    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE
                            CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
                               COMMUNITY SERVICE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
                             AND WORKFORCE TRAINING

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 24, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-49

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
               committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
                                       or
                Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

                                        ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    20-236 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                        JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman

    Joe Wilson, South Carolina           Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Virginia
    Duncan Hunter, California              Ranking Member
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania         Susan A. Davis, California
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Matt Salmon, Arizona                 Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Brett Guthrie, Kentucky              Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Jared Polis, Colorado
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada                 Northern Mariana Islands
    Luke Messer, Indiana                 Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama               Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    David Brat, Virginia                 Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
    Buddy Carter, Georgia                Mark Takano, California
    Michael D. Bishop, Michigan          Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
    Carlos Curbelo, Florida              Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Elise Stefanik, New York
    Rick Allen, Georgia

                        Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
                     Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING

                   VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Matt Salmon, Arizona                   Ranking Minority Member
    Brett Guthrie, Kentucky              Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada               Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Luke Messer, Indiana                 Susan A. Davis, California
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama               Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Carlos Curbelo, Florida              Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Elise Stefanik, New York             Jared Polis, Colorado
    Rick Allen, Georgia

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 24, 2016.....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from the
          state of North Carolina....................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher
          Education and Workforce Training...........................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Cohn, Mr. Joseph, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation
          for Individual Rights in Education, Philadelphia, PA.......
            Prepared statement of....................................
        Maatz, Ms. Lisa M., Vice President for Government Relations,
          American Association of University Women, Washington, DC...
            Prepared statement of....................................
        Jeffrey, Ms. Deborah, Inspector General, Corporation for
          National and Community Service.............................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Spencer, Ms. Wendy, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for
          National and Community Service.............................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Additional Submissions:
        Ms. Adams:
            Letter dated May 23, 2016, from The Corps Network........    48
            Prepared statement of....................................    50
        Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:
            Hartford Courant article: Veteran's coffeehouse opens in
              Danielson..............................................    53
        Chairwoman Foxx, questions submitted for the record to:
            Ms. Jeffrey..............................................   136
            Ms. Spencer..............................................   139
        Response to questions submitted:
            Ms. Jeffrey..............................................   143
            Ms. Spencer..............................................   161
            Corporation for National and Community ServiceGrant
              Competitions Results - Fiscal Years 2010-2016..........   170
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia:
            May 2008 Executive Summary Still Serving: Measuring the
              Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni..............    57
            May 2008 Still Serving:Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of
              AmeriCorps on Alumni...................................    70
            AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Summary Report Executive
              Summary October 2015...................................   126
            AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Summary Report October 2015...   134

            DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
                               COMMUNITY SERVICE

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, May 24, 2016

                            House of Representatives

                   Committee on Education and the Workforce,

            Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
    [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Foxx, Roe, Guthrie, Curbelo,
    Stefanik, Adams, DeSaulnier, Davis, Courtney, and Polis.
        Also Present: Representatives Kline, and Scott.
        Staff Present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members
    Services Coordinator; James Forester, Professional Staff
    Member; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications Director; Amy
    Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy;
    Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alex Ricci,
    Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy
    Director and Senior Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
    Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator;
    Pierce Blue, Minority Labor Detailee; Mishawn Freeman, Minority
    Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Carolyn
    Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian Kennedy,
    Minority General Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Civil
    Rights Counsel; and Rayna Reid, Minority Education Policy
    Counsel.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The quorum being present, the Subcommittee
    on Higher Education and Workforce Training will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing. Ms.
    Spencer and Ms. Jeffrey, I would like to thank both of you for
    joining us to address the most recent misuse of taxpayer funds
    in the AmeriCorps program, or perhaps more accurately, the most
    recent misuse of taxpayer funds that we know of.
        Let me start by providing a little more context for those
    who are not familiar with this case. The Corporation for
    National Community Service, or CNCS, is in charge of overseeing
    the community service activities of more than eight different
    Federal programs and initiatives. For the current fiscal year,
    CNCS received more than $1 billion to carry out these programs,
    one of which is the AmeriCorps program. As the head of the
    corporation, Ms. Spencer, you have a responsibility to ensure
    the Federal funds you receive, which are no small sum, are
    being spent in full compliance with Federal law. That includes
    policies that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund
    abortion activities.
        We are here today because the office of your inspector
    general has reported one AmeriCorps grantee, the National
    Association of Community Health Centers, violated the law. As
    of today this organization is still receiving taxpayer funds.
    More specifically, this organization, one of the largest to
    participate in the AmeriCorps program, allowed AmeriCorps
    members to engage in illegal activity by providing support
    services during abortion procedures. Regardless of your
    position on the issue of abortion, the law is the law and it
    must be followed.
        The most recent law reauthorizing CNCS programs explicitly
    prohibits the use of AmeriCorps resources to provide abortion
    services or referrals for receipt of such services, end quote.
    For two years these illegal activities were allowed to continue
    completely undetected by the very agency meant to oversee these
    programs in the agency you are in charge of. The investigation
    that began when you finally did become aware of what had
    happened confirmed that taxpayer funds were used to support
    unlawful activities. But it also revealed much more.
        The inspector general also found that several AmeriCorps
    members were regularly tasked with conducting work performed by
    employees of the centers they supported. This activity is also
    against the law, but the grantee failed to stop or even report
    it. AmeriCorps members technically are to serve strictly in
    volunteer roles and should never perform the same task as
    employees. But again, that is not the end of it.
        It was also discovered that the grantee's senior management
    chose not to inform the corporation of instances of waste,
    fraud, and abuse, choosing instead to undermine transparency
    and avoid reporting information that would make them look bad.
    This disturbing list of unlawful and dishonest practices really
    makes you wonder, how on Earth was this allowed to happen? How
    were these activities allowed to go on for so long? And why is
    the National Association of Community Health Centers still a
    grantee?
        When the committee learned about this unlawful activity
    last month, Chairman Kline immediately called on the
    corporation to cease all future funding of this organization.
    On behalf of the committee, I am renewing this call today, Ms.
    Spencer. I sincerely hope you will be able to provide us with a
    plan of action and describe steps you are taking to address
    this situation.
        Revoking this grant would be a good start, but it is also
    important to recognize that this is not an isolated incident.
    In fact, I chaired a hearing back in 2011 examining reports
    that AmeriCorps members had engaged in other unlawful activity.
    In response to questioning, the head of CNCS assured us the
    corporation would be diligent in educating grantees, ``helping
    them to understand the rules,'' and would require, ``all
    AmeriCorps grantees to annually assure compliance with
    regulations on prohibited activities.'' It seems that neither
    strategy has solved the problem.
        That's why today I am also calling on the Corporation to
    conduct a comprehensive review to ensure all other grantees in
    the program are complying with the law. Enough is enough. The
    Corporation needs to be held accountable for the way it spends
    taxpayer dollars and that's why we are here today.
        We have many questions to answer and much to discuss.
        So I now recognize Ranking Member Adams for her opening
    remarks.
        [The information follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
                    Higher Education and Workforce Training

        The Corporation for National and Community Service, or CNCS, is in
    charge of overseeing the community service activities of more than
    eight different federal programs and initiatives. For the current
    fiscal year, CNCS received more than $1 billion to carry out these
    programs, one of which is the AmeriCorps program.
        As the head of the corporation, Ms. Spencer, you have a
    responsibility to ensure the federal funds you receive--which is no
    small sum--are being spent in full compliance with federal law. That
    includes policies that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund
    abortion activities. We're here today because the office of your
    Inspector General has reported one AmeriCorps grantee, the National
    Association of Community Health Centers, violated the law. As of today,
    this organization is still receiving taxpayer funds.
        More specifically, this organization--one of the largest to
    participate in the AmeriCorps program--allowed AmeriCorps members to
    engage in illegal activity by providing support services during
    abortion procedures. Regardless of your position on the issue of
    abortion, the law is the law, and it must be followed. The most recent
    law reauthorizing CNCS programs explicitly prohibits the use of
    AmeriCorps resources to ``provide abortion services or referrals for
    receipt of such services.''
        For two years, these illegal activities were allowed to continue,
    completely undetected by the very agency meant to oversee these
    programs. The investigation that began when you finally did become
    aware of what had happened confirmed that taxpayer funds were used to
    support unlawful activities, but it also revealed much more.
        The Inspector General also found that several AmeriCorps members
    were regularly tasked with conducting work performed by employees of
    the centers they supported. This activity is also against the law, but
    the grantee failed to stop or even report it. AmeriCorps members are to
    serve strictly in volunteer roles and should never preform the same
    tasks as employees. But, again, that's not the end of it.
        It was also discovered that the grantee's senior management chose
    not to inform the corporation of instances of waste, fraud, and abuse,
    choosing instead to undermine transparency and avoid reporting
    information that would make them look bad.
        This disturbing list of unlawful and dishonest practices really
    makes you wonder: How on earth was this allowed to happen? How were
    these activities allowed to go on for so long? And, why is the National
    Association of Community Health Centers still a grantee?
        When the committee learned about this unlawful activity last month,
    Chairman Kline immediately called on the corporation to cease all
    future funding of this organization. On behalf of the committee, I am
    renewing that call today, Ms. Spencer. I sincerely hope that you will
    be able to provide us with a plan of action and describe steps you are
    taking to address this situation.
        Revoking this grant would be a good start, but it's also important
    to recognize that this is not an isolated incident. In fact, I chaired
    a hearing back in 2011 examining reports that AmeriCorps members had
    engaged in other unlawful activity. In response to questioning, the
    head of CNCS assured us the corporation would be diligent in educating
    grantees, ``helping them to understand the rules,'' and would require
    ``all AmeriCorps grantees to annually assure compliance with
    regulations on prohibited activities.'' It seems that neither strategy
    has solved the problem.
        That's why today I am also calling on the corporation to conduct a
    comprehensive review to ensure all other grantees in the program are
    complying with the law. Enough is enough. The corporation needs to be
    held accountable for the way it spends taxpayer dollars, and that's why
    we are here today.
                                     ______

        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for
    being here today. I would also like to welcome Wendy Spencer,
    chief executive officer for the Corporation for National and
    Community Service, and Deborah Jeffrey, the inspector general.
    And I want to thank you both for joining us today.
        We are here today to discuss the critical role that the
    Corporation for National and Community Service, or CNCS, has in
    encouraging volunteerism and civic engagement. Service is the
    rent that we pay for living on this Earth and it is also the
    foundation of our democracy, and its value to our society
    cannot be overstated.
        Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers
    in national and community service. These volunteers have served
    as teachers and tutors and mentors and counselors working with
    disadvantaged students in high-need schools. In cases of
    natural disaster, volunteers have helped local communities
    prepare for, mitigate, respond, and recover from forest fires
    and floods and hurricanes and tornadoes. Volunteers have
    assisted our Nation's veterans in adjusting to civilian life,
    constructed and rebuilt homes for thousands of families, and
    help our Nation's seniors in maintaining the highest degree
    possible of independent living and much more. All of us ought
    to be engaged in national service. So thank you, CNCS, for
    being a leader on this issue.
        You see, my upbringing taught me that we won't be able to
    celebrate community, nor can we build community if we are not
    inclusive, if we do not care for the least of these. So as we
    engage ourselves in trying to improve our community for the
    better, we must do so remembering that we are thy brother's and
    thy sister's keepers, and as such, inextricably tied to one
    another. But in order for the community to be engaged, the
    community must be involved. And that is exactly what CNCS does.
    CNCS and the community volunteers that they coordinate enable
    tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations, faith-based
    groups and schools and municipal agencies to solve tough
    problems and meet local needs. CNCS also serves and builds and
    makes an impact that change lives and communities.
        Martin Luther King once said that the ultimate measure of a
    man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and
    convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and
    controversy. So during the times of challenge, CNCS is there.
        During the Flint crisis, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team
    to Flint to support State and local efforts to protect the
    public health of residents facing challenges from increased
    lead levels in the Flint water supply. And when tornadoes
    wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team to
    that region.
        So needless to say, I could praise the instances of these
    volunteers helping our Nation's communities in times of need.
    But I will stop here and say that it is without a doubt that
    CNCS has improved the quality of life in my home State of North
    Carolina and communities around this great Nation.
        After I was sworn into Congress, I made it a priority to
    join the Committee on Education and the Workforce and I am glad
    I am here. And I fought to do that intentionally because I
    understand the significance of community engagement. And as a
    member of the Committee, I feel responsible for ensuring that
    the Corporation has strong management, monitoring, and
    oversight as well as the resources necessary to effectively
    administer its programs and carry out its mission. And while
    there is always room for improvement, I strongly believe that
    CNCS is taking this responsibility serious.
        So with regard to the recent incidences that occurred with
    the AmeriCorps program, CNCS discovered and resolved these
    issues with deliberate action. And I can't help but think that
    if this were anything other than services related to women's
    health, that the Corporation would not be called in front of us
    here today.
        So as we proceed with today's hearing, I want to strongly
    encourage my colleagues on this committee to focus on the vital
    importance of service to our Nation. And while we must maintain
    vigorous oversight and enforcement, we must also remember how
    CNCS engages over a million volunteers, which is something that
    benefits local communities all across America on both sides of
    the aisle. So I look forward to hearing more about how we can
    improve and strengthen National Service programs that are so
    important to our Nation's success. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The information follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
                        from the state of North Carolina

        Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I would also like to
    welcome Wendy Spencer, chief executive officer (CEO) for the
    Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and Deborah
    Jeffries, the Inspector General, for joining us today.
        We are here today to discuss the critical role that the Corporation
    for National and Community Service, or CNCS, has in encouraging
    volunteerism and civic engagement. I'm a big fan of saying that
    ``service is indeed the rent we pay for living on this earth.'' Service
    is the foundation of our democracy, and its value to our society cannot
    be overstated.
        Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers in
    national and community service. These volunteers have served as
    teachers, tutors, mentors, and counselors working with disadvantaged
    students in high need schools. In cases of natural disasters,
    volunteers have helped local communities prepare for, mitigate,
    respond, and recover from forest fires, floods, hurricanes and
    tornadoes. Volunteers have assisted our nation's veterans in adjusting
    to civilian life, constructed and rebuilt homes for thousands of
    families, helped our nation's seniors in maintaining the highest degree
    possible of independent living and much more.
        All of us ought to be engaged in national service. So thank you
    CNCS for being a leader on this issue. You see, my upbringing taught me
    that we won't be able to celebrate community nor can we build
    community--``if we're not inclusive and don't care for the least of
    these.'' As we engage ourselves in trying to improve and better our
    community, we must do so remembering that we are thy brother's and thy
    sister's keepers and as such we are inextricably tied to one another.
    But in order for the community to be engaged, the community must be
    involved. And that is exactly what CNCS does. CNCS and the
        community volunteers they coordinate enable tens of thousands of
    nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and municipal
    agencies to solve tough problems and meet local needs. CNCS serves,
    builds, and makes an impact that changes lives and communities.
        Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``The ultimate measure of a man
    is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where
    he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' During times of
    challenge, CNCS is there----
        * During the Flint Water Crisis, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team
    to Flint, Michigan, to support state and local efforts to protect the
    public health of residents facing challenges from increased lead levels
    in the Flint water supply.
        * When Hurricane Katrina devastated the South, CNCS deployed an
    AmeriCorps team to the region.
        * And when tornadoes wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, AmeriCorps
    volunteers were there.
        Needless to say, I could praise the instances of these volunteers
    helping our nation's communities in times of need. But, I'll stop here
    and say that it is without a doubt that CNCS has improved the quality
    of life in my home state of North Carolina and in communities around
    this great nation.
        The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act reauthorized and expanded
    the national service programs administered by CNCS. After I was sworn
    into Congress, I made it a priority to join the Committee on Education
    and the Workforce. I fought to get on this Committee intentionally
    because I understand the significance of community engagement. And as a
    member of this Committee, I feel responsible for ensuring that the
    Corporation has strong management, monitoring, and oversight, as well
    as the resources to effectively administer its programs and carry out
    its
        mission. While there is always room for improvement, I strongly
    believe that CNCS is taking this responsibility seriously.
        With regard to the recent incidences that occurred with the
    1AmeriCorps program, CNCS discovered and resolved these issues with
    deliberate action. And I can't help but think that if this were
    anything other than services related to women's health, that the
    Corporation would not be called in front of us here today.
        As we proceed with this hearing, I want to strongly encourage my
    colleagues on this Committee to focus on the vital importance of
    service to our nation. While we must maintain vigorous oversight and
    enforcement, we must also remember how CNCS engages over a million
    volunteers, which is something that benefits local communities all
    across America, on both sides of the aisle. And I look forward to
    hearing more about how we can improve and strengthen national service
    programs that are so important to our nation's success.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Adams. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit
    written statements to be included in the permanent hearing
    record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain
    open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous
    material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the
    official hearing record.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
    witnesses. The Honorable Wendy Spencer is the chief executive
    officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service
    here in Washington, D.C. Ms. Spencer began serving as CEO of
    the Corporation on April 9, 2012. Prior to that, the
    Corporation, Ms. Spencer served as the CEO of the Florida
    Governor's Commission on Volunteerism and as the director of
    the Florida Parks Service.
        The Honorable Deborah Jeffrey is the inspector general for
    the Corporation for National and Community Service here in
    Washington, D.C. Ms. Jeffrey joined the corporation as
    inspector general on July 19, 2012. Prior to this, Ms. Jeffrey
    spent 25 years in private practice of law, including as an in-
    house counsel on ethics and loss prevention.
        I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairwoman Foxx. Let the record reflect the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative.
        Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
    briefly explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to
    present your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of
    you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn
    yellow. When your time has expired, the light will turn red. At
    that point, I will ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as
    you are able. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        Now I would recognize the Honorable Wendy Spencer for her
    opening statement.

         TESTIMONY OF WENDY SPENCER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
             CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

        Ms. Spencer. Thank you, Madam Chair, Dr. Adams, members of
    the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I
    welcome this opportunity to discuss our commitment to
    accountability and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
        Today, 345,000 Senior Corps and AmeriCorps members are
    serving in 50,000 locations across the Nation. These dedicated
    Americans serve in tough conditions to meet pressing local
    needs like tutoring and mentoring at-risk youth, responding to
    disasters, supporting veterans and their families, and much,
    much more, all while recruiting millions of additional
    volunteers to serve alongside them and multiply their impact.
        National Service invests in local solutions. It provides
    human capital support to increase the impact of nonprofits and
    faith-based organizations and other community organizations.
    Governor-appointed state service commissions decide where most
    of the AmeriCorps resources are invested. Local groups recruit,
    select, and supervise their members. Mayors and county leaders
    are also an important part of our partnerships at the local
    level.
        Congress created our agency years ago to empower citizens,
    solve problems, and expand opportunity. Our agency is built on
    smart, commonsense principles, local control, competition,
    public-private partnership, and a focus on results. And it's
    working.
        I share the committee's view that our agency has a
    responsibility to ensure Federal funds are well managed. That
    has been my priority from day one. We have built a culture of
    accountability and strong systems of monitoring and oversight.
    These systems are working.
        Misconduct is very rare, but when it happens, we take
    strong action. Accountability is more than compliance. It also
    means achieving our mission. We are investing funds more
    effectively to drive community impact by using evidence,
    increasing competition, and measuring performance.
        My written testimony details our comprehensive risk-based
    system to prevent and detect issues and enforce our rules. But
    let me list just a few to highlight.
        We start before a grant is ever made by doing a financial
    scan and reviewing past performance. Every direct grant is
    monitored for fiscal and programmatic compliance. Every year
    our staff conducts a risk assessment of our entire portfolio of
    grants to inform our monitoring plan. Grantees identified as
    having risk receive site visits, desk reviews, and other types
    of audits. In fact, 3,200 have occurred in the last 5 years. If
    issues are discovered, we enforce our rules. That can mean
    requiring corrective action plans, placing funds on hold,
    reporting activities to the inspector general, or even
    suspending or terminating a grant.
        In recent years we have strengthened our monitoring and
    oversight in many ways through expanded grantee and staff
    training, better use of financial data, increased control on
    fixed-amount grants, improvements to our grants management
    system, better communication with our grantees and members, and
    more.
        Several initiatives currently underway, we have just
    recently hired a chief risk officer; the first in our agency's
    history and one of only a few positions like it in the Federal
    Government. This executive will lead an office that oversees
    all of our risk assessment programs, an integrated coordinated
    approach to better manage our resources and decision-making. We
    believe we are ahead of the curve in developing an enterprise
    risk management program to help us take a holistic view of
    risk.
        We are updating our grant management IT system. A key
    component will be to enhance and validate our grantee risk
    model. This will enable us to move from compliance-focused
    monitoring to a more nimble and targeted risk-based approach.
        Given the priority we place on accountability, we are
    deeply disappointed that a grantee authorized National Service
    participants to engage in prohibited activities. We immediately
    referred this matter to the inspector general for
    investigation. Once the results were known, we suspended the
    grantee from enrolling new members, directed them to hire an
    independent oversight monitor, and required them to take
    several other corrective actions. The inspector general stated
    our response was robust.
        The IG concluded that the noncompliance was extremely
    limited in scope involving six of nearly 1,600 members serving
    under this particular grantee over three years. It is important
    to put that in perspective. That is six members out of more
    than 1 million National Service positions in the same period.
    In fact, since this subcommittee's hearing five years ago,
    there have been nearly 2 million AmeriCorps members and Senior
    Corps positions granted. Members have served 820 million hours.
    They have made an extraordinary contribution to our communities
    and our Nation.
        I hope that my testimony today assures the committee of our
    commitment to accountability and our interest in doing more and
    making improvements where needed. We look forward to working
    with you to further strengthen the impact of National Service.
    And as I always ask members of Congress, I welcome your advice
    and your guidance. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The statement of Ms. Spencer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Ms. Spencer. Ms.
    Jeffrey, you are recognized.

     TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH JEFFREY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, CORPORATION
                   FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

        Ms. Jeffrey. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Adams, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify about the work of the Office of Inspector General to
    strengthen accountability at CNCS. I have had the privilege of
    serving as the IG for nearly 4 years.
        Since early 2013, OIG has been recommending substantial
    improvements to CNCS's grants management, especially risk
    assessment and focused monitoring. We have identified new
    monitoring requirements and encourage CNCS to begin work on
    them early. Our work has shown that better internal controls
    and risk management are needed across the organization.
        OIG conveys our recommendations in audit and investigation
    reports, in meetings with CNCS's leaders, and in briefings of
    the board of directors. We summarize them in our semiannual
    reports to Congress.
        We have also identified other sources of help for CNCS.
    Following a troubling financial statement audit, we initiated
    discussions with OMB and CNCS to develop a plan for substantial
    upgrades to internal controls. We recommended an assessment of
    information technology and how it could better support the
    agency's operations and programs. CNCS responded by
    commissioning a report by The MITRE Corporation which gave rise
    to the present IT modernization plan.
        To jumpstart progress, we introduced the chief operating
    officer to the Federal Enterprise Risk Management community and
    its resources. We have long advocated that CNCS hire a chief
    risk officer whom we recently welcomed.
        At our suggestion, the House Committee on Government Reform
    requested a GAO study of grant monitoring at CNCS which is
    currently in progress. And to improve criminal history
    checking, we brought in the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children to share its expertise in assisting
    nonprofits.
        CNCS has adopted a number of our individual
    recommendations. There is an increased focus on accountability
    and the leaders recently brought on board share that priority.
        But much work remains to be done on basic risk management
    systems. High turnover in key accountability positions,
    insufficient resources, and lack of trained leadership have
    impaired efforts to improve accountability. CNCS lacks bench-
    strength and grant risk assessments and monitoring, creating
    appropriate internal controls, and identifying and reducing
    improper payments.
        The agency has repeatedly promised progress, but it
    continues to struggle. Its grant monitoring depends heavily on
    risk assessments of unproven reliability. Our preliminary
    review of 40 seriously troubled grants found that half had not
    been monitored closely because they were rated as low or medium
    risk. CNCS was therefore blindsided by the serious problems
    that occurred.
        Our audits and investigations also often find that the
    staff has missed red flags. That was the case with OIG's recent
    investigation of abortion-related prohibited activities. As you
    alluded to, Chairwoman Foxx, last month OIG reported that the
    National Association of Community Health Centers allowed a few
    AmeriCorps members to provide emotional support to women during
    abortions at three New York City clinics operated by a sub-
    grantee. The Federal statute authorizing the AmeriCorps program
    expressly forbids the use of AmeriCorps resources to provide
    abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.
    Among the missed opportunities, from 2009, CNCS was on written
    notice that one NACHC's sub-grantees was performing abortions
    and having AmeriCorps members provide pre-abortion assistance.
    The agency did not ask the identity of the sub-grantee, did not
    determine whether the pre-abortion support activities were
    prohibited abortion services, and did not target NACHC or the
    sub-grantee for particular monitoring. The staff also did not
    record this key risk-related information in its online grants
    management system. Important institutional knowledge was
    therefore lost.
        The agency made a considered decision in 2009 not to
    provide general guidance on the meaning of the abortion
    prohibitions. Its first interpretive guidance was imbedded in
    voluntary online training in 2014. There, CNCS stated for the
    first time that an AmeriCorps member is prohibited from
    accompanying a woman at a facility for an abortion; precisely
    what was taking place at the sub-grantee.
        The measures that CNCS is now implementing could have been
    adopted long ago. These include OIG's recommendations, one, to
    analyze grantees' programmatic activity and clientele in order
    to identify those that present a heightened risk of a
    particular prohibited activity. There is a greater risk of
    abortion-related activities at a clinic that provides women's
    healthcare than at a program for Meals on Wheels to senior
    citizens. Second, to expand its repertoire of monitoring
    activities to include more frequent direct communications with
    AmeriCorps members, including surveys.
        My staff and I see great potential to improve
    accountability at CNCS and we look forward to working with the
    Congress and agency leaders to that important objective.
        Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members
    might have.
        [The statement of Ms. Jeffrey follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Ms. Jeffrey. I would
    now like to recognize our subcommittee members for their
    questioning and I will recognize the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Kline, to ask the first question.
        Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the witnesses for
    being here today for your testimony.
        I must say, Ms. Jeffrey, listening to your testimony, there
    are a lot of concerns that you raised and one of them was
    repeated staff did not, staff did not, staff did not, did not
    recognize, they didn't take action, they could have, they did
    not. And that makes me worry about what the culture and the
    leadership might be and that would be back into Ms. Spencer's
    box. But I want to come specifically back to you, Ms. Jeffrey,
    the inspector general, because you talked about some steps that
    have been taken and could be taken, you hope will be taken. But
    you also in your testimony highlight the structural challenges
    to better oversight at the corporation. Can you discuss why
    these structural challenges pose an issue in whether the
    corporation can properly oversee the program under its charge,
    structural?
        Ms. Jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The corporation has
    not invested enough time, attention, and effort in
    strengthening its structural internal controls. That has been a
    finding repeatedly in the financial statement audits which are
    conducted by an independent auditing company that audits a
    number of Federal agencies.
        The corporation often says that it will improve, it makes
    efforts to do so, but its turnover in leadership of that effort
    has impeded progress. The staff who are charged with
    responsibility for this important function are undertrained.
    They are under-resourced. And until the recent hiring of a
    chief risk officer, they have not been led by someone who is
    properly educated, trained, and with sufficient expertise.
        The corporation also suffers some structural impediments by
    virtue of its outdated information technology system and how
    that impacts grant management. That is a place in which the
    corporation has made some progress. There is an IT
    modernization plan. It is underway and I believe it will
    substantially improve grant monitoring two or three years
    hence. Until that time however, the monitoring is extremely
    laborious, conducted by hand, and does not have the benefit of
    data analytics. We have been urging improvement on that score
    as well virtually since the day I came to the corporation in
    late 2012.
        Mr. Kline. It sounds daunting to say the least. It's going
    to take time. It's going to take real leadership. Is it going
    to take reorganizing, creation, eliminating some departments
    and creating new ones? Obviously, you've created a new one when
    you hired a chief risk management officer. Are there other
    organizational things that the IG has recommended?
        Ms. Jeffrey. We have recommended that the corporation
    undertake an assessment of what it will take to do these
    things, real planning with meaningful milestones, meaningful
    deadlines, and an assessment of the resources that will be
    required to get to the finish line. I understand that is
    underway now. We have not yet seen its results. And of course,
    the chief risk officer has only been on board for about a
    month.
        Mr. Kline. It is like an indictment of a lot of people in
    an oversight role and a management role. I suppose we have to
    include ourselves in the oversight business. We will be taking
    a close and continuous look as we go forward because the
    problems, to listening to the IG, are extensive. I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Chairman yields back. Mr. Scott, I
    recognize you for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Spencer, most of this fanfare is over the abortion
    services. How many employees were involved in that?
        Ms. Spencer. Good day, Mr. Scott. According to the IG's
    investigation that was very thorough and swift, it illustrated
    that there were six AmeriCorps members at a limited scope of
    time. I don't know that we can delineate the exact amount of
    time, but if we were pressed we would probably say, combined,
    maybe as much as 10 hours.
        Mr. Scott. Ten hours, okay. And the hourly rate--
        Ms. Spencer. Total.
        Mr. Scott. Total aggregate total. And the expense of an
    AmeriCorps member is about $10 an hour give or take?
        Ms. Spencer. Well, AmeriCorps members' stipends vary. These
    are full-time members. They receive approximately $12,600 a
    year. It is a living stipend, not a living wage. And then
    followed up with a college scholarship of around $5,700 at the
    close of their commitment.
        Mr. Scott. Full-time, 2,000 hours--
        Ms. Spencer. Seventeen hundred.
        Mr. Scott. It is about, in stipend, it is about $10 an
    hour. So we are talking about somewhere around $100?
        Ms. Spencer. That is correct.
        Mr. Scott. Uh-huh. What is the total budget for this
    grantee?
        Ms. Spencer. Around $6 million, approximately 525 full-time
    AmeriCorps members.
        Mr. Scott. Were they told by outside attorneys that their
    activities were legal?
        Ms. Spencer. Were legal?
        Mr. Scott. Right. Did they consult outside attorneys before
    they reported it? Before you found out?
        Ms. Spencer. So several things occurred. Several years ago
    there was dialogue by Email back and forth, but looking back at
    that, not very clear to me. It talked about reproductive
    services, other things. I think looking back, both parties, the
    grantee and our staff, could have been more clear. But yes,
    they were told that it was against the rules to provide
    abortion services.
        Mr. Scott. Well, they were told. Before they were told
    that, did they seek other counsel that gave them the impression
    that it was not illegal?
        Ms. Spencer. The inspector general report alludes to in
    writing that it appeared there was some conversation on their
    part with outside legal counsel. She might be able to speak to
    that a little bit better than me.
        Mr. Scott. All right, let me ask Ms. Jeffrey. Did they seek
    outside counsel and were told that their activities were not
    inappropriate?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I think that would be something of an
    overstatement. What we know is that at some point when the
    grantee learned that an individual AmeriCorps member and a sub-
    grantee was acting as an abortion doula, they did two things.
    The national director at NACHC said that he analyzed for
    himself whether this conduct was permissible. He also said that
    he spoke to outside counsel. Looking at the documents, it
    appears that his conversation with outside counsel concerned
    whether it was permissible to be performing abortions at that
    clinic, not whether it was permissible to use AmeriCorps
    members. But he was not very specific about it and sometimes
    implied--
        Mr. Scott. Okay, so there was at least some discussion
    about whether--the legality of this activity. We are talking
    about $100 out of millions. I mean, we have spent more than
    that in congressional salaries listening to the opening
    statements. We have run through $100. I would like to get from
    the chair how much money has been spent on this subcommittee
    meeting. If we could provide that for the record so we can put
    all these numbers in perspective because we are talking about
    $100 that we are chasing. What has happened to the grantee
    since then?
        Ms. Spencer. Several things have occurred over the course
    of several weeks, so allow me just to share the entire picture.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I only have a couple seconds left. Is it
    true that they are not being renewed?
        Ms. Spencer. May I continue? I know we are out of time,
    Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you. So during this time period of this
    particular grantee, coincidentally, happened to be up for a new
    grant, the start of a brand new grant. They were notified a few
    days ago through the regular grant process that they will not
    receive a new grant in this process based on our regular grant
    process.
        Now, they have an existing grant that is ongoing. It
    terminates on July 31st. So they have received a letter this
    morning reminding them that their grant terminates on July 31st
    and instructing them to end the AmeriCorps member service at
    the New York site where the inappropriate activity occurred.
        Now normally a grantee would ask for a no-cost extension
    for a year as a normal process. I am not inclined to grant them
    a no-cost extension. But if they meet all of our demands over
    the coming days as they close out this grant--hiring a monitor,
    an ombudsman, not enrolling new members, all of these things;
    there is a long list of requirements--I am amenable to
    entertaining the thought of a short-term extension for 90 days.
    If I did so it would mean that 500 AmeriCorps members get to
    complete their full term of service.
        I want to look at the AmeriCorps members and try to say,
    should they be completing their terms of service, their
    commitment they made to our country. Above the actions of one
    or two individuals at the agency, at the Community Health Corps
    Administration? So I am amenable to looking into that. So that
    is the current status at this point.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, is recognized.
        Mr. Roe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        You know, typically the indiscretions of a few will hurt
    the many who do good. And there is no question that is true.
    And many of us feel very strongly about abortion whether you
    are pro-choice or pro-life. I happen to be an obstetrician. As
    I spent 31 years doing that, delivering about 5,000 babies, I
    am strongly pro-life. And I think that the intent of those
    grants was very clear. I can certainly see why someone who has
    had an abortion, who has problems emotionally, would feel like
    you want to help them. I certainly understand that. I have done
    that. When people had them someone else and came to me, I did
    offer support for those patients and would continue to do so.
    But the grants can prohibit that. It's not to be used and I
    think we feel like if we allow that, you will get on a slippery
    slope and then people just decided what they want to do. And I
    think that's the problem I have seen with--I am on the
    Veteran's Affairs Committee and one of the problems I have with
    this place is the lack of accountability. People just do what
    they want to because they think they want to, not the intent of
    Congress, and then there are no consequences to it.
        So what I want to dig into, first of all, were there just
    six people? What have been the consequences to that? Because if
    the consequences were in this, we just cut the grant off. And
    realizing that there are AmeriCorps members out there working
    hard every day, New York or wherever they may be working that
    are doing good work, if those consequences were there like
    that, those grantees would not do that. If there was some
    accountability like that.
        And I think that you as a director, Ms. Spencer, are going
    to have to say, well, I would like to see these people go on
    and do all. Well, then there have been nothing for these
    people. If you think about it, we are having this discussion
    about not a lot. And what Mr. Scott was talking about, about
    the amount of money, I do not care about that. It is the
    principle that is involved. And I think, you know, a billion
    dollars is a lot of money. It is a thousand million dollars
    that you oversee every year. And so I want to know had there
    been more than six, Ms. Jeffrey? Were there more than that? Or
    how did you determine there were just six people involved?
        Ms. Jeffrey. Thank you. We, in fact, know that there were
    more than six involved.
        Mr. Roe. Okay.
        Ms. Jeffrey. There are six that we can identify by name.
    The only way we are able to identify the individuals who served
    as abortion doulas is if they somehow made a blog post or sent
    something that is in the public record about their service. We
    know that there were additional individuals. We do not know how
    many because typically AmeriCorps members do not keep detailed
    time records of their activities. And so it is very difficult
    to quantify the number of people.
        That said, it appears that the activity was limited to this
    one sub-grantee. And it is not given the number of individuals
    we can identify, we don't think it is orders of magnitude off.
        Mr. Roe. Thank you, Ms. Jeffrey. What date does the sub-
    grantees contract basic grant end?
        Ms. Spencer. July 31st.
        Mr. Roe. And has not been renewed.
        Ms. Spencer. No.
        Mr. Roe. And that they can't apply in some other grant.
    Would you accept a different grant from these people?
        Ms. Spencer. They just applied for one which was denied,
    and they just received that. That was a $6 million request, a
    little over $6 million request, and they were denied that.
        Mr. Roe. Let me ask a question. When you are looking at a
    program, a success or a failure of a program, what is a win?
    How do you evaluate the success of a program because this one
    clearly was not? I mean, someone in that shop decided we are
    going to do this knowing good and well that they should not do
    it. We will just do it and we probably would not get caught. We
    will ask for forgiveness if we get cause because there is no
    risk to us if we do. And the risk, I guess, is not getting
    another grant, but that is it. You did not stop the grant.
        So how do you evaluate a program? In other words, how do
    you define a win, a success?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    Fortunately, we have an amazing array of successes all over the
    country with 345,000 National Service participants during a
    day. I have the joy of seeing those all over the country in
    rural and cities and travel communities serving in disasters,
    education. And a success would be something like this. A
    program meets all of our requirements. They have filed their
    financial reports on time. They have strong audits. They have
    proper management and oversight. They have strong outcomes.
    They are measuring their performance and reporting to us what--
    that--our larger programs are doing--
        Mr. Roe. I am about out of time, but when someone applies
    for a grant, there are metrics out there, benchmarks that they
    have to meet.
        Ms. Spencer. Absolutely.
        Mr. Roe. Okay, I yield back.
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Roe. Dr. Adams, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a little bit
    curious about the review process. If you could talk a little
    bit more about it. Was it just written? Were there verbal
    conversations with the applicants? How did that work, Ms.
    Spencer?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you, Dr. Adams. I am sure you are still
    referencing the Community Health Corps or just in general
    review processes?
        Ms. Adams. Yeah, for this particular--
        Ms. Spencer. For this particular.
        Ms. Adams. Right.
        Ms. Spencer. They did have a desk audit in 2014. So they
    are assigned a program officer as soon as they receive a grant
    from us. In this particular case, it is a direct grant that we
    are managing. It is not going through one of our Governor's
    Commissions on Volunteerism, which two-thirds of our grants are
    AmeriCorps grants, are managed through Governor's Commissions
    on Volunteerism. But this one is not. This is a direct grantor
    agency, so they are assigned a program officer.
        That program officer reviews all of the terms and
    conditions with them. They provide direction to them to
    trainings, to opportunities to find information like on our
    Knowledge Network. We host nationwide trainings and regional
    trainings. They attend those. They do monthly check-ins. So it
    is a regular communication all the time. In this particular
    case, this grantee knew the rules.
        Ms. Adams. Okay, so--
        Ms. Spencer. That's what is unfortunate.
        Ms. Adams. Yeah, okay. So as a follow-up, in the
    discussions, did they talk about abortion?
        Ms. Spencer. It happened and I read a string of Emails
    where there was communication back and forth. But if you look
    back today as sort of hindsight armchair quarterbacking, the
    language between the parties was sort of evasive. I think the
    parties should have just picked up the phone and say, what are
    you trying to do? Let us give you direct guidance. You may not
    do abortion services. That is not allowed according to the
    Serve America Act of which Congress has given us those rules.
        So it looked like they were dancing around words and it was
    hard to understand. But they were told you could not perform
    abortion services.
        Ms. Adams. Okay, let me ask. You mentioned no-cost
    extension, that they could ask for that.
        Ms. Spencer. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Adams. Have they asked for a no-cost extension?
        Ms. Spencer. No.
        Ms. Adams. And so you did say you would consider it. So
    when did you make a decision and would you approach them about
    doing it? I mean, since we are talking about, maybe you are
    talking about some misconduct, but not everybody was
    responsible for it and not wanting everybody to suffer. So what
    is your thought about that?
        Ms. Spencer. Well, I think Congressman Roe makes a good
    point. You do have to look at the intent of an organization and
    how they are being managed. So I am concerned. What would guide
    my decision in the coming weeks would be are they following our
    demands? Are they meeting all of the requests that we have
    asked them to do of which the IG also made recommendations to
    us which we have adhered to? So I would watch and see. Are we
    working in good faith with one another? Are they being
    responsive? There are many things they could do to try to
    convince us that they will adhere to the rules.
        Ms. Adams. Okay, so since there is not much time, you
    mentioned that the grant is up in July. But let me just move on
    and ask, what exactly were the volunteers doing? I mean, did
    they perform the abortions that you are talking about?
        Ms. Spencer. Oh, no, ma'am.
        Ms. Adams. Okay.
        Ms. Spencer. As I understand it, an abortion doula. And
    this is things that I am learning about, too, but was seated
    with these women during the--
        Ms. Adams. Okay, and finally before I run out of time, I
    wanted to ask you, you know, if there were some things that you
    think that were inappropriate, but what would reduced funding
    for CNCS mean for communities around the country if you had to
    do that?
        Ms. Spencer. I am sorry, what would--
        Ms. Adams. What would reduced funding do? What would it
    mean for communities around the country if their funding was
    reduced, eliminated?
        Ms. Spencer. Well, you know, I looked at all of the other
    things that the Community Health Corps does. They do diabetes
    screenings. They do breastfeeding courses. They do well-baby
    care education. They do support to veterans, support for
    seniors. They do obesity prevention. You know, this is why it
    is a mystery to me why they had to focus on this particular
    issue. There are so many other things: financial literacy,
    helping people figure out what kind of healthcare is affordable
    and available to them. There is so many other avenues they
    could be serving in.
        And in 2011, I was a grantee of this agency. I was
    receiving funds from this agency running the Florida Governor's
    Commission on Volunteerism. And I remember, Madam Chair Foxx,
    this hearing and watched with interest. It was no secret what
    was allowed and what was not allowed to any of us as a grantee.
    So, it was very clear at that time that they made the decision
    to change the wording for the member contract that allowed this
    activity to go on. So I am perplexed by that because all of us
    in the field understood the rules clearly.
        Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am. Well, it sounds like it would have a
    devastating impact in terms of the services overall that are
    provided if the funding was not there. And I yield back, Madam
    Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Dr. Adams. I believe,
    Mr. Courtney, we are going to recognize you for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses.
        Ms. Spencer, I just want to drill down a little deeper in
    terms of just who the program was in New York that was the
    subject of the IG report. Again, it was not the National
    Association of Community Health Centers that operated that
    program. It was a sub-grantee of the National Association of
    Community Health Centers, isn't that correct?
        Ms. Spencer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Courtney. And so the total grant for the community
    health centers group nationally, again, the 535 volunteers that
    are funded, I mean, those are all across the country.
        Ms. Spencer. That is correct.
        Mr. Courtney. Not just in New York City. So for example, in
    Connecticut, where I come from, there are 21 individuals that
    are funded through that National Association grant. There are
    four in my district in Norwich, Connecticut, who I am, you
    know, a frequent flyer at that community health center. They
    don't provide anything remotely close to abortion services. So
    the four volunteers that are funded through that grant, I mean,
    do things like schedule flu shots, you know, help with
    monitoring patients who are high emergency room utilizers, you
    know, help with medication management. I mean, they are doing
    this sort of blocking and tackling of primary care. And in many
    instances, our young individuals who later on end up going to
    medical school or advanced practice nursing, I mean, it is
    really a launching pad for people in terms of a healthcare
    career that has benefits that exceed even, sort of, the metrics
    of what you were talking about in terms of program success.
        So I guess, you know, I think it is important sometimes
    right now, to put this in perspective here. I mean, if we
    cancel a contract across the country, you are hitting community
    health centers that, again, are not even close--
        Mr. Courtney.--to the activity that was the subject of the
    complaints. And you are really just depriving low-income
    patients, elderly patients. Actually, in Norwich, Connecticut,
    they provide services to some veterans in terms of dental care
    that are not covered by the VA.
        So, I mean, let's not shoot the bystander here in terms of,
    you know, overreacting to this problem that was identified. And
    I hope you keep that in mind as you sort of evaluate the next
    steps here.
        Again, the surgical remedies that have been put into place
    are totally appropriate and that's your job. But, again, sort
    of an across the board chainsaw through, you know, community
    health centers I think really undercuts the mission of the
    AmeriCorps law. I do not know if you want to react to that, but
    I really think we got to put this in perspective.
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you for that input and I concur.
    Hopefully, in the future we will find more organizations like
    this agency that is interested in our grants. So you make fine
    points on it. I agree.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And I would just say that, again,
    stepping back even further in terms of just the scope of
    AmeriCorps as far as its, you know, value to the taxpayer, we
    have an RSVP program up in northeastern Connecticut that
    organizes veterans' coffeehouse. It sounds kind of small
    potatoes, but actually it has become a gathering point for the
    most rural part of the State for veterans who, as a result, are
    now getting VA benefits that they did not know they were
    entitled to because of, you know, the good information that is
    shared at that coffeehouse. We have medal recoveries for World
    War II vets, Korean War vets that never would have happened.
    And, you know, you are talking, Greg Kline's the director of
    it. I mean--
        Ms. Spencer. Yeah.
        Mr. Courtney. You know, this is really, at best, you know,
    part-time pay that is happening. But again, the ripple effect
    in terms of the value to people who wore the uniform of this
    country is, you know, far excess in terms of whatever small
    investment the taxpayer makes.
        Ms. Spencer. I recently saw Greg at a training we did, a
    regional training. And he gave me an update on that vet
    coffeehouse because he had told me about his plans over a year
    ago. And I am very pleased that you recognize them. We are
    leaning in on veterans and military family members heavily
    because there is great need there.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I have an article
    from the Hartford Current which describes the AmeriCorps
    program for veterans which we discussed here and I have asked
    that it be made part of the record.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
        Mr. Courtney. And again, I think what's--you know, again,
    get some perspective here about what happened and what is an
    appropriate remedy and not throw the baby out with the
    bathwater. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. That is an
    interesting analogy you would use.
        Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
    being here.
        And my question, actually, kind of focuses on veterans as
    well. And to Ms. Jeffrey, in your second fiscal year 2014
    semiannual report to Congress you detail an investigation in
    which you determine a grantee was supposed to use grant funds
    to support veterans and military families, improperly disbursed
    about 140,000 of Federal funds and improperly certified another
    61,000 education awards. The grantee acknowledged the findings
    and offered to refund the corporation the entire amount you
    recommended. Unconscionably, the corporation not only requested
    reimbursement for only about a third of the funds you
    recommended, but the corporation retroactively expanded the
    range of service activities of the grant in order to justify
    the move. Is there any justification for the corporation to
    retroactively approve over 12,000 National Service hours under
    this grant to non-veterans fundamentally changing the purpose
    of AmeriCorps' member service?
        Ms. Jeffrey. In my view, there is not. And not only did
    that happen with respect to this one veteran services grant, a
    very similar thing happened at around the same time with two
    other grants where the grantee unilaterally changed the
    objective of service, did not ask the corporation for approval.
    And then, when they were caught, sought forgiveness rather than
    permission. I think strong accountability requires the
    opposite. Grantees should be encouraged to ask first so the
    corporation makes the decision about the proper allocation of
    resources. Now, I believe there has to be accountability when a
    grantee exceeds its authority in that fashion.
        Mr. Guthrie. Yeah, well, what reforms are possible when the
    corporation does not want to have the inclination to move
    forward in that? What kind of reforms can you have if the
    corporation changes the scope?
        Ms. Jeffrey. Well, what I can do is report on it. That is
    the limit of my authority.
        Mr. Guthrie. Okay, well, thank you. So, Ms. Spencer, on
    that, what are the steps to terminate a grant for failure to
    comply with the Federal law or the conditions of the grant?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie. I wanted to
    point out that we looked at all of the grants over the last
    couple of years and what actions we have been taken. And I made
    a short list for the committee if it's helpful. We have had 26
    debarments, two suspensions. We have recovered $2 million in
    grant funds and we have had 52 mutually agreed terminations. So
    it is certainly something we don't take lightly. You know, we
    are co-investing with these organizations who start out well-
    meaning. Many of them are faith organizations, veterans'
    organizations, local nonprofits, charities, local governments,
    education, schools. And we start out with a good plan together
    and we review them to see if they are worthy of a Federal
    investment. And we go through a lot of criteria to see if they
    are.
        So when we find, and these generally, there are exceptions,
    but generally for AmeriCorps we are looking at 3-year
    commitments. So we go into a relationship for 3 years. When we
    find that the grantees are not performing at the highest level,
    that's when we start interventions. That is when you do the
    desk audits. That is when you do more monitoring. On occasion,
    if needed, we will ask for our annual audit report. We will put
    them on the list for the inspector general to audit.
    Unfortunately, the inspector general does not have all the
    resources to audit all of our requests, but they do a very good
    job of doing what they can with what resources they have.
        So we want them to succeed.
        Mr. Guthrie. Absolutely.
        Ms. Spencer. I mean, we are in this together,--
        Mr. Guthrie. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer.--but when they do not and after we have really
    tried--and I have been in a position to have to terminate
    grants from Florida when I was there directly managing about 45
    AmeriCorps grants on behalf of the governor, of three different
    governors in Florida. It's a tough decision. It is not always
    popular. But we are not in the popularity business. We are in
    the outcome business. And we chase problems and we have
    solutions for those.
        And so, I just say this--
        Mr. Guthrie. And in your audit, so some of them you said
    were mutual because I am about out of time.
        Ms. Spencer. Yes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Mutual, but if they were not mutual and you
    have had the audit and you say, hey, this is not--what do you
    actually have to--
        Ms. Spencer. I would say--
        Mr. Guthrie. What process do you have to follow to--
        Ms. Spencer.--without looking at a list, and I could
    certainly provide that of these 52 mutually agreed
    terminations, that's a good way to end it--
        Mr. Guthrie. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer.--but I am probably certain that if it was not
    mutually agreed it would have been terminated. That's the best
    way to end a relationship, but--and sometimes grants find out
    they just are not suitable to manage a Federal grant. We do
    have a lot of requirements, as we should. It is the taxpayers'
    money.
        Mr. Guthrie. I think that was the case on the matter of
    this situation. They said we thought we were going to have a
    more bigger group of veterans to serve. We didn't. Therefore,
    we diverted to try to do some other things and admitted--I do
    not think it was intentional to begin with, but it became that.
    I--
        Ms. Spencer. That was a tough one because they did provide
    services to local residents, but they were not in the original
    agreement for veterans.
        Mr. Guthrie. Right.
        Ms. Spencer. So the fact they did provide services is one
    thing, but that was a tough one.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you and I am out of time. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The gentlemen's time has expired. Ms.
    Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for
    being with us today.
        Ms. Spencer, one of the things that I think strikes me is
    that you all have really exhausted multiple resources, time,
    effort, everything in following up on this situation.
        Ms. Spencer. Yes, ma'am, we have.
        Ms. Davis. Do you have any sense in terms of what was
    required to do that? I think what I am trying to see here
    because we need to have some way of being aggressive as I think
    you have been and at the same time not having a chilling effect
    on the ability to use resources to actually improve programs,
    to make sure that everything is working as it should. What is
    your sense of that?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you very much. When we have a grantee
    that does not follow the rules, it does take a lot of energy of
    the organization, sadly, at some of the highest level
    personnel, including our general counsel, including our chief
    of grants, including our AmeriCorps director. But that's our
    job--
        Ms. Davis. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer.--and we will continue to be forthright and--
        Ms. Davis. And as I understand it, too, I mean, this
    started out as a media post, a social media post in terms of
    how it was picked up initially, but that you all took the steps
    to bring the Inspector General into it. And so, it seems to me
    that, you know, you are moving ahead in the way that is
    required. And that what we need to do and what I think we all
    need to do is to be sure that if we believe that community
    service--and I happen to believe and would love to see it
    expanded. I think that in this country, we know there are other
    countries that do this. You know, I would love to see every 18-
    year-old give at least 18 months of their time in community
    service. If we had the infrastructure in this country to do
    that, it would be great. And I think we need to think about
    what that would take in order to do that.
        Clearly, in this kind of a situation, you have to be very
    aggressive about those grants. You have to be very aggressive
    that people are doing what they are expected to do. And
    occasionally, and out of 345,000 or so volunteers today, there
    were a few people who in trying to do the right thing and
    perhaps not getting the direction that they obviously should
    have gotten, they erred. Geez, I do not know. (Laughs) I do not
    know if we have very many organizations in the country that can
    say that. So I think we need to be clear about that.
        But I also wanted to know from you, as well, Madam IG, what
    do you see in terms of resources? I think you have spoken to
    this a little bit, but if we had a way of crafting additional
    help and support, would it be more monitors? Is that what you
    think is required here? Is it more training, more education? We
    are short on the resources that we're providing.
        Ms. Jeffrey. It is a very good question and I do have some
    thoughts on it. To a considerable extent, the corporation needs
    to think outside the box about how it monitors.
        As things stand now, roughly one of the few ways that a
    corporation employee has contact with members is when that
    person does a site visit. Site visits may not happen but once
    every six years. That is not an effective way to know whether
    there are prohibited activities taking place at a grantee. So I
    think there need to be avenues for more frequent contacts with
    AmeriCorps members.
        Ms. Davis. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Jeffrey. In the experience of the OIG, if you want know
    what is really going at a grantee, the members will tell you.
    They are vocal when they see something they don't like.
        Now in this case, the grantee reported this to us, to the
    corporation. But I do think that the more contact there is with
    members, and it could be done with some simple survey
    questions, the better the monitoring would be without
    investment of tremendous resources.
        Ms. Davis. And are you all monitoring the social media as
    well to pick up problems?
        Ms. Jeffrey. Interestingly enough, that was a
    recommendation that CNCS made to grantees, that they monitor
    social media.
        Ms. Davis. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Jeffrey. Had they done that, that is how the grantee
    found it in this case.
        Ms. Davis. Yeah.
        Ms. Jeffrey. Now CNCS, as far as I know, does not take its
    own advice and do that even on an intermittent or selective
    basis. That may be something that it is considering now.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you. Well, I looked at so many of the
    organizations, certainly from San Diego, and the amount of work
    the Catholic Charities is doing and many others, and, quite
    frankly, in a number of situations, of course they are
    providing emotional support. So, I think we want to be careful
    how we use those words and how that relates to other issues and
    other concerns that we have. And, perhaps, we need some way of
    better defining what that means, under what circumstances. I
    think that some of that has already been done, perhaps. But
    again, let's be really clear with the people who are engaged in
    this and let's not have a chilling effect on the young people
    in this country who are doing such fabulous work.
        Thank you so much. I see that my time is up. I am sorry.
    Thank you.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Excuse me, I am sorry. Mr. Polis is next.
    I apologize.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you
    both for being here today and I want to highlight some of the
    contributions the Corporation for National Community Service
    has made in my district as an example.
        As my colleagues know, Colorado declared a state of
    emergency in the fall of 2013 after experiencing the most
    damaging floods in our State's history. Many homes, businesses,
    roads, bridges were destroyed. There was loss of life. Thanks
    to CNCS, though, volunteers were immediately deployed to
    Colorado to help in the aftermath of our floods. And in total,
    over 700 National Service members came to our State. Their work
    involved volunteer donations, management, staffing call
    centers, coordination of medical mobility rides, community
    relations activities, meal services. I got to visit a number of
    them as they were working to help feed some of those who had
    lost their homes, and mucking and gutting and debris removal as
    well.
        I want to thank you, first of all, for CNCS's quick
    response. And I was hoping you could talk a little bit more,
    Ms. Spencer, about the important role CNCS has when a natural
    disaster occurs, like ours.
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you so much, Congressman. After some of
    those disasters I actually toured in your district to see the
    work of our National Service participants and I appreciate you
    calling out their success. We have responded over the last
    several years to 200 natural disasters and some manmade
    disasters across the country. So we are very busy. We have
    individuals deployed right now in communities across the
    country.
        This is an area that is very personal to me. I led the
    volunteer and donations response for Governor Bush in 2004 and
    2005, when we had eight major disasters over a 2-year period
    and about 250,000 volunteers, including thousands of National
    Service participants who were leading the way there. So this is
    very personal to me.
        We have a robust disaster program. We have trained
    virtually every governor's commission on how to be engaged with
    their State emergency manager using National Service
    participants in their response and volunteers working closely
    with their local volunteer organizations active in disasters,
    their faith-based organizations that are working in disasters.
    We have trained a cadre of individuals all over the country. At
    any given time, we have got over 3,000 AmeriCorps members ready
    to respond, ready to be deployed, redeployed, mobilized across
    the country. We worked with the private sector on this. And
    during Hurricane Sandy we actually had Southwest Airlines move
    AmeriCorps members quickly across the country so they could get
    in and be deployed along with about 400 AmeriCorps members.
        We have FEMACorps now who are serving, young people 18 to
    24, who are serving alongside FEMA professionals. They are
    doing amazing work and they are learning now how to become
    professional disaster responders. And they are moving into
    careers in government and in nonprofits with disaster response.
    So we are not only helping the individual communities. We are
    training a new cadre of Americans to serve in this area. And
    emergency managers both local and State and Federal across the
    country have told me this is a gap that they have in
    professionals, and they have a lot of professionals retiring,
    like many sectors, and they need young people pursuing disaster
    response as a career and many of our young people are pursuing
    technology, but we need more in this area of public service.
        So I am very excited about this. Whenever we have a major
    disaster, I generally go personally, stop what I am doing,
    travel to that district within 10 to 14 days so that I can
    speak with local authorities and make sure that we are
    responding swiftly and see what else we can do. I meet with
    elected officials in the area. I have been all over the country
    in disasters and I bring with me the experience I brought from
    Florida and all of the service we did and how to train
    individuals to respond with appropriate volunteer and donations
    response. So thanks for pointing them out. We are doing a lot.
    We have a robust program and we want to do more.
        Mr. Polis. Well, thank you. And it was a great opportunity
    to interact with that, with many of your members in the field
    and in so many important roles in our State. And as you
    indicated during your visit to our district, it was--there were
    tens of thousands that were temporarily homeless. Many
    thousands lost their homes. And really, the community came
    together. But truly, the help with the managing, the outpouring
    of support from the untrained volunteers in our community is
    why we needed the trained volunteer and donations management.
    So many people wanted to help with goods and with time, but
    without the structure that CNCS provided with folks on the
    ground, we really wouldn't have been able to take advantage of
    that, and I just want to thank you.
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you for those remarks.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Now, Mr. DeSaulnier,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and no apology
    necessary.
        I just really want to commend you both on the work you do.
    What you do is so important. I do not think often enough we
    give enough attention to programs, the volunteer programs that
    you oversee and also the challenge of doing them properly. And
    I am reminded sitting here today, whether it was de Tocqueville
    to David Brooks recently talking about the importance of
    community and the breakdown of community in the United States
    and how important these nonprofits, community groups are to the
    fabric of America. So thank you for what you do.
        I want to talk little bit about--well, first I want to
    follow what Mr. Polis said. In California, of course, we had
    similar instances where your services and your grantee services
    have been very helpful in natural emergencies and now with the
    drought. With wildfires, I hear the same thing. So thank you
    for that.
        But I want to talk about both proportionality that Mr.
    Courtney brought in, that all the good things you do and, you
    know, this might go in one of those categories where no good
    deed goes unpunished in terms of your proper oversight given
    the overall proportion of good work that most of your grantees
    are doing and your oversight, but also sort of the right
    investment.
        So, Ms. Spencer, you mentioned in your comments under
    strengthening risk-based monitoring, ``In the spirit of
    continuous improvement, we are implementing additional steps to
    increase the effectiveness of our oversight and monitoring,''--
    and I want to sort of emphasize that word ``effectiveness''--
    then you go on to say, ``as part of our continued effort to
    incorporate best practices in our risk management.'' So there
    is, coming from the private sector--I know that industries,
    whether it's their insurance or just good management practices,
    you know, for instance in the construction industry, a certain
    proportion of your overall budget is going to be waste or
    theft. I was in the restaurant business. You did not want
    anybody stealing from you, but you did know that there was a
    point where there was diminishing returns on what you spent to
    make sure you bring it to zero.
        So that is what wanted to ask you. As you look at your risk
    management and, sort of, industry best practices, given that
    you are dealing with nonprofits, given that you are dealing
    with nonprofits who do not have a lot of administrative
    overhead, and you are trying to encourage volunteerism, is
    there sort of an accepted--or do you--knowing that particularly
    in areas where you know that there is going to be a certain
    amount of public and political consequences if you don't get it
    to zero, what is appropriate?
        And I think back at my time in the California legislature
    wherein the previous governor spent so much time on waste and
    abuse in the food stamp program, we actually found out that we
    were spending too much and it was affecting our participation
    rates. So somewhere in there, it is sort of the right porridge.
    Is there a best practice when you come to your profession/
    industry?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you so much, Congressman. I think it
    would be too strong to say that there should be an accepted
    amount of risk. And I come from this from my experience in
    Florida managing about 45 AmeriCorps grants all over the State,
    about 1,800 AmeriCorps members at any given time and we had
    strong grantees. We had, during my watch, no fraud. I can't
    recall any waste. Did we--we were focused on are we investing
    the resources in the right areas? For example, I had a grantee,
    a long-term grantee, that was providing education programs in
    an area that was improving in their education success. So we
    moved those resources to another area that was struggling. So
    as you see success, right, you shift your resources.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer. That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is
    just smart management.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer. So I would not be able to say that there is
    some kind of accepted risk. I do not think that is a path that
    we should consider. The inspector general and I agree on--
        Mr. DeSaulnier. If I could--
        Ms. Spencer.--much more than we--
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Yeah, I am sorry to interrupt, but since I
    have limited time, I did want to suggest that you want to get
    to zero and I think you have done a great job of that.
        Ms. Spencer. Uh-huh.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. But at some point from a business model,
    there is diminishing returns where you are spending so much,
    where you, sort of, have to go upstream, which I think you have
    done.
        Ms. Spencer. I see.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So it is more--less on the subjective
    point. We are more of the objective. We are spending X-amount
    of dollars to capture this much of fault.
        Ms. Spencer. And I think that--I was going to say and this
    pertains to this, the inspector general and I agree on a lot
    more than we disagree on.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Spencer. And she is right. We need improvements in our
    IT. We need improvements in our internal controls. We hope
    Enterprise Risk Management is going to help us. We hope that
    our new chief risk officer, our first in our agency's history,
    is going to lead us and guide us. We need to take this advice
    and counsel. We are down, quite frankly, a lot of this comes to
    money, We are down $6 million over the last six years in our
    salaries and expenses line. So at some point, we have got to
    look very hard at where we are shifting our resources. So it's
    an important to make. You have to make best decisions and the
    most cost-effective decisions. And I think that was where you
    were going.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Ms. Spencer, I am glad to hear you make--in response, that
    you don't want to accept waste and abuse. You did make a very
    bold statement that in your programs in Florida you had
    absolutely no fraud and no waste. That is a pretty strong
    statement to make, but I appreciate--
        Ms. Spencer. During my time.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Would you please tell me what specific
    steps you are now taking to ensure that your grantees and every
    participant in the programs are--every participant is clear
    about what conduct is and is not allowed. And I don't want you
    to use up my whole 5 minutes outlining every single one, but
    give me some as specific as you can and then I am hoping to do
    a follow-up later to get more details from you.
        Ms. Spencer. Can I ask for clarification?
        Chairwoman Foxx. What are you doing to ensure your grantees
    and every participant is clear about what conduct is and is not
    allowed?
        Ms. Spencer. Thank you. I think we are really leaning in
    hard on our training of all of our grantees across the country.
    We have implemented some regional trainings just at the last
    couple of years that we have gotten excellent feedback from.
    And virtually all of our medium to large grantees are
    attending. Even small grantees are attending. This year we will
    probably see over 2,000 grantees in four trainings. I attend
    all of these and I address all of the participants. The
    inspector general sends her staff there. This is one way. We
    now have--
        Chairwoman Foxx. Just to clarify. All 2,000 go to four
    events each?
        Ms. Spencer. So there is four regional. So we try to spread
    them out so travel costs are reduced. In this case, this year,
    four regional conferences. And we will see about 2,000
    grantees. And these are the leaders. These are the people
    running the programs. It is important. They are listening to
    the rules. They are hearing what our expectations are. They are
    learning about accountability and oversight. The Inspector
    General brings her staff there. Their sessions are full. I have
    looked in on them.
        We are talking about criminal history checks. We are
    talking about oversight to its fullest. We are talking about
    performance measures.
        So we also now, and the Inspector General makes a good
    point about, can we do more to reach out directly to members?
    She makes an excellent point. I want to find more ways that we
    can do that. Since your last hearing, one of the things that--a
    good thing that came out of it, several good things, but one
    was that every AmeriCorps member receives a communication from
    us that stipulates very clearly what the prohibited activities
    are.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Do they sign anything acknowledging that
    they have received that?
        Ms. Spencer. I will get back to you on that.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Okay, and you said 2,000 grantees. Who is
    left out of that? I mean, how many are not participating in
    those regional programs?
        Ms. Spencer. I would have to get back to you on that to
    find out--
        Chairwoman Foxx. And why not everyone?
        Ms. Spencer. Well, that is a good point. In fact, in
    California, I went to the training conference with the
    Southwest United States, and I asked--California, of course,
    being our largest state. And the California commission
    director, who serves at the pleasure of the governor there,
    said all of her grantees in the entire State of California
    under her watch, except one, attended that training. And she
    was going to make sure that one received all the materials and
    instructions that the others received during their--now that is
    just one option. You know, each State commission--
        Chairwoman Foxx. I am--we are about to run out of time.
        Ms. Spencer. Okay.
        Chairwoman Foxx. And I have one more question. I am going
    to ask you to detail tell me what steps you are taking. So is
    an annual assurance that a grantee is in compliance with
    regulations on prohibited activities currently part of the
    monitoring protocols? And if so, did the National Association
    of Community Health Centers make this assurance? If so, what
    good is the assurance if the grantees and sub-grantees are not
    faithfully adhering to the requirements of the law?
        Ms. Spencer. We will certainly get back to you on that so
    that we can be assured of the correct answer. Absolutely.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Okay, well, thank you very much. Ms.
    Jeffrey, I am going to submit some questions to you afterwards
    related to the Improper Payments Elimination Recovery Act and
    how the agency is not complying with that. And I know you have
    given us some information on this, so I would want to get back
    to you with that, okay?
        Ms. Jeffrey. We look forward to responding.
        Chairwoman Foxx. All right, great. My time has expired and
    I believe all members have had an opportunity to ask their
    questions. Therefore, I would ask Ms. Adams if she is ready to
    make closing remarks?
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am and I want to thank
    both of you for your participation today.
        Since its creation more than 20 years ago, the Corporation
    for National and Community Service has been a strong pillar in
    our community. Across this Nation, CNCS has engaged millions of
    Americans in service. It's AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Social
    Innovation Fund, and the Volunteer Generation Fund program.
    CNCS has been a leader in alleviating the role of national
    service, which is important to those involved. Madam Chair, I
    have a letter I wanted to submit. I am trying to figure out
    where it is right now. Oh, here it is.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Without objections.
        Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you. So let me just move on to say
    last year, CNCS provided 345,000 volunteers who served over 155
    million hours through AmeriCorps and Senior Corps in more than
    500,000 locations. And it's clear that our continued support is
    absolutely necessary. Tackling issues like literacy and
    homelessness and hunger have been continued priorities for
    CNCS, as well responding to national disasters and helping
    seniors reenter the workforce to improving student academic
    achievement, CNCS is making a real difference and we appreciate
    that.
        But, you know, I guess I didn't come prepared today to hear
    so much about the use of government funds and what appears to
    me to be somewhat attacks on a woman's right to determine what
    to do with their bodies. But CNCS did, from what I hear, what
    they were supposed to do, address the issue at hand, but yet it
    continues to come up in this Congress about women and what we
    ought to do concerning reproductive rights. So while the
    hearing is--was--I did not believe it was supposed to be about
    reproductive rights, I just wanted to just comment that I think
    that we wasted a lot of time with baseless attacks.
        For instance, the Select Panel on the Planned Parenthood
    has been nothing more in my opinion than a political theater.
    But we, my colleagues, have pushed for 21 anti-women's health
    votes, introduced 51 anti-women's health bills, and we have had
    8 anti-women health hearings. And I just think that we need to
    be talking about misuse of some of those funds.
        But again, let me just applaud you for the hard work that
    you have done over the past two decades and I know that what
    you do will continue to engage more citizens and more
    volunteers in a productive way. And I just think that the work
    that CNCS has done and continues to do has made significant
    contributions and I certainly hope that you will continue to do
    that and that we will support those efforts.
        Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Ms. Adams and I have
    worked together over many years when we were both in the North
    Carolina legislature and I will have to say I very much
    disagree that this is only a hearing about women's reproductive
    rights. This hearing has come about because there is an agency
    in Federal Government that is not being held accountable
    properly in terms of how it spends money in many different
    ways.
        I am home every weekend and I come in contact with
    hardworking citizens who do their jobs and they pay their
    taxes. They volunteer and they do not get paid for it. They are
    true volunteers. And I see those people struggling every day to
    make ends meet and do work in their fire departments as
    volunteers, the Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts. And they want
    their money spent well. They do not begrudge helping their
    fellow citizens. We are the most generous people in the world.
    But they want their money spent well. And this agency does not
    spend its money well in many cases.
        You mentioned, Ms. Spencer, that you had a $6 million
    reduction over six years. Well, you are just talking to the
    wrong folks because our congressional offices over the past
    eight years have had a 20 percent reduction in the money
    allowed to us to serve a lot of people, over 700,000 people.
    And all of us are struggling very hard to continue the level of
    service that we gave before our funds were cut. So I am sorry,
    that argument does not go very far with this group.
        Your idea of a culture of accountability and mine and Dr.
    Roe's and the folks on our side of the aisle are two very
    different things. You can say you have a culture of
    accountability, but I am sorry to say you have not described
    that very well today in my opinion. If people had worked for me
    who had broken the law, I'd have no tolerance for them
    whatsoever. Zero tolerance. And many members of Congress have
    exhibited that.
        You talk a lot about intentions. We need to be talking
    about metrics and true accountability here. Maybe Dr. Roe and I
    are a little old-fashioned in what we think, but we think you
    ought to be measuring real things. What kind of outcomes are
    you actually getting? What skills are the people in these
    programs truly getting? Do they get any certifications? You
    know, we demand that kind of accountability in certain areas
    and then in other areas where our colleagues want to measure
    only intentions, we don't get that.
        Now, it is true that the law has been broken by people, by
    agencies, and groups you have funded. The law is clear. The
    Federal Government is not going to support abortion services.
    So while this hearing was not about that particular issue, I
    don't think we can close it without making it very clear. You
    seem to have a lack of concern about the violation of the law.
    Your consideration of a no-cost extension is very troubling to
    me.
        We have said it before, I said it at the beginning of the
    hearing, and I am going to say it again, this grant should be
    pulled immediately and under no circumstances should it be
    extended. And I hope we will get back from you a report that
    will fulfill that because when you allow the violation of law
    in whatever category that it is, then we start down a slippery
    slope in this country. We are governed by the rule of law and
    we should all want to uphold that.
        There being no further business, the subcommittee stands
    adjourned.

        [Additional submissions by Ms. Adams follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submission by Mr. Courtney follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Link:https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/
    evidenceexchange/FR--CNCS--
    Alumni%20Outcomes%20Survey%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Responses to questions submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Extensive material was submitted by Ms. Spencer. The
    submission for the record is in the committee archive for this
    hearing.]
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]