One of the most ambitious and simultaneously most controversial programs of Bill Clinton's presidency is AmeriCorps, the national service program authorized in 1993 by the National and Community Service Trust Act. This article presents findings from an examination of the community-building effects of the AmeriCorps program in five communities. We focus our attention on AmeiCorps' impact on local community-based organizations by examining change in the capacity of the organizations in which AmeriCorps members work and in the degree to which AmeriCorps has fostered interorganizational cooperation to achieve community goals. We conclude with a discussion of the findings and ways to enhance AmeriCorps' community-building potential.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alter, C.
, & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Axelrod, R.
(1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
3.
Bardach, E.
(1996). Turf barriers to interagency collaboration. In D. F. Kettl & H. B. Milward (Eds.), The state of public management (pp. 168-192). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Break, G. F.
(1980). Financing government in a federal system (Studies of Government Finance). Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Corporation for National Service
. (1994). Principles for high quality national service programs. Washington DC: Author.
6.
Corporation for National and Community Service, Final Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. 13772 (1994) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. ß 2520-2524).
7.
Elmore, R. F.
(1987). Instruments and strategy in public policy. Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 174-186.
8.
Granovetter, M. S.
(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),1360-1380.
9.
Gray, B.
(1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government, and communities. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 57-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Hanf, K.
, & Scharpf, F. (Eds.). (1978). Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Huxham, C.
(1996). Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Jacobs, J.
(1993). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
13.
Kettl, D. F.
(1996). Governing at the millennium. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 5-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Krackhardt, D.
(1992). The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216-239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15.
Lynn, L. E.
(1993). Policy achievement as a collective good: a strategic perspective on managing social programs. In B. Bozeman (Ed.), Public management: The state of the art (pp. 108-133). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Metcalfe, L.
(1978). Policy making in turbulent environments. In K. Hanf & F. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control (pp.37-55). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Milward, H. B.
(1995). Review of integrating services for children and families: Understanding the past to shape the future. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(4), 641-643.
18.
Milward, H. B.
(1996). The changing character of the public sector. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 77-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Ostrom, E.
(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
O'Toole, L. J. Jr.
(1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Policy Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443-459.
21.
O'Toole, L. J. Jr.
, & Montjoy, R. S. (1984). Interorganizational policy implementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 491-503.
22.
Powell, W. W
(1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
23.
Pressman, J. L.
, & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
Radin, B. A.
, Agranoff, R., Bowman, A., Buntz, C. G., Ott, J. S., Romzek, B. S., & Wilson, R. H. (1996). New governance for rural America: Creating intergovernmental partnerships. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
25.
Schuman, S.P.
(1996). The role of facilitation in collaborative groups. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 126-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Smith, S. R.
(1995a, October). Innovation in the nonprofit sector: Implications for public management. Paper presented at the Third National Conference on Public Management Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
27.
Smith, S. R.
(1995b). Social capital, community coalitions, and the role of institutions. Unpublished paper, Duke University, Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Durham, North Carolina.
28.
Waldman, S.
(1995). The bill: How legislation really becomes law. New York: Penguin.
29.
Wechsler, B.
, & Sanderson, D. (1995). Facilitating interorganizational collaboration and change: The challenge of building state rural development councils. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
