    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     EXAMINING THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
                      AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AND ITS FAILED
                         OVERSIGHT OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 28, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-11

                                   __________

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

     [GRAPHIC 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
    24-758 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                   VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    Joe Wilson, South Carolina           Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Duncan Hunter, California                Virginia
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Ranking Member
    Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania  Susan A. Davis, California
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Brett Guthrie, Kentucky              Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Jared Polis, Colorado
    Luke Messer, Indiana                 Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama                 Northern Mariana Islands
    David Brat, Virginia                 Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Mark Takano, California
    Elise Stefanik, New York             Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
    Rick W. Allen, Georgia               Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Jason Lewis, Minnesota               Donald Norcross, New Jersey
    Francis Rooney, Florida              Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia           Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
    Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania       Adriano Espaillat, New York
    A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia

                          Brandon Renz, Staff Director
                     Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                       BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky, Chairman

    Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania  Susan A. Davis, California
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania             Ranking Member
    Luke Messer, Indiana                 Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama               Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Elise Stefanik, New York             Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Rick W. Allen, Georgia               Jared Polis, Colorado
    Jason Lewis, Minnesota               Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan                Northern Mariana Islands
    Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia           Mark Takano, California
    Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania       Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
                                         Adriano Espaillat, New York

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on March 28, 2017...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Davis, Hon. Susan A., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher
          Education and Workforce Development........................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
          Education and Workforce Development........................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Bawden, Ms. Allison, Acting Director of Education, Workforce,
          and Income Security, Government Accountability Office......     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Darling, Ms. Elizabeth, CEO and President Onestar Foundation
          and National Service Commission............................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Giblin, Ms. Lori, Chief Risk Officer, Corporation for
          National and Community Service.............................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    22
        Jeffrey, Hon. Deborah, Inspector General, Corporation for
          National and Community Service.............................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    44

    Additional Submissions:
        Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:
            Article: TVCCA to open coffeehouse for veterans..........    80
            Article: Veterans coffeehouse celebrated.................    86
            Article: Town supports Veterans Coffeehouse..............    90
        Mrs. Davis:
            Letter dated March 7, 2017, from Voices for National
              Service................................................    91
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Mrs. Davis...............................................    95
            Chairman Guthrie........................................97, 100
            Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
              Congress from the State of Virginia....................    95
        Responses to questions submitted for the record:
            Ms. Darling..............................................   101
            Ms. Giblin...............................................   107
            Ms. Jeffrey..............................................   118

                         EXAMINING THE CORPORATION FOR
                         NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
                          AND ITS FAILED OVERSIGHT OF
                                TAXPAYER DOLLARS

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 28, 2017

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

           Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brett Guthrie
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Guthrie, Thompson, Messer,
    Grothman, Allen, Lewis, Mitchell, Smucker, Davis, Courtney,
    Adams, DeSaulnier, Krishnamoorthi, Polis, Sablan, Takano, Blunt
    Rochester, and Espaillat.
        Also Present: Representatives Foxx, Scott, and Rooney.
        Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Member
    Services and Coalitions; 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; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology;
    Brian Newell, Communications Director; 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; Austin Barbera, Minority Press
    Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Deputy Education Policy
    Director; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Mishawn
    Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Carolyn Hughes, Minority
    Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Alexander Payne, Minority
    Education Policy Advisor; and Veronique Pluviose, Minority
    Civil Rights Counsel.
        Chairman Guthrie. Good morning. A quorum being present the
    Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workplace Development will
    come to order.
        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on the
    Corporation for National and Community Service. One of the most
    important responsibilities given to Congress by the
    Constitution is oversight of the Federal bureaucracy. As
    members of this committee, we share in that responsibility by
    conducting oversight of the departments, agencies, commissions,
    and government corporations at our jurisdiction.
        It is our duty to hold the executive branch accountable for
    both the way it administers the law and how it spends taxpayer
    dollars and that is why we are here today, to hold the
    Corporation for National and Community Service accountable.
        Commonly known as CNCS, the corporation is an independent
    Federal agency created in 1993 to oversee a range of community
    service programs and grants, including AmeriCorps and
    SeniorCorps programs.
        Today it receives more than $1 billion a year to support 11
    different initiatives and issues $750 million in grants
    annually. In fact, at any given time, CNCS is responsible for
    overseeing more than 2,000 active grants ranging in size from
    $40,000 to $10 million.
        That is a significant amount of money, making the
    corporation's oversight of those funds significantly important.
    CNCS has a responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are being
    spent in full compliance with the law. However, time and time
    again, the corporation has fallen short of the goal.
        Just last year, the subcommittee held a hearing after
    learning about a particularly egregious misuse of taxpayer
    dollars under the corporation's watch. As the corporation's
    inspector general reported, one AmeriCorps grantee allowed
    members to participate in illegal activity by providing support
    services during abortion procedures, all the while continuing
    to receive taxpayer funds. Incidents like this are simply
    unacceptable.
        CNCS has a history of failing to prevent the unlawful use
    of taxpayer dollars. According to the corporation's own
    inspector general, AmeriCorps may have misspent at least $14.5
    million in 2015. I say ``at least'' because the information
    used to determine the extent of that misspending was not
    statistically valid, complete, or accurate. The actual amount
    may have been even higher.
        Due to poor planning, CNCS could not even determine the
    amount misspent in 2016. Additionally, it is estimated that
    SeniorCorps programs misspent $47 million in 2016. Let me
    repeat that, 47 million. That's 30 percent of SeniorCorps'
    total spending.
        Of course, while misspending is a serious problem, the
    corporation's oversight failures extend beyond funding. Under
    Federal law, CNCS grantees are required to perform criminal
    history checks on their participants and staff to ensure that
    safety of the individuals and communities they serve. However,
    the corporation's chief risk officer found that an alarming
    number of grantees failed to properly do so last year. In fact,
    40 percent of the participants or staff in the senior companion
    program and 41 percent in the retired and senior volunteer
    program did not undergo the required background checks.
        These are just two examples, but the percentages are
    shocking. We are talking about individuals who are working
    closely with our seniors and some of the most vulnerable
    members of our local communities, yet we know nothing or very
    little about their background or criminal histories. That is
    just not an issue of mismanaged or misspent money. It is an
    issue of safety and security.
        It is clear CNCS is not fulfilling its responsibilities to
    ensure taxpayer dollars are spent in accordance with the law.
    We the members of the committee have the responsibility to
    demand better.
        We are joined today by several individuals who are very
    familiar with the corporation's shortcomings. I would like to
    thank you all for being here today and I look forward to
    discussing the changes that must be made at CNCS. We have quite
    a bit of ground to cover, so I will now recognize Ranking
    Member Davis for opening remarks.
        [The statement of Chairman Guthrie follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Chairman, Subcommittee on
                   Higher Education and Workforce Development

        One of the most important responsibilities given to Congress by the
    Constitution is oversight of the federal bureaucracy. As members of
    this committee, we share in that responsibility by conducting oversight
    of the departments, agencies, commissions, and government corporations
    in our jurisdiction. It is our duty to hold the executive branch
    accountable both for the way it administers the law and how it spends
    taxpayer dollars. And that's why we are here today--to hold the
    Corporation for National and Community Service accountable.
        Commonly known as CNCS, the corporation is an independent federal
    agency, created in 1993 to oversee a range of federal community service
    programs and grants, including AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps programs.
    Today, it receives more than $1 billion dollars a year to support 11
    different initiatives and issues $750 million in grants annually. In
    fact, at any given time, CNCS is responsible for overseeing more than
    2,000 active grants--ranging in size from $40,000 to $10 million.
        That's a significant amount of money, making the corporation's
    oversight of those funds significantly important. CNCS has a
    responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent in full
    compliance with the law. However, time and time again, the corporation
    has fallen short of that goal.
        Just last year, this subcommittee held a hearing after learning
    about a particularly egregious misuse of taxpayer dollars under the
    corporation's watch. As the corporation's Inspector General reported,
    one AmeriCorps grantee allowed members to participate in illegal
    activity by providing support services during abortion procedures--all
    while continuing to receive taxpayer funds. Incidents like this one are
    simply unacceptable.
        CNCS has a history of failing to prevent the unlawful use of
    taxpayer dollars. According to the corporation's own Inspector General,
    AmeriCorps misspent at least $14.5 million in 2015. I say ``at least''
    because the information used to determine the extent of that
    misspending was not ``statistically valid, complete, or accurate''--
    meaning the actual amount may have been even higher. Due to poor
    planning, CNCS could not even determine the amount misspent in 2016.
        Additionally, it is estimated that Senior Corps programs misspent
    $47 million dollars in 2016. Let me repeat that: $47 million. That's 30
    percent of Senior Corps' total spending.
        Of course, while misspending is a serious problem, the
    corporation's oversight failures extend beyond funding.
        Under federal law, CNCS grantees are required to perform criminal
    history checks on their participants and staff to ensure the safety of
    the individuals and communities they serve. However, the corporation's
    Chief Risk Officer found that an alarming number of grantees failed to
    properly do so last year. In fact, 40 percent of participants or staff
    in the Senior Companion Program and 41 percent in the Retired and
    Senior Volunteer Program didn't undergo the required background checks.
    These are just two examples, but the percentages are shocking. We are
    talking about individuals who are working closely with our seniors and
    some of the most vulnerable members of our local communities. Yet, we
    know nothing or very little about their background or criminal
    histories. That's not just an issue of mismanaged or misspent money.
    It's an issue of safety and security.
        It is clear CNCS is not fulfilling its responsibilities to ensure
    taxpayer dollars are spent in accordance with the law. We, the members
    of this committee, have a responsibility to demand better.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. Good morning, thank you,
    Chairman Guthrie. I also want to very warmly thank our
    witnesses for being here and providing your experience and
    expertise.
        Last year, 325,000 Americans, serving through AmeriCorps
    and SeniorCorps invested 155 million hours of service to their
    communities at more than 50,000 locations across the Nation.
    The majority called this hearing today because of 10 total
    service hours performed by 6 AmeriCorps members. That is 10
    hours out of 155 million hours of service performed last year.
    CNCS funding last year was $1.01 billion, which means taxpayers
    gave CNCS $6.51 per hour of service performed. So the majority
    is holding a hearing because they do believe that this $65.10
    was mismanaged. It is also important to remember the
    President's budget as the backdrop to the conversation that we
    are having today. President Trump's Skinny Budget would
    completely do away with the funding for the Corporation for
    National and Community Service.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record this letter signed by 65 current and former Republican
    officials expressing strong support for funding CNCS in this
    year's appropriations bill. And I want to point out that this
    list includes Republicans, like Mississippi Governor Haley
    Barbour, former Congressman Chris Gibson and Ron Kauffman, who
    served as President George H.W. Bush's political director.
        Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers
    in national and community service. These volunteers have taught
    students, they have been mentors, helped local communities
    recover from national disasters, and helped our Nation's
    veterans adjust to civilian life. Beyond that, CNCS has taught
    generations of Americans about the importance of national
    service.
        National service is the only way to ensure and inform
    empathic citizenry and a healthy Nation and that is exactly
    what these volunteers do. In fact, the local partnerships that
    CNCS supports are so successful that they leverage 15 private
    dollars for every 10 Federal dollars that we invest.
        Such success means that CNCS and its members are there
    during the times America needs them most. During the Flint
    water crisis, for example, 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. When tornadoes wreaked havoc
    in Oklahoma, AmeriCorps volunteers were there. In my own
    district, AmeriCorps VISTA members collaborate with veterans'
    service providers to create the most comprehensive and seamless
    transition process for all military members and veterans.
        They connect veterans and military families to housing,
    financial literacy, and employment resources throughout our
    district. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act signed into
    law by President Obama in 2009 reauthorized and expanded the
    national service programs administered by CNCS. Passed with
    strong bipartisan support, the Act showed how much America
    values national service by expanding service programs so over 4
    million Americans could engage in results-driven service each
    year.
        With regard to last year's AmeriCorps incident, CNCS
    discovered and resolved these issues with deliberate action.
    I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that if what happened was
    related to anything other than women's health services, CNCS
    would not be called in front of us here today for the second
    time and about the same incident.
        So as we proceed with this hearing, I hope that we remain
    focused on the vital importance of service to our Nation. I
    have had many conversations with my colleagues across the aisle
    who agreed that service is a crucial part of engaging Americans
    and their communities.
        CNCS gives us the vehicle to invest in our national service
    infrastructure and we have a great deal to learn about the way
    that they have done that.
        While we should value and uphold oversight and enforcement,
    we must also remember that CNCS engages over a million
    volunteers who assist local communities across America,
    communities represented on both sides of the aisle.
        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, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Mrs. Davis follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                 on Higher Education and Workforce Development

        Good morning and thank you, Chairman Guthrie. I would also like to
    thank our witnesses for being here.
        Last year, 325,000 Americans serving through AmeriCorps and Senior
    Corps invested 155 million hours of service to their communities at
    more than 50,000 locations across the nation. The Majority called this
    hearing today because of ten total service hours performed by six
    AmeriCorps members. That's 10 hours out of the 155 million hours of
    service performed last year. CNCS funding last year was $1.01 billion,
    which means taxpayers gave CNCS $6.51 per hour of service performed.
    So, the Majority is holding a hearing because THEY believe $65.10 was
    mismanaged.
        It is also important to remember the President's budget as the
    backdrop to the conversation we're having today. President Trump's
    ``skinny'' budget would completely do away with the funding for the
    Corporation for National and Community Service.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this
    letter signed by 65 current and former Republican officials expressing
    strong support for funding CNCS in this year's appropriations bill. I
    want to point out that this list includes Republicans like former
    Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, former Congressman Chris Gibson,
    and Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H. W. Bush's political
    director.
        Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers in
    national and community service. These volunteers have taught students,
    been mentors, helped local communities recover from natural disasters,
    and helped our nation's veterans adjust to civilian life.
        Beyond that, CNCS has taught generations of Americans about the
    importance of national service. National service is the only way to
    ensure an informed, empathetic citizenry and healthy nation. And that
    is exactly what these volunteers do. In fact, the local partnerships
    that CNCS supports are so successful that they leverage 15 private
    dollars for every 10 federal dollars that we invest.
        Such success means CNCS and its members are there during the times
    Americans are most in need:
        * 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.
        * When tornadoes wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, AmeriCorps
    volunteerswere there.
        * In my own district, AmeriCorps VISTA members collaborate with
    veterans' service providers to create the most comprehensive and
    seamless transition process for all military members and veterans. They
    connect veterans and military families to housing, financial literacy,
    and employment resources throughout our district.
        The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, signed into law by
    President Obama in 2009, reauthorized and expanded the national service
    programs administered by CNCS. Passed with strong bipartisan support,
    the Act showed how much America values national service by expanding
    service programs so over four million Americans could engage in
    results-driven service each year.
        With regard to last year's AmeriCorps incident, CNCS discovered and
    resolved these issues with deliberate action. I can't help but think
    that if what happened was related to anything other than women's health
    CNCS would not be called in front of us here today. For the second
    time. About the same incident.
        As we proceed with this hearing, I hope that we remain focused on
    the vital importance of service to our nation. I've had many
    conversations with my colleagues across the aisle who agree that
    service is a crucial part of engaging Americans in their communities.
    CNCS gives us the vehicle to invest in our national service
    infrastructure. While we should value and uphold oversight and
    enforcement, we must also remember that CNCS engages over a million
    volunteers who assist local communities across America, communities
    represented on both sides of the aisle.
        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.
                                     ______

        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you and before moving on, I just
    want to clarify the hearing is about $750 million that has
    been--CNCS, the oversight of that, that is spent by CNCS or
    granted by CNCS.
        So pursuant to the 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.
        I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished
    witnesses. Ms. Alison Bawden, is that correct? Ms. Bawden
    serves as the acting director of Education, Workforce, and
    Income Security Team for the General Accountability Office. Ms.
    Lori Giblin serves as the chief risk officer for the
    Corporation for National and Community Service.
        Ms. Elizabeth Darling is the president and CEO of the
    OneStar Foundation and previously served as the chief operating
    officer for the Corporation of National and Community Service.
        And the Honorable Deborah Jeffrey is the inspector general
    for the Corporation for National and Community Service.
        I will now ask the witnesses to raise your right hand. Do
    you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about
    to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
    truth?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Guthrie. Let the record reflect the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative.
        And before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let
    me briefly explain our lighting system. You each 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 following the testimony.
        So now, Ms. Bawden, I will recognize you for 5 minutes for
    your testimony.

      TESTIMONY OF ALLISON BAWDEN, ACTING DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
       WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
                                 OFFICE

        Ms. Bawden. Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Davis, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    discuss GAO's recently completed work on grant monitoring by
    the Corporation for National Community Service. My remarks
    today highlight key findings and recommendations from that work
    with respect to, first, whether the corporation's current
    process for monitoring grants aligns with standards for
    identifying, analyzing, and responding to risk; and second,
    whether the corporation has the capacity necessary to monitor
    its grantees' compliance with program requirements. In fiscal
    year 2015, the corporation had over 2,000 active grants
    totaling about $750 million.
        As such, the corporation is administering and monitoring a
    significant Federal investment. Bottom line, it is essential
    for the corporation to have a full understanding of the
    potential risks of the grants and awards and to align its
    monitoring efforts to mitigate the most significant risks.
    Currently, the corporation annually assesses grants that it
    expects to be active in the next fiscal year. Up to 19
    indicators are assessed for each grant and scores for each
    indicator are weighted to result in a total.
        This total places each grant into a high, medium, or low
    priority category for grant monitoring activities. These
    activities mainly consist of visits and desk reviews, among
    other things, to assure compliance with fiscal and program
    requirements.
        First, we found that the corporation's current process for
    grant monitoring is not fully aligned with the federal
    standards for internal control that describe how agencies
    should identify, analyze, and respond to risk. We recommended
    actions the corporation should take to better consider risk
    when prioritizing grants for monitoring, including these three.
        One, the corporation should establish and implement a
    policy to ensure that all grants expected to be active during
    the next fiscal year are, in fact, assessed for potential risk.
    We found that some grants, particularly new ones, may be
    omitted from the assessment process in the year they are first
    awarded because the reward was made after the process was
    complete. One program officer told us that monitoring new
    grants in their first year can help avoid future problems.
        Two, the corporation should improve its collection of
    information used to oversee subrecipients, especially with
    respect to their conduct of required criminal history checks.
    Sub-recipients receive pass-through funds from the
    corporation's grantees and the corporation is required to
    monitor how its grantees oversee those subrecipients. We found
    that the corporation has limited standard monitoring
    requirements for subrecipient oversight and that the
    subrecipient information collected by grantees may cover only a
    small portion of criminal history check activities.
        And three, the corporation should revise its assessment
    indicators to meaningfully cover all identifiable risks and
    revise their scoring so that the riskiest grants get the
    highest scores. We found that the indicators may not address
    all potential risks such as fraud and that the highest scoring
    indicator may not measure grant risk.
        The corporation has taken some steps to improve how its
    assessment and monitoring processes consider risk. For example,
    it established the Office of the Chief Risk Officer, which has
    begun to benchmark assessment indicators against those of other
    Federal grant-making agencies and programs. However,
    improvement efforts are in their early stages and do not
    address the full scope of our findings.
        As a result, we made the recommendations I discussed to
    help guide the corporation's efforts as it moves forward. The
    corporation did not comment on them.
        Second, with respect to strategic workforce planning, we
    found that the corporation has not determined whether it has
    the people and resources to effectively monitor grantees'
    compliance with program requirements.
        The corporation's efforts to address vacancies have been
    largely ad hoc, including for senior-level grant-monitoring
    positions, and we found that vacancies did affect the number of
    grant-monitoring activities conducted in fiscal year 2015.
        The corporation also has not evaluated whether staff have
    been deployed where they are most needed.
        Officials said they had not developed a strategic workforce
    planning process because of limited resources. We concluded
    that the corporation's efforts to address workforce challenges
    may continue to be ad hoc without such planning and recommended
    that it be conducted. The corporation also did not comment on
    this finding or recommendation.
        In closing, thank you for your time today. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
        [The statement of Ms. Bawden follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Giblin,
    you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF LORI GIBLIN, CHIEF RISK OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR
                     NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

        Ms. Giblin. Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Davis, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify today. I share the committee's view that our agency has
    a responsibility to ensure Federal funds are well managed and
    welcome this opportunity to discuss our commitment to strong
    risk management and prudent stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
        My written testimony details our comprehensive risk
    management frameworks and the multiple steps we have taken
    since the subcommittee hearing last year. I will summarize them
    now. To properly identify and manage risk, the first step has
    to be a commitment from the top. CNCS leadership has made an
    extraordinary commitment to risk management and has backed up
    that commitment with action.
        We are one of the first independent and small Federal
    agencies to hire a chief risk officer. We are one of the only
    agencies that has aligned all of our risk assessment functions
    into one integrated framework. We have been identified as a
    leader among our peers in implementing the principles of risk
    management laid out by OMB.
        Even in an extremely tight budget environment, we have
    redirected scarce resources to ensure this function is properly
    staffed and have hired 17 professionals with extensive
    experience in accounting, auditing, compliance, internal
    controls, and risk management. Over many years, CNCS has built
    a culture of accountability and a strong system for monitoring
    and oversight.
        Now, with the strong commitment for leadership, infusion of
    resources, and a top-notch team, we are building on that
    foundation to implement a risk-based program modeled on
    industry best practices.
        Our focus is to identify actual evidence-based risks,
    validate and prioritize them, and mitigate them on an ongoing
    basis. We follow leading industry practices in organizing risk
    into four basic categories: programmatic, financial,
    compliance, and fraud.
        In the area of programmatic risk, we provide training and
    technical assistance to our grantees to assist them in
    successfully implementing their programs. For financial risk,
    we continually assess our grantees' financial liability and
    ability to manage Federal funds. If a grantee has challenges,
    we use a wide range of strategies and corrective actions,
    including increased monitoring, putting grantees on a
    reimbursement only status, requiring them to report monthly on
    expenditures, termination, suspension, and debarment.
        For compliance and fraud risk, we have taken multiple steps
    to ensure that grantees comply with the terms and conditions of
    their award and to ensure that we safeguard the agency against
    fraud, waste, and abuse.
        To ensure our work is effective, coordinated, and
    delivering results, we have consolidated five risk assessment
    programs under my office.
        First, we are taking comprehensive action to improve
    compliance with national service criminal history check
    requirements. We implemented a solution enabling our grantees
    to directly obtain FBI checks from a private vendor. We are now
    seeking another market-based solution to conduct the State
    criminal history checks that many of our grantees are currently
    unable to perform. This solution will include a check of the
    National Sex Offender public website, which will ensure that a
    required check is complete.
        We are leaning in, going beyond what is required, to do
    what is smart by providing resources to our grantees so they
    can better detect and prevent misconduct before it happens. My
    office is implementing a testing process for improper payments
    that will help us identify root causes of noncompliance and
    more accurately report the effectiveness of our program to
    eliminate such payments.
        The agency is taking multiple steps to strengthen internal
    controls, including testing enterprise-wide controls, convening
    a fraud risk assessment committee, and aligning our internal
    controls annual testing approach with industry best practices.
        CNCS is also implementing an enterprise risk management
    program and developing a risk profile that will inform how
    management invests limited resources and risk mitigation
    strategies.
        And last, we are refining the criteria used in the annual
    grant risk assessment that informs the types of monitoring and
    technical assistance grantees require. All these actions and
    many others demonstrate the priority we place on risk
    management and the commitment we have to accountability and the
    responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
        Our systems for monitoring oversight are working.
    Misconduct is very rare and when it happens, we take swift
    action. We are always looking for ways to improve and
    strengthen our systems and we appreciate the guidance from our
    IG and from GAO and this committee. Enhancing these systems
    will help us better support the 325,000 dedicated Americans
    serving through AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps at 50,000 locations
    across our Nation.
        They are tutoring and mentoring at-risk youth, responding
    to disasters, supporting veterans and their families, and much
    more, all while recruiting millions of additional volunteers to
    serve alongside them and multiply their impact.
        I hope my testimony today assures the committee of our
    commitment to accountability and our interest in doing more and
    I welcome your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Giblin follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for your testimony. I know
    recognize Ms. Darling for 5 minutes for her testimony.

      TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH DARLING, CEO AND PRESIDENT, ONESTAR
               FOUNDATION AND NATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION

        Ms. Darling. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    thank you for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the Corporation for National and
    Community Service and their unique structure and systems of
    accountability and oversight.
        I am also pleased to share with you a snapshot of how the
    State of Texas benefits from the corporation grant funding
    administered by OneStar National Service Commission. OneStar is
    1 of 52 State service commissions charged with strengthening
    local communities through service and volunteering. The
    corporation's decentralized structure provides States the
    flexibility to meet local needs in alignment with our
    governor's priorities. Three-quarters of the corporations of
    AmeriCorps funding flows through governor-appointed State
    service commissions.
        In Texas, OneStar administers approximately $14 million in
    corporation grant funding through a highly competitive process
    engaging nonprofits, State agencies, universities, and local
    governments. These funds leverage an additional $31 million in
    private cash and in-kind support for 2,400 AmeriCorps VISTA
    members who collectively will earn over $9 million in education
    awards that may be used to repay student loans or for
    continuing education.
        Many private Texas funders look to OneStar's portfolio of
    programs to inform their own grant decisions. They know our
    grant making is rigorous from our intensive pre-award vetting
    to risk assessment to subsequent monitoring of performance
    throughout the life cycle of the grant. Commissions truly are
    the first line of defense in ensuring accountability and good
    stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
        In Texas, we don't hesitate to disallow costs for even the
    smallest compliance issue. Our subgrantees know that we don't
    tolerate noncompliance and if mistakes are made, there are real
    financial consequences.
        Compliance is critical and community impact is the ultimate
    goal. National service, whether AmeriCorps or its companion
    program, SeniorCorps, allows nonprofits to serve thousands more
    people than they could otherwise serve. In 2016, AmeriCorps
    Texas programs served almost 153,000 at-risk youth. Thirty
    thousand SeniorCorps members in Texas kept frail, elderly
    Texans in their homes, mentored youth in detention facilities,
    and responded in times of disaster.
        Like many State service commissions, OneStar works closely
    with our Division of Emergency Management. We are named in our
    State disaster response plan as the point of contact for
    national service and the coordination of unaffiliated
    volunteers.
        Last year, 1,600 AmeriCorps members recruited, trained, and
    managed almost 11,000 volunteers who responded to a series of
    disasters and still assist today in ongoing recovery projects,
    including Southeast Texas flooding, Wimberley flooding,
    Memorial Day flooding, the Hidden Pines wildfire, Halloween
    flooding, North Texas tornadoes, the 2015 Van tornadoes, and
    the 2013 West Fertilizer explosion.
        These are not just names of unfortunate events. These are
    now threads in the fabric of Texas history. Texas will soon
    also be home base to the first RV DisasterCorps, deploying
    SeniorCorps volunteers and their recreational vehicles in
    response to disasters within our 254 county region. Over the
    past 5 years, the corporation has mobilized thousands of
    SeniorCorps volunteers and AmeriCorps members throughout the
    country in response to over 200 declared disasters, some in
    your home States and districts.
        Along the southernmost tip of Texas is a border region
    known as the Rio Grande Valley, an area of high need and few
    resources to lift people out of poverty. The University of
    Texas Rio Grande Valley AmeriCorps program supports 160
    university students as mentors, providing college access
    services to over 5,000 low-income, first-generation high school
    seniors and last year, over 3,300 of those school students
    successfully enrolled in postsecondary education. The Literacy
    First AmeriCorps program in Austin supports 106 AmeriCorps
    members at 32 high-poverty schools, providing daily intensive,
    individualized reading interventions to over 2,000
    kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students.
    Approximately two-thirds of those tutored students reach grade
    level by the end of the school year.
        OneStar, like the commission in your State, is able to
    support these high-performing programs because of CNCS. The
    corporation provides consistent guidance, resources, and tools
    to assist us in our work. Our staff attend comprehensive
    trainings, adopt CNCS developed monitoring tools and templates,
    and receive regular and frequent support from dedicated program
    and grants officers.
        My written testimony provides greater detail on the
    corporation's support and monitoring of OneStar National
    Service Commission as well as our policies and procedures
    related to the oversight of subgrantees. I am grateful to the
    committee and to each of you as public servants charged with
    ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used effectively and that
    all actors are good stewards of the resources with which we are
    entrusted. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Darling follows:]
        [
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for your testimony, Ms.
    Jeffrey, you are recognized 5 minutes to testify.

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

        Ms. Jeffrey. Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Davis,
    Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    about the Office of Inspector General's recommendations to
    strengthen grant oversight at CNCS.
        The OIG is an independent and nonpartisan unit charged with
    preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse, and improving
    the efficiency and effectiveness of CNCS and its programs.
        My written statement describes the progress that CNCS has
    made since I last appeared before you 10 months ago. Today, I
    would like to describe significant challenges that remain. For
    the first time in my 5 years as inspector general, CNCS has the
    skilled leadership and experienced staff needed to make
    progress in the areas that have historically proven
    challenging.
        Criminal history checking, identifying and reducing
    improper payments, and developing robust, risk-based grant
    management, rapid improvements in these areas are needed to
    compensate for years of inaction and ineffective action. The
    first longstanding challenge that CNCS must tackle is
    strengthening grant risk management. Currently, the corporation
    continues to operate under legacy grant oversight protocols
    that my office has consistently found to be flawed. It relies
    heavily on a risk model that has never been validated. OIG's
    preliminary analysis of grants with catastrophic outcomes found
    that half of them were rated as low or medium risk.
        Our audits and investigations often uncover serious
    problems not anticipated by CNCS's risk assessment and we find
    that red flags were overlooked. CNCS has not done enough to
    learn from those bad outcomes.
        The current risk model omits fraud risk, although OIG has
    uncovered significant frauds. A few months ago, for example,
    investigators reported that the CEO of a for-profit business
    used a shell nonprofit organization to obtain grant funds from
    CNCS, which were funneled back into the business through a
    management services agreement.
        Ultimately, one-quarter of the RSVP program funds spent by
    the grantee were paid to the CEO's for-profit business. Not a
    single one of the promised 176 volunteers was ever brought on
    board and no services were provided to the community. Proper
    risk management could have anticipated this. Related party
    transactions and common control between a prospective grantee
    and a for-profit business are the kind of red flags that should
    trigger close scrutiny. CNCS has not implemented OIG
    recommendations on this subject and even after the events of
    last year, including the hearing before this subcommittee, CNCS
    has not properly addressed the risk of prohibited activities or
    implemented the majority of OIG's recommendations on that
    subject. As OIG has repeatedly recommended, CNCS must better
    understand and acknowledge its grant risks to achieve a more
    granular assessment of risk broken into components. The agency
    also needs a cafeteria approach to monitoring, developing a
    menu of oversight activities that are tailored to particular
    risks where financial risks predominate. Grant officers and not
    program officers should perform the relevant monitoring.
        Keeping our communities safe from harm is another urgent
    challenge. Congress wisely mandated specific criminal history
    checks to prevent convicted murderers and sex offenders from
    using CNCS programs to gain access to at-risk individuals. Far
    too many grantees do not conduct these background checks timely
    and thoroughly.
        Last year, depending on the program, 22 to 41 percent of
    individuals paid through CNCS grants served without complete
    and timely criminal history checks. The risk is real and
    immediate. Last week, OIG learned that a three-time convicted
    sex offender served for more than a year in the
        senior companion program where he visited elderly
    individuals in their homes.
        Several years ago, an audit discovered a murderer and a sex
    offender working on a social innovation fund grant. CNCS has
    not enforced these requirements effectively. The nominal fines
    for compliance are too low to create proper incentives and may
    actually backfire.
        Over a 6-month period, we determined that fines average
    less than 1 percent of the funds awarded by CNCS. That's a
    small cost of doing business, not an effective sanction for
    recklessness.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
    pleased to answer the subcommittee's questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Jeffrey follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for your testimony. The
    testimony is concluded. We will move into members' questions.
    And first, I will recognize the chairwoman of the full
    committee, Chairwoman Dr. Foxx, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today and providing their testimony.
    This is an area that I have a great deal of interest in.
        Ms. Bawden, in summary, your report seems to indicate the
    corporation does not monitor the most at-risk grantees and does
    not have a staff properly deployed or educated to ensure that
    it is conducting oversight monitoring to find and deter fraud
    and misuse of public funds. Did I get that right or would you
    characterize it another way?
        Ms. Bawden. Thank you. Generally, that is correct. What GAO
    found is that the process the corporation uses to assess grants
    and prioritize them for monitoring does not necessarily result
    in the highest risk grants receiving the highest priority for
    monitoring.
        Mrs. Foxx. Why is it concerning the corporation does not
    even know what grantees truly pose a risk?
        Ms. Bawden. The corporation has limited resources to
    conduct monitoring and it's essential that it focus those
    resources on the grants of highest risk.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. One more question. In your report,
    you found the corporation's grant-monitoring process is not
    fully aligned with the internal controls for identifying,
    analyzing, and responding to risk. Given this finding, can you
    be fully confident that the corporation administers the 750
    million in grants in full compliance with the law?
        Ms. Bawden. No, I can't be fully confident of that and the
    recommendations that we made are addressed to the corporation
    in the hopes that they will move in that direction.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Giblin, in its fiscal year 2017
    Management Challenges report, the OIG listed reducing improper
    payments as a management challenge. In this context, challenge
    seems to mean a significant problem of the corporation. The OIG
    reports that according to your own sampling, the improper
    payment rates for the three SeniorCorps programs are
    extraordinarily high. In fact, your sampling found the rate of
    improper payments to be 34 percent in the foster grandparent
    program, 23 percent in the retired seniors volunteer program,
    and 33 percent in the senior companion program, fiscal year
    2016. Together this represents improper payments of $47 million
    or 30 percent of the SeniorCorps spending. Even worse, this is
    only the three SeniorCorps programs. You could not even
    estimate the rate of improper payments for the AmeriCorps State
    and national program, a much larger program. This is not a
    management challenge, but a management failure.
        Why should Congress and the taxpayers continue to provide
    funds for grants when a third or more of those funds are
    improperly disbursed?
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that question and I share your
    concerns. I have been working closely with the Office of
    Management and Budget as well as other Federal agencies to
    identify a testing mechanism, a methodology that will ensure
    that we can report with confidence to this body and to senior
    management on the rate of improper payment for our programs.
        I have been working with Federal agencies to identify best
    practices and driving down noncompliance. And my office is
    charged with all five aspects of risk management, including
    both the Improper Payments Program and the CHC Program, so that
    we can work in an integrated fashion to ensure that we are
    addressing the roots of noncompliance and working with our
    grantees to ensure that they have the tools necessary to
    effectively administer their programs.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and our ranking member,
    I will tell you, every time I come here and I am asked to spend
    money, I tell people I think about the hardworking taxpayers in
    my district who work very, very hard, play by the rules and
    give up their money to the Federal Government to provide for
    programs where they think we are going to make life better.
        This kind of fraud and abuse is not a good use of
    hardworking taxpayer dollars. And you know, I think the first
    thing we have to do is get rid of the word ``volunteer.'' You
    know, people making $29,000 a year are not volunteers. They are
    being paid, and so I think the very first thing we need to do
    is acknowledge the fact that these are not volunteers. And I
    have great respect for the ranking member, but I will tell you
    we should not waste a dime of hardworking taxpayer dollars and
    to excuse this kind of abuse and fraud is unconscionable. It is
    just unconscionable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Guthrie. I thank you for yielding back and the
    chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis,
    and I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today
    to testify about the benefits to our Nation from the
    Corporation of National and Community Services. Last year,
    325,000 Americans serving through AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps
    invested 155 million hours of service to their communities in
    more than 50,000 locations across the Nation.
        In my district alone, over a million dollars in funding
    from CNCS and matching contributions supported 253 AmeriCorps
    and SeniorCorps members, supporting programs like the Virginia
    Peninsula Boys and Girls Club, which inspires and enables youth
    to realize their full potential. Four of these clubs are
    strategically located in public housing developments. The
    larger benefits of the AmeriCorps experience greatly exceeds
    its cost. In our corps member surveys, 79 percent of corps
    alumni say that their service was a defining professional
    experience. Fifty-nine percent of hiring managers believe that
    AmeriCorps alumni have the soft skills difficult to find in
    traditional job applicants for job openings, and more than 450
    companies, including Disney, CSX, and Comcast, are prioritizing
    national service alumni in their hiring.
        An empirical study published by the Journal of Policy
    Analysis and Management found that AmeriCorps participants
    increased its members' civic engagement, connection to
    communities other than their own, and knowledge about the
    problem facing the community. Older participants who are not at
    the beginning of their careers, the report cites gains in
    health, self-esteem, life satisfaction, financial help, and
    civic capital resources. All these benefits I mentioned are
    reasons why there is a positive cost-benefit ratio of
    AmeriCorps to public benefit for every dollar invested.
        We have talked about one example of 10 hours that has been
    found to have been misspent and you have to put that in the
    context of 155 million hours at 1 percent of 1 percent of 155
    million. One percent of 1 percent is over 15,000, so that's not
    enough to call a hearing over.
        I would like to ask Ms. Darling, first of all, how
    sequestration has affected your ability to provide grants to
    eligible responsible applicants?
        Ms. Darling. Thank you for that question, Congressman. When
    we see reduced funding, we may not be able to fund the same
    number of AmeriCorps positions that we had previously or we may
    also take--we may have limitations in some of the program
    dynamics and scope. We try to make sure that we hold the
    members in the programs harmless as much as we can when there
    is indeed a cut.
        Mr. Scott. And have you done an evaluation of the value on
    services for every dollar invested in the program? Because you
    are dealing with the volunteers and matching funds for every
    dollar invested in the program, do you know how much of a
    service is accomplished?
        Ms. Darling. For each of our programs, there is a
    requirement for evaluation and that is commensurate with the
    level of funding that they receive. We are in--we just started
    an evaluation institute in Texas to teach our grantees how to
    evaluate the impact of their programs and calculate that return
    on investment for us, for a $14 million investment in our
    portfolio, over 31 million in matching and in-kind funds, and
    that is separate from the number of hours that they serve.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Jeffrey, you mentioned a
    fraudulent scheme where money ended up in a private account.
    What has happened to the individuals involved?
        Ms. Jeffrey. The individual and the organizations have been
    debarred and CNCS has made a demand for return of the funds.
        Mr. Scott. Were any criminal charges filed?
        Ms. Jeffrey. They were not. I believe it was because the
    amount did not accord with the prosecution thresholds in the
    particular jurisdiction.
        Mr. Scott. How much money was fraudulently diverted?
        Ms. Jeffrey. It was about $20,000. The total grant was
    $131,000.
        Mr. Scott. The way you described it, it appeared to be
    intentionally stealing the money and no criminal charges were
    filed?
        Ms. Jeffrey. That is often the case, that prosecutors elect
    not to file criminal charges, even when they have strong
    evidence of fraud, because they are too busy, they have other
    priorities.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for yielding back and I
    recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        First, to follow up what Mr. Scott said for Ms. Bawden, we
    are talking about whether money is important. So your report
    raises the question about whether the corporation has
    determined whether the corporation has the right people and
    resources in the right place to effectively monitor grantees'
    compliance with the law.
        Some people may argue the corporation needs more money,
    more staff to improve their monitoring, but your report seems
    to indicate that this is not about funding. Is that your
    opinion?
        Ms. Bawden. From GAO's perspective, the question about
    funding is a little bit premature. It's essential that the
    corporation first take steps to understand exactly what staff
    resources they would need to effectively oversee and monitor
    grants as well as sort of how the workload should be broken
    down across their programs. That question needs to be answered
    first before we can think about funding.
        Chairman Guthrie. Okay, thank you. And Ms. Giblin, the GAO
    report concludes the corporation's protocols do not lead to
    appropriate oversight of subgrantees. In fact, this
    subcommittee has held a few hearings over the last few years on
    problems with subgrantees and I believe those hearings always
    highlighted the challenges the corporation has in effectively
    monitoring for compliance with the law.
        Your report released just last week demonstrates monitoring
    of subgrantees' compliance with the law continues to be a
    weakness for the corporation. Taxpayers continue to see their
    money spent inappropriately. Can you give us a timeline when
    you would expect you could come back before this committee and
    tell us if all these challenges are truly behind you?
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that question. First, I'd like to
    say that CNCS, like other Federal grant programs, complies with
    the laws and the regulations governing oversight and monitoring
    in that we provide monitoring over the direct grant funds that
    we provide to grantees.
        In addition, we work closely with those grantees,
    especially if they are forwarding those funds to sub-
    recipients, to ensure that their monitoring tools are effective
    and efficient. We are working over the coming year to
    incorporate many of the GAO recommendations to ensure that we
    have a more robust risk analysis that incorporates all four
    aspects of basic risk category and we'll ensure that we
    complete this work within the next 12 months.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. So within the next 12 months.
    Ms. Jeffrey, the corporation oversees $750 million in taxpayer
    funds to support multiyear grants in several different programs
    that provide funding to more than 346,000 participants.
        The GAO report notes the process the corporation takes to
    assist their grantees creates ``vulnerabilities for the
    corporation in its ability to meet Federal standards for
    internal control with respect to risk assessment, control
    activities, and monitoring principles.''
        In thinking about this and your previous work looking at
    the corporation, can you tell us whether you believe that
    taxpayers' money is appropriately safeguarded and used within
    the requirements of the law?
        Ms. Jeffrey. As Acting Director Bawden stated a moment ago,
    I think there are serious vulnerabilities. The corporation does
    not have in place good systems and good mechanisms to ensure
    that taxpayer dollars are used appropriately and that funds are
    safeguarded, but the entire notion of a risk-based grant-
    monitoring program is intended to improve that.
        Right now, the corporation is too reliant on the honor
    system and that's just not an effective internal control.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. And I have completed the
    questions I had prepared, so I will yield back and I will
    recognize Ms. Davis 5 minutes for questions. Ranking Member.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Inspector General
    Jeffrey. If I could follow up with that because I think we
    obviously are seeing the chief risk officer, who has spoken
    here, as well as other changes based on the recommendation. So
    I wonder if you could--I heard what you just said, but I am
    wondering, are they on a path that you believe is going to
    address these concerns and what other specific recommendations
    would you give?
        Ms. Jeffrey. For the first time that I've seen, I think the
    corporation has built for itself the capacity to tackle these
    challenges, the capacity to review the way in which it
    monitors, to understand its risks, to create monitoring that
    will truly target those risks in an efficient fashion.
        That may require a different workforce. It may require a
    different structure to some of the programs and the matter in
    which they are overseen. I think they are at the very beginning
    of the right path.
        Mrs. Davis. If you look at the funding and the possibility
    that funding could be cut fairly dramatically, if not all
    together, I am wondering when you talk about the people who are
    overseeing this, is it the level of education, the skillset? Is
    it the idea? And I am looking at our panel and I am delighted
    to see that so many women are involved in this, but I also know
    sometimes that there is a sense that there are volunteers in
    some people's eyes, perhaps, the level of--their work product
    is not something that we would see necessarily at a corporate
    level and yet it sounds like it should be. So where is that
    issue? And is it, in some ways, it is then a matter of funding
    and the ability to hire the very best in order to make this
    work and to acknowledge the role that the great, great
    percentage of people are contributing to their communities?
        Ms. Jeffrey. In a resource constrained environment, an
    agency needs to work smarter. There is a limit to how much
    harder you can expect people to work, but they can work
    smarter.
        CNCS, as it currently monitors risks, doesn't concentrate
    its resources where the strongest risks are. I think it needs
    to understand that and make decisions about what risks it wants
    to focus on and how best to monitor them to make the greatest
    possible use of its existing staff. Some of that may require
    reconfiguring the workforce or building different skillsets,
    but I don't think it's the size of the staff that is the
    barrier here.
        Mrs. Davis. Not size, but perhaps the ability to work in
    that environment. And, Ms. Giblin, could you speak to that as
    well in terms of resources and, again, what we are looking for
    in terms of the individuals who are heading up those kinds of
    organizations?
        Ms. Giblin. Well, first, let me share with you that with
    regard to resources, the CNCS management team has made a
    concerted commitment to risk management at the organization
    ensuring that I have the resources that I need to effectively
    manage the risk and the five components that we oversee.
        In addition to the staff that we've been able to hire, we
    are expediting our reviews in the most critical areas, by
    augmenting with industry leaders in the areas of internal
    controls and grant risk assessment. But I agree that internal
    controls in any organization need to be both effective and
    efficient, and efficiency is what should drive the work in an
    organization that has limited resources. And I look to partner
    and employ the recommendations provided by GAO to ensure that
    we were able to do that.
        Mrs. Davis. Maybe, Ms. Darling, could you just respond to
    that as well because obviously you are in a position that
    really sees a great deal and knows how things are working?
        Ms. Darling. I think managing these large programs is a
    challenge and I think it's not a matter of who is exactly at
    the helm, but the skillset that each leader has. Organizational
    effectiveness is all about, I think, structuring the right
    people in the right positions in order to leverage a workforce
    that has limited resources.
        At OneStar Foundation, we have made a choice to limit the
    number of grantees that we have. We may grow our programs, but
    we only have 26 programs, but more boots on the ground so that
    our grants and program officers will have a set number of
    monitors and monitoring and risk assessments to make. So that's
    one way that we make sure we are using our limited resources
    effectively.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And I think I was hearing from
    everyone that you believe that it is very important to manage
    those risks, but that there is great benefit as well?
        Ms. Darling. Oh, absolutely.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Ms. Darling. Thank you.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    There is a competing meeting going on with some Republican
    members, so if it's okay with you, we can go out of order and
    to recognize Mr. Courtney since we have kind of an imbalance on
    this. So Mr. Courtney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
    again your courtesy. And I would like to just say that I know
    the chairman; we have served together for a number of years.
    And, you know, the focus of the hearing today, which is about
    trying to make this program operate better. I think you would
    have total, 1000 percent support on both sides of the aisle
    that we need to come up with, whether it is legislative
    initiatives or again, the oversight function as a way of trying
    to make sure that these dollars are spent appropriately. But,
    obviously, we are in a different setting here today, which is
    we have a budget which we submitted today, the Skinny Budget,
    so called, for 2018, which proposes to just completely
    obliterate AmeriCorps. And so I have wanted to spend my 5
    minutes just to focus a little bit in terms of just another
    perspective, which, again, is a picture that I put up, which is
    of a SeniorCorps program, again, organized through AmeriCorps
    up in Eastern Connecticut, which is a veterans coffeehouse
    program.
        Again, the SeniorCorps program has organized three
    different locations. It is the most sort of sparsely populated
    part of Connecticut. And as the picture shows, we have got a
    great contingent up in Norwich, Connecticut, which, again,
    meets on a regular basis.
        Again, it is an opportunity, first of all, to socialize
    because there is a lot of social isolation issues which, again,
    I think AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps identified in the region,
    which is important to try and break through, but also, frankly,
    it is a great opportunity for folks to connect with the VA
    system because it is an opportunity to get speakers. The guy in
    the far right in the picture there is my veterans' caseworker.
    He is a 30-year submarine force veteran, Manuel Menesis, who,
    again, has connected veterans through the coffeehouse program
    with hearing aids, with medical appointments, with disability
    claims, medal recovery.
        Again, there is a value here that I think is also important
    for all of us as members of Congress to recognize that the
    AmeriCorps program which, again, basically has a force
    multiplier that costs the taxpayer virtually nothing with
    volunteers to organize these types of events.
        So Mr. Chairman, I have five actually recent articles
    talking about the great success that SeniorCorps has
    accomplished and it is a program which, frankly, is now being
    emulated in other parts of the country. My Republican
    predecessor, Rob Simmons, who is a colonel in the Army and
    served in Vietnam, is quoted in one of the stories, talking
    again about the great work that these coffeehouses are being
    done.
        And again, we are in a place right now where a budget
    proposal could just completely and totally eviscerate this type
    of, I think, positive, very efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
    So, Ms. Darling, in your testimony, you again sort of cited
    some of the great success that SeniorCorps in particular is
    doing in Texas, so I was just wondering if you could sort of
    talk about that in terms of, again, the larger picture here
    about what we are talking about.
        Ms. Darling. I think we all know that effective use of
    taxpayer money is important. And in Texas, we certainly know
    that government can't do it all and government partners with
    nonprofits to get their work done, but we have seen AmeriCorps
    and SeniorCorps volunteers work alongside those nonprofit
    organizations and actually expand their reach and to be able to
    do things that they could not otherwise do.
        Of course, disaster response is one of the largest areas.
    The State of Texas is the most disaster-prone State in the
    country, according to FEMA. If it weren't for SeniorCorps
    volunteers, the recovery after the fertilizer explosion in West
    would have been seriously hampered. There was nothing left, but
    SeniorCorps volunteers living in the community knew how to
    mobilize and how to set up volunteer reception centers and then
    manage more volunteers in order to help the residents begin to
    rebuild.
        We've seen the same across the State with mentoring and
    tutoring programs. Communities in Schools, College Forward,
    Teach For America are all AmeriCorps members. If it weren't for
    them, these organizations that many of us support but may not
    recognize as AmeriCorps programs are able to serve far fewer
    young people and they do provide a consistent presence in the
    lives of the children they tutor and mentor and make a
    tremendous difference in our state.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And again, Mr. Chairman, as I
    said, I think we are all prepared to help you in the effort to
    try to make this program work as effectively as possible. But,
    again, we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater,
    so I would just again ask for permission to submit the articles
    regarding the veterans coffeehouse.
        Chairman Guthrie. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Courtney. And I yield back.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for yielding. I now
    recognize Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you and thank you for this
    hearing. This is an important topic and I think that we are
    exercising our oversight responsibilities in doing that because
    nothing sanitizes better than sunlight, so having a hearing and
    being able to talk about these issues. And let me just say, I
    have watched great results of the programs that we are talking
    about.
        Am I impacting the folks in my congressional district? I
    have a friend, Melissa McHugh, that is an AmeriCorps employee.
    She actually works with the intermediate unit. She is
    responsible for all over Pennsylvania, spreading the good news
    on Raise.me. If you do not know what that is, look it up. It is
    an incredible program and Melissa is doing a great job of
    really reaching out to kids to help them plan for their higher
    education.
        That said, though, I heard my colleague say though it is
    not that much money and everything is hunky dory. Well, they
    did not use those words, but kind of we do have a
    responsibility. We have a fiduciary responsibility. I have a
    responsibility to the 2,824 participants in my congressional
    district in this program, make sure we are getting it right and
    to all the more than 730,000 taxpayers that we are getting it
    right.
        And someone said we are not spending that much money, I
    have to tell you that program is in the 5th District based on
    one report here, they total, if you add in potential
    educational awards to AmeriCorps members, it is almost $3
    million in just my congressional district. That is a chunk of
    change and I think we have a fiduciary responsibility to make
    sure that we are getting it right for everybody, for all
    involved.
        So my first question, Ms. Giblin--first of all, thank you
    for your leadership and dedication to improving the operations
    of the corporation. What would you say your main challenge is
    when it comes to assessing or reporting improper payments? And
    in your opinion, why has it taken the corporation so much time,
    so long to work towards a system of accurate reporting?
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that. I think one of the main
    challenges we did experience in past years was staffing
    resources dedicated to our improper payment testing and, quite
    frankly, identifying an alternative sampling methodology with
    which we can instill confidence in OMB that our reporting would
    be robust. And I am happy to say that I am ahead of schedule in
    developing an alternative sampling methodology with the Office
    of Management and Budget and hoping to submit my request for
    such a methodology within the coming days, 30 days ahead of
    schedule from when I am required to submit that. I was able to
    bring on additional staff who have specific expertise in
    sampling the improper payments, according to improper payments
    regulations on to my team, and I am looking forward to rolling
    this testing methodology out this year and reporting with
    confidence the results of the end-of-year of assessment in our
    annual financial report.
        Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for your leadership and thank
    you for bringing what I would describe as that discipline to
    our accountability process because we do need to get right.
        Ms. Jeffrey, in your testimony you described instances
    where individuals with dangerous criminal records were
    participating in and being compensated for their service and
    various programs, volunteer programs specifically. You stated
    that this program this problem was far from resolved, which is
    rather frightening. In your experiences as inspector general,
    is this a widespread problem across similarly structured
    organizations or is this issue unique in nature, and what is
    the main reason for this to occur? Is it a lack of awareness,
    lack of resources, lack of accountability, or something
    different?
        Ms. Giblin. To me this is an issue of priority. In all too
    many of our grantees, they leave the criminal history checking,
    which requires some detail orientation and some care, to low-
    level administrative staff. They treat it like it's a routine
    administrative regulatory requirement and not a critical safety
    measure, and it doesn't get supervised by the senior leadership
    in some of our grantees. I think we need to elevate its
    importance and it needs to be treated as a make or break
    activity.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. Chairman, my time is
    waning so I'll yield back.
        Chairman Guthrie. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
    recognize Ms. Adams for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Davis, for the opportunity to discuss the immense value that
    the Corporation for National and Community Service plays in
    communities across the country, and I want to thank all the
    witnesses for your testimony and your experiences with working
    with CNCS.
        In the 12th District of North Carolina that I represent,
    CNCS and the volunteers they empower make a significant mark.
    Volunteers help serve food and supports to 500 homeless
    individuals daily. AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers have developed,
    implemented, and expanded programs to help provide homeless
    individuals with skills and training. AmeriCorps members serve
    in a variety of capacities in public schools across Charlotte,
    providing important support to students and teachers.
        And further, CNCS provides over 140 teachers single
    education awards and loan deferment as they work in classrooms,
    impacting thousands of students in low-income schools. I know
    that the 12th District of North Carolina feels the benefits of
    CNCS on a daily basis, yet the President's budget proposes
    eliminating funding for CNCS, stripping communities of these
    critical services. Cutting educational funding, research, and
    service is not putting America first. It's putting America
    last.
        My first question, Ms. Darling, for every $10 CNCS provides
    States, States are able to leverage $15 from private funders.
    As former COO of CNCS, without the Federal investment in
    national service, do you think that Americans will have the
    opportunity to engage in meaningful service at this scale?
        Ms. Darling. Thank you for that question. I do not believe
    they would be able to participate in meaningful service at the
    scale that the corporation allows because there is a structure
    that allows for the recruitment and training and management of
    thousands of volunteers beyond just each AmeriCorps member's
    year of service.
        Ms. Adams. Is that private-public partnership helpful for
    States and would States be able to leverage that much funding
    without the CNCS grants?
        Ms. Darling. It is my opinion that States would not be able
    to leverage that additional funding for where would it come
    from if it were not from private philanthropic dollars? And the
    beauty of the AmeriCorps program is that when these Federal
    dollars go to grantees, our subgrantees, for example,
    Communities in Schools is a popular one, they are then able to
    use the AmeriCorps presence to get additional philanthropic
    dollars because it's a recognized investment and absolutely
    makes a difference to their bottom line.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. What are some of the benefits that
    you have experienced with this model both during your time as
    COO and on the State Service Board of Texas?
        Ms. Darling. Well, I can speak particularly to my service
    at OneStar National Service Commission. We could not even begin
    to make a dent in the issues related to children at risk and
    those that are performing below grade level in just the city of
    Austin in Travis County without AmeriCorps members in at least
    32 schools working with children. It's an early childhood
    intervention that teachers do not have time to do by themselves
    that allows a resource that, frankly, for not--if not for our
    funding of those programs, we would have outcomes for our
    children that are far less than what we would like.
        Ms. Adams. So in your opinion, budget cuts would
    drastically impact the ability to be responsive?
        Ms. Darling. Absolutely.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Guthrie. I thank the lady for yielding and I now
    recognize Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Grothman. Ms. Giblin, first of all, how many people
    work for your organization overseeing these programs?
        Ms. Giblin. The staff within the Office of the Chief Risk
    Officer comprises 17 individuals.
        Mr. Grothman. Pardon?
        Ms. Giblin. Seventeen staff are in OCRO.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. A lot of times, all these things, you
    know, you are giving out these grants. When I was involved with
    organizations in the past that give out grants or that live on
    grants, they spend an awful lot of time applying for the
    grants, I mean, just kind of a scary amount of time, not really
    getting their mission done. Did you ever look into see how much
    time is spent in your organization that you are giving grants
    to or their subgrantees? Is that a concern?
        Ms. Giblin. Is the question have we researched the amount
    of time it takes our grantees to complete a grant application?
        Mr. Grothman. Right, that sort of thing.
        Ms. Giblin. My office does not analyze that.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, with regard to AmeriCorps, how much are
    people making to work for AmeriCorps?
        Ms. Giblin. I don't have the specific dollar amounts, but
    it is a nominal living allowance.
        Mr. Grothman. What is a nominal living allowance?
        Ms. Giblin. In the range of--depending on if it's full-
    time, part-time service, no more than $500 a month.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, and do you have anybody managing the
    program full time?
        Ms. Giblin. The AmeriCorps program within the CNCS
    headquarters is managed with a robust staff that is full-time.
    These grantees are managed by individuals that are dedicated to
    the oversight of the CNCS AmeriCorps grant on the ground within
    the grantee itself.
        Mr. Grothman. How much are those people making?
        Ms. Giblin. I don't have that figure in front of me. I can
    provide that at a later time.
        Mr. Grothman. Are they making six figures?
        Ms. Giblin. I couldn't estimate.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms. Bawden, your report says the
    corporation conducts limited monitoring of grantee oversight of
    your subgrantees. What concerns do you have with the limited
    nature of the current subgrantee oversight protocol and do you
    believe the corporation's current system leaves taxpayer
    dollars at risk?
        Ms. Bawden. With respect to the subgrantees, what we found
    is that the corporation collects limited information across
    programs, on how its grantees are overseeing subrecipients,
    particularly with respect to criminal history checks, and we
    recommended that the corporation collect more information to
    assure itself that those criminal history checks were being
    consistently conducted.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, percentage-wise, how many of the
    dollars do you think are really spent by the grantees and how
    many by the subgrantees? Do you know that?
        Ms. Bawden. In fiscal year 2015 about half of the grant
    awards were passed through the subrecipients.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, Ms. Giblin, we will ask you again. As
    part of the review, the General Accounting Office requested a
    list of 2015 grantees from the corporation and you guys wound
    up providing 3 grants ranging from 2,477 to 2,807
    organizations. That is kind of a big difference in numbers. In
    light of the difference, GAO found your information unreliable.
    The taxpayers trust you to administer $715 million in grants.
    How can you effectively monitor grants if you cannot even
    produce a reliable number, a reliable list of the active grants
    that the corporation is administering, and have you changed the
    procedure since that time?
        Ms. Bawden. The procedures that resulted in the numbers
    that you provided really are based on the IT system, the
    antiquated IT system that we had been relying on for that
    information.
        I am happy to report that the agency is undergoing a
    complete IT modernization effort that will provide us with a
    platform that is known in the private and the public sector for
    its robust data analytics, and we'll be able to provide more
    reliable data going forward.
        Mr. Grothman. I guess I would think even if we did not have
    computers, you would know how many grants were going out, but
    do you know how many grants are going out now since this
    request was made?
        Ms. Bawden. On average we manage a grant portfolio of about
    3,000 grants.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, so more than any of the numbers that
    you gave us in the past?
        Ms. Bawden. The information that GAO provided comprised
    those grants that were received as an assessment. We do our
    assessment in the summer of each year. Grants are fully awarded
    by September 30th, so the number will fluctuate.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, and what are the dollar amounts from
    the grants? What are the lowest grants?
        Ms. Bawden. Grants range from 40,000 to the millions.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay, $40,000. I always kind of wondered
    about, that's the type of small grant I have wondered about
    given the time it takes to process it, the time it takes for
    you to monitor, do you think it is worthwhile for you to get
    involved in a $40,000 grant?
        Ms. Bawden. Again, as I shared with the committee earlier
    that a proper internal control framework for any organization,
    whether it's the Federal entity or a grantee with whom we
    invest, should be both effective and efficient, and efficiency
    should drive--
        Mr. Grothman. I have one more quick question. One more
    quick question?
        Chairman Guthrie. Really quick.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. As you know, we are very broke in this
    Federal Government and sometimes people focus on what is the
    Federal Government's purpose and is it under our Constitution
    something that the Federal Government should do? It seems to me
    that this is such a wide open program, covering so many
    different things, it is like we just gave you a bunch of money
    and said find something to do with it.
        How do you justify the Federal Government, at a time when
    we are so broke, just giving out grants kind of to anybody
    under the sun? Does that ever bother you? Don't you think it
    should be perhaps something handled more appropriately at the
    local level?
        Chairman Guthrie. Real quick, a 5-second answer.
        Ms. Bawden. We invest heavily in the communities that
    Congress has mandated that we work in. Many of them are
    distressed, serving some of the hardest and most difficult to
    serve populations, and so an investment in this organization is
    actually an investment in the communities in which all of us
    serve.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. I am going to have to switch
    from here, so I thank the gentleman for yielding back. And I'll
    now recognize Mr. Sablan, 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms.
    Giblin, I liked your last statement that you work in distressed
    locations. And I must confess that any program whose mission is
    to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic
    engagement through service and volunteering is a program I
    like. And the Corporation for National and Community Service is
    active in my district, in the Northern Mariana Islands,
    providing valuable community service for many years now. Our
    public school system has been a regular beneficiary of
    AmeriCorps grants that fund that help dozens of high school
    students, provide tutoring and mentoring services to at-risk
    elementary and middle school students every year.
        The student volunteers also support teachers and other
    students in implementing quality service learning projects to
    meet unmet needs in the community.
        The program members reap many benefits, I must agree,
    including professional on-the-job experience and a little bit
    of money, funds, to help pay for college. We are very poor
    people and the knowledge of knowing that they are making a
    positive impact in the lives of others.
        In August of 2015, the Northern Marianas were struck by a
    devastating typhoon, causing widespread damage the likes that
    most of us have never seen. It destroyed the homes of thousands
    of residents, leaving the main island of Saipan without
    electricity and running water for months afterwards.
        We continue to rebuild to this day and services provided
    through AmeriCorps has proven to be an indispensable part of
    the recovery effort.
        The AmeriCorps VISTA project, through carried out social
    services, supports post disaster recovery and resiliency
    efforts. Together with the local commonwealth advocates for
    recovery efforts, CARE, AmeriCorps' VISTA members are
    addressing the long-term recovery needs of many residents and
    have helped provide safe and secure housing for over 350
    families.
        These AmeriCorps VISTA members have served over 3,000
    volunteer hours, leveraged more than 110,000 of in-kind
    resources, and raised $300,000 in financial resources. They
    have also worked to assess the Island's available food programs
    to design and implement a sustainable food bank.
        AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA members have proven to be
    an integral part of our island community, in our schools and in
    our homes. It has been shown that for every $10 in Federal
    funds appropriated, CNCS grants have raised$15 from private
    sources, the very essence of a successful private-public
    partnership that our friends in the majority like to commend.
    And I know that there are problems, but we are not shooting for
    perfect here. We are trying to find the good, I must say, as it
    has been said this past week or so about another program. So
    instead of eliminating the CNCS as the President proposed, this
    Congress should provide robust funding for these valuable
    services.
        Ms. Darling, I think the Committee Ranking Member Bobby
    Scott alluded to in one of his questions the President's
    recently released budget and how it eliminates entirely the
    Corporation for National and Community Service. I sincerely
    hope that does not happen, but even reductions, and he says
    sequestration, in funding can have serious effects. How will
    budget cuts affect the ability of CNCS to be responsive to
    needs on the ground?
        Ms. Darling. We look to CNCS to participate in their robust
    trainings and avail ourselves of resources that they have
    online and with our program and grants officers. We have a very
    close relationship with them because they are our funder and we
    are their grantee. We, in turn, use those tools with our
    subgrantees in order to manage risk assessment and monitoring
    programs so that we can have programs that have impact and
    outcomes.
        Mr. Sablan. Okay, thank you. I am going to go and risk--my
    staff hates me for doing this at times, but I am going to risk
    and I am going to ask a question of Dr. Jeffrey, inspector
    general. Do you find enough reasons or causes or findings in
    your opinion because what you have, you issue opinions, do you
    find enough reason in your opinion to close the program
    entirely? Yes or no?
        Ms. Jeffrey. It's not appropriate for an IG to weigh in
    or--
        Mr. Sablan. I am asking you, you are here as a witness, I
    am asking you yes or no.
        Ms. Jeffrey. That is simply not a question that's
    appropriate for me to address.
        Mr. Sablan. But you do issue opinions?
        Ms. Jeffrey. We issue reports.
        Mr. Sablan. You issue reports that are based on your
    opinions.
        Ms. Jeffrey. We issue reports--
        Mr. Sablan. Even licensed accountants acknowledge that they
    issue opinions.
        Ms. Jeffrey. We issue reports that are based on
    investigations and audits. They are not based on opinions.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
        Chairman Guthrie. I let that run over a little bit to try
    to get balance back, so let us try to stick to the 5 minutes
    just to be fair since we went over a little bit on one. Okay,
    now Mr. Mitchell, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
    questions. We'll try to stick to the 5.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Jeffrey, the
    chairman highlighted some of the background check issues that
    you have identified that, in fact, despite the requirements and
    training, self-assessments and all kinds of activities you have
    taken, the failure to complete background checks adequately is
    extraordinary. Twenty-two percent of AmeriCorps and State
    programs, the national program failed background checks; they
    didn't have them; 36 percent in the foster grandparent program;
    40 percent in the senior companion program; and 41 percent in
    retired seniors volunteer program.
        I have to say, you know, I spent 10 years coaching youth
    hockey and USA hockey had a pretty simple requirement. You had
    to do a criminal background check before you set your foot in
    the ice or the locker room. Lacking that, you did not coach. It
    did not seem to be tricky and had about 100 percent compliance
    because the insurance would say they could not cover them.
        So could you tell me why it is so hard and what we do about
    it? Because that is a pretty fundamental issue. You have got
    people that are with children that 36 percent of them did not
    clear criminal background checks. What are we doing about that?
        Ms. Jeffrey. Let me be clear, it's not that 36 percent
    didn't clear a background check. It's that complete background
    checks were not performed.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
        Ms. Jeffrey. Or not performed timely on 36 percent. So the
    public is exposed to a great risk.
        Mr. Mitchell. Sure.
        Ms. Jeffrey. By interacting with people whose background
    checks are unknown. To me, the biggest concern is that CNCS's
    enforcement mechanism does not seem well designed to tell
    grantees you must make this a priority. The system of fines
    that are imposed are simply too small to make a difference. If
    you had a teenager who was driving recklessly, you would not
    take away 1 percent of his allowance.
        Mr. Mitchell. I would take away the car, thank you very
    much. I guess that leads me to the next question. It is not a
    1-year phenomenon; this has been a multiyear phenomenon with
    some of these agencies, yet they continue in their existence
    despite their failures.
        Ms. Jeffrey. This is ongoing. I think for a very long time,
    the corporation did not realize or did not acknowledge that
    they had a comprehensive problem. It was only when they were
    required to undertake improper payments testing that, that
    testing as a byproduct revealed the extent of this criminal
    history checking problem. And since then, the corporation has
    been sort of doing the same thing and hoping for a better
    response. We will provide better education, we will do more
    training, we will give you a chance to come into compliance,
    and an amnesty, and then hope that you'll do better going
    forward. The problem is that those interventions don't seem to
    have worked or they haven't worked enough.
        Mr. Mitchell. I guess I have a concern that we are going to
    give you a chance to come into compliance when you are talking
    about the foster grandparents program, for example. How many
    chances are you going to give them? How many chances are we
    going to take with children when you have failures to complete?
    Ms. Giblin, why don't you weigh in here because I am concerned
    with how many chances are we going to give them?
        I have a 6-year-old. If they were involved, how many
    chances are we going to give them?
        Ms. Giblin. I appreciate your concern and I, too, am a
    parent who has these concerns. In the 6 months that this
    program has been under my purview, we have already doubled the
    disallowed costs to better align it with the priority that we
    give this program.
        Mr. Mitchell. Let me stop you. What is the disallowed cost?
        Ms. Giblin. The amount that we would be charge for--
        Mr. Mitchell. How much is that?
        Ms. Giblin. It ranges anywhere from $250 to $1,500.
        Mr. Mitchell. To how much?
        Ms. Giblin. Two hundred and fifty to fifteen hundred
    dollars.
        Mr. Mitchell. Now, if I did a quick poll in the audience
    here of anybody in this group and said, now, we are going to
    penalize this out for $250 to $1,500 if this person does not
    have the criminal background check completed, does that concern
    you if they are interacting with your children, what do you
    think the response would be in this audience? What would your
    response be? Are you happy with that?
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that. My response, more notably,
    would be that, again, in the 6 months that I've had this
    program, I've already worked with management on developing a--
        Mr. Mitchell. All due respect, Ms. Giblin, that does not
    answer my question. My question is, are you satisfied with that
    as a parent?
        Ms. Giblin. I am committed to ensuring that this these
    disallowed costs align with the agency's priorities for this
    program.
        Mr. Mitchell. Why would we allow that to continue multiple
    years? I mean, this is a pretty fundamental thing if these
    people are involved, vulnerable populations. Why do we allow
    that to happen year over year and not simply say we need
    someone that is going to do the job properly? Why would we do
    that?
        Ms. Giblin. Most notably, I think what we are doing right
    now is identifying the root causes for the noncompliance to
    ensure that our grantees have the tools necessary.
        Mr. Mitchell. How about the root causes? If they are not
    running very professionally, we should find someone that is.
        Ms. Giblin. For a number of our grantees, they can't even
    access the State repository checks that are required to
    complete a final check.
        Mr. Mitchell. All due respect, my oldest son is a police
    officer and it is not that hard to complete a criminal
    background check, and I had to do one every year, so that is an
    excuse. You know the difference between an excuse and a
    problem? A problem comes with possible solutions; an excuse is
    a justification for the status quo. It is not acceptable. It
    puts children and vulnerable people at risk and that ought to
    be a fundamental requirement of the program.
        I yield back. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for yielding. I now
    recognize Mr. Takano for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Takano. Yes, I do want my friends on the other side of
    the aisle to understand that this member does take the
    committee's oversight rule very seriously, so I think when
    there is an agency that is not performing as well as we like
    and the inspector general has raised, I think, some serious
    issues, and Ms. Giblin is trying to respond to those--you came
    on to the job just 6 months ago, is that correct?
        Ms. Giblin. The CHC program was given to me as part of my
    management responsibility about 6 months ago.
        Mr. Takano. So the risk management, managing the risk. So
    my colleague from Pennsylvania gets $3 million worth of
    services through this agency and I think about a million to my
    agency, about 88 AmeriCorps programs. I did not quite hear, and
    I do not want to be unfair to him, I did not hear him conclude
    that he, therefore, wants to see the entire program zeroed out
    because of the concerns raised. I mean, $3 million is an awful
    lot. I mean, it is three times as much as my district. And I
    certainly hope that none of my programs are suffering from some
    of these issues and I do hope, Ms. Giblin, that we are going to
    get the service programs on track and it sounds like--but it
    has been a 20-year program, but I wonder if there might be some
    fundamental issue with the design.
        The design of the program was to allow for maximum
    flexibility and I know that Republicans--and this is not a bad
    thing--I am not trying to cast dispersions, but they did insist
    that very minimal contact with the Federal agency and
    individual volunteers. There is a whole series of
    intermediaries, whether it is a State grantee, a State
    organization that is appointed by the governor. So there is a
    Federal system involved here and they wanted it was designed
    for maximum flexibility at the local level. Is that not
    correct, Ms. Jeffrey?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I'm glad you asked that question because I
    think it points at one of the challenges. So much of the
    oversight, particularly in the AmeriCorps program, is performed
    by the State service commissions, the 52 that exist throughout
    the United States. Some of them do a great job of oversight of
    their grantees, others do not. And the difficulty is that CNCS
    doesn't always have good visibility into who is doing a great
    job and who really needs to do better. The problem is that we
    can't be sure that tiered oversight is actually working
    effectively.
        Mr. Takano. So the federalized nature of how this bill was
    designed, oversight might not have been thought through very
    carefully and the Federal agency might not have been very clear
    about what a task it is to oversee all these State agencies.
        Ms. Jeffrey. I'm not sure that's correct.
        Mr. Takano. Okay.
        Ms. Jeffrey. I think the agency has been fairly clear that
    it--what it expects the commissions to do. It doesn't always do
    a good job of knowing whether they're doing what they're
    expected to do.
        Mr. Takano. Is there--
        Ms. Jeffrey. And beyond that--
        Mr. Takano. Is there an authority problem? Is there a
    leverage problem with being able to get these State agencies to
    kind of take these concerns seriously?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I don't know whether I'd call it a leverage
    problem. I think there is an accountability problem with the
    willingness to hold the States accountable. I think some of
    these risks are such that they ought to be monitored directly.
    While the statute contemplates a system of tiered oversight,
    there is nothing in the statute that would prevent CNCS from
    monitoring directly which grantees and which subgrantees are
    complying with proper criminal history checking.
        Mr. Takano. Well, my general sense, after listening, and I
    am listening to all sides here, my own opinion is that I would
    hate to see this, as one member said, throw the baby out with
    the bathwater. I, too, could read testimonials from people in
    my district about the great things that have happened here. The
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, in fairness, recounted great
    things that were happening in his district. He told a story
    about that.
        So my sense is that I would hate to see us zero this
    program completely out. I would like to get the accountability
    right and if we could take a deeper dive into that rather than
    have this be a kind of all of us telling the great stories and
    then--and I don't hear members on the Republican side uniformly
    saying that we--that they agree with zeroing this out. So my
    hope is that we can get the accountability correct. And I thank
    the inspector general for her hard work.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for
    yielding back and now recognize Mr. Lewis for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Lewis. I would like to thank the chair. Ms. Giblin, I
    want to start with you. You said a moment ago that you thought
    the grants amounted to around $500 a month. You were guessing,
    you didn't have the figures in front of you on some of these.
        Ms. Giblin. Exactly.
        Mr. Lewis. 1993, as I understand it, AmeriCorps combined
    VISTA and NCCC, correct? And that was one of the provisions of
    the 1993 law?
        Ms. Giblin. I'm sorry, I don't understand.
        Mr. Lewis. In 1993, AmeriCorps brought together VISTA and
    NCCC, correct?
        Ms. Giblin. That's correct.
        Mr. Lewis. All right. And if you take a look at the grant
    specifically with some of these programs, especially
    AmeriCorps, you thought they were around $500 a month. I have
    got data here that shows the grant set about $11,800 per year
    plus a $5,300 stipend for education.
        Ms. Giblin. The amount I was estimating was just the
    monthly stipend. You are right that they also receive an
    additional education award.
        Mr. Lewis. But you are at $500 a month and I have got them
    higher. Can we look into that and get an actual number?
        Ms. Giblin. We can.
        Mr. Lewis. Because if you add up the educational stipend
    and $11,800, you are looking at $17,000 a year for community
    service. You are not going to get rich off that, but it is not
    $500 a month.
        I want to go into an area here that I do not think we have
    touched on and, and frankly, I do not know that there is really
    good information, so I genuinely ask this question. And that is
    there have been--oh, by the way, one more thing on the funds.
    The Office of the Inspector General did find out that the
    National Civilian Community Corps cost taxpayers 4 to 8 times
    more money and that the NCCC members' 10 months of service cost
    $29,674.
        Ms. Giblin. The cost associated with the NCCC program is
    vastly different than that of AmeriCorps or SeniorCorps.
        Mr. Lewis. But those figures, that number is not obviously
    monthly stipends. That is the cost to administer the program
    and everything.
        Ms. Giblin. Yes.
        Mr. Lewis. All right.
        Ms. Giblin. It is a residential program, to be clear.
        Mr. Lewis. All right. And that is what has been alluded in
    some areas of the media and I am not certain they are true. I
    am genuinely asking the question of you and the Honorable Ms.
    Jeffrey as well, and that is the political activism associated
    with some of these groups, specifically AmeriCorps and their
    association with groups like ACORN. And, again, I am not trying
    to make political points. I am trying to get to the bottom of
    this.
        We can all quote the famous Jefferson quote about tyranny
    is being forced to fund the propagation of other people's
    ideas. And there is a Supreme Court Finley case, and the
    Solomon case, it said that the Federal Government may rein in
    speech in certain cases if they are funding it, but regardless
    of the legal aspects, just as a matter of policy, why would we
    allow that? I mean, why would we take money from liberals or
    conservatives to fund political activism, if indeed that is
    happening?
        Ms. Giblin. The agency takes a strong position with regard
    to prohibited activities, which is, I believe, what you are
    addressing. We have a multifaceted approach to ensuring that
    our grantees and our members individually understand their
    rules and responsibilities and the rules governing prohibited
    activities. In fact, we are providing a training today and our
    southern regional conference to ensure that everyone
    understands clearly their roles and responsibilities.
        Mr. Lewis. And those roles and responsibilities are what?
        Ms. Giblin. To not engage in prohibited activities.
        Mr. Lewis. To not engage in what?
        Ms. Giblin. Prohibited activities.
        Mr. Lewis. Prohibited activities, including political
    activism?
        Ms. Giblin. It's one of the prohibited activities.
        Mr. Lewis. Ms. Jeffrey?
        Ms. Jeffrey. The law expressly forbids engagement in
    political activism, partisan or nonpartisan, and any form of
    legislative advocacy.
        I know that there were, at some times, concerns about that
    happening. Certainly during my tenure, we have not seen that.
        Mr. Lewis. And what are the penalties for that if someone
    or some group or someone receiving a grant is engaged in that?
        Ms. Jeffrey. That's up to the management when they act on a
    particular investigation.
        Mr. Lewis. And you say you have not seen it recently? Does
    anyone have any evidence to say it has never gone on?
        Ms. Jeffrey. We've received no reports of it occurring. Or
    actually we did receive one report. It turned out to be
    unfounded.
        Mr. Lewis. All right. I yield back my time, thank you.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thank you for yielding. I now recognize
    Mr. Espaillat for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be
    directed to Elizabeth Darling. There are thousands of
    AmeriCorps members serving in New York City, a number of whom
    serve in my congressional district. They are essential, a
    locally based part of addressing important community needs for
    the most part.
        Next week, April 4th is the Mayor's Day of Recognition for
    national service and nearly 4,000 bipartisan mayors from around
    the country have registered to participate. This is an
    overwhelming display of local support for this particular
    program. I appreciate the critical need for effective
    oversight, but let us not lose the sight of the critical work
    and bipartisan support for national service programs in all our
    States and districts and the leveraging of private resources
    that national service funding enables. For example, in my
    district, the operation of AmeriCorps, which partners with the
    New York City Department of Education and the Henry Street
    Settlement, matches senior companions with homebound seniors,
    desperately rely on their services, so this is critical to the
    district.
        Ms. Darling, coming from the State of Texas, very different
    from New York City, of course, can you talk about how local
    AmeriCorps programs in Texas use national service to engage the
    community, leverage additional private funds, and support key
    local services? What will be the loss in our communities and
    with our locally based organizations if we lose AmeriCorps or
    CNCS?
        Ms. Darling. In Texas, we have 2,400 AmeriCorps members in
    26 current programs. Some serve full time, some part time in
    schools, in mentoring programs, in tutoring programs. They are
    working in the Rio Grande Valley, pairing college students with
    seniors in high school, helping them apply to college, and
    3,300 of 5,000 were recently accepted. We have several programs
    that also mentor those young people in college through college
    completion. It's not just enough to be accepted, but we want
    them to be graduates as well.
        And the same is true at the other end of the spectrum. Many
    programs that are dealing with kindergarten, first grade, and
    second grade, bringing them up to reading level and with very
    effective evidence-based programs. Our Texas Conservation Core
    is absolutely an invaluable resource in the State of Texas,
    working closely with our Division of Emergency Management and
    ready to deploy within hours of any number of disasters. If we
    did not have that resource for the State of Texas to help
    mobilize and train and manage volunteers, set up volunteer
    centers and long-term recovery centers, which long-term
    recovery, as you know, Congressman, goes on for years, we would
    drastically have a different environment within the State of
    Texas.
        And your mention of Mayor and County Day of Service on the
    4th, in Texas last year we had 522 commissioners, mayors, and
    elected officials, judges on both sides of the aisle that
    recognized the service in our State on that day.
        Mr. Espaillat. So these are critical services in education,
    higher education, emergency preparedness that strengthened the
    safety net for thousands, if not millions, of families in the
    State of Texas. We are happy to hear that and I am glad to see
    that the program is yielding some good fruit. And although we
    may face some issues with it, overall it is a good program for
    communities across the United States. And I yield back the
    remaining part of my time, thank you so much.
        Chairman Guthrie. The gentleman yields back. Now please
    recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rooney, for 5 minutes
    of questioning.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We taxpayers trust
    this Corporation for National and Community Service to
    administer $750 million in some kind of effective and
    accountable manner. In 2015, the GAO requested a list from you
    all of grants that you have done and it ranged from some 2,400
    to over 2,800 by my math and it is not really all that good
    being from Oklahoma and Florida. But that is a 14 percent
    difference, which equates to $100 million out of that $750
    million.
        Now, that is a lot of money and I am curios, Ms. Giblin, if
    you can show us with all that how you can effectively monitor
    grants if you do not even know how many grants you have done
    and where the $100 million might have gone.
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that question. As I shared with
    the committee earlier, the difference in numbers that were
    provided to the GAO were with regard to the time that the
    census of grants was taken. Our antiquated IT system that we
    had at the time to help us get that data analytics and get that
    information to GAO is being replaced by a much more robust and
    more fulsome IT modernization effort that is providing us with
    the best-in-class data analytics platform from which we'll be
    able to provide the types of--the numbers that are necessary to
    better assess our grant portfolio.
        Mr. Rooney. So given this $100 million discrepancy, Mrs.
    Bawden and Mrs. Jeffrey, perhaps, do you think that the CNCS
    leaves us at risk? And can you assure us that this money was
    not wasted and that more money had not been wasted?
        Ms. Jeffrey. What you've pointed to is a serious problem
    with data validation inside the corporation. In 2014, a study
    was performed by the Mitre Corporation, and one of the things
    they found was these serious discrepancies between what should
    be identical information in multiple systems. It was not, in
    fact, identical and it led to some of the problems that you've
    identified.
        We've encountered the same problem in our work. What has
    happened over the past year is a very serious scrubbing of the
    data so that as the new system comes online, the data it will
    have will be valid. I don't think that we really have money
    that's missing. I think we are looking at records that are just
    not internally consistent.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Bawden. As Ms. Giblin noted, the data that we looked at
    was with respect to how many grants the corporation assessed to
    determine their priority for monitoring and we received some
    inconsistent information with that and that data request. We
    did make a recommendation to ensure that the corporation
    assesses all of the grants it expects to be active in the
    coming fiscal year to make sure that it understands their risk
    and effectively monitors them.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you. So the inspector general recently
    made it clear that they think the CNCS lacks ``sufficient
    expertise and has not devoted the level of resources necessary
    to detect millions of dollars of improper payments. These
    improper payments are reporting high-dollar overpayments that
    failed to complete a cost-benefit analysis for the receipt of
    payments.'' So, Ms. Giblin, how can you assure us that this
    money is being spent well?
        Ms. Giblin. Again, as I shared earlier that I am working
    closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that
    I have a more robust testing methodology that will be
    implemented this year to ensure that we have the information we
    need to more accurately and report with confidence the improper
    payment rate for the agency. I am also happy to share that I
    have also met with a number of Federal agencies to garner best
    practices in not only the reporting and testing methodologies,
    but in the strategies to address noncompliance.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you. Have you levied any penalties or
    fines or anything on any of these grantees that have failed to
    do the background checks or have used the untested assumptions
    or have not made sure that the payments that they dispersed
    were proper? Have you penalized those folks any?
        Ms. Giblin. With regard to the annual improper payment
    testing, we do recall any improper payment that we identify and
    disallowed those costs and we are in the process of recovering
    those costs right now. With regard to the CHC program, we do
    have a disallowance policy.
        Mr. Rooney. So do you ban them from future grant
    applications and things like that?
        Ms. Giblin. We work with them closely on a corrective
    action plan and to retrieve disallowed costs. If grantees are
    compliant with a corrective action plan and do repay those
    costs, we are amenable to continue working with the grantee.
        Mr. Rooney. That will never happen in the private sector.
    Thank you, ma'am. I yield my time. Thank you.
        Chairman Guthrie. Gentleman yields back. Now please
    recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Polis. We want to thank our witnesses, thank you, Mr.
    Chair. This is the second hearing we have had on the
    Corporation for National and Community Service in the same year
    and I had the opportunity last hearing to share some of the
    good work CNCS is doing to my district.
        Again, I want to highlight some of the work of the agency
    that is near and dear to the heart of my constituents. And as
    many of you know, my State, Colorado, had a state of emergency
    in 2013 after experiencing the most damaging floods in our
    State's history. Several people in my district lost their life,
    hundreds lost their homes and everything they had, and many
    more suffered significant damage.
        Thanks to the CNCS, though, volunteers were deployed to
    Colorado to help in the aftermath of the flood. I got to meet
    and work with and volunteer with many of those volunteers. In
    total, over 700 national service members came to our State and
    their work involved volunteering donations management, staffing
    call centers, coordination of medical mobility rides, community
    relations, meal services, debris removal. I got to see them
    doing all sorts of things.
        My first question for Ms. Darling is can you share more
    about CNCS's work with natural disaster recovery efforts, like
    the floods in Colorado? Because that is an area that a lot of
    people do not know that CNCS is involved with.
        Ms. Darling. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to talk
    about disaster response and AmeriCorps in Texas, and I will
    include SeniorCorps in that as well.
        We have 2,400 members in our portfolio for our commission.
    We expect the majority of them to be trained at some level in
    disaster response and they know--the programs know that we may
    call upon them in times of disaster. We have a dedicated
    disaster core, the Texas Conservation Core, that is trained and
    ready to deploy at any moment. They also have a fee-for-service
    model and were deployed after Hurricane Sandy, after numbers of
    disasters across the country.
        Mr. Polis. Can you name a few of the other disasters that
    they were deployed to help with?
        Ms. Giblin. Well, in the State of Texas, the Memorial Day
    flooding, Halloween flooding on Halloween, two separate
    Halloweens two years apart, the Bastrop fires in 2011; 2013
    fires, wildfire in--May I borrow my notes for a moment ? There
    are so many in Texas.
        Mr. Polis. I want to thank you for that answer. I also want
    to highlight a story from an AmeriCorps member in Fort Collins,
    Colorado, in my district, Alex Grimm. Alex said ``During the
    school day, I work one-on-one with students in grades
    kindergarten through third grade, who are reading below grade
    level. I then work with teachers to administer reading
    interventions that help students to attain their grade level
    reading.'' And Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit Alex
    Grimm's full remarks for the record, if I may.
        Chairman Guthrie. Without objection.
        Mr. Polis. And to me, this kind of investment really helps
    AmeriCorps make an impact on its volunteers, whether they are
    at schools or whether they are doing disaster recovery work,
    which we are just so grateful for when I met the AmeriCorps
    reinforcements during what was really our biggest tragedy and
    natural disaster in my life.
        My next question for Ms. Bawden is in your testimony you
    highlighted GAO's recommendations to improve CNCS and I think
    everybody wants to improve the work. Now, as several of my
    colleagues have mentioned, President Trump's budget actually
    eliminates CNCS. If CNCS were to face significant budget cuts,
    how would that impact your own ability to implement the
    recommendations that are provided in the GAO report?
        Ms. Bawden. Thanks for your question. Several of the
    recommendations that we made seem to be underway and are not
    necessarily resource-intensive, but we did not evaluate the
    cost of implementing the recommendations.
        Mr. Polis. Yeah, and so I think if the goal is to actually
    implement some of those GAO recommendations, we have to be
    cautious about some of the obvious. If the agency is
    eliminated, they will not be able to be implemented, but even
    under severe cuts they will not be able to.
        I also wanted to go to Ms. Darling to highlight, for the
    final minute, work about AmeriCorps' education and programming
    work in schools that you have seen and kind of the impact that
    you have seen that they have on kids.
        Ms. Darling. Thank you for that question. In my oral
    testimony, I talked about a program in the Rio Grande Valley of
    Texas, which is a vastly underresourced area of poverty,
    Colonias along the border. The University of Texas Rio Grande
    Valley has AmeriCorps members that are working with seniors in
    high school and helping them reach college access. Out of
    5,000, 3,300 were accepted to institutions of higher education.
    Those kinds of programs are happening throughout the State, in
    Houston and in Austin, and not just acceptance to college, but
    college completion.
        We know that they are never going to get that far in the
    beginning unless we also help with them, kindergarten, first
    grade, second grade, to help them stay on reading level. And
    our presence in the schools, with Communities in Schools or
    others of our grantees, absolutely augment the resources that
    public education are able to give to these children.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairman Guthrie. The gentleman yields back. Now please
    recognize this gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Honorable Ms.
    Jeffrey. In your fiscal year of 2017 Management Challenges
    report you highlight the need for the corporation to commit to
    cultivating a culture of accountability and the progress that
    Office of Grants Management has made towards this goal.
    However, you cite the resistance from staff and grantees still
    entrenched in the prior permissive culture. Can you elaborate
    on what you mean by permissive culture and what reforms you
    believe they need to bring about a culture of accountability to
    the entire corporation?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I think empowering the Office of Grants
    Management has been very important. I will say that over the
    past 6 months, we have seen an increased willingness to
    disallow costs that were improperly incurred. Often, when there
    is a proposal to do that, the program objects and wants to find
    some way to allow those costs. I think empowering the Office of
    Grants Management to be able to say no and to make a final
    decision has been very important.
        Right now, of course, the program heads are political
    appointees and so one major way to change the view of the
    programs towards this is based on who is appointed to lead
    those programs going forward.
        Mr. Allen. So you say this has happened in the last 6
    months that we have been under this empowerment process?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I think it has gone on probably over the last
    year or so, but I think we've really seen the result increasing
    over the past 6 months.
        Mr. Allen. What preempted this process? I mean, what caused
    this to happen?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I think the committee's oversight had a lot to
    do with it.
        Mr. Allen. Okay, all right. So it was questions like this.
    Do you believe that we need to change the way that grants are
    awarded to ensure guarantees better understanding of the
    requirements of active partners in overseeing the use of
    taxpayers funding?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I don't think lack of understanding is the
    problem. I think it's lack of emphasis and priority.
        Mr. Allen. All right. Ms. Giblin, in their report, GAO
    stated that the corporation does not ensure program officers
    are offered or received professional development in key areas.
    Specifically, GAO sites that program officers in the AmeriCorps
    stayed in a national program office generally did not receive
    professional development or fiscal monitoring even though it is
    a core responsibility of their grant monitoring responsibility.
        How can program officers effectively monitor grants if they
    do not have the essential knowledge to do so? What is the
    corporation doing to ensure all employees involved in grant
    monitoring have the knowledge and skills to effectively monitor
    grants?
        Ms. Giblin. Well, CNCS has, in the year that we have been
    undergoing the GAO audit, has reassessed its training program
    and has dedicated considerable funds to ensure that program
    officers and grants officers alike have received necessary
    training. Specifically, with regard to fiscal oversight, our
    grants officer staff have benefitted greatly from enhanced
    training dollars to ensure that they are certified in the field
    which they serve.
        Mr. Allen. What kind of results have we seen from this
    effort so far?
        Ms. Giblin. I think that some of the successes that the IG
    has cited with a continued and robust commitment to ensuring
    that the oversight is provided, that costs are disallowed and
    recovered, and that we are working in a more effective and
    efficient manner.
        Mr. Allen. Is everyone fully on board with this requirement
    of education and how long will it take to get folks up to speed
    on where they need to be?
        Ms. Giblin. I know the agency is fully on board with
    ensuring that we are dedicating limited resources to the
    training protocols for the agency and, to date, I have seen
    evidence of that.
        Mr. Allen. Okay, well, thank you for your testimony here
    today and thank you for what you do for us. I yield back.
        Chairman Guthrie. Gentleman yields back. I am pleased to
    recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
    thank the chairman and the ranking member for having this
    hearing.
        Last weekend, the Oversight and Government Reform
    Committee, we had a very good bipartisan hearing on
    recommendations by the business community that regularly
    oversees the Department of Defense budget and they identified
    $125 billion of waste in that budget. I would remind members
    that in the Skinny Budget, one of the reasons why we would be--
    why the administration wants to eliminate the budget for this
    program, which I think is incredibly valuable, is to move that
    money to the Department of Defense. So we have to consider both
    our committee assignments and the expertise we develop, but
    also the larger budget as it applies to all citizens.
        And I would just say it is striking for me to have been in
    that last hearing and hear such a bipartisan approach to
    finding out where we can enforce the McKinsey report that was
    part of the recommendations to the Department of Defense to
    make sure that they do not waste money.
        But in this instance, it seems like, Mr. Chairman, that
    this is more of a partisan issue, which I really think it
    should not be. If you believe in a program, which I do in this
    program, and I can cite local instances of it working at least
    anecdotally, we want the best oversight.
        So, Ms. Jeffrey, you mentioned about the tiered approach
    and maybe that does not work, less of a tiered approach with
    the Department of Defense since there is more direct spending
    and it is Federal spending. But I know coming from local
    government, we have had issues when I was in local government
    and State government with Head Start programs, with community
    block grant programs, with workforce investment boards being
    administrated properly, either in terms of the oversight in the
    Federal region, having the proper oversight, or at the State
    level or at the local level or at the grantee level.
        All of that dynamic, we are hoping to come together to make
    a program work. CCDBG, in particular, when that works, it works
    really well and I have seen it not work well and I have seen
    some political influence where the auditors at the local level
    and the State level basically cover themselves to the Federal
    audit.
        So what I want to do is make sure that we are both--having
    come from the restaurant business, we used to say that there
    were really good gross operators and good net operators, and
    you want to be both.
        So you mentioned that State commissions; some do better
    than others. It certainly sounds like a subjective analysis or
    judgement. How do we get the high-performing States to bring
    the low-performing States up? Or was it your implication that
    this tiered system does not work in this instance?
        Ms. Jeffrey. I don't recommend throwing out the tiered
    system, but I think your inclination that the application of
    good business risk management principles is absolutely the way
    to go.
        CNCS is always going to have limited resources, cannot
    provide the same level of oversight to every grant. But at the
    same time, you don't need to oversee a $40,000 grant the way
    you oversee a $10 million grant. So risk management helps you
    decide where best to deploy those resources.
        I think there has been a number of efforts to bring peer-
    to-peer knowledge to bear with grantees with State commissions
    like Ms. Darling's to help educate others. The difficulty is
    that different States commit different levels of resources to
    their commissions. We have one State commission that has a
    single employee. No matter what, that person is not going to be
    able to bring the same level of oversight as a well-resourced
    commission.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. I am sure California is right there at the
    top with Texas.
        Ms. Jeffrey. California actually is.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Of course. I would not ask that question or
    make that observation if I did not know the answer.
        So, Ms. Giblin, it strikes me, and just a quote from GAO
    report, their second observation, we have found that CNCS's
    current process for grant monitoring is not fully aligned with
    Federal internal controls for identifying, analyzing,
    responding to the risk. So what is your timeline to come into
    compliance and what is your corrective? How do you interact
    with both the committee, but also the GAO and the inspector
    general, so that you are reviewing this so we know that you are
    both acting in good faith to correct it and that you have a
    timeline to complete that?
        Ms. Giblin. Thank you for that question. I recently brought
    on staff who are well-versed in risk management and risk
    assessment and I am augmenting that staff with additional
    consultants, third-party objective consultants, who can bring
    industry knowledge to the organization as we work to implement
    the recommendations from the GAO. I do enjoy a collaborative
    work relationship with the IG and will be seeking her input, as
    I have in the 11 months that I've served at the corporation,
    and would be happy to report back progress to this committee in
    any fashion that you would see fit.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, I think considering the budget
    recommendation, a timeline with a sense of urgency would be
    very important for the commission.
        Ms. Giblin. Understood, and we are presently working on a
    12-month timeline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Guthrie. The gentleman yields back. I would like
    to again thank our witnesses for taking the time to testify
    before the subcommittee today. And now I am pleased to
    recognize Ms. Adams for any closing remarks that she may have.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for
    sharing your testimony today. CNCS plays an invaluable role in
    communities across the country. I think we have heard that
    today and, as a matter of fact, heard it several months ago as
    well. It helps harness the talent and the skills of the
    American volunteer, helps to connect Americans with volunteer
    opportunities to fit local needs, and builds off of public-
    private partnerships to make a difference. And, indeed, it has
    made a difference as CNCS continues to strengthen its oversight
    program.
        I know that CNCS will improve its monitoring and better
    serve our Nation, and so I am pleased to continue to support
    the program and would encourage Congress to robustly fund
    service programs and not eliminate them. Thank you so very much
    for being here.
        Chairman Guthrie. Thanks to the gentlelady. As I had made
    in my remarks, I mean we should always be pushing ourselves to
    do better. Congress, this body has not just an authorizing
    responsibility, but an oversight responsibility, and so I
    really do appreciate the chairman and the ranking member
    providing this opportunity. I appreciate all of you being here
    to share your perspectives.
        My colleagues, Democratic colleagues, said that this
    hearing was about a previous single incident of wrongdoing. In
    fact, this hearing is about the corporation's record over a
    number of years as an inability to protect the taxpayer dollars
    and monitor those dollars in a risk-based fashion and collect
    improper disbursements, and that hurts the participants when we
    do that. It detracts from the mission and our purpose with this
    program. As the chairman and others noted, there was $47
    million in improper payment in just 1 year at SeniorCorps.
        Now, having sat through this hearing and listened to my
    colleagues, I think we have a bipartisan agreement that one of
    the most important functions that this committee has is
    oversight. And I think, I am hoping, just as I appreciate the
    great work that has been done over the past 6 months and hoping
    this oversight hearing will serve continuous down that path of
    increased accountability and program effectiveness and the
    investment of the taxpayer dollars and the--because I know
    there are great programs out there and we need to do that. We
    will continue to hold the agency accountable for how it spends
    taxpayer dollars. It is nothing personal. It is just what our
    responsibility is.
        And so I do want to thank all the members and the witnesses
    and as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle because--
    with the hard work of the staff that help us to be able to do
    these types of hearings.
        Without objection, there being no further business, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions by Mr. Courtney follow:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]