideas whose aim is to mask the kick-to-the-face policies against ordinary working Americans by these same brat "Senators" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.178.59 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I also think that criticism section is way off the mark, especially the part about AmeriCorps "teaching less than a dozen children learn to read." As a current AmeriCorps that works exclusively in literacy education, I can tell you that is a stupid argument to have. First of all, AmeriCorps isn't like what you see on the posters. Most of our time (except for possibly NCCC members) is not spent reading to children. That's not very efficient. Instead, we sit behind a desk and run programs that use volunteer recruitment and management to reach a greater audience. I personally manage a program that works with over 170 volunteers and over 200 children. So technically, no, I haven't directly helped any children learn to read. And secondly, it's hard to prove that someone has "taught a child to read" single-handedly. At what point can they "read"? How can you prove that the teacher or parents had no influence? Instead we collect data on whether reading comprehension and fluency as increased. Granted it's less glamorous to announce "hundreds of thousand of children have increased in their reading fluency above what one might expect from a child working with no tutors or individualized attention through indirect service by AmeriCorps". But that we can prove. I'm not saying that a criticism section is not warranted, but the Bovard article is completely off base. Arguing that AmeriCorps are paid too much to do "a minimum-wage job" is insulting. Just as insulting as insinuating that we can't teach literacy because we all have GREs. Maybe this is just a factor of the article being dated, but I can tell you that is not true today. Everyone in my program has at least a bachelor's degree from a well-respected university. Many of them have Master's. In my time as an AmeriCorps, I haven't met a single member without a college degree. We also get paid less than minimum wage to do a job that our co-workers make $40,00+ a year to do. Trust me, we're not doing this for the money. You might as well include Michelle Bauchmann's criticism that AmeriCorps is a "socialist reeducation camp for young people" or whatever she said. It's more time relevant. You might also want to include that her son joined Teach for America, which is under the AmeriCorps umbrella. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiglio23 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


With all due respect, the criticism section as it stands is a total mess. Setting aside the fact that it reads as if the year is 2001, an inordinate amount of text is devoted to a recitation of the Bovard article, which is A) a clear partisan attack piece (it begins with a snide and largely irrelevant attack on then-president Clinton's character), B) a shoddy piece of opinion journalism overwrought with loaded assumptions (witness the dismissive tone about "politically correct noncompetitive recreation"), and C) dated. Did nobody else notice this thing is almost a decade old? Yet it is being used as the backbone for the longest subsection on an organization that is evolving, growing, and changing to this very day. Bovard *does* bring facts to the table but as it stands now they are sitting in a void of time and space. His article does not make it clear how statistically representative the examples of "corruption" were to Americorps as it functioned circa 1993-1999, let alone Americorps as it functions today.

I am not an expert by any means on Wikipedia's guidelines, I have never added or edited an article and it would not be appropriate for me to start here. But given this article's immediate onslaught of criticism, I would have expected an ongoing narrative about whether any stuck (especially with the imminent arrival of a conservative presidency) and how (and why) Americorps changed throughout the Bush years, leading into its present growth. Instead what we are left with is the cluttered product of a single user's anti-government tirade. I am not against noting that libertarians have a death wish for Americorps, but take, for instance, the section about Bovard's "unofficial source," who dismisses the reading program. From the beginning it was a rather questionable inclusion, but it is flatly contradicted by the study cited thereafter. Again, I'm no Wikipedia expert, but it seems to me an empirical measurement of reality should trump the anonymously-sourced attack from a pundit with a clear agenda. Why, then, is this whole exchange even necessary?

Equally embarrassing is the sentence about GED students, who now apparently need to be stigmatized for no reason. The short "Articles suggest..." paragraph is only a little less disastrous; it presupposes that helping people get welfare is a bad thing, a judgment call which I think ought to be left to the reader. And even setting all that aside, why, from a journalistic point of view, does the above paragraph re-introduce the Bovard article? It disrupts the readability of this page, making it all the clearer that the criticism section comes from someone who is more concerned with piling one slanted attack after another than with writing an informative, cogent article. Narrative context is jettisoned in yet another paragraph ("There have been a number of criticisms...") which goes on to raise vague, weaselly arguments sourced by an article that returns a 404. The user above me has a raised a critique that I think is also fair about the last paragraph's apparent opposition to the concept of self-esteem.

If I could make a suggestion (and given my lack of Wiki experience I freely welcome its rejection) this whole section, as well as the one above it, needs to be wiped clean. There is nothing wrong with noting that Americorps had some issues in the '90s, so long as this article leaves one able to discern that we are no longer living in the '90s. As it stands, the specific citations strike me as largely irrelevant cases of excess scrutinizing. The $20k+ cost to the taxpayer per volunteer is a valuable piece of information and should not be omitted from this article. It should also not be mentioned without reference to the benefits that Americorps volunteers provide. Contrary to the what the criticism section implies, it does not seem likely that tens of thousands of volunteers per year are being paid only to paint murals and put on puppet shows. If this means that Wiki editors have to conduct more contemporary research (the last 3-4 years seeming most appropriate) in order to determine just what services Americorps volunteers provide and who they affect, so be it. No doubt it would be even more difficult to assess how Americorps changes the lives and attitudes of its volunteers (and perhaps I am biased supposing from the onset that it creates more generous public services) but this, too, would be a benefit. Cite the cost, describe the benefits as neutrally as possible, and let the reader determine for himself whether the end result is "efficient." And move on. 173.52.83.2 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)M32[reply]

As an addendum to my comment above, if we're going to bring back the criticism section (which I maintain is a rather embarrassing and juvenile piece of punditry) can we at least source it with something more relevant than a decade-old editorial by a writer with an agenda that consists of 50% hearsay at best? The longer this page stays the way it is, the more a disservice it provides to people who want to genuinely learn about Americorps, whether they're going to like it or not.24.53.155.48 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)M32[reply]

The Successes section doesn't have any concrete examples[edit]

The first paragraph talks about Americorps giving money to already existing private charities. That's not any kind of accomplishment.

The second paragraph talks about all sorts of touchy feely stuff, but doesn't cite any concrete examples of success.

Where are the examples of real success? Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. The section isn't a dissertation on criticism of AmeriCorps; rather its an encyclopedic summary of the issue. • Freechild'sup? 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Issue in Successes Section[edit]

The successes portion of this article states:

"AmeriCorps provided fiscal and personnel to support the start-up of innovative new national programs, including City Year, Public Allies and Teach for America. It also brought vital resources to established programs, including Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters and the American Red Cross.[7]"

However, City Year, Public Allies, and Teach for America were all founded prior to AmeriCorps. (I noticed this simply because I am a City Year member; but a simple check of each of the 3 websites for these programs verifies their founding dates...1988, 1992, and 1990, respectively.) I think these programs should be moved to the 2nd sentence. I don't know of any new programs formed post-AmeriCorps to replace those three, nor do I really have the time to weed through the massive list on the AmeriCorps website. Suggestions?

Jettarose (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment for WP:WikiProject Barack Obama[edit]

I think that this article reasonably satisfies the six criteria for B-class, though perhaps it would be desirable to have an organizational diagram or a map of important locations for the "supporting materials" criterion. I've rated it B-class with Low importance (one agenda item of many on change.gov), so editors may start to think about bringing this up to WP:good article status. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this section a joke? Who cares how this relates to what the heading says. Is Wikipedia the consensus place where all the 'truths' that people want propagandized forward are to be given a rating by . . . who? Mike Serfas? Who cares? What a joke. How self-important is this guy? Or is this a spoof to make Mike Serfas and people who would be concerned with so called WikiProject [name of current person] look like idiots who are propagandists, and out of touch in 'let them eat cake' land? People really do read these wikipedia discussion sections. This is not a playgroud for group think consensus propagandists despite your fantasys that it is, Mike Serfas. This is not a place for consensus propaganda of any group especially well-funded so-called activasts who are paid for through tax-free dollars. Or all of this is just a rouse to make Mike look stupid. Did I misread something. Will someone please explain why this section is here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.120.202 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article written like an advertisement[edit]

When I first read this article a long time ago, every single source that was cited was from the Americorps website. The article sounded like an advertisement. I did not erase any of that information. However, I did add some criticisms from other sources. However, other people erased those criticisms. The article should include both sides of the debate. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag. The tag is meant for articles that truly read like advertisements, e.g. "buy special K, the only breakfast cereal with 100% of your daily vitamins and minerals, and tasty too!". It is not appropriate for articles an editor might consider unbalanced for failure to include partisan criticisms. If there were a serious, bona fide issue an NPOV tag would be the way to go. However, a single editor unable to gain consensus for shifting the POV would not justify that tag either. Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pledge[edit]

The pledge is not taken any more by VISTA's I cannot speak for other parts of AmeriCorps as I didnt need to pledge for any part but VISTA my pledge was the traditional one every US Govt employee takes — 216.67.186.164 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriCorps*State and National members do, in fact, recite this pledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.124 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All i know is im glad that as a vista i did one that didnt look so lame but are there any sources on why who does what pledge? it seems weird to me that it would be different--209.181.16.93 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of August 2009, I recited this pledge as an AmeriCorps State volunteer. However, the information about potential changes to the pledge in 2002 that never materialized seems unneeded. The pledge listed is the one I recited. Gator00 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More re: Criticism Section[edit]

Okay, decided to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk here. I consolidated the successes and criticisms section into a single "costs and benefits" piece. Anyone else is more than welcome to toy around with this if they can think of something better-suited.

I left everything from the success section the way it was. If anyone has a beef with the way that part looks, I'll again be glad to yield the floor. At least all the source articles from this section were within the past decade.

From the criticism section, I brought up the cost-per-volunteer, which I do think is a pertinent piece of information that belongs in this section. I would, however, strongly urge future editors to find something a little more timely than a 1998 estimate (not to mention from a tad more neutral source). Also, as a note on nomenclature, I know that at least the NCCC program refers to its participants as "service members" or "corps members", not volunteers, precisely because of the benefits and living allowance provided (which pretty much abrogates the whole "you're not technically volunteers! Gotcha now" angle of the source articles from the old criticism section). I'm not sure whether the same applies to VISTA and State/National or else I would've changed the wording immediately.

Gone from the old criticism section is the Bovard article, which was outdated, opinionated more than it was factual, very likely unreliable, and more of an advertisement than the AmeriCorps Wiki page ever was (per Grundle's criticism way above). Also gone is the bit about AmeriCorps helping others file for welfare, because that's not criticism so much as it is one person's opinion of what they would and would not like done. Also purged the randomly placed problem from 1994, on the basis not only of its obsolescence and randomness but its convoluted, tenuous connection to AmeriCorps. If someone is really passionate about this part staying, they're more than welcome to make it a good deal clearer and explain why it's still time-relevant a decade and a half down the road.

I would've kept the last paragraph, the one about the effect on delayed careers, subject to some heavy revision, but its source article was a 404, so, nope.

A final suggestion: As far as I know, AmeriCorps programs presently track all the work their service members do on a quantifiable basis (e.g. square footage of invasive species removed in a single day). A really solid Costs/Benefits or Successes/Criticisms section would lay these things out against the cost to taxpayer (i.e. the annual operational cost per volunteer) so a good starting step, for whoever else is really passionate about this article, would be to contact the central AmeriCorps offices, get this info, put it up here, and let people make up their own minds about the efficacy of the program. Seems odd to have to say this but let's remember to emphasize recent facts and info as opposed to things that happened two decades ago. Only one of the above is appropriate for lending a government service organization, or really anything, contemporary characterization.

'kay then?24.53.155.48 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)M32[reply]

Costs and Benefits[edit]

The cost and benefits section is a bit of a misleading title. The section only addresses benefits as if it were an advertisement for the AmeriCorps and the only cost listed in the section was treated like a benefit. The fact that " 71% of alumni were incentivized to join by the prospect of earning a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award" is a cost, because this costs money to AmeriCorps and taxpayers ultimately. Yet this was treated as a benefit. Some discussion about other costs of the programs would be beneficial given the title of the section. Either that, or change the section title. Jb8819 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)jb8819[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AmeriCorps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is written like an advertisement. Still.[edit]

I see these criticism were raised and dismissed a decade ago. Yet apparently there is still zero critical voices reflected in this article. Given that it is extremely controversial—-from the left, right, unions, and academics—the lack of any critical perspective seems a terrible weakness in the article.

Here’s some articles from a variety of perspectives to get you started

  • Thomson, Ann Marie, and James L. Perry. "Can AmeriCorps build communities?." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27.4 (1998): 399-420.
  • Perry, James L., et al. "Inside a Swiss army knife: An assessment of AmeriCorps." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9.2 (1999): 225-250.
  • Frumkin, Peter, et al. "Inside national service: AmeriCorps' impact on participants." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28.3 (2009): 394-416.
  • Ward, Kevin D. "Cultivating public service motivation through AmeriCorps service: A longitudinal study." Public Administration Review 74.1 (2014): 114-125.
  • Wofford, Harris, Steven Waldman, and Doug Bandow. "AmeriCorps the beautiful?." Policy Review 79 (1996): 28-37.
  • Bass, Melissa. The politics and civics of national service: Lessons from the Civilian Conservation Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps. Brookings Institution Press, 2013.
  • Checkoway, Barry. "Institutional impacts of AmeriCorps on the University of Michigan." Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 2.1 (1997).


  • Carpenter, Sara Catherine. Theorizing praxis in citizenship learning: Civic engagement and the democratic management of inequality in AmeriCorps. Diss. 2011.
  • Walters, John. "Clinton's AmeriCorps values: how the President misunderstands citizenship." Policy Review 75 (1996): 42-47.


Given literally 25 years of critical interpretations of a large government program, there’s really no excuse for their to be neither criticism worked into topic sections nor a criticism section of any sort. This article should be tagged with a content flag until the article is brought up to standard, rather than appearing like an advertisement for the program. 151.202.41.194 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of government agency infobox & agency name changes announced September 2020[edit]

Is the infobox template for a government agency appropriate for this page given that AmeriCorps is not an agency, but merely a program within the agency of CNCS? Similarly, is it appropriate for the three AmeriCorps programs to be listed as child agencies when they are merely programs? Would a different template be more appropriate for this page, such as Template:Infobox organization? Grn1749 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grn1749: Regarding the infobox, I have no idea. I just expanded on what was already there for my previous edits. But as a related matter CNCS changed their name to AmeriCorps on September 29th. Highlights from their press release:
  • "While the agency’s operating name is “AmeriCorps,” its legal name will remain the Corporation for National and Community Service."
  • "The changes announced today unite all national service programs under the name AmeriCorps. Organizations and members funded through the AmeriCorps VISTA, NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps), and State & National programs, as well as the Volunteer Generation Fund, will operate and be promoted as AmeriCorps. The agency’s three programs that cater exclusively to volunteers 55 years and older under the Senior Corps name – Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and RSVP – will now operate and be promoted under the banner of AmeriCorps Seniors."
I find their branding change a little confusing. I am assuming that the articles AmeriCorps, Corporation for National and Community Service, National Civilian Community Corps, AmeriCorps VISTA, and Senior Corps will all have to be changed? ❧ affius (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Affius: I saw this announcement, too, and am similarly unsure of how it should impact these pages. Since the Corporation for National and Community Service isn't actually changing their official name, I'm not sure that page should be changed, other than the addition of a reference that they are now doing business as "AmeriCorps" and making other changes to program names as needed throughout that page. Perhaps we should redirect Senior Corps to a new page called AmeriCorps Seniors, and add it as a subsection on the AmeriCorps page as well. But on the other hand, part of me wonders if we should wait a bit to make these significant changes to see how it all shakes out. In the past, CNCS has announced (or at least proposed) major changes and then rolled them back when grantees argued against them. The Senior Corps programs in particular have a strong lobby and have historically been resistant to being folded into the AmeriCorps umbrella. I am not sure if these changes are subject to political whims that could shift depending on the result of the upcoming election--in which case we might want to wait to make major page changes--or if they are a done deal that will stick no matter who is president in January. What do you think? Grn1749 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grn1749: I am not really familiar with any of CNCS's programs and I am still new to Wikipedia. So, I probably don't have any of the answers you are looking for. The only reason I edited this page was because I uploaded all of CNCS's logos to Commons, only for CNCS to change their logos a week later. *sigh* Regardless I do think you have a point on waiting it out for a bit and seeing how CNCS uses their new branding guidelines. As of right now it seems they are still in the middle transitioning everything. ❧ affius (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would watchers of this page please review the discussion in process on Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service, as that proposal would be to essentially overwrite this current page, as the Corporation for National and Community Service one year age rebranded itself as AmeriCorps. This page would become the new page for the entire AmeriCorps agency. "AmeriCorps" is now being used by the agency as an umbrella term encompassing numerous federal voluntary service programs.Grn1749 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporation_for_National_and_Community_Service&oldid=1077617896"