U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–236 PDF 2017

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 24, 2016 

Serial No. 114–49 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Statement of Members: 

Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from the state of 

North Carolina .............................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cohn, Mr. Joseph, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Philadelphia, PA ............................................

Prepared statement of ...............................................................................

Maatz, Ms. Lisa M., Vice President for Government Relations, American 

Association of University Women, Washington, DC ..................................

Prepared statement of ...............................................................................

Jeffrey, Ms. Deborah, Inspector General, Corporation for National and 

Community Service ....................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Spencer, Ms. Wendy, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National 

and Community Service ............................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional Submissions: 

Ms. Adams: 

Letter dated May 23, 2016, from The Corps Network ........................... 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut: 

Hartford Courant article: Veteran’s coffeehouse opens in Danielson ... 53 

Chairwoman Foxx, questions submitted for the record to: 

Ms. Jeffrey ................................................................................................. 136 

Ms. Spencer ................................................................................................ 139 

Response to questions submitted: 

Ms. Jeffrey ................................................................................................. 143 

Ms. Spencer ................................................................................................ 161 

Corporation for National and Community ServiceGrant Competitions 

Results - Fiscal Years 2010-2016 ......................................................... 170 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

May 2008 Executive Summary Still Serving: Measuring the EightYear Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni ............................................... 57 

May 2008 Still Serving:Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of 

AmeriCorps on Alumni .......................................................................... 70 

AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Summary Report Executive Summary 

October 2015 .......................................................................................... 126 

AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Summary Report October 2015 ........... 134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Tuesday, May 24, 2016 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Roe, Guthrie, Curbelo, Stefanik, 

Adams, DeSaulnier, Davis, Courtney, and Polis. 

Also Present: Representatives Kline, and Scott. 

Staff Present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; James Forester, Professional Staff Member; Tyler 

Hernandez, Deputy Communications Director; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Mandy 

Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; 

Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Pierce Blue, Minority Labor Detailee; 

Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy 

Advisor; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Veronique 

Pluviose, Minority Civil Rights Counsel; and Rayna Reid, Minority 

Education Policy Counsel. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education and Workforce Training will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today’s hearing. Ms. 

Spencer and Ms. Jeffrey, I would like to thank both of you for joining us to address the most recent misuse of taxpayer funds in the 

AmeriCorps program, or perhaps more accurately, the most recent 

misuse of taxpayer funds that we know of. 

Let me start by providing a little more context for those who are 

not familiar with this case. The Corporation for National Community Service, or CNCS, is in charge of overseeing the community 

service activities of more than eight different Federal programs and 

initiatives. For the current fiscal year, CNCS received more than 

$1 billion to carry out these programs, one of which is the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

AmeriCorps program. As the head of the corporation, Ms. Spencer, 

you have a responsibility to ensure the Federal funds you receive, 

which are no small sum, are being spent in full compliance with 

Federal law. That includes policies that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion activities. 

We are here today because the office of your inspector general 

has reported one AmeriCorps grantee, the National Association of 

Community Health Centers, violated the law. As of today this organization is still receiving taxpayer funds. More specifically, this organization, one of the largest to participate in the AmeriCorps program, allowed AmeriCorps members to engage in illegal activity by 

providing support services during abortion procedures. Regardless 

of your position on the issue of abortion, the law is the law and it 

must be followed. 

The most recent law reauthorizing CNCS programs explicitly 

prohibits the use of AmeriCorps resources to provide abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services, end quote. For two 

years these illegal activities were allowed to continue completely 

undetected by the very agency meant to oversee these programs in 

the agency you are in charge of. The investigation that began when 

you finally did become aware of what had happened confirmed that 

taxpayer funds were used to support unlawful activities. But it also 

revealed much more. 

The inspector general also found that several AmeriCorps members were regularly tasked with conducting work performed by employees of the centers they supported. This activity is also against 

the law, but the grantee failed to stop or even report it. 

AmeriCorps members technically are to serve strictly in volunteer 

roles and should never perform the same task as employees. But 

again, that is not the end of it. 

It was also discovered that the grantee’s senior management 

chose not to inform the corporation of instances of waste, fraud, 

and abuse, choosing instead to undermine transparency and avoid 

reporting information that would make them look bad. This disturbing list of unlawful and dishonest practices really makes you 

wonder, how on Earth was this allowed to happen? How were these 

activities allowed to go on for so long? And why is the National Association of Community Health Centers still a grantee? 

When the committee learned about this unlawful activity last 

month, Chairman Kline immediately called on the corporation to 

cease all future funding of this organization. On behalf of the committee, I am renewing this call today, Ms. Spencer. I sincerely hope 

you will be able to provide us with a plan of action and describe 

steps you are taking to address this situation. 

Revoking this grant would be a good start, but it is also important to recognize that this is not an isolated incident. In fact, I 

chaired a hearing back in 2011 examining reports that AmeriCorps 

members had engaged in other unlawful activity. In response to 

questioning, the head of CNCS assured us the corporation would 

be diligent in educating grantees, ‘‘helping them to understand the 

rules,’’ and would require, ‘‘all AmeriCorps grantees to annually assure compliance with regulations on prohibited activities.’’ It seems 

that neither strategy has solved the problem. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

That’s why today I am also calling on the Corporation to conduct 

a comprehensive review to ensure all other grantees in the program are complying with the law. Enough is enough. The Corporation needs to be held accountable for the way it spends taxpayer 

dollars and that’s why we are here today. 

We have many questions to answer and much to discuss. 

So I now recognize Ranking Member Adams for her opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Training 

The Corporation for National and Community Service, or CNCS, is in charge of 

overseeing the community service activities of more than eight different federal programs and initiatives. For the current fiscal year, CNCS received more than $1 billion to carry out these programs, one of which is the AmeriCorps program. 

As the head of the corporation, Ms. Spencer, you have a responsibility to ensure 

the federal funds you receive—which is no small sum—are being spent in full compliance with federal law. That includes policies that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion activities. We’re here today because the office of your Inspector 

General has reported one AmeriCorps grantee, the National Association of Community Health Centers, violated the law. As of today, this organization is still receiving 

taxpayer funds. 

More specifically, this organization—one of the largest to participate in the 

AmeriCorps program—allowed AmeriCorps members to engage in illegal activity by 

providing support services during abortion procedures. Regardless of your position 

on the issue of abortion, the law is the law, and it must be followed. The most recent 

law reauthorizing CNCS programs explicitly prohibits the use of AmeriCorps resources to ‘‘provide abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.’’ 

For two years, these illegal activities were allowed to continue, completely undetected by the very agency meant to oversee these programs. The investigation that 

began when you finally did become aware of what had happened confirmed that taxpayer funds were used to support unlawful activities, but it also revealed much 

more. 

The Inspector General also found that several AmeriCorps members were regularly tasked with conducting work performed by employees of the centers they supported. This activity is also against the law, but the grantee failed to stop or even 

report it. AmeriCorps members are to serve strictly in volunteer roles and should 

never preform the same tasks as employees. But, again, that’s not the end of it. 

It was also discovered that the grantee’s senior management chose not to inform 

the corporation of instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, choosing instead to undermine transparency and avoid reporting information that would make them look bad. 

This disturbing list of unlawful and dishonest practices really makes you wonder: 

How on earth was this allowed to happen? How were these activities allowed to go 

on for so long? And, why is the National Association of Community Health Centers 

still a grantee? 

When the committee learned about this unlawful activity last month, Chairman 

Kline immediately called on the corporation to cease all future funding of this organization. On behalf of the committee, I am renewing that call today, Ms. Spencer. 

I sincerely hope that you will be able to provide us with a plan of action and describe steps you are taking to address this situation. 

Revoking this grant would be a good start, but it’s also important to recognize 

that this is not an isolated incident. In fact, I chaired a hearing back in 2011 examining reports that AmeriCorps members had engaged in other unlawful activity. In 

response to questioning, the head of CNCS assured us the corporation would be diligent in educating grantees, ‘‘helping them to understand the rules,’’ and would require ‘‘all AmeriCorps grantees to annually assure compliance with regulations on 

prohibited activities.’’ It seems that neither strategy has solved the problem. 

That’s why today I am also calling on the corporation to conduct a comprehensive 

review to ensure all other grantees in the program are complying with the law. 

Enough is enough. The corporation needs to be held accountable for the way it 

spends taxpayer dollars, and that’s why we are here today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for 

being here today. I would also like to welcome Wendy Spencer, 

chief executive officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, and Deborah Jeffrey, the inspector general. And I 

want to thank you both for joining us today. 

We are here today to discuss the critical role that the Corporation for National and Community Service, or CNCS, has in encouraging volunteerism and civic engagement. Service is the rent that 

we pay for living on this Earth and it is also the foundation of our 

democracy, and its value to our society cannot be overstated. 

Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers in 

national and community service. These volunteers have served as 

teachers and tutors and mentors and counselors working with disadvantaged students in high-need schools. In cases of natural disaster, volunteers have helped local communities prepare for, mitigate, respond, and recover from forest fires and floods and hurricanes and tornadoes. Volunteers have assisted our Nation’s veterans in adjusting to civilian life, constructed and rebuilt homes for 

thousands of families, and help our Nation’s seniors in maintaining 

the highest degree possible of independent living and much more. 

All of us ought to be engaged in national service. So thank you, 

CNCS, for being a leader on this issue. 

You see, my upbringing taught me that we won’t be able to celebrate community, nor can we build community if we are not inclusive, if we do not care for the least of these. So as we engage ourselves in trying to improve our community for the better, we must 

do so remembering that we are thy brother’s and thy sister’s keepers, and as such, inextricably tied to one another. But in order for 

the community to be engaged, the community must be involved. 

And that is exactly what CNCS does. CNCS and the community 

volunteers that they coordinate enable tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups and schools and municipal 

agencies to solve tough problems and meet local needs. CNCS also 

serves and builds and makes an impact that change lives and communities. 

Martin Luther King once said that the ultimate measure of a 

man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. 

So during the times of challenge, CNCS is there. 

During the Flint crisis, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team to 

Flint to support State and local efforts to protect the public health 

of residents facing challenges from increased lead levels in the 

Flint water supply. And when tornadoes wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team to that region. 

So needless to say, I could praise the instances of these volunteers helping our Nation’s communities in times of need. But I will 

stop here and say that it is without a doubt that CNCS has improved the quality of life in my home State of North Carolina and 

communities around this great Nation. 

After I was sworn into Congress, I made it a priority to join the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce and I am glad I am 

here. And I fought to do that intentionally because I understand 

the significance of community engagement. And as a member of the 

Committee, I feel responsible for ensuring that the Corporation has 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

strong management, monitoring, and oversight as well as the resources necessary to effectively administer its programs and carry 

out its mission. And while there is always room for improvement, 

I strongly believe that CNCS is taking this responsibility serious. 

So with regard to the recent incidences that occurred with the 

AmeriCorps program, CNCS discovered and resolved these issues 

with deliberate action. And I can’t help but think that if this were 

anything other than services related to women’s health, that the 

Corporation would not be called in front of us here today. 

So as we proceed with today’s hearing, I want to strongly encourage my colleagues on this committee to focus on the vital importance of service to our Nation. And while we must maintain vigorous oversight and enforcement, we must also remember how 

CNCS engages over a million volunteers, which is something that 

benefits local communities all across America on both sides of the 

aisle. So I look forward to hearing more about how we can improve 

and strengthen National Service programs that are so important to 

our Nation’s success. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress 

from the state of North Carolina 

Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I would also like to welcome 

Wendy Spencer, chief executive officer (CEO) for the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS) and Deborah Jeffries, the Inspector General, for joining 

us today. 

We are here today to discuss the critical role that the Corporation for National 

and Community Service, or CNCS, has in encouraging volunteerism and civic engagement. I’m a big fan of saying that ‘‘service is indeed the rent we pay for living 

on this earth.’’ Service is the foundation of our democracy, and its value to our society cannot be overstated. 

Since its founding, CNCS has engaged millions of volunteers in national and community service. These volunteers have served as teachers, tutors, mentors, and 

counselors working with disadvantaged students in high need schools. In cases of 

natural disasters, volunteers have helped local communities prepare for, mitigate, 

respond, and recover from forest fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. Volunteers 

have assisted our nation’s veterans in adjusting to civilian life, constructed and rebuilt homes for thousands of families, helped our nation’s seniors in maintaining the 

highest degree possible of independent living and much more. 

All of us ought to be engaged in national service. So thank you CNCS for being 

a leader on this issue. You see, my upbringing taught me that we won’t be able to 

celebrate community nor can we build community—‘‘if we’re not inclusive and don’t 

care for the least of these.’’ As we engage ourselves in trying to improve and better 

our community, we must do so remembering that we are thy brother’s and thy sister’s keepers and as such we are inextricably tied to one another. But in order for 

the community to be engaged, the community must be involved. And that is exactly 

what CNCS does. CNCS and the 

community volunteers they coordinate enable tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, schools, and municipal agencies to solve tough problems and meet local needs. CNCS serves, builds, and makes an impact that changes 

lives and communities. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ‘‘The ultimate measure of a man is not where 

he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of 

challenge and controversy.’’ During times of challenge, CNCS is there—— 

* During the Flint Water Crisis, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps team to Flint, 

Michigan, to support state and local efforts to protect the public health of residents 

facing challenges from increased lead levels in the Flint water supply. 

* When Hurricane Katrina devastated the South, CNCS deployed an AmeriCorps 

team to the region. 

* And when tornadoes wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, AmeriCorps volunteers were 

there. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Needless to say, I could praise the instances of these volunteers helping our nation’s communities in times of need. But, I’ll stop here and say that it is without 

a doubt that CNCS has improved the quality of life in my home state of North Carolina and in communities around this great nation. 

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act reauthorized and expanded the national service programs administered by CNCS. After I was sworn into Congress, 

I made it a priority to join the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I fought 

to get on this Committee intentionally because I understand the significance of community engagement. And as a member of this Committee, I feel responsible for ensuring that the Corporation has strong management, monitoring, and oversight, as 

well as the resources to effectively administer its programs and carry out its 

mission. While there is always room for improvement, I strongly believe that 

CNCS is taking this responsibility seriously. 

With regard to the recent incidences that occurred with the 1AmeriCorps program, CNCS discovered and resolved these issues with deliberate action. And I can’t 

help but think that if this were anything other than services related to women’s 

health, that the Corporation would not be called in front of us here today. 

As we proceed with this hearing, I want to strongly encourage my colleagues on 

this Committee to focus on the vital importance of service to our nation. While we 

must maintain vigorous oversight and enforcement, we must also remember how 

CNCS engages over a million volunteers, which is something that benefits local communities all across America, on both sides of the aisle. And I look forward to hearing more about how we can improve and strengthen national service programs that 

are so important to our nation’s success. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Adams. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written 

statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And 

without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days 

to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced 

during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses. 

The Honorable Wendy Spencer is the chief executive officer for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service here in Washington, D.C. Ms. Spencer began serving as CEO of the Corporation 

on April 9, 2012. Prior to that, the Corporation, Ms. Spencer served 

as the CEO of the Florida Governor’s Commission on Volunteerism 

and as the director of the Florida Parks Service. 

The Honorable Deborah Jeffrey is the inspector general for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service here in Washington, D.C. Ms. Jeffrey joined the corporation as inspector general 

on July 19, 2012. Prior to this, Ms. Jeffrey spent 25 years in private practice of law, including as an in-house counsel on ethics and 

loss prevention. 

I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairwoman FOXX. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to present your 

testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will turn 

green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. When your 

time has expired, the light will turn red. At that point, I will ask 

you to wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. Members will 

each have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

Now I would recognize the Honorable Wendy Spencer for her 

opening statement. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

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

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Dr. Adams, members of 

the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I welcome this opportunity to discuss our commitment to accountability 

and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Today, 345,000 Senior Corps and AmeriCorps members are serving in 50,000 locations across the Nation. These dedicated Americans serve in tough conditions to meet pressing local needs like tutoring and mentoring at-risk youth, responding to disasters, supporting veterans and their families, and much, much more, all 

while recruiting millions of additional volunteers to serve alongside 

them and multiply their impact. 

National Service invests in local solutions. It provides human 

capital support to increase the impact of nonprofits and faith-based 

organizations and other community organizations. Governor-appointed state service commissions decide where most of the 

AmeriCorps resources are invested. Local groups recruit, select, 

and supervise their members. Mayors and county leaders are also 

an important part of our partnerships at the local level. 

Congress created our agency years ago to empower citizens, solve 

problems, and expand opportunity. Our agency is built on smart, 

commonsense principles, local control, competition, public-private 

partnership, and a focus on results. And it’s working. 

I share the committee’s view that our agency has a responsibility 

to ensure Federal funds are well managed. That has been my priority from day one. We have built a culture of accountability and 

strong systems of monitoring and oversight. These systems are 

working. 

Misconduct is very rare, but when it happens, we take strong action. Accountability is more than compliance. It also means achieving our mission. We are investing funds more effectively to drive 

community impact by using evidence, increasing competition, and 

measuring performance. 

My written testimony details our comprehensive risk-based system to prevent and detect issues and enforce our rules. But let me 

list just a few to highlight. 

We start before a grant is ever made by doing a financial scan 

and reviewing past performance. Every direct grant is monitored 

for fiscal and programmatic compliance. Every year our staff conducts a risk assessment of our entire portfolio of grants to inform 

our monitoring plan. Grantees identified as having risk receive site 

visits, desk reviews, and other types of audits. In fact, 3,200 have 

occurred in the last 5 years. If issues are discovered, we enforce our 

rules. That can mean requiring corrective action plans, placing 

funds on hold, reporting activities to the inspector general, or even 

suspending or terminating a grant. 

In recent years we have strengthened our monitoring and oversight in many ways through expanded grantee and staff training, 

better use of financial data, increased control on fixed-amount 

grants, improvements to our grants management system, better 

communication with our grantees and members, and more. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

Several initiatives currently underway, we have just recently 

hired a chief risk officer; the first in our agency’s history and one 

of only a few positions like it in the Federal Government. This executive will lead an office that oversees all of our risk assessment 

programs, an integrated coordinated approach to better manage 

our resources and decision-making. We believe we are ahead of the 

curve in developing an enterprise risk management program to 

help us take a holistic view of risk. 

We are updating our grant management IT system. A key component will be to enhance and validate our grantee risk model. This 

will enable us to move from compliance-focused monitoring to a 

more nimble and targeted risk-based approach. 

Given the priority we place on accountability, we are deeply disappointed that a grantee authorized National Service participants 

to engage in prohibited activities. We immediately referred this 

matter to the inspector general for investigation. Once the results 

were known, we suspended the grantee from enrolling new members, directed them to hire an independent oversight monitor, and 

required them to take several other corrective actions. The inspector general stated our response was robust. 

The IG concluded that the noncompliance was extremely limited 

in scope involving six of nearly 1,600 members serving under this 

particular grantee over three years. It is important to put that in 

perspective. That is six members out of more than 1 million National Service positions in the same period. In fact, since this subcommittee’s hearing five years ago, there have been nearly 2 million AmeriCorps members and Senior Corps positions granted. 

Members have served 820 million hours. They have made an extraordinary contribution to our communities and our Nation. 

I hope that my testimony today assures the committee of our 

commitment to accountability and our interest in doing more and 

making improvements where needed. We look forward to working 

with you to further strengthen the impact of National Service. And 

as I always ask members of Congress, I welcome your advice and 

your guidance. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The statement of Ms. Spencer follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 20236.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 20236.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 20236.003
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 20236.004
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 20236.005
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 20236.006
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 20236.007
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 20236.008
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 20236.009
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 20236.010
19 

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

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH JEFFREY, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Ms. JEFFREY. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Adams, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

about the work of the Office of Inspector General to strengthen accountability at CNCS. I have had the privilege of serving as the IG 

for nearly 4 years. 

Since early 2013, OIG has been recommending substantial improvements to CNCS’s grants management, especially risk assessment and focused monitoring. We have identified new monitoring 

requirements and encourage CNCS to begin work on them early. 

Our work has shown that better internal controls and risk management are needed across the organization. 

OIG conveys our recommendations in audit and investigation reports, in meetings with CNCS’s leaders, and in briefings of the 

board of directors. We summarize them in our semiannual reports 

to Congress. 

We have also identified other sources of help for CNCS. Following a troubling financial statement audit, we initiated discussions with OMB and CNCS to develop a plan for substantial upgrades to internal controls. We recommended an assessment of information technology and how it could better support the agency’s 

operations and programs. CNCS responded by commissioning a report by The MITRE Corporation which gave rise to the present IT 

modernization plan. 

To jumpstart progress, we introduced the chief operating officer 

to the Federal Enterprise Risk Management community and its resources. We have long advocated that CNCS hire a chief risk officer 

whom we recently welcomed. 

At our suggestion, the House Committee on Government Reform 

requested a GAO study of grant monitoring at CNCS which is currently in progress. And to improve criminal history checking, we 

brought in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

to share its expertise in assisting nonprofits. 

CNCS has adopted a number of our individual recommendations. 

There is an increased focus on accountability and the leaders recently brought on board share that priority. 

But much work remains to be done on basic risk management 

systems. High turnover in key accountability positions, insufficient 

resources, and lack of trained leadership have impaired efforts to 

improve accountability. CNCS lacks bench-strength and grant risk 

assessments and monitoring, creating appropriate internal controls, 

and identifying and reducing improper payments. 

The agency has repeatedly promised progress, but it continues to 

struggle. Its grant monitoring depends heavily on risk assessments 

of unproven reliability. Our preliminary review of 40 seriously troubled grants found that half had not been monitored closely because 

they were rated as low or medium risk. CNCS was therefore 

blindsided by the serious problems that occurred. 

Our audits and investigations also often find that the staff has 

missed red flags. That was the case with OIG’s recent investigation 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

of abortion-related prohibited activities. As you alluded to, Chairwoman Foxx, last month OIG reported that the National Association of Community Health Centers allowed a few AmeriCorps members to provide emotional support to women during abortions at 

three New York City clinics operated by a sub-grantee. The Federal 

statute authorizing the AmeriCorps program expressly forbids the 

use of AmeriCorps resources to provide abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services. Among the missed opportunities, 

from 2009, CNCS was on written notice that one NACHC’s subgrantees was performing abortions and having AmeriCorps members provide pre-abortion assistance. The agency did not ask the 

identity of the sub-grantee, did not determine whether the preabortion support activities were prohibited abortion services, and 

did not target NACHC or the sub-grantee for particular monitoring. The staff also did not record this key risk-related information in its online grants management system. Important institutional knowledge was therefore lost. 

The agency made a considered decision in 2009 not to provide 

general guidance on the meaning of the abortion prohibitions. Its 

first interpretive guidance was imbedded in voluntary online training in 2014. There, CNCS stated for the first time that an 

AmeriCorps member is prohibited from accompanying a woman at 

a facility for an abortion; precisely what was taking place at the 

sub-grantee. 

The measures that CNCS is now implementing could have been 

adopted long ago. These include OIG’s recommendations, one, to 

analyze grantees’ programmatic activity and clientele in order to 

identify those that present a heightened risk of a particular prohibited activity. There is a greater risk of abortion-related activities at 

a clinic that provides women’s healthcare than at a program for 

Meals on Wheels to senior citizens. Second, to expand its repertoire 

of monitoring activities to include more frequent direct communications with AmeriCorps members, including surveys. 

My staff and I see great potential to improve accountability at 

CNCS and we look forward to working with the Congress and 

agency leaders to that important objective. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members 

might have. 

[The statement of Ms. Jeffrey follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 20236.011
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 20236.012
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 20236.013
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 20236.014
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 20236.015
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 20236.016
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 20236.017
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 20236.018
29 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Ms. Jeffrey. I would 

now like to recognize our subcommittee members for their questioning and I will recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Kline, to ask the first question. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank the witnesses for 

being here today for your testimony. 

I must say, Ms. Jeffrey, listening to your testimony, there are a 

lot of concerns that you raised and one of them was repeated staff 

did not, staff did not, staff did not, did not recognize, they didn’t 

take action, they could have, they did not. And that makes me 

worry about what the culture and the leadership might be and that 

would be back into Ms. Spencer’s box. But I want to come specifically back to you, Ms. Jeffrey, the inspector general, because you 

talked about some steps that have been taken and could be taken, 

you hope will be taken. But you also in your testimony highlight 

the structural challenges to better oversight at the corporation. 

Can you discuss why these structural challenges pose an issue in 

whether the corporation can properly oversee the program under 

its charge, structural? 

Ms. JEFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The corporation has not 

invested enough time, attention, and effort in strengthening its 

structural internal controls. That has been a finding repeatedly in 

the financial statement audits which are conducted by an independent auditing company that audits a number of Federal agencies. 

The corporation often says that it will improve, it makes efforts 

to do so, but its turnover in leadership of that effort has impeded 

progress. The staff who are charged with responsibility for this important function are undertrained. They are under-resourced. And 

until the recent hiring of a chief risk officer, they have not been 

led by someone who is properly educated, trained, and with sufficient expertise. 

The corporation also suffers some structural impediments by virtue of its outdated information technology system and how that impacts grant management. That is a place in which the corporation 

has made some progress. There is an IT modernization plan. It is 

underway and I believe it will substantially improve grant monitoring two or three years hence. Until that time however, the monitoring is extremely laborious, conducted by hand, and does not 

have the benefit of data analytics. We have been urging improvement on that score as well virtually since the day I came to the 

corporation in late 2012. 

Mr. KLINE. It sounds daunting to say the least. It’s going to take 

time. It’s going to take real leadership. Is it going to take reorganizing, creation, eliminating some departments and creating new 

ones? Obviously, you’ve created a new one when you hired a chief 

risk management officer. Are there other organizational things that 

the IG has recommended? 

Ms. JEFFREY. We have recommended that the corporation undertake an assessment of what it will take to do these things, real 

planning with meaningful milestones, meaningful deadlines, and 

an assessment of the resources that will be required to get to the 

finish line. I understand that is underway now. We have not yet 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

30 

seen its results. And of course, the chief risk officer has only been 

on board for about a month. 

Mr. KLINE. It is like an indictment of a lot of people in an oversight role and a management role. I suppose we have to include 

ourselves in the oversight business. We will be taking a close and 

continuous look as we go forward because the problems, to listening to the IG, are extensive. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Chairman yields back. Mr. Scott, I recognize 

you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Spencer, most of this fanfare is over the abortion services. 

How many employees were involved in that? 

Ms. SPENCER. Good day, Mr. Scott. According to the IG’s investigation that was very thorough and swift, it illustrated that there 

were six AmeriCorps members at a limited scope of time. I don’t 

know that we can delineate the exact amount of time, but if we 

were pressed we would probably say, combined, maybe as much as 

10 hours. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ten hours, okay. And the hourly rate— 

Ms. SPENCER. Total. 

Mr. SCOTT. Total aggregate total. And the expense of an 

AmeriCorps member is about $10 an hour give or take? 

Ms. SPENCER. Well, AmeriCorps members’ stipends vary. These 

are full-time members. They receive approximately $12,600 a year. 

It is a living stipend, not a living wage. And then followed up with 

a college scholarship of around $5,700 at the close of their commitment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Full-time, 2,000 hours— 

Ms. SPENCER. Seventeen hundred. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is about, in stipend, it is about $10 an hour. So 

we are talking about somewhere around $100? 

Ms. SPENCER. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Uh-huh. What is the total budget for this grantee? 

Ms. SPENCER. Around $6 million, approximately 525 full-time 

AmeriCorps members. 

Mr. SCOTT. Were they told by outside attorneys that their activities were legal? 

Ms. SPENCER. Were legal? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. Did they consult outside attorneys before they 

reported it? Before you found out? 

Ms. SPENCER. So several things occurred. Several years ago there 

was dialogue by Email back and forth, but looking back at that, not 

very clear to me. It talked about reproductive services, other 

things. I think looking back, both parties, the grantee and our 

staff, could have been more clear. But yes, they were told that it 

was against the rules to provide abortion services. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, they were told. Before they were told that, did 

they seek other counsel that gave them the impression that it was 

not illegal? 

Ms. SPENCER. The inspector general report alludes to in writing 

that it appeared there was some conversation on their part with 

outside legal counsel. She might be able to speak to that a little 

bit better than me. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

Mr. SCOTT. All right, let me ask Ms. Jeffrey. Did they seek outside counsel and were told that their activities were not inappropriate? 

Ms. JEFFREY. I think that would be something of an overstatement. What we know is that at some point when the grantee 

learned that an individual AmeriCorps member and a sub-grantee 

was acting as an abortion doula, they did two things. The national 

director at NACHC said that he analyzed for himself whether this 

conduct was permissible. He also said that he spoke to outside 

counsel. Looking at the documents, it appears that his conversation 

with outside counsel concerned whether it was permissible to be 

performing abortions at that clinic, not whether it was permissible 

to use AmeriCorps members. But he was not very specific about it 

and sometimes implied— 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, so there was at least some discussion about 

whether—the legality of this activity. We are talking about $100 

out of millions. I mean, we have spent more than that in congressional salaries listening to the opening statements. We have run 

through $100. I would like to get from the chair how much money 

has been spent on this subcommittee meeting. If we could provide 

that for the record so we can put all these numbers in perspective 

because we are talking about $100 that we are chasing. What has 

happened to the grantee since then? 

Ms. SPENCER. Several things have occurred over the course of 

several weeks, so allow me just to share the entire picture. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I only have a couple seconds left. Is it true that 

they are not being renewed? 

Ms. SPENCER. May I continue? I know we are out of time, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you. So during this time period of this particular grantee, coincidentally, happened to be up for a new grant, 

the start of a brand new grant. They were notified a few days ago 

through the regular grant process that they will not receive a new 

grant in this process based on our regular grant process. 

Now, they have an existing grant that is ongoing. It terminates 

on July 31st. So they have received a letter this morning reminding 

them that their grant terminates on July 31st and instructing 

them to end the AmeriCorps member service at the New York site 

where the inappropriate activity occurred. 

Now normally a grantee would ask for a no-cost extension for a 

year as a normal process. I am not inclined to grant them a nocost extension. But if they meet all of our demands over the coming 

days as they close out this grant—hiring a monitor, an ombudsman, not enrolling new members, all of these things; there is a long 

list of requirements—I am amenable to entertaining the thought of 

a short-term extension for 90 days. If I did so it would mean that 

500 AmeriCorps members get to complete their full term of service. 

I want to look at the AmeriCorps members and try to say, should 

they be completing their terms of service, their commitment they 

made to our country. Above the actions of one or two individuals 

at the agency, at the Community Health Corps Administration? So 

I am amenable to looking into that. So that is the current status 

at this point. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, is recognized. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

You know, typically the indiscretions of a few will hurt the many 

who do good. And there is no question that is true. And many of 

us feel very strongly about abortion whether you are pro-choice or 

pro-life. I happen to be an obstetrician. As I spent 31 years doing 

that, delivering about 5,000 babies, I am strongly pro-life. And I 

think that the intent of those grants was very clear. I can certainly 

see why someone who has had an abortion, who has problems emotionally, would feel like you want to help them. I certainly understand that. I have done that. When people had them someone else 

and came to me, I did offer support for those patients and would 

continue to do so. But the grants can prohibit that. It’s not to be 

used and I think we feel like if we allow that, you will get on a 

slippery slope and then people just decided what they want to do. 

And I think that’s the problem I have seen with—I am on the Veteran’s Affairs Committee and one of the problems I have with this 

place is the lack of accountability. People just do what they want 

to because they think they want to, not the intent of Congress, and 

then there are no consequences to it. 

So what I want to dig into, first of all, were there just six people? 

What have been the consequences to that? Because if the consequences were in this, we just cut the grant off. And realizing that 

there are AmeriCorps members out there working hard every day, 

New York or wherever they may be working that are doing good 

work, if those consequences were there like that, those grantees 

would not do that. If there was some accountability like that. 

And I think that you as a director, Ms. Spencer, are going to 

have to say, well, I would like to see these people go on and do all. 

Well, then there have been nothing for these people. If you think 

about it, we are having this discussion about not a lot. And what 

Mr. Scott was talking about, about the amount of money, I do not 

care about that. It is the principle that is involved. And I think, 

you know, a billion dollars is a lot of money. It is a thousand million dollars that you oversee every year. And so I want to know had 

there been more than six, Ms. Jeffrey? Were there more than that? 

Or how did you determine there were just six people involved? 

Ms. JEFFREY. Thank you. We, in fact, know that there were more 

than six involved. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. 

Ms. JEFFREY. There are six that we can identify by name. The 

only way we are able to identify the individuals who served as 

abortion doulas is if they somehow made a blog post or sent something that is in the public record about their service. We know that 

there were additional individuals. We do not know how many because typically AmeriCorps members do not keep detailed time 

records of their activities. And so it is very difficult to quantify the 

number of people. 

That said, it appears that the activity was limited to this one 

sub-grantee. And it is not given the number of individuals we can 

identify, we don’t think it is orders of magnitude off. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Ms. Jeffrey. What date does the sub-grantees contract basic grant end? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

Ms. SPENCER. July 31st. 

Mr. ROE. And has not been renewed. 

Ms. SPENCER. No. 

Mr. ROE. And that they can’t apply in some other grant. Would 

you accept a different grant from these people? 

Ms. SPENCER. They just applied for one which was denied, and 

they just received that. That was a $6 million request, a little over 

$6 million request, and they were denied that. 

Mr. ROE. Let me ask a question. When you are looking at a program, a success or a failure of a program, what is a win? How do 

you evaluate the success of a program because this one clearly was 

not? I mean, someone in that shop decided we are going to do this 

knowing good and well that they should not do it. We will just do 

it and we probably would not get caught. We will ask for forgiveness if we get cause because there is no risk to us if we do. And 

the risk, I guess, is not getting another grant, but that is it. You 

did not stop the grant. 

So how do you evaluate a program? In other words, how do you 

define a win, a success? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Fortunately, we have an amazing array of successes all over the country 

with 345,000 National Service participants during a day. I have the 

joy of seeing those all over the country in rural and cities and travel communities serving in disasters, education. And a success 

would be something like this. A program meets all of our requirements. They have filed their financial reports on time. They have 

strong audits. They have proper management and oversight. They 

have strong outcomes. They are measuring their performance and 

reporting to us what—that—our larger programs are doing— 

Mr. ROE. I am about out of time, but when someone applies for 

a grant, there are metrics out there, benchmarks that they have to 

meet. 

Ms. SPENCER. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROE. Okay, I yield back. 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Roe. Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a little bit curious 

about the review process. If you could talk a little bit more about 

it. Was it just written? Were there verbal conversations with the 

applicants? How did that work, Ms. Spencer? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you, Dr. Adams. I am sure you are still referencing the Community Health Corps or just in general review 

processes? 

Ms. ADAMS. Yeah, for this particular— 

Ms. SPENCER. For this particular. 

Ms. ADAMS. Right. 

Ms. SPENCER. They did have a desk audit in 2014. So they are 

assigned a program officer as soon as they receive a grant from us. 

In this particular case, it is a direct grant that we are managing. 

It is not going through one of our Governor’s Commissions on Volunteerism, which two-thirds of our grants are AmeriCorps grants, 

are managed through Governor’s Commissions on Volunteerism. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

But this one is not. This is a direct grantor agency, so they are assigned a program officer. 

That program officer reviews all of the terms and conditions with 

them. They provide direction to them to trainings, to opportunities 

to find information like on our Knowledge Network. We host nationwide trainings and regional trainings. They attend those. They 

do monthly check-ins. So it is a regular communication all the 

time. In this particular case, this grantee knew the rules. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, so— 

Ms. SPENCER. That’s what is unfortunate. 

Ms. ADAMS. Yeah, okay. So as a follow-up, in the discussions, did 

they talk about abortion? 

Ms. SPENCER. It happened and I read a string of Emails where 

there was communication back and forth. But if you look back 

today as sort of hindsight armchair quarterbacking, the language 

between the parties was sort of evasive. I think the parties should 

have just picked up the phone and say, what are you trying to do? 

Let us give you direct guidance. You may not do abortion services. 

That is not allowed according to the Serve America Act of which 

Congress has given us those rules. 

So it looked like they were dancing around words and it was 

hard to understand. But they were told you could not perform abortion services. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, let me ask. You mentioned no-cost extension, 

that they could ask for that. 

Ms. SPENCER. Uh-huh. 

Ms. ADAMS. Have they asked for a no-cost extension? 

Ms. SPENCER. No. 

Ms. ADAMS. And so you did say you would consider it. So when 

did you make a decision and would you approach them about doing 

it? I mean, since we are talking about, maybe you are talking about 

some misconduct, but not everybody was responsible for it and not 

wanting everybody to suffer. So what is your thought about that? 

Ms. SPENCER. Well, I think Congressman Roe makes a good 

point. You do have to look at the intent of an organization and how 

they are being managed. So I am concerned. What would guide my 

decision in the coming weeks would be are they following our demands? Are they meeting all of the requests that we have asked 

them to do of which the IG also made recommendations to us 

which we have adhered to? So I would watch and see. Are we working in good faith with one another? Are they being responsive? 

There are many things they could do to try to convince us that they 

will adhere to the rules. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, so since there is not much time, you mentioned that the grant is up in July. But let me just move on and 

ask, what exactly were the volunteers doing? I mean, did they perform the abortions that you are talking about? 

Ms. SPENCER. Oh, no, ma’am. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. 

Ms. SPENCER. As I understand it, an abortion doula. And this is 

things that I am learning about, too, but was seated with these 

women during the— 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, and finally before I run out of time, I wanted 

to ask you, you know, if there were some things that you think that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

were inappropriate, but what would reduced funding for CNCS 

mean for communities around the country if you had to do that? 

Ms. SPENCER. I am sorry, what would— 

Ms. ADAMS. What would reduced funding do? What would it 

mean for communities around the country if their funding was reduced, eliminated? 

Ms. SPENCER. Well, you know, I looked at all of the other things 

that the Community Health Corps does. They do diabetes 

screenings. They do breastfeeding courses. They do well-baby care 

education. They do support to veterans, support for seniors. They 

do obesity prevention. You know, this is why it is a mystery to me 

why they had to focus on this particular issue. There are so many 

other things: financial literacy, helping people figure out what kind 

of healthcare is affordable and available to them. There is so many 

other avenues they could be serving in. 

And in 2011, I was a grantee of this agency. I was receiving 

funds from this agency running the Florida Governor’s Commission 

on Volunteerism. And I remember, Madam Chair Foxx, this hearing and watched with interest. It was no secret what was allowed 

and what was not allowed to any of us as a grantee. So, it was very 

clear at that time that they made the decision to change the wording for the member contract that allowed this activity to go on. So 

I am perplexed by that because all of us in the field understood the 

rules clearly. 

Ms. ADAMS. Yes, ma’am. Well, it sounds like it would have a devastating impact in terms of the services overall that are provided 

if the funding was not there. And I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Dr. Adams. I believe, 

Mr. Courtney, we are going to recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to the 

witnesses. 

Ms. Spencer, I just want to drill down a little deeper in terms 

of just who the program was in New York that was the subject of 

the IG report. Again, it was not the National Association of Community Health Centers that operated that program. It was a subgrantee of the National Association of Community Health Centers, 

isn’t that correct? 

Ms. SPENCER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And so the total grant for the community health 

centers group nationally, again, the 535 volunteers that are funded, 

I mean, those are all across the country. 

Ms. SPENCER. That is correct. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Not just in New York City. So for example, in 

Connecticut, where I come from, there are 21 individuals that are 

funded through that National Association grant. There are four in 

my district in Norwich, Connecticut, who I am, you know, a frequent flyer at that community health center. They don’t provide 

anything remotely close to abortion services. So the four volunteers 

that are funded through that grant, I mean, do things like schedule 

flu shots, you know, help with monitoring patients who are high 

emergency room utilizers, you know, help with medication management. I mean, they are doing this sort of blocking and tackling of 

primary care. And in many instances, our young individuals who 

later on end up going to medical school or advanced practice nursCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

ing, I mean, it is really a launching pad for people in terms of a 

healthcare career that has benefits that exceed even, sort of, the 

metrics of what you were talking about in terms of program success. 

So I guess, you know, I think it is important sometimes right 

now, to put this in perspective here. I mean, if we cancel a contract 

across the country, you are hitting community health centers that, 

again, are not even close— 

Mr. COURTNEY.—to the activity that was the subject of the complaints. And you are really just depriving low-income patients, elderly patients. Actually, in Norwich, Connecticut, they provide 

services to some veterans in terms of dental care that are not covered by the VA. 

So, I mean, let’s not shoot the bystander here in terms of, you 

know, overreacting to this problem that was identified. And I hope 

you keep that in mind as you sort of evaluate the next steps here. 

Again, the surgical remedies that have been put into place are 

totally appropriate and that’s your job. But, again, sort of an across 

the board chainsaw through, you know, community health centers 

I think really undercuts the mission of the AmeriCorps law. I do 

not know if you want to react to that, but I really think we got to 

put this in perspective. 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you for that input and I concur. Hopefully, 

in the future we will find more organizations like this agency that 

is interested in our grants. So you make fine points on it. I agree. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. And I would just say that, again, 

stepping back even further in terms of just the scope of 

AmeriCorps as far as its, you know, value to the taxpayer, we have 

an RSVP program up in northeastern Connecticut that organizes 

veterans’ coffeehouse. It sounds kind of small potatoes, but actually 

it has become a gathering point for the most rural part of the State 

for veterans who, as a result, are now getting VA benefits that they 

did not know they were entitled to because of, you know, the good 

information that is shared at that coffeehouse. We have medal recoveries for World War II vets, Korean War vets that never would 

have happened. And, you know, you are talking, Greg Kline’s the 

director of it. I mean— 

Ms. SPENCER. Yeah. 

Mr. COURTNEY. You know, this is really, at best, you know, parttime pay that is happening. But again, the ripple effect in terms 

of the value to people who wore the uniform of this country is, you 

know, far excess in terms of whatever small investment the taxpayer makes. 

Ms. SPENCER. I recently saw Greg at a training we did, a regional training. And he gave me an update on that vet coffeehouse 

because he had told me about his plans over a year ago. And I am 

very pleased that you recognize them. We are leaning in on veterans and military family members heavily because there is great 

need there. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I have an article 

from the Hartford Current which describes the AmeriCorps program for veterans which we discussed here and I have asked that 

it be made part of the record. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

Mr. COURTNEY. And again, I think what’s—you know, again, get 

some perspective here about what happened and what is an appropriate remedy and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I 

yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. That is an interesting 

analogy you would use. 

Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

being here. 

And my question, actually, kind of focuses on veterans as well. 

And to Ms. Jeffrey, in your second fiscal year 2014 semiannual report to Congress you detail an investigation in which you determine a grantee was supposed to use grant funds to support veterans and military families, improperly disbursed about 140,000 of 

Federal funds and improperly certified another 61,000 education 

awards. The grantee acknowledged the findings and offered to refund the corporation the entire amount you recommended. Unconscionably, the corporation not only requested reimbursement for 

only about a third of the funds you recommended, but the corporation retroactively expanded the range of service activities of the 

grant in order to justify the move. Is there any justification for the 

corporation to retroactively approve over 12,000 National Service 

hours under this grant to non-veterans fundamentally changing the 

purpose of AmeriCorps’ member service? 

Ms. JEFFREY. In my view, there is not. And not only did that 

happen with respect to this one veteran services grant, a very similar thing happened at around the same time with two other grants 

where the grantee unilaterally changed the objective of service, did 

not ask the corporation for approval. And then, when they were 

caught, sought forgiveness rather than permission. I think strong 

accountability requires the opposite. Grantees should be encouraged to ask first so the corporation makes the decision about the 

proper allocation of resources. Now, I believe there has to be accountability when a grantee exceeds its authority in that fashion. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yeah, well, what reforms are possible when the 

corporation does not want to have the inclination to move forward 

in that? What kind of reforms can you have if the corporation 

changes the scope? 

Ms. JEFFREY. Well, what I can do is report on it. That is the limit 

of my authority. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay, well, thank you. So, Ms. Spencer, on that, 

what are the steps to terminate a grant for failure to comply with 

the Federal law or the conditions of the grant? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie. I wanted to 

point out that we looked at all of the grants over the last couple 

of years and what actions we have been taken. And I made a short 

list for the committee if it’s helpful. We have had 26 debarments, 

two suspensions. We have recovered $2 million in grant funds and 

we have had 52 mutually agreed terminations. So it is certainly 

something we don’t take lightly. You know, we are co-investing 

with these organizations who start out well-meaning. Many of 

them are faith organizations, veterans’ organizations, local nonprofits, charities, local governments, education, schools. And we 

start out with a good plan together and we review them to see if 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

they are worthy of a Federal investment. And we go through a lot 

of criteria to see if they are. 

So when we find, and these generally, there are exceptions, but 

generally for AmeriCorps we are looking at 3-year commitments. 

So we go into a relationship for 3 years. When we find that the 

grantees are not performing at the highest level, that’s when we 

start interventions. That is when you do the desk audits. That is 

when you do more monitoring. On occasion, if needed, we will ask 

for our annual audit report. We will put them on the list for the 

inspector general to audit. Unfortunately, the inspector general 

does not have all the resources to audit all of our requests, but they 

do a very good job of doing what they can with what resources they 

have. 

So we want them to succeed. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Absolutely. 

Ms. SPENCER. I mean, we are in this together,— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER.—but when they do not and after we have really 

tried—and I have been in a position to have to terminate grants 

from Florida when I was there directly managing about 45 

AmeriCorps grants on behalf of the governor, of three different governors in Florida. It’s a tough decision. It is not always popular. 

But we are not in the popularity business. We are in the outcome 

business. And we chase problems and we have solutions for those. 

And so, I just say this— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And in your audit, so some of them you said were 

mutual because I am about out of time. 

Ms. SPENCER. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mutual, but if they were not mutual and you have 

had the audit and you say, hey, this is not—what do you actually 

have to— 

Ms. SPENCER. I would say— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. What process do you have to follow to— 

Ms. SPENCER.—without looking at a list, and I could certainly 

provide that of these 52 mutually agreed terminations, that’s a 

good way to end it— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER.—but I am probably certain that if it was not mutually agreed it would have been terminated. That’s the best way 

to end a relationship, but—and sometimes grants find out they just 

are not suitable to manage a Federal grant. We do have a lot of 

requirements, as we should. It is the taxpayers’ money. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I think that was the case on the matter of this situation. They said we thought we were going to have a more bigger 

group of veterans to serve. We didn’t. Therefore, we diverted to try 

to do some other things and admitted—I do not think it was intentional to begin with, but it became that. I— 

Ms. SPENCER. That was a tough one because they did provide 

services to local residents, but they were not in the original agreement for veterans. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Right. 

Ms. SPENCER. So the fact they did provide services is one thing, 

but that was a tough one. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you and I am out of time. I yield back. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentlemen’s time has expired. Ms. Davis, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for 

being with us today. 

Ms. Spencer, one of the things that I think strikes me is that you 

all have really exhausted multiple resources, time, effort, everything in following up on this situation. 

Ms. SPENCER. Yes, ma’am, we have. 

Ms. DAVIS. Do you have any sense in terms of what was required 

to do that? I think what I am trying to see here because we need 

to have some way of being aggressive as I think you have been and 

at the same time not having a chilling effect on the ability to use 

resources to actually improve programs, to make sure that everything is working as it should. What is your sense of that? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you very much. When we have a grantee 

that does not follow the rules, it does take a lot of energy of the 

organization, sadly, at some of the highest level personnel, including our general counsel, including our chief of grants, including our 

AmeriCorps director. But that’s our job— 

Ms. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER.—and we will continue to be forthright and— 

Ms. DAVIS. And as I understand it, too, I mean, this started out 

as a media post, a social media post in terms of how it was picked 

up initially, but that you all took the steps to bring the Inspector 

General into it. And so, it seems to me that, you know, you are 

moving ahead in the way that is required. And that what we need 

to do and what I think we all need to do is to be sure that if we 

believe that community service—and I happen to believe and would 

love to see it expanded. I think that in this country, we know there 

are other countries that do this. You know, I would love to see 

every 18-year-old give at least 18 months of their time in community service. If we had the infrastructure in this country to do that, 

it would be great. And I think we need to think about what that 

would take in order to do that. 

Clearly, in this kind of a situation, you have to be very aggressive about those grants. You have to be very aggressive that people 

are doing what they are expected to do. And occasionally, and out 

of 345,000 or so volunteers today, there were a few people who in 

trying to do the right thing and perhaps not getting the direction 

that they obviously should have gotten, they erred. Geez, I do not 

know. (Laughs) I do not know if we have very many organizations 

in the country that can say that. So I think we need to be clear 

about that. 

But I also wanted to know from you, as well, Madam IG, what 

do you see in terms of resources? I think you have spoken to this 

a little bit, but if we had a way of crafting additional help and support, would it be more monitors? Is that what you think is required 

here? Is it more training, more education? We are short on the resources that we’re providing. 

Ms. JEFFREY. It is a very good question and I do have some 

thoughts on it. To a considerable extent, the corporation needs to 

think outside the box about how it monitors. 

As things stand now, roughly one of the few ways that a corporation employee has contact with members is when that person does 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

a site visit. Site visits may not happen but once every six years. 

That is not an effective way to know whether there are prohibited 

activities taking place at a grantee. So I think there need to be avenues for more frequent contacts with AmeriCorps members. 

Ms. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

Ms. JEFFREY. In the experience of the OIG, if you want know 

what is really going at a grantee, the members will tell you. They 

are vocal when they see something they don’t like. 

Now in this case, the grantee reported this to us, to the corporation. But I do think that the more contact there is with members, 

and it could be done with some simple survey questions, the better 

the monitoring would be without investment of tremendous resources. 

Ms. DAVIS. And are you all monitoring the social media as well 

to pick up problems? 

Ms. JEFFREY. Interestingly enough, that was a recommendation 

that CNCS made to grantees, that they monitor social media. 

Ms. DAVIS. Uh-huh. 

Ms. JEFFREY. Had they done that, that is how the grantee found 

it in this case. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yeah. 

Ms. JEFFREY. Now CNCS, as far as I know, does not take its own 

advice and do that even on an intermittent or selective basis. That 

may be something that it is considering now. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Well, I looked at so many of the organizations, certainly from San Diego, and the amount of work the Catholic Charities is doing and many others, and, quite frankly, in a 

number of situations, of course they are providing emotional support. So, I think we want to be careful how we use those words and 

how that relates to other issues and other concerns that we have. 

And, perhaps, we need some way of better defining what that 

means, under what circumstances. I think that some of that has already been done, perhaps. But again, let’s be really clear with the 

people who are engaged in this and let’s not have a chilling effect 

on the young people in this country who are doing such fabulous 

work. 

Thank you so much. I see that my time is up. I am sorry. Thank 

you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Excuse me, I am sorry. Mr. Polis is next. I 

apologize. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you both for 

being here today and I want to highlight some of the contributions 

the Corporation for National Community Service has made in my 

district as an example. 

As my colleagues know, Colorado declared a state of emergency 

in the fall of 2013 after experiencing the most damaging floods in 

our State’s history. Many homes, businesses, roads, bridges were 

destroyed. There was loss of life. Thanks to CNCS, though, volunteers were immediately deployed to Colorado to help in the aftermath of our floods. And in total, over 700 National Service members came to our State. Their work involved volunteer donations, 

management, staffing call centers, coordination of medical mobility 

rides, community relations activities, meal services. I got to visit a 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

number of them as they were working to help feed some of those 

who had lost their homes, and mucking and gutting and debris removal as well. 

I want to thank you, first of all, for CNCS’s quick response. And 

I was hoping you could talk a little bit more, Ms. Spencer, about 

the important role CNCS has when a natural disaster occurs, like 

ours. 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you so much, Congressman. After some of 

those disasters I actually toured in your district to see the work of 

our National Service participants and I appreciate you calling out 

their success. We have responded over the last several years to 200 

natural disasters and some manmade disasters across the country. 

So we are very busy. We have individuals deployed right now in 

communities across the country. 

This is an area that is very personal to me. I led the volunteer 

and donations response for Governor Bush in 2004 and 2005, when 

we had eight major disasters over a 2-year period and about 

250,000 volunteers, including thousands of National Service participants who were leading the way there. So this is very personal 

to me. 

We have a robust disaster program. We have trained virtually 

every governor’s commission on how to be engaged with their State 

emergency manager using National Service participants in their response and volunteers working closely with their local volunteer organizations active in disasters, their faith-based organizations that 

are working in disasters. We have trained a cadre of individuals all 

over the country. At any given time, we have got over 3,000 

AmeriCorps members ready to respond, ready to be deployed, redeployed, mobilized across the country. We worked with the private 

sector on this. And during Hurricane Sandy we actually had Southwest Airlines move AmeriCorps members quickly across the country so they could get in and be deployed along with about 400 

AmeriCorps members. 

We have FEMACorps now who are serving, young people 18 to 

24, who are serving alongside FEMA professionals. They are doing 

amazing work and they are learning now how to become professional disaster responders. And they are moving into careers in 

government and in nonprofits with disaster response. So we are not 

only helping the individual communities. We are training a new 

cadre of Americans to serve in this area. And emergency managers 

both local and State and Federal across the country have told me 

this is a gap that they have in professionals, and they have a lot 

of professionals retiring, like many sectors, and they need young 

people pursuing disaster response as a career and many of our 

young people are pursuing technology, but we need more in this 

area of public service. 

So I am very excited about this. Whenever we have a major disaster, I generally go personally, stop what I am doing, travel to 

that district within 10 to 14 days so that I can speak with local authorities and make sure that we are responding swiftly and see 

what else we can do. I meet with elected officials in the area. I 

have been all over the country in disasters and I bring with me the 

experience I brought from Florida and all of the service we did and 

how to train individuals to respond with appropriate volunteer and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

donations response. So thanks for pointing them out. We are doing 

a lot. We have a robust program and we want to do more. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, thank you. And it was a great opportunity to 

interact with that, with many of your members in the field and in 

so many important roles in our State. And as you indicated during 

your visit to our district, it was—there were tens of thousands that 

were temporarily homeless. Many thousands lost their homes. And 

really, the community came together. But truly, the help with the 

managing, the outpouring of support from the untrained volunteers 

in our community is why we needed the trained volunteer and donations management. So many people wanted to help with goods 

and with time, but without the structure that CNCS provided with 

folks on the ground, we really wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of that, and I just want to thank you. 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you for those remarks. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Now, Mr. DeSaulnier, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and no apology necessary. 

I just really want to commend you both on the work you do. 

What you do is so important. I do not think often enough we give 

enough attention to programs, the volunteer programs that you 

oversee and also the challenge of doing them properly. And I am 

reminded sitting here today, whether it was de Tocqueville to 

David Brooks recently talking about the importance of community 

and the breakdown of community in the United States and how important these nonprofits, community groups are to the fabric of 

America. So thank you for what you do. 

I want to talk little bit about—well, first I want to follow what 

Mr. Polis said. In California, of course, we had similar instances 

where your services and your grantee services have been very helpful in natural emergencies and now with the drought. With 

wildfires, I hear the same thing. So thank you for that. 

But I want to talk about both proportionality that Mr. Courtney 

brought in, that all the good things you do and, you know, this 

might go in one of those categories where no good deed goes 

unpunished in terms of your proper oversight given the overall proportion of good work that most of your grantees are doing and your 

oversight, but also sort of the right investment. 

So, Ms. Spencer, you mentioned in your comments under 

strengthening risk-based monitoring, ‘‘In the spirit of continuous 

improvement, we are implementing additional steps to increase the 

effectiveness of our oversight and monitoring,’’—and I want to sort 

of emphasize that word ‘‘effectiveness’’—then you go on to say, ‘‘as 

part of our continued effort to incorporate best practices in our risk 

management.’’ So there is, coming from the private sector—I know 

that industries, whether it’s their insurance or just good management practices, you know, for instance in the construction industry, 

a certain proportion of your overall budget is going to be waste or 

theft. I was in the restaurant business. You did not want anybody 

stealing from you, but you did know that there was a point where 

there was diminishing returns on what you spent to make sure you 

bring it to zero. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

So that is what wanted to ask you. As you look at your risk management and, sort of, industry best practices, given that you are 

dealing with nonprofits, given that you are dealing with nonprofits 

who do not have a lot of administrative overhead, and you are trying to encourage volunteerism, is there sort of an accepted—or do 

you—knowing that particularly in areas where you know that there 

is going to be a certain amount of public and political consequences 

if you don’t get it to zero, what is appropriate? 

And I think back at my time in the California legislature wherein the previous governor spent so much time on waste and abuse 

in the food stamp program, we actually found out that we were 

spending too much and it was affecting our participation rates. So 

somewhere in there, it is sort of the right porridge. Is there a best 

practice when you come to your profession/industry? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you so much, Congressman. I think it 

would be too strong to say that there should be an accepted amount 

of risk. And I come from this from my experience in Florida managing about 45 AmeriCorps grants all over the State, about 1,800 

AmeriCorps members at any given time and we had strong grantees. We had, during my watch, no fraud. I can’t recall any waste. 

Did we—we were focused on are we investing the resources in the 

right areas? For example, I had a grantee, a long-term grantee, 

that was providing education programs in an area that was improving in their education success. So we moved those resources to 

another area that was struggling. So as you see success, right, you 

shift your resources. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER. That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is just 

smart management. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER. So I would not be able to say that there is some 

kind of accepted risk. I do not think that is a path that we should 

consider. The inspector general and I agree on— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. If I could— 

Ms. SPENCER.—much more than we— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Yeah, I am sorry to interrupt, but since I have 

limited time, I did want to suggest that you want to get to zero and 

I think you have done a great job of that. 

Ms. SPENCER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. But at some point from a business model, there 

is diminishing returns where you are spending so much, where 

you, sort of, have to go upstream, which I think you have done. 

Ms. SPENCER. I see. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So it is more—less on the subjective point. We 

are more of the objective. We are spending X-amount of dollars to 

capture this much of fault. 

Ms. SPENCER. And I think that—I was going to say and this pertains to this, the inspector general and I agree on a lot more than 

we disagree on. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SPENCER. And she is right. We need improvements in our IT. 

We need improvements in our internal controls. We hope Enterprise Risk Management is going to help us. We hope that our new 

chief risk officer, our first in our agency’s history, is going to lead 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

us and guide us. We need to take this advice and counsel. We are 

down, quite frankly, a lot of this comes to money, We are down $6 

million over the last six years in our salaries and expenses line. So 

at some point, we have got to look very hard at where we are shifting our resources. So it’s an important to make. You have to make 

best decisions and the most cost-effective decisions. And I think 

that was where you were going. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Spencer, I am glad to hear you make—in response, that you 

don’t want to accept waste and abuse. You did make a very bold 

statement that in your programs in Florida you had absolutely no 

fraud and no waste. That is a pretty strong statement to make, but 

I appreciate— 

Ms. SPENCER. During my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Would you please tell me what specific steps 

you are now taking to ensure that your grantees and every participant in the programs are—every participant is clear about what 

conduct is and is not allowed. And I don’t want you to use up my 

whole 5 minutes outlining every single one, but give me some as 

specific as you can and then I am hoping to do a follow-up later 

to get more details from you. 

Ms. SPENCER. Can I ask for clarification? 

Chairwoman FOXX. What are you doing to ensure your grantees 

and every participant is clear about what conduct is and is not allowed? 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you. I think we are really leaning in hard 

on our training of all of our grantees across the country. We have 

implemented some regional trainings just at the last couple of 

years that we have gotten excellent feedback from. And virtually 

all of our medium to large grantees are attending. Even small 

grantees are attending. This year we will probably see over 2,000 

grantees in four trainings. I attend all of these and I address all 

of the participants. The inspector general sends her staff there. 

This is one way. We now have— 

Chairwoman FOXX. Just to clarify. All 2,000 go to four events 

each? 

Ms. SPENCER. So there is four regional. So we try to spread them 

out so travel costs are reduced. In this case, this year, four regional 

conferences. And we will see about 2,000 grantees. And these are 

the leaders. These are the people running the programs. It is important. They are listening to the rules. They are hearing what our 

expectations are. They are learning about accountability and oversight. The Inspector General brings her staff there. Their sessions 

are full. I have looked in on them. 

We are talking about criminal history checks. We are talking 

about oversight to its fullest. We are talking about performance 

measures. 

So we also now, and the Inspector General makes a good point 

about, can we do more to reach out directly to members? She 

makes an excellent point. I want to find more ways that we can 

do that. Since your last hearing, one of the things that—a good 

thing that came out of it, several good things, but one was that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

every AmeriCorps member receives a communication from us that 

stipulates very clearly what the prohibited activities are. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Do they sign anything acknowledging that 

they have received that? 

Ms. SPENCER. I will get back to you on that. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay, and you said 2,000 grantees. Who is 

left out of that? I mean, how many are not participating in those 

regional programs? 

Ms. SPENCER. I would have to get back to you on that to find 

out— 

Chairwoman FOXX. And why not everyone? 

Ms. SPENCER. Well, that is a good point. In fact, in California, 

I went to the training conference with the Southwest United 

States, and I asked—California, of course, being our largest state. 

And the California commission director, who serves at the pleasure 

of the governor there, said all of her grantees in the entire State 

of California under her watch, except one, attended that training. 

And she was going to make sure that one received all the materials 

and instructions that the others received during their—now that is 

just one option. You know, each State commission— 

Chairwoman FOXX. I am—we are about to run out of time. 

Ms. SPENCER. Okay. 

Chairwoman FOXX. And I have one more question. I am going to 

ask you to detail tell me what steps you are taking. So is an annual assurance that a grantee is in compliance with regulations on 

prohibited activities currently part of the monitoring protocols? 

And if so, did the National Association of Community Health Centers make this assurance? If so, what good is the assurance if the 

grantees and sub-grantees are not faithfully adhering to the requirements of the law? 

Ms. SPENCER. We will certainly get back to you on that so that 

we can be assured of the correct answer. Absolutely. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay, well, thank you very much. Ms. Jeffrey, I am going to submit some questions to you afterwards related 

to the Improper Payments Elimination Recovery Act and how the 

agency is not complying with that. And I know you have given us 

some information on this, so I would want to get back to you with 

that, okay? 

Ms. JEFFREY. We look forward to responding. 

Chairwoman FOXX. All right, great. My time has expired and I 

believe all members have had an opportunity to ask their questions. Therefore, I would ask Ms. Adams if she is ready to make 

closing remarks? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am and I want to thank 

both of you for your participation today. 

Since its creation more than 20 years ago, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service has been a strong pillar in our 

community. Across this Nation, CNCS has engaged millions of 

Americans in service. It’s AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Social Innovation Fund, and the Volunteer Generation Fund program. CNCS has 

been a leader in alleviating the role of national service, which is 

important to those involved. Madam Chair, I have a letter I wanted 

to submit. I am trying to figure out where it is right now. Oh, here 

it is. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objections. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, thank you. So let me just move on to say last 

year, CNCS provided 345,000 volunteers who served over 155 million hours through AmeriCorps and Senior Corps in more than 

500,000 locations. And it’s clear that our continued support is absolutely necessary. Tackling issues like literacy and homelessness 

and hunger have been continued priorities for CNCS, as well responding to national disasters and helping seniors reenter the 

workforce to improving student academic achievement, CNCS is 

making a real difference and we appreciate that. 

But, you know, I guess I didn’t come prepared today to hear so 

much about the use of government funds and what appears to me 

to be somewhat attacks on a woman’s right to determine what to 

do with their bodies. But CNCS did, from what I hear, what they 

were supposed to do, address the issue at hand, but yet it continues to come up in this Congress about women and what we 

ought to do concerning reproductive rights. So while the hearing 

is—was—I did not believe it was supposed to be about reproductive 

rights, I just wanted to just comment that I think that we wasted 

a lot of time with baseless attacks. 

For instance, the Select Panel on the Planned Parenthood has 

been nothing more in my opinion than a political theater. But we, 

my colleagues, have pushed for 21 anti-women’s health votes, introduced 51 anti-women’s health bills, and we have had 8 anti-women 

health hearings. And I just think that we need to be talking about 

misuse of some of those funds. 

But again, let me just applaud you for the hard work that you 

have done over the past two decades and I know that what you do 

will continue to engage more citizens and more volunteers in a productive way. And I just think that the work that CNCS has done 

and continues to do has made significant contributions and I certainly hope that you will continue to do that and that we will support those efforts. 

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. Ms. Adams and I have 

worked together over many years when we were both in the North 

Carolina legislature and I will have to say I very much disagree 

that this is only a hearing about women’s reproductive rights. This 

hearing has come about because there is an agency in Federal Government that is not being held accountable properly in terms of 

how it spends money in many different ways. 

I am home every weekend and I come in contact with hardworking citizens who do their jobs and they pay their taxes. They 

volunteer and they do not get paid for it. They are true volunteers. 

And I see those people struggling every day to make ends meet and 

do work in their fire departments as volunteers, the Boy Scouts, 

and Girl Scouts. And they want their money spent well. They do 

not begrudge helping their fellow citizens. We are the most generous people in the world. But they want their money spent well. 

And this agency does not spend its money well in many cases. 

You mentioned, Ms. Spencer, that you had a $6 million reduction 

over six years. Well, you are just talking to the wrong folks because 

our congressional offices over the past eight years have had a 20 

percent reduction in the money allowed to us to serve a lot of peoCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

ple, over 700,000 people. And all of us are struggling very hard to 

continue the level of service that we gave before our funds were 

cut. So I am sorry, that argument does not go very far with this 

group. 

Your idea of a culture of accountability and mine and Dr. Roe’s 

and the folks on our side of the aisle are two very different things. 

You can say you have a culture of accountability, but I am sorry 

to say you have not described that very well today in my opinion. 

If people had worked for me who had broken the law, I’d have no 

tolerance for them whatsoever. Zero tolerance. And many members 

of Congress have exhibited that. 

You talk a lot about intentions. We need to be talking about 

metrics and true accountability here. Maybe Dr. Roe and I are a 

little old-fashioned in what we think, but we think you ought to be 

measuring real things. What kind of outcomes are you actually getting? What skills are the people in these programs truly getting? 

Do they get any certifications? You know, we demand that kind of 

accountability in certain areas and then in other areas where our 

colleagues want to measure only intentions, we don’t get that. 

Now, it is true that the law has been broken by people, by agencies, and groups you have funded. The law is clear. The Federal 

Government is not going to support abortion services. So while this 

hearing was not about that particular issue, I don’t think we can 

close it without making it very clear. You seem to have a lack of 

concern about the violation of the law. Your consideration of a nocost extension is very troubling to me. 

We have said it before, I said it at the beginning of the hearing, 

and I am going to say it again, this grant should be pulled immediately and under no circumstances should it be extended. And I 

hope we will get back from you a report that will fulfill that because when you allow the violation of law in whatever category 

that it is, then we start down a slippery slope in this country. We 

are governed by the rule of law and we should all want to uphold 

that. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Ms. Adams follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 20236.019
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 20236.020
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 20236.021
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 20236.022
52 

[Additional submission by Mr. Courtney follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 20236.023
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 20236.024
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 20236.025
56 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 20236.026
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 20236.027
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 20236.028
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 20236.029
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 20236.030
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 20236.031
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 20236.032
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 20236.033
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 20236.034
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 20236.035
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 20236.036
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 20236.037
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 20236.038
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 20236.039
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 20236.040
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 20236.041
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 20236.042
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 20236.043
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 20236.044
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 20236.045
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 20236.046
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 20236.047
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 20236.048
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 20236.049
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 20236.050
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 20236.051
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 20236.052
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 20236.053
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 20236.054
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 20236.055
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 20236.056
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 20236.057
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 20236.058
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 20236.059
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 20236.060
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 20236.061
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 20236.062
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 20236.063
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 20236.064
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 20236.065
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 20236.066
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 20236.067
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 20236.068
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 20236.069
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 20236.070
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 20236.071
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 20236.072
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 20236.073
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 20236.074
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 20236.075
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 20236.076
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 20236.077
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 20236.078
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 20236.079
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 20236.080
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 20236.081
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 20236.082
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 20236.083
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 20236.084
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 20236.085
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 20236.086
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 20236.087
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 20236.088
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 20236.089
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 20236.090
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 20236.091
123 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 20236.092
124 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 20236.093
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 20236.094
126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 20236.095
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 20236.096
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 20236.097
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 20236.098
130 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 20236.099
131 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 20236.100
132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 20236.101
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 20236.102
134 

Link:https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/ 

evidenceexchange/FR—CNCS— 

Alumni%20Outcomes%20Survey%20Executive%20Summary.pdf 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

135 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 20236.103
136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 20236.104
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 20236.105
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 20236.106
139 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 20236.107
140 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 20236.108
141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 20236.109
142 

[Responses to questions submitted for the record follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 20236.110
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 20236.111
145 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 20236.112
146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 20236.113
147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 20236.114
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 115 here 20236.115
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 116 here 20236.116
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 117 here 20236.117
151 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 20236.118
152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 20236.119
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 120 here 20236.120
154 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 121 here 20236.121
155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 122 here 20236.122
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 123 here 20236.123
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 124 here 20236.124
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 125 here 20236.125
159 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 126 here 20236.126
160 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 127 here 20236.127
161 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 129 here 20236.129
162 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 130 here 20236.130
163 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 131 here 20236.131
164 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 132 here 20236.132
165 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 133 here 20236.133
166 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 134 here 20236.134
167 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 135 here 20236.135
168 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 136 here 20236.136
169 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 137 here 20236.137
170 

[Extensive material was submitted by Ms. Spencer. The submission for the record is in the committee archive for this hearing.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER