[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, [email protected].
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]