U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

66–967 PDF 2011

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY IN 

NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 23, 2011 

Serial No. 112–30 

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 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

David Wu, Oregon 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

George Miller, California 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 23, 2011 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

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

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

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training ......................................................... 4 

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

Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Iowa, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 28 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Velasco, Robert, II, acting CEO, Corporation for National and Community 

Service ............................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Submissions for the Record: 

Chairwoman Foxx: Questions submitted for the record ................................ 28 

Mr. Velasco: Responses to questions submitted for the record ..................... 30 

(1) 

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY IN 

NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Foxx, Kline, Roe, Hanna, Bucshon, 

Hinojosa, Tierney, Grijalva, and Miller. 

Staff present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine 

Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; James 

Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Casey 

Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Heather 

Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor; 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff 

Member; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Krisann Pearce, 

General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human 

Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex 

Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Kate Ahlgren, Minority Investigative Counsel; Tylease Alli, 

Minority Clerk; Daniel Brown, Minority Junior Legislative Assistant; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy Director of Education Policy; 

Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Kara 

Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; and Melissa 

Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director for Education. 

Chairwoman FOXX. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. Good morning to all of our guests. 

And good morning, Mr. Velasco. We appreciate the time you have 

taken to be with us today. 

America has always been known as a place where volunteerism 

exists in every community. Whether serving at a local food bank 

assisting those who spend their nights at a nearby shelter, or simply lending a helping hand to a neighbor in need, those who volunteer their time and resources on behalf of their community help 

meet the many needs of our diverse society. 

In recent decades, Washington has tried to pursue policies that 

will encourage more citizens to step up and help those in need. 

Those efforts were perhaps most visible in 1973, with the passage 
2 

of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. In later years, Congress attempted to streamline community service programs through the 

creation of the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Today, the Corporation oversees the community service activities 

of roughly nine distinct programs, including AmeriCorps, the Senior Volunteer Corps, and the Social Innovation Fund, and manages 

an annual budget in excess of $1 billion. The Corporation, and 

members of Congress, have a responsibility to make certain those 

tax dollars are being well-spent. 

During the last three authorizations of these programs, I was 

proud to lead an effort on behalf of my Republican colleagues to 

strengthen protections over the use of these taxpayer funds. As a 

direct result, what was once merely spelled out in regulation and 

subject to the changing whims of each administration is now a 

matter of federal law. 

We acted to stop the use of taxpayer funds for advocacy, lobbying, protesting, union organizing, partisan political activity, and 

providing or referring individuals to places to receive abortion services. We also expanded the organizations and entities prohibited 

from receiving funds to include political parties, labor organizations, and lobbying firms. 

We did this to help ensure federal resources are not dedicated to 

activities taxpayers find politically divisive or morally objectionable. However, as with any law, Congress’ best efforts to protect 

taxpayers can go only so far. It is the responsibility of the administration of the programs to fully enforce the laws passed by Congress. With a bureaucracy as vast and complicated as the one we 

face today, we recognize this is often a difficult task. 

Despite whatever challenges the administration may face, however, it is their public duty nonetheless. That is why recent reports 

of improper activity in New York City and Tacoma, Washington are 

so deeply troubling. In both situations, program participants apparently engaged in illegal activity. And in a New York City Planned 

Parenthood facility, two AmeriCorps trained and organized individuals to be advocates on behalf of Planned Parenthood. 

Had it not been for a Planned Parenthood employee inadvertently reporting this activity, it could still be going on to this day. 

In Washington, the Tacoma Community College placed a participant at another Planned Parenthood facility to serve as a, quote— 

‘‘escort’’ for the organization. 

How this could possibly abide by the spirit of volunteerism is beyond me. I appreciate that once notified of these situations, the 

Corporation acted swiftly to stop the prohibited activities and inform Congress. However, our goal should be to prevent these kinds 

of activities before they take place. 

Today, we will take a close look at the Corporation’s efforts to detect and prevent illegal activities, examine the steps they have 

taken in recent weeks to improve their enforcement practices, and 

discuss whether additional changes are needed to better protect 

taxpayers. We all understand the very serious fiscal challenges facing our nation. Years of runaway federal spending and debt have 

brought this country to the breaking point. 
3 

Now, more than ever, we must do everything in our power to 

guarantee each taxpayer dollar is spent on behalf of the public 

good. 

With that said, Mr. Velasco, we recognize your time is important 

so I am going to conclude my remarks, and recognize Mr. Hinojosa, 

the senior Democrat of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Mrs. Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Good morning to all of our guests, and good morning, Mr. Velasco. We appreciate 

the time you have taken to be with us today. 

America has always been known as a place where volunteerism exists in every 

community. Whether serving at a local food bank, assisting those who spend their 

nights at a nearby shelter, or simply lending a helping hand to a neighbor in need, 

those who volunteer their time and resources on behalf of their community help 

meet the many needs of our diverse society. 

In recent decades, Washington has tried to pursue policies that will encourage 

more citizens to step up and help those in need. Those efforts were perhaps most 

visible in 1973 with the passage of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. In later 

years, Congress attempted to streamline community service programs through the 

creation of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Today, the corporation oversees the community service activities of roughly nine distinct programs, including AmeriCorps, the Senior Volunteer Corps, and the Social Innovation Fund, and manages an annual budget in excess of $1 billion. The corporation 

and members of Congress have a responsibility to make certain those tax dollars 

are being well spent. 

During the last reauthorization of these programs, I was proud to lead an effort 

on behalf of my Republican colleagues to strengthen protections over the use of 

these taxpayer funds. As a direct result, what was once merely spelled out in regulation and subject to the changing whims of each administration is now a matter 

of federal law. We acted to stop the use of taxpayer funds for advocacy, lobbying, 

protesting, union organizing, partisan political activity, and providing or referring 

individuals to places to receive abortion services. We also expanded the organizations and entities prohibited from receiving funds to include political parties, labor 

organizations, and lobbying firms. We did this to help ensure federal resources are 

not dedicated to activities taxpayers find politically divisive or morally objectionable. 

However, as with any law, Congress’s best efforts to protect taxpayers can only 

go so far. It is the responsibility of the administration of the programs to fully enforce the laws passed by Congress. With a bureaucracy as vast and complicated as 

the one we face today, we recognize this is often a difficult task. Despite whatever 

challenges the administration may face, it is their public duty nonetheless. 

That is why recent reports of improper activity in New York City and Tacoma, 

Washington are so deeply troubling. In both situations, program participants apparently engaged in illegal activity. At a New York City Planned Parenthood facility, 

two AmeriCorps participants trained and organized individuals to be advocates on 

behalf of Planned Parenthood. Had it not been for a Planned Parenthood employee 

inadvertently reporting this activity, it could still be going on to this day. In Washington, the Tacoma Community College placed a participant at another Planned 

Parenthood facility to serve as an ‘‘escort’’ for the organization. How this could possibly abide by the spirit of volunteerism is beyond me. 

I appreciate that once notified of these situations, the corporation acted swiftly 

to stop the prohibited activities and informed Congress. However, our goal should 

be to prevent these kinds of activities before they take place. Today, we will take 

a close look at the corporation’s efforts to both detect and prevent illegal activities, 

examine the steps they have taken in recent weeks to improve their enforcement 

practices, and discuss whether additional changes are needed to better protect taxpayers. 

We all understand the very serious fiscal challenges facing our nation. Years of 

runaway federal spending and debt have brought this country to the breaking point. 

Now more than ever, we must do everything in our power to guarantee each taxpayer dollar is spent on behalf of the public good. With that said, Mr. Velasco, we 

recognize your time is important so I will conclude my remarks and recognize Mr. 

Hinojosa, the senior Democrat of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 
4 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you very much Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Velasco, acting CEO for the Corporation for National and Community Service, for joining us today. I 

wish that this room were packed, standing room only, so that those 

thousands and thousands of volunteers throughout the country 

would hear the proceeding of today’s congressional hearing. 

I understand that this is your third week on the job, and I thank 

you for taking on this new leadership role in the federal government. In my view, there is absolutely no doubt that community 

service and volunteer opportunities help build stronger communities by transforming lives and fostering civic engagement and innovation. 

National Service is, indeed, the cornerstone of our democracy, 

and its value to our society is monumental. In 2010, CNCS engaged 

over 5 million volunteers in national and community service to improve the quality of life of others. These volunteers have served as 

teachers, tutors, mentors, and counselors in many high-need 

schools like those that I have in my congressional district. 

In cases of natural disasters, volunteers have helped local communities prepare, 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. 

Having worked closely with the late Senator, Edward Kennedy, 

and Representative George Miller on the Edward M. Kennedy 

Serve America Act, legislation which reauthorized and expanded 

the national service programs administered by CNCS, I personally 

feel a great deal of responsibility to ensure that this agency 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 a well-managed organization. In fact, the agency has 

begun implementing a 5-year strategic plan which builds on the 

federal government’s national service work over the past four decades and the vision outlined in the Serve America Act of 2009. 

Approved by the board in February, this strategic plan is the result of a 9-month collaborative effort between CNCS and its network of state commissions, grantees, project sponsors, participants, 

staff and the public. Above all, CNCS has a robust monitoring program in place, and is overseen by a bipartisan presidentially-appointed board of directors. 

In regard to the recent incidences that the chairwoman just included in her remarks that occurred with the AmeriCorps program. 

In both instances, CNCS discovered and resolved these issues 

where volunteers were identified as either potentially taking part 

in prohibited activities or at an unsafe location. 

In my opinion, CNCS handled these cases in a timely, a professional manner, adhering to the federal laws and regulations that 

govern that agency. CNCS is also taking additional steps to enhance its monitoring and oversight of national programs. 
5 

These actions should—these actions include interactive training 

about prohibited activities for all grantees, highlighting and disseminating effective practices for prohibited activities, prevention, 

detection, and enforcement, communicating directly with 

AmeriCorps volunteers about prohibited activities, prioritizing 

placement sites for review using newly-available site locations, and 

establishing a process to review representative samplings of member physician descriptions. 

It is important to underscore that the structure of the 

AmeriCorps program is intended to provide states and communities 

with the greatest degree of flexibility to respond to local needs. 

While the federal government strives for state and local flexibility, 

this cannot come at the expense of accountability, monitoring and 

oversight, which I strongly support. 

In closing, I want to say that as we proceed with today’s hearing 

I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on 

this committee to focus on the vital importance of national service, 

a bipartisan issue that benefits local communities all across America, and the spirit and intent of Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would like to welcome Robert Velasco ii, acting chief executive officer (CEO) for 

the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) for joining us today. 

I understand that this is your third week on the job, and I thank you for taking 

on this new leadership role in the federal government. 

In my view, there is absolutely no doubt that community service and volunteer 

opportunities help build stronger communities by transforming lives and fostering 

civic engagement and innovation. National service is indeed the cornerstone of our 

democracy, and its value to our society is monumental. 

In 2010, CNCS engaged over five million volunteers in national and community 

service work to improve the quality of life of others. These volunteers have served 

as teachers, tutors, mentors, and counselors 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. 

Having worked closely with the late senator Edward Kennedy and representative 

George Miller on the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, legislation which reauthorized and expanded the national service programs administered by CNCS, I 

feel a great deal of responsibility to ensure that the agency 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 a 

well-managed organization. In fact, the agency has begun implementing a 5-year 

strategic plan which builds on the federal government’s national service work over 

the past four decades and the vision outlined in the Serve America Act of 2009. Approved by the board in February, this strategic plan is the result of a nine-month 

collaborative effort between CNCS and its network of state commissions, grantees, 

project sponsors, participants, staff, and the public. Above all, CNCS has a robust 

monitoring program in place, and is overseen by a bi-partisan, presidentially appointed board of directors. 

In regard to the recent incidences that occurred with the AmeriCorps program, 

in both instances, CNCS discovered and resolved these issues, where volunteers 

were identified as either potentially taking part in prohibited activities or at an unsafe location. In my opinion, CNCS handled these cases in a timely and professional 

manner, adhering to the federal laws and regulations that govern the agency. 
6 

CNCS is also taking additional steps to enhance its monitoring and oversight of 

national programs. These actions include requiring interactive training about prohibited activities for all grantees; highlighting and disseminating effective practices 

for prohibited activities prevention, detection, and enforcement; communicating directly with AmeriCorps volunteers about prohibited activities; prioritizing placement 

sites for review using newly available site location; and establishing a process to review representative sampling of member position descriptions. 

It’s important to underscore that the structure of the AmeriCorps program is intended to provide states and communities with the greatest degree of flexibility to 

respond to local needs. While the federal government strives for state and local flexibility, this cannot come at the expense of accountability, monitoring, and oversight. 

As we proceed with today’s hearing, I strongly encourage my colleagues on this 

committee to focus on the vital importance of national service, a bipartisan issue 

that benefits local communities all across America, and the spirit and intent of Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinojosa. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7C, all subcommittee 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 statements, questions 

for the records, and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing, to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness. Mr. 

Robert Velasco was designated acting CEO of the Corporation for 

National and Community Service by President Obama on May 27, 

2011. As Mr. Hinojosa said, you are fairly new. 

Mr. Velasco has over a decade of experience managing large programs and complex organizations. Prior to becoming acting CEO, 

he served as chief operating officer and acting chief of program operations for the Corporation. Before his tenure at the Corporation, 

Mr. Velasco worked in management program and regional operations across the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 

Most recently, he served as director of management operations 

within HHS’s Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals. Before I 

recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly explain our 

lighting system. 

You will have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When you 

begin, the light in front of you, or over to your left, will turn green. 

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

time is expired, the light will turn red, at which point I would ask 

that you wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. 

After you have testified, members will each have 5 minutes to 

ask questions of you. 

So now I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT VELASCO, II, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Mr. VELASCO. Chairwoman Foxx, Congressman Hinojosa, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify today. 

I will keep my comments brief, and ask that my written testimony be made part of the record. I welcome this opportunity to discuss our agency’s commitment to accountability, oversight in monitoring practices, and enhancements we plan to make. 
7 

Relying on principles of local control, competition, and public-private partnership, the Corporation for National and Community 

Service engages 5 million Americans in service each year through 

more than 70,000 community and faith-based organizations. 

These Americans tutor and mentor youth, rebuild communities 

struck by natural disasters, help seniors live independently, support veterans and military families, and meet other local needs, 

providing vital services to millions of our fellow citizens. National 

service recognizes that many of the best solutions come from outside Washington. 

It invests in people, not bureaucracies, to solve problems, tapping 

the energy and ingenuity of our greatest resource, the American 

people. For 45 years, presidents and Congresses of both parties 

have invested in national service. The 2009 Serve America Act reflected the bipartisan consensus that service is essential to meeting 

today’s challenges. 

We are committed to implementing the act as Congress intended. 

We are here to discuss accountability in national service. I want to 

assure the committee that we have a deep, long-standing, and ongoing commitment to ensuring the highest levels of accountability. 

CNCS is a well-managed agency with a strong culture of compliance and accountability. That is why we were concerned when we 

received information that led us to suspect that two AmeriCorps in 

New York were engaged in prohibited activities. Once we detected 

the potential problem, we moved immediately to assess the situation, discovered prohibited activity, and worked with our grantee to 

have the members removed from service. 

We notified our inspector general, the bipartisan board of directors, and this committee. We are working to recoup any misspent 

federal funds. The inspector general indicated that we have handled the matter appropriately, federal funds were protected, and 

this situation is resolved. 

Based on my experience working in this and other federal agencies, the oversight and monitoring that CNCS performs is well-designed, well-executed and effective. I would like to highlight some 

of our current oversight and monitoring practices, which are explained in depth in my written testimony. 

First, we prevent prohibited activity by communicating our rules 

before a grant is ever made and at every stage of the process, 

through application instructions, grant provisions, member contracts, and grantee trainings. Second, we detect potential prohibited activity through a comprehensive monitoring and oversight 

protocol that includes site visits, desk audits, and grant reviews. 

And third, if a prohibited activity occurs we enforce our rules by 

requiring corrective action plans, reporting activities to the IG and, 

in some cases, suspending or terminating a grant. Given our commitment to accountability and our ethic of continuous improvement, and in response to this recent incident, we have developed 

an action plan that includes the following steps. 

First, we will enhance our monitoring protocol in several ways, 

including requiring all AmeriCorps grantees to annually assure 

compliance with regulations on prohibited activities. Second, we 

will enhance our training and technical assistance by strength-
8 

ening what is provided to grantees and members about prohibited 

activities, including new, direct communication to members. 

And finally, we will review our risk assessment tools to identify 

enhancements for preventing and detecting prohibited activities. 

We are pleased to share this action plan, and welcome your ideas 

for improvements. We will report our progress to you during the 

next 90 days, and beyond. 

In closing, I hope my testimony today, and the actions we took 

in this case, assures the committee of our commitment to accountability. We look forward to working with the committee to further 

strengthen the impact of national service on the challenges facing 

our communities and the nation. 

Today and every day, in communities with the greatest needs 

across our country, AmeriCorps members are on the front lines of 

America’s toughest problems. Hundreds are serving today in Joplin, Tuscaloosa, Iowa City and other towns ravaged by tornadoes, 

floods, and forest fires. AmeriCorps members are also responding 

to the everyday challenges of hunger, homelessness and illiteracy 

that prevent millions of Americans from reaching their full potential in life. 

Again, thank you. And I am pleased to respond to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Velasco follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Robert Velasco, II Acting CEO, 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

Madam Chair. Congressman Hinojosa. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before the Committee today. 

I am Robert Velasco II, the Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). I am a senior career Federal employee and have served for over 17 years in various Federal agencies, including the 

Administration for Children and Families and Medicare Hearings and Appeals at 

the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I came to CNCS 10 

months ago to serve as the Chief Operating Officer. And I was honored when the 

President recently asked me to step in as the Acting CEO until the President nominates, and the Senate confirms, a permanent CEO. 

I am here today because I share your commitment to accountability in national 

service programs. During this testimony, I will describe the agency’s procedures to 

prevent prohibited activities by grantees, detect possible prohibited activity, and enforce rules on prohibited activities. Additionally, I will outline recent actions in identifying and addressing an instance of alleged prohibited activity by AmeriCorps 

members. In the spirit of accountability and transparency, I welcome this opportunity to provide an explanation of what happened, what we did about it, and what 

we plan to do in the future to prevent a recurrence. 

In a moment I will address in detail the various systems that CNCS has put in 

place to ensure accountability in national service. But first, I would like to begin 

by giving the Committee an overview of the important role CNCS plays in both engaging and serving the American people. 

CNCS—An Overview of Who We Are 

CNCS is a federal agency that brings leadership, resources, coordination, focus, 

and scale to America’s voluntary sector. CNCS programs bring together those who 

want to serve with the assets of community organizations and the funding from public and private sectors to build enduring community capacity. With federal funds, 

CNCS supports a network of state service commissions, intermediary organizations, 

grantees, non-profit organizations and sponsors through which millions of Americans help the most vulnerable citizens, improve their neighborhoods, and transform 

their own lives. As a result of this network, citizen-centered solutions take root, are 

sustained, and transform communities and the nation. 

CNCS is a federal agency structured like a Corporation, governed by a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed CEO and actively engaged bi-partisan Board 

of Directors. 
9 

But, CNCS has its roots in our country’s historic commitment to national service 

that reaches back to the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Peace Corps, VISTA and 

Senior Corps through more recent additions such as the Points of Light and 

AmeriCorps. These initiatives have been supported by Presidents and Congresses of 

both parties. And there is growing recognition from Governors and Mayors across 

the country of the value of national service in meeting local needs and fostering a 

sense of connection and community. Reflecting that bi-partisan history and enthusiasm, in 2009 Congress passed landmark legislation to reauthorize our agency and 

its programs through the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, the most sweeping expansion of national service in our nation’s history. CNCS is governed by a 

Senate-confirmed, actively engaged, bi-partisan Board of Directors. 

The agency’s mission is to improve lives, strengthen communities and foster civic 

engagement. To that end, CNCS programs directly engage nearly half a million 

Americans in intense, results-driven service and volunteer action. 

In the original legislation creating CNCS, Congress determined that the best way 

to fulfill that mission was to establish a strong partnership between the agency and 

state governments. A large percentage of CNCS resources are distributed to and administered by Governor-appointed state commissions on service and volunteering. In 

addition, the agency is designed as a public-private partnership, with resources 

reaching national and local non-profits. Through this system, Congress wanted to 

be sure that national service resources would be directed to local non-profits that 

are able to identify and meet the specific and often unique challenges that face our 

local communities. 

National service participants play a critical role in responding to natural disasters 

like the tornados in Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and also in responding to less dramatic 

but equally challenging situations like the school drop-out crisis, the plight of returning veterans and challenges facing military families. Among the non-profits that 

rely on CNCS support are national organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, 

United Way, Teach for America, Boys and Girls Clubs, City Year, the American Red 

Cross and YouthBuild USA. Our reach is equally as strong in outstanding local organizations like the Stokes County Partnership for Children in King, NC; 

AmeriCorps Youth Harvest Program in Pharr, TX; Minnesota Reading Corps in 

Minneapolis, MN; the American Red Cross Southern Arizona’s veteran corps program, Operation Desert Home, in Tucson, AZ; and BAYAC AmeriCorps in Richmond, CA. 

In tough economic times and an era of tight budgets, volunteer service has increasingly become an essential strategy for meeting community challenges. And notably, the support that CNCS is able to provide to states and non-profits is matched 

by funds from others sources—last year alone CNCS-supported programs attracted 

more than $800 million of resources from other sources in the national service 

arena. 

In the over five years since Hurricane Katrina more than 105,000 national service 

participants have given 10 million hours of service—helping to repair or build more 

than 12,500 homes, manage more than 600,000 people who came to the Gulf to volunteer their time and talent, and ultimately to serve more than 3 million people 

who live in the states and communities along the Gulf Coast. That is why Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour recently called national service ‘‘about as good an 

equation as you can find for making a Federal program work, with state oversight, 

serving community needs, and bettering the individuals who serve.’’ 

And the post-Katrina situation is being replayed right now in Joplin, Missouri, 

the site of the worst tornado in American history. 

The tornado touched down in Joplin at 6 in the evening and the first AmeriCorps 

members arrived on the ground at 2 a.m., just 8 hours later. By 5:30 a.m. they had 

established the first call center so Joplin residents and their loved ones could establish a connection with one another, and later that first day they had established the 

volunteer recruitment and deployment center. Since the tornado struck on May 22, 

just one month ago, AmeriCorps members have helped to recruit, deploy, supervise 

and thank more than 28,000 people who have volunteered more than 161,000 hours. 

It is a stunning effort. And it explains why the Assistant City Manager who is leading the response and recovery effort in Joplin recently said to the AmeriCorps members: ‘‘Whatever you guys do, please don’t go.’’ 

I recently had the opportunity to witness first-hand the power of AmeriCorps 

members who are hard at work organizing and supervising volunteers. I was one 

of hundreds of people who volunteered to help revitalize hard-hit neighborhoods in 

New Orleans. It was a powerful experience to rebuild playgrounds alongside energetic community members who were overwhelmed with gratitude for the widespread 

effort. Even more moving was witnessing the result of AmeriCorps members who 
10 

had helped rebuild the home of a long-time New Orleans East resident and were 

moving her back in nearly six years after Katrina damaged it. 

What I saw and experienced is the same thing that Governor Haley Barbour saw, 

the same thing the Assistant City Manager in Joplin saw—that AmeriCorps members play a crucial role not only in getting work done on the frontlines to help real 

people in very real ways, but also in leveraging the time, talent and energy of American citizens who want to volunteer. 

The service experience leaves an indelible mark on those who serve as well. Since 

its inception, nearly 700,000 Americans have participated in AmeriCorps. 

AmeriCorps alumni share an abiding commitment to helping their communities and 

are leaders in business, nonprofits and government, including the U.S. Congress. 

AmeriCorps service—like service in the armed forces and the Peace Corps—is a 

formative experience for young Americans who want to be of service to their communities and their country. 

Accountability at CNCS 

CNCS puts a high premium on being a well-managed agency—we strive to be an 

agency that produces real impact in communities across the country and is a good 

steward of taxpayer resources. We have worked hard to establish a culture of accountability and compliance both within the agency and among the organizations 

that receive grant funds from the agency. 

With some of our programs, the competitive nature of the grant process helps to 

ensure that accountability. The AmeriCorps program selects its grantees through a 

rigorous competitive process involving detailed applications and multiple layers of 

review, including independent reviews by outside experts. In recent years, the grant 

selection process for AmeriCorps awards has been especially competitive as 

AmeriCorps members are regarded as an extremely valuable resource and national 

service is increasingly embraced as a strategy for meeting community needs. 

Like other federal and state grantmaking agencies, CNCS uses a risk-based monitoring approach to oversee the performance and compliance of national service 

grantees. The agency’s approach is founded on basic federal practice for the type of 

grants we give and is consistent with recommendations from our Inspector General 

and the GAO’s recommended approach to federal grants monitoring and is described 

more fully below in the section on detection. 

To understand CNCS’s oversight and monitoring rubric, it is important to keep 

in mind the way Congress set up CNCS’ grantmaking and how CNCS-supported 

programs operate. As noted above, the agency makes grants to Governor-appointed 

state commissions and to national non-profit organizations. Those state commissions 

and national non-profits, in turn, make subgrants to local organizations that recruit, 

train, deploy and supervise AmeriCorps members. 

Accordingly, the agency’s oversight and monitoring approach reflects the multilayered and decentralized approach to the distribution of funds. CNCS’s responsibility lies primarily with the organizations that are direct grantees of the agency. 

Those grantees, in turn, are responsible for overseeing and ensuring the performance and compliance of the subgrantees. In conducting our oversight and monitoring 

of our direct grantees, we look at how those organizations perform and also very 

carefully examine how those organizations in turn oversee and monitor their subgrantees. 

With respect to all of the rules that govern CNCS grants—including the prohibited activities for AmeriCorps members—CNCS’s oversight and monitoring activities 

fall into three categories: prevention, detection and enforcement. 

Preventing Prohibited Activities. Considering its straight-forward purpose, the 

AmeriCorps grant program is a complex structure with an even more complex set 

of rules. Among the important restrictions governing the AmeriCorps grant program 

are those setting forth the types of activities that are ‘‘prohibited’’ and may not be 

performed by grantee staff or AmeriCorps members during their service hours. 

Those activities, reinforced by the Serve America Act, include union organizing, engaging in protests or boycotts, and conducting a voter registration drive. 42 U.S.C. 

12584a. To ensure the success of our grantees, CNCS undertakes extensive efforts 

to convey its rules in a clear and comprehensible manner. We begin communicating 

these rules before a grant is ever made, and reiterate them at every stage of the 

grants process. 

In its outreach to prospective applicants, CNCS begins to lay out the framework 

for AmeriCorps service, emphasizing not only what AmeriCorps members should be 

used for, but also what they should never be used for, including prohibited member 

activities. Prospective applicants are then informed through the grant application of 

the laws and rules that apply to CNCS grants, including prohibited activities. The 

application instructions specifically direct applicants to describe how they will en-
11 

sure compliance with the rules on prohibited activities. In submitting an application 

for funding, an organization provides certifications and assurances that it understands and will abide by all of the rules, including the rules on prohibited activities. 

A grant applicant must also provide a detailed description of proposed member 

activities. CNCS reviews proposed member activities during its competitive grant 

process to ensure that the activities not only address an unmet community need, 

but also are appropriate for AmeriCorps service. If an activity appears to pose a risk 

that a member may be used for a prohibited purpose, CNCS directly clarifies with 

the applicant to ensure that this is not the case. 

If an organization is selected for funding, it receives a grant award notification 

that includes extensive provisions detailing all of the requirements associated with 

the grant, including prohibited member activities. By accepting the grant award, the 

organization accepts absolute responsibility for complying with all of the requirements. Each grantee further agrees that it is ultimately responsible for ensuring 

that any organization to which it sub-grants CNCS funds (i.e., ‘‘subgrantees’’) or 

that serves as a placement site for AmeriCorps members is informed of and commits 

to complying with all of CNCS’s requirements. 

Not only is the grantee ultimately responsible for its subgrantees’ compliance, but 

also for ensuring that each AmeriCorps member supported under the grant receives 

proper training on prohibited activities, monitoring, and supervision. The grantee 

must require each member to sign a ‘‘member contract’’ detailing, among other 

things, prohibited member activities. At the time the member completes service, 

both the member and the responsible program must provide separate certifications 

to CNCS, under penalty of perjury, that the member did not engage in prohibited 

activities during service hours. 

During the grant’s operation, CNCS provides support to grantees in meeting their 

obligations, including providing regular training and technical assistance. CNCS 

dedicates considerable time and assistance to new grantees in developing appropriate policies and procedures to support compliance of sub-grantees and placement 

sites. For new grantees, CNCS often reviews sample position descriptions, member 

agreements, site agreements, and training curricula to ensure that all AmeriCorps 

members and site locations are instructed on prohibited activities. For further support, we make extensive materials available through the online National Service Resource Center, and in some instances provide onsite assistance. 

Throughout the grant’s operation, our staff serve as a continuing resource to 

AmeriCorps programs. It is common for grantees to seek guidance from program officers about the rules, including inquiries related to appropriate member assignments and activities. Certain prohibited activities present more questions than others, especially those prohibitions around religious and political activities during 

service hours. Thus, CNCS has offered trainings specific to these subjects, and has 

developed and regularly updates frequently asked questions on these activities for 

our grantees and members, available on our website, and distributed to our grantees 

as part of the agency’s Office of General Counsel’s annual reminder detailing the 

restrictions on engaging in prohibited activities during AmeriCorps service. 

As you can see, CNCS has a comprehensive and multi-faceted prevention protocol 

that forms the basis of the culture of compliance within the agency and among the 

grantees. 

Detecting Prohibited Activities. To support our efforts to strictly enforce applicable 

laws, regulations and agency rules, we also work diligently to verify that grantees 

are complying. As noted above, the agency uses a risk-based approach to monitoring. 

The agency conducts an annual review of state commissions and direct grantees to 

assess and to prioritize our monitoring activity and resources. In addition to this 

overall review of all grantees, our program and grant monitoring staff are constantly reviewing materials and reports to see if they raise questions about a grantee’s performance or compliance. 

Each year, CNCS develops a monitoring plan that establishes (1) the ‘‘baseline’’ 

for a given fiscal year that identifies those grantees that will be monitored, and (2) 

the level of additional monitoring activity that will be conducted during the course 

of that fiscal year. Baseline monitoring activities are those that are identified 

through the risk-assessment process as high priorities and must be monitored during that fiscal year. Additional monitoring activities are those that are not essential 

but may be conducted over the course of the fiscal year as need arises and as staff 

and travel resources are available. Grantees are evaluated each year based on four 

multi-factor criteria: organizational strength; program success; financial competency; 

and compliance with CNCS administrative programs. 

Based on the risk assessment and identification of potential problems described 

above, CNCS conducts several forms of oversight and monitoring on a wide range 

of performance and compliance measures, including prohibited activities. Some mon-
12 

itoring takes the form of desk audits that are conducted by trained and knowledgeable program officers over the phone from the agency offices. In addition, each year 

many grantees receive onsite monitoring visits. As with desk audits, onsite monitoring is conducted by program officers who are well-trained in our monitoring protocol and are very knowledgeable about the applicable statutes, regulations and 

rules. Desk audits can be comprehensive or targeted on a specific issue that has 

come to the fore. Onsite visits are comprehensive reviews of performance and compliance on multiple dimensions. Whether the monitoring activity is remote or onsite, 

the monitoring procedures involve a detailed protocol to explore and uncover any 

issues that may arise concerning the grantee. 

A key part of the monitoring protocol is to determine whether the grantee has developed the necessary policies and procedures to assure compliance and is actually 

implementing those policies and procedures. But the review goes far beyond assessing policies and procedures. During site visits, CNCS staff also review service activities and speak directly to AmeriCorps members to specifically check for prohibited 

activities. When non-compliance is discovered, the Corporation’s enforcement protocol, which is described below, comes into play and grantees are brought into compliance as quickly as possible. 

We require our direct grantees to use the same or similar type of oversight and 

monitoring tools and procedures in reviewing the performance and compliance of 

their subgrantees. 

We have worked hard to develop and implement our oversight and monitoring 

tools. In the spirit of continuous learning and improvement, we are always looking 

for ways to enhance the effectiveness of our oversight and monitoring. 

In addition to our own efforts to detect whether prohibited activities are taking 

place, the Inspector General (IG) plays a crucial role. The IG maintains a hotline 

for anyone to call if they believe a prohibited activity may be taking place. The IG’s 

office also conducts its own oversight and monitoring of CNCS grantees. The IG 

brings the agency individual findings in specific cases and provides recommendations for improving our accountability measures in general. We have worked closely 

and cooperatively with our IG. Over the years, the Office of IG reviewed our detection and monitoring protocol during its regular audits of the agency. On more than 

one occasion prior to 2005, the IG commented that CNCS’s monitoring needed improvement. In response to that concern, CNCS has implemented several improvements recommended by the IG and has received progressively improved evaluations 

of our system. In fact, the IG no longer considers our monitoring protocol to be a 

subject of concern. 

Enforcing the Rules Regarding Prohibited Activities. In the event that individuals 

and organizations fail to abide by the rules, CNCS can implement several enforcement options depending on the nature, circumstances and severity of the infraction. 

The enforcement tools range from assistance with compliance in cases of the mildest 

and most innocent mistakes to termination of service or termination of a grant in 

the case of the most egregious and intentional acts. The full range of enforcement 

options for cases of prohibited activities includes: 

• Requiring corrective action plan; 

• Disallowing member hours; 

• Disallowing member education awards; 

• Recovering unallowable costs; 

• Conditioning the grant award; 

• Placing a manual hold on disbursements; 

• Suspending the grant; and/or 

• Terminating the grant. 

Additionally, we report instances of prohibited activity to the Inspector General 

who has the option of conducting an independent investigation and when the circumstances dictate can refer cases to the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Justice for civil action or criminal prosecution. 

CNCS can use this range of enforcement tools in dealing with its direct grantees. 

These grantees have the same range of options in dealing with their subgrantees, 

including reporting prohibited activities to the agency’s Inspector General. Moreover, in the case of failure of compliance by a subgrantee, the agency may require 

its direct grantee to take specific actions with respect to the subgrantee. 

Accountability and the Recent Incident in New York 

CNCS’ policies and culture of compliance dictate that when we discover that a 

grantee or subgrantee has violated the rules, we take the matter seriously and act 

quickly to investigate the situation and take the necessary steps to protect the Federal funds with which we are entrusted. As you are aware, we recently discovered 

such a violation. 
13 

On Friday, May 13, 2011, CNCS received a letter from Planned Parenthood New 

York City (PPNYC). At first, this letter appeared to be similar to other letters CNCS 

receives during grant competitions expressing support for a particular grantee—in 

this case, the New York City Civic Corps (NYCCC), a sub-grantee of the New York 

State Commission on Volunteering and Service (New York State Commission). However, upon closer examination of the letter on Monday, May 16, CNCS became concerned that the activities performed by two NYCCC AmeriCorps members serving 

at PPNYC as described in the letter could be prohibited advocacy activities. 

Sections 130 and 132A of the National and Community Service Act set forth activities that AmeriCorps participants or staff may not engage in while charging time 

to the AmeriCorps grant. While each prohibited activity is significant in defining the 

role of AmeriCorps members not just by what they do, but also by what they must 

not do, the prohibitions on certain types of advocacy activity are of particular significance considering the level of care CNCS has taken over the years to ensure compliance. From the creation of the Corporation in 1993, CNCS has undertaken several 

waves of rulemaking (1994, 2002, 2005, and 2008) to further clarify and strengthen 

the prohibition on certain types of activity set forth in the 1993 Act and in government-wide rules designed to prevent Federal dollars from being used for partisan 

political activity. In 2009, Congress codified the prohibitions originally crafted by 

the Corporation, including the rule set forth in 45 CFR 2520.65(a)(6) prohibiting individuals from ‘‘participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to 

include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials’’ during their service hours. 

The activities described in PPNYC’s letter appeared to fit this description, and 

CNCS took immediate action to determine whether the members were, in fact, engaged in prohibited activities during service hours. Between Monday and Wednesday, May 16-18, CNCS reviewed its internal records for information about the approved grant activities for NYCCC, the funding history of the organization, 

NYCCC’s placement sites, and the service data for the members in question. 

NYCCC received a three-year competitive grant through the New York State Commission to use AmeriCorps members to develop sustainable volunteer programs and 

otherwise build the capacity of non-profits in New York City. According to the approved grant application, AmeriCorps members selected and managed by NYCCC 

would be placed at one of a dozen or more non-profits and city agencies to recruit, 

manage, and support volunteers working towards several of CNCS’s strategic focus 

areas, including education, environmental issues, and healthy futures. 

On Wednesday, May 18, CNCS contacted our grantee, the New York State Commission, to alert them to CNCS’s concerns and to request additional information, including position descriptions for the two members and further details about the 

members’ daily activities. By Thursday, May 19, the Commission had provided the 

requested documents, which revealed that the members, while developing sustainable volunteer programs as described in the grant application, were engaged in recruiting and training volunteers who would engage in political advocacy. After reviewing the information provided, CNCS concluded that there was sufficient reason 

to believe that the members were engaged in prohibited activities. 

By noon on Friday, May 20, one week from receiving the letter, CNCS called the 

New York State Commission and requested that it take immediate action to ensure 

that the two members in question were not engaged in prohibited activities. Within 

hours, the State Commission confirmed with CNCS that it had reached its own conclusion that the members were engaged in prohibited activities, and ensured CNCS 

that the members would not be permitted to further engage in those activities. 

That afternoon, consistent with practice, CNCS informed the two entities charged 

with regular oversight of CNCS—the Office of the Inspector General and CNCS’s 

Board of Directors—of our concerns and actions to date. CNCS has continued to provide both with regular updates as the situation has unfolded. 

Over the course of the following week, CNCS worked closely with the New York 

State Commission and its grantee, NYCCC, to resolve outstanding logistical questions about the members’ service. Both members were suspended from service. 

CNCS informed New York State and NYCCC that no costs associated with the 

members’ service at PPNYC would be allowed, and that no hours spent engaging 

in prohibited political activity could be counted towards the members’ service hour 

requirement to receive an education award. CNCS also informed the members of 

several Congressional committees of the incident and of the way in which CNCS 

was working to resolve it. 

On June 1, the Office of Inspector General informed CNCS that it would evaluate 

the situation to determine whether there had been any fraud, waste, or abuse of 

Federal resources, and to assess CNCS’s management of the situation. CNCS 

worked in close cooperation with OIG’s investigators to provide the requested infor-
14 

mation. After conducting a preliminary review, the OIG reported that it had determined it was unnecessary to conduct a full investigation because there did not appear to be any fraud, waste, or abuse. Further, because OIG approved of the manner 

in which CNCS was conducting its own oversight and was proceeding with respect 

to disallowing costs, any further investigation would be duplicative of the agency’s 

efforts. 

At this time, CNCS considers the situation to be resolved. There are no 

AmeriCorps members currently serving at PPNYC. CNCS has reached agreement 

with New York State regarding the disallowance of costs associated with the members. Today, we can provide you with assurance that all associated federal funds 

were protected. 

CNCS Looks to the Future—An Action Plan 

In an effort to continuously improve our accountability program, CNCS is 

strengthening existing protocols and instituting new practices in the prevention, detection, and enforcement of prohibited activities. By early July, we will disseminate 

clear reminders about prohibited activities to all grantees—by conference call and 

in written correspondence—and will add a requirement to program grant provisions 

that all grantees strengthen their AmeriCorps member training on prohibited activities. We plan to develop and begin implementation of a new required training designed to educate grantees on prohibited activities and disseminate best practices 

for the prevention, detection, and enforcement of such activities. This information 

will be shared again at the AmeriCorps annual grantee training meeting in September that all grantees are required to attend. 

We intend to require grantees with subgrants to submit a monitoring and oversight plan and certify, on an annual basis, both an understanding of and adherence 

to agency regulations on prohibited activities. The plan must detail how the grantee 

will ensure that sub-grantees and service sites comply with all relevant grant requirements. Agency staff is also currently reviewing the program’s risk assessment 

model and sampling methodology and will identify enhancements by August 2011. 

We also will provide information to AmeriCorps members more directly by listing 

all prohibited activities on the AmeriCorps website, in the descriptions of 

AmeriCorps member opportunities, in the application, and in the welcome letter 

from the Director of AmeriCorps following admission to the program. By late July, 

all program officers and grant specialists will receive refresher training on prevention, detection, and enforcement protocols. 

We look forward to working with this Committee and will be prepared to report 

on our progress in implementing this Action Plan in 90 days. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I think it is clear that CNCS shares the Committee’s concern about 

the importance of accountability in national service and about preventing prohibited 

activities. I hope my testimony here has reassured you of CNCS’s dedication to its 

work in this area. 

There is no reason for the incident in New York to diminish in any way the tremendous and critical service being rendered by tens of thousands of dedicated citizens serving in AmeriCorps and other CNCS-supported programs. Our quick, actionoriented response to the situation in New York City led to a prompt and complete 

resolution. Our quest for continuous improvement has led CNCS to develop an action plan that will enhance our accountability program. 

If we are to meet the challenges in our communities, it will take the active engagement of our fellow citizens who raise their hands to say that they want to help. 

That is what national service is all about. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Velasco. 

I am going to begin the questioning, and we would appreciate as 

short answers as you can possibly give us to speed us along. I want 

to give time to each one of the members who have shown up today. 

Could you tell us, first, how many monitoring visits the Corporation completes to grantees per year, and a little more in detail how 

you decide which site to visit, which sites not to visit. And do you 

know how many visits grantees made to subgrantees last year? 

Mr. VELASCO. Thank you for that question, Chairwoman Foxx. 
15 

We have a robust monitoring and assessment program at the 

orporation and, annually, we receive financial and program reports 

from each of our grantees. Those reports are reviewed on an annual basis. They take a look at consideration with regards to organizational capacity, program design, financial accountability, and 

compliance. 

And so based upon that assessment, then grantees are identified 

for on-site monitoring. That gets put into an annual monitoring 

plan, and we average about 30 percent of on-site monitorings. 

When you compare us to other small independent federal agencies, 

that is a higher baseline than the majority of other agencies comparable to the Corporation. 

Chairwoman FOXX. What would flag the need for a visit from a 

written annual report? 

Mr. VELASCO. It would be an accumulation of areas to assess 

across that spectrum of either organizational capacity, financial accountability, program design, or compliance. And so if there are— 

if we are seeing any areas that we are concerned about in those 

particular categories or several of those categories, then that would 

raise it to our attention to put on an annual monitoring plan. 

Chairwoman FOXX. If we have time I want to come back to that 

in a minute. But how many times has the Corporation imposed and 

enforced financial penalties or grantees or subgrantees over the 

last year. 

Mr. VELASCO. We have imposed financial—we have disallowed 

funding based upon reviews that we have undertook. I believe in 

the last several years it has totaled more than $4 million. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Four million dollars out of $1 billion. 

Mr. VELASCO. Four million dollars in the last several years. 

Chairwoman FOXX. In the last 4 years. 

Mr. VELASCO. In the last several years. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Several years, okay. Well, AmeriCorps has 

indicated that it plans to increase its total number of participants 

to 250,000 within the next couple of years. Now there are 80,000 

to 90,000 participants already enrolled. How do you expect to properly monitor 250,000 people, when it does not appear as though we 

have been able to stop prohibited activity from a much smaller 

group? 

Mr. VELASCO. Well, we believe that we have strong and robust 

monitoring and oversight tools in place. And we recently also developed a data system that is actually helping us identify where our 

members are placed across the country. As you mentioned, we have 

over 80,000 members in AmeriCorps at 14,000 placement sites 

across the country. 

And for this year, for the first time, we are actually able to collect data with regards to the actual placements of all of the 

AmeriCorps members. We have a history of continuous improvement with regards to oversight and monitoring, and so the data 

with regards to placement is just another example of being able to 

kind of continue to improve those monitoring tools, as well as the 

action plan that we have developed that, from this particular incident, is putting activities in place and strengthening our protocols 

in the areas of prevention, detection and enforcement. 
16 

Chairwoman FOXX. How many people do you have operating your 

monitoring system? What is the number of people who are looking 

after the programs and holding them accountable, and where are 

they based? 

Mr. VELASCO. We have employees both employees both here located in Washington, D.C., and in 50 states across the country. Our 

program officers have responsibility for review of organizational capacity and program design. And our grant staff has responsibility 

for the financial compliance. And so they work in tandem together 

with regards to reviewing the total picture of capacity of grantees. 

Chairwoman FOXX. How many people in Washington, how many 

people in the field? 

Mr. VELASCO. It is probably about—I can get you specific numbers. It is about a 55-45 split. We have more staff out in our field 

across the 50 states, and the smaller amount, the difference here, 

in headquarters. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. I have a little time left. 

But I am going to try to be a good role model and recognize Mr. 

Hinojosa for his questions. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Velasco, thank you very much for testifying before our committee. Both our Democratic members and our colleagues on the 

other side take very seriously our role of oversight over federal 

agencies. And listening to the questions of the chair, I could not 

help but try to figure out in my mind what $4 million out of $1 

billion would be in terms of a fraction. 

Because in the previous administration, in 8 years, we had a 

huge number of people to do oversight on environmental protection 

problems. And I think we have two cases filed in the 8 years. So 

when I make comparisons of another agency versus yours, I think 

that you all are doing a remarkable job. 

What percentage of the $4 million have you recovered? 

Mr. VELASCO. The entire $4 million has been recovered, yes, sir. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. It has all been recovered? 

Mr. VELASCO. It has all been recovered. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Excellent. Can you walk us through your grant 

structure, and what it means for monitoring and oversight? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes, sir, I would be happy to. We have a grant 

structure that is multi-layered. It is a model based upon the legislation that reflects the shared accountability at the federal level, 

the state level, and the community level. The Corporation has responsibility for federal funds. 

We provide direct grants to state commissions. State commissions then hold competitions to some grantees, and some grantees 

then make decisions based upon local community needs as to where 

those members should best be placed. And so the model is a model 

that really maximizes the flexibility of State and local communities 

but, certainly, it is a model of shared accountability where we all 

have a role in that system. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I am proud to be one of many champions in Congress for the AmeriCorps program. And I was very impressed by 

the 80,000 AmeriCorps members, and some of which were reporting immediately upon Joplin, Missouri being impacted as they 

were. 
17 

And it was amazing to me to see how those AmeriCorps volunteers, arriving at 2:30 in the morning in Joplin, were able to set 

up a call center and be able to recruit volunteers, figure out and 

set up a program in which they could immediately go to work, and 

give help to the citizenry of that whole region. 

They are absolutely amazing. In my area, which is made up of 

about 90 cities, much of it being rural, we depend on some of these 

AmeriCorps volunteers who come into our area and help us close 

the gap in education, the gap in jobs in terms of how much they 

earn, and so forth. 

So they are an extremely important group that helps us organize 

millions and millions of people. And so I want to do everything I 

can that this hearing have a record of the benefits that our country 

is receiving. Because the federal government cannot possibly do the 

work that they organize to get done, because we could not afford 

it in the the federal government. 

So what has your inspector general said regarding your response 

to this incident that we have learned about in New York? 

Mr. VELASCO. Let me share with you that we have a strong 

working relationship with our inspector general. We believe in the 

important role of the inspector general, and having a strong inspector general. We have notified our inspector general immediately as 

soon as we identified, in this particular situation, that there is a 

prohibited activity. 

We apprise them with regards to the progress that had been 

made all the way up to the suspension, and then ultimate removal, 

of the members providing that specific service, and have kept them 

apprised along the way. My perspective, from a conversation with 

the inspector general, is, they believe we have taken the appropriate action in this particular matter. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you for your leadership, and all of your administration, for the work that you all are doing. And I applaud 

you. I want to be very supportive so that you all can continue doing 

this kind of work. 

And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. 

Hinojosa. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have any questions you would like to ask 

the witness? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, thank you very much. 

Thank you, sir, for being here. It seems that the focus on the two 

or three cases where the activities may have been prohibited, or 

were prohibited, is hugely overblown. First, the issues were resolved completely without any cost to the federal taxpayer. 

And secondly, these three individuals were in the AmeriCorps 

program of over 70,000 volunteers. And so I think it is important 

that we focus on the benefits of the program, as well. The 5 million 

volunteers, the tens of thousands of faith-based and communitybased organizations in all 50 states that receive the support. 

And at a time, sir, when we are talking about increased cuts in 

programs, where agencies across the board, both local, state, and 

federal are being asked to do more with less, and certainly constituencies that need the help the most, those programs are being 
18 

cut. And now we are also calling into question the validity of volunteers to be able to go in and fill the gap. 

It seems to me that you cannot have the argument both ways. 

Is it a question of no service at all to these people, or is it a question of taking two or three cases, overblowing them, and calling 

into question the validity of a program that has a wonderful track 

record? 

So let me ask you, how will the funding cuts to your program, 

and the potential cuts next year, affect your ability to review the 

kinds of cases where prohibitive activities may take place? 

Mr. VELASCO. Effective monitoring and oversight requires sustained resources to ensure that we have the modernization for our 

systems, to be able to ensure that we are able to provide the training internally and externally to our grantees, as well as to make 

sure that we are able to maintain the personnel to conduct the assessment and the monitoring reviews. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So the cuts would affect that. 

Mr. VELASCO. Cuts would dramatically affect that, yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I think in 1993, that authorization, the Republican majority insisted that the nationals that have a role in messaging what happened, and that we work through state commissions to fund them so they would have their competition for which 

community-based organization or faith-based that got the support. 

And I think that created an additional bureaucratic layer to go 

through. And I wonder if maybe, in terms of the monitoring that 

it being asked about and questioned today, if it is not wise to for 

this committee to rethink that indirect funding and go more directly so the accountability is fully on the agency. 

I just want to thank you in behalf of communities in my district, 

Somerton, a farm worker community, Sells that is on the O’odham 

Reservation, Tucson, and Pima Community College for the work 

that volunteers have done in those communities to fill in gaps on 

issues of literacy, homelessness, child care, and the instruction of 

English to residents of those areas. 

So I do not have any further questions. I join with the ranking 

member in applauding what you are doing. And I would urge this 

committee. Let us not overblow two incidents that have been dealt 

with, and deal with the merits and the overwhelming benefits that 

the program produces. And perhaps concentrate on how we can 

make this program more effective, stronger, and able to serve more 

people than it does now, rather than beat a dead horse on two 

issues that have already been resolved. 

And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to 

yield my time back to you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. I do have another 

question I would like to ask, and I appreciate the gentleman from 

New York yielding me his time. 

The law that passed last Congress requires the Corporation to 

evaluate the impact, or effectiveness, of the programs. And I am 

trying to figure out how you are going to have information on the 
19 

Corporation’s effectiveness if you do not know what the individual 

participants are really doing. 

Can you elaborate on how the Corporation is able to evaluate the 

effectiveness of each of the grants that you award? As you mentioned earlier that you want to be accountable, tell us what are we 

getting for the money that we are taking from the taxpayers and 

giving to you and your staff. 

Mr. VELASCO. I appreciate that question, Chairwoman. We are 

moving forward with the implementation of the Serve America Act. 

And one example is a strategic plan that we have put in place, 

which has asked us to develop performance metrics to be able to 

assess the impact of the work based upon the federal investment. 

We have already implemented a performance measures pilot, and 

will be looking at that data to review the effectiveness of the federal investment with grantees in this kind of shared model that we 

have with our partners at the state and local communities. 

Chairwoman FOXX. So up until now, you have had no evaluation 

of the programs. Is that correct? 

Mr. VELASCO. We have had ongoing evaluations of the programs, 

both through evaluations that we have conducted as well as general monitoring assessments and independent reviews from our inspector general. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Basically, those would be are people spending 

the money the way they say they are spending the money? Is that 

what you call evaluation? 

Mr. VELASCO. There areare evaluation studies regarding the research and evaluation, regarding the impact of the work. Our IG 

reviews would provide information in terms of the effectiveness of 

the use of the money. And then our grant and monitoring assessments would also provide some sense about the capacity and execution of how our grantees are operating and functioning. 

So I think those would be like three different vignettes of how 

we would be able to assess and have information regarding the federal investment. 

Chairwoman FOXX. When you say you have got a performance 

measure pilot, how many people are being affected, or how many 

participants? How many recipients of dollars are a part of that performance measure pilot? 

Mr. VELASCO. The performance measure pilot was initiated last 

year, with a notice of funding for AmeriCorps. I do not have specific numbers, but I could provide that to you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I would really like to know a lot more about 

your evaluation, and how you are evaluating specifically effectiveness. Again, what are the taxpayers getting for the money that is 

being given to you, to the corporation, and to the individuals who 

are called volunteers, but are being paid to be volunteers? 

Specifically like to know exactly what they are doing, and what 

benefit is coming to the taxpayers as a result of that. 

Mr. VELASCO. Certainly. So we engage more than 5 million 

Americans in volunteer services that engage more than 70,000 organizations across the country. We both provide sustained service 

on the ground, and then our members are also able to provide direction and mobilize additional volunteers to provide assistance to 

food banks, homeless shelters, senior homes, youth centers, schools. 
20 

So those are the types of services that we provide. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Just very quickly, do you know what an average AmeriCorps volunteer costs the taxpayers of the United States? 

What does an average AmeriCorps volunteer cost? 

Mr. VELASCO. I could provide that information to you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Velasco, you should be able to answer 

that question today. Thank you. 

I would now like to invite Mr. Tierney to ask his questions. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know, I think we ought to have some sort of an oversight 

or monitoring of this committee, or this subcommittee. When we 

are not busy having duplicate hearings about duplication in the 

workforce investment, which we apparently want to disinvest from 

so people will not have the skills to get the work, now we are going 

to bring in a new appointment here and beat him up for doing such 

a great job. So I would like to know what that costs the taxpayer, 

and how much we are getting for our taxpayers’ money on that. 

But rather than keep repeating what a wonderful job the organization is doing, and making note of the fact that this bill, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, passed with overwhelming 

majorities in both the House and the Senate when it was passed, 

and a lot of this examination about its purpose, its reason for existing, the manner in which it functions, the number of people which 

it serves, and the number of people that served as volunteers were 

all examined in the context of passing that legislation. 

And now it looks like probably some are having second thoughts. 

And if we want to talk about it, taking Mr. Grijalva’s comments, 

now we are having second thoughts because Planned Parenthood 

was involved in one of these incidents where somebody might have 

violated one of the terms of the statute on that. So it is ideology. 

Here we are. 

We are going to go around and around and around and see if 

that strikes a chord with some small sector of this society. It is not 

a case of rampant lack of oversight. It is not a case of rampant lack 

of enforcement. Mr. Velasco, I think you did know the information 

that would be expected to be asked at this hearing. You did not 

have the granular level on one issue, and I suspect you will get 

that on that basis. 

But if the Chairwoman wanted to take the time in her district 

to stroll out of her office, where would she go to see some cases of 

people being served in this country by volunteers. Does she go to 

a food pantry, and see where people are benefiting from that? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Would she find anywhere where they were mentoring children, perhaps? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Give me some other examples. I cannot 

escape it. When I leave my district office, I bump into it everywhere I go. And I see both the volunteers are getting an enormous 

benefit out of that in their lives, and I see out of work people, I 

see seniors, I see children getting benefits that they otherwise 

would not get. 
21 

And I think that inures to the benefit of them, and to us, you 

know, as taxpayers on that. So give us a few examples of what the 

chairwoman could expect if she strolled out. 

Mr. VELASCO. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that there 

is a critical investment that is being made in national service. And 

it helps to tackle tough problems locally, on the ground. It transforms those individuals who serve, and adds unique value to nonprofits. 

As I mentioned earlier, we engaged over 5 million Americans just 

in this past year in results-driven service within their own communities and across the country. We support America’s civic infrastructure, food banks, homeless shelters, senior homes, youth centers, schools. 

We also generate more than $800 million in non-CNCS funding. 

So as you know, this past year the federal investment was over a 

billion dollars. And from that seed, we were able to generate an additional $800 million to support the investment in national service 

in local communities across the country. 

We have placed tutors and mentors and assistants in schools, in 

low-performing schools. And as the congressman mentioned earlier, 

we provide disaster relief services with tornadoes and floods across 

the country. I was recently in New Orleans working side-by-side 

AmeriCorps members creating a safe space for children to play in 

a neighborhood that was just being revitalized. 

I witnessed AmeriCorps members rebuild a home for a family 

who is returning for the first time for Katrina, back to their neighborhood. And the service that they are doing is just inspirational, 

the service that they are offering both to others and to their country. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Are you aware of any systemic problems in the 

agency, where there is just rampant violations of statutory obligations of the rules and regulations? 

Mr. VELASCO. No, sir, I am not. I believe we are a well-managed 

organization. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And have you had any allegations to that effect, 

that there is a systemic problem or multiple incidents that are of 

such magnitude that it needs the attention of this committee? 

Mr. VELASCO. No concerns of systemic magnitude. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So you had this incident, the ideological situation 

we have going there. And you immediately reported it, right? 

Mr. VELASCO. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. You had your IG work with you, your inspector 

general. 

Mr. VELASCO. And the IG of this committee. 

Mr. TIERNEY. He said you handled it properly, did he not? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Said that the matter was fully resolved, that you 

were moving to protect the federal resources. And you have a 100 

percent record of getting back the $4 million that you want to withdraw in other incidents that you have enforced on. 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I am sorry we are wasting your time 

here today. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. 
22 

I would now like to recognize Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. You must be really thirsty this morning. I notice they 

have got you enough water to drink there. Must have been expecting a tough hearing. 

I want to start out by saying that I have been through the 

AmeriCorps programs, many of them, in my district. It is Appalachia Cares in northeast Tennessee in the mountains. And there 

has been some really good work done there by AmeriCorps. We just 

were devastated by tornadoes recently, and not just AmeriCorps 

but we had huge volunteers from everyone. 

But that program has helped. And certainly I was not here to 

hear the testimony on the problems, but I did want to tell you 

there are some good things in my district that have occurred. It is 

fair you have oversight, and it is fair to ask questions. And I think 

about these, and I think from your standpoint you would want 

those problems resolved and solved. 

It is a blight on you and your program when something does go 

awry. So having said that, I know I asked this 2 years ago and I 

am still, as a former mayor, we had special appropriations in our 

budget where we would fund various non-for-profits out of our city 

budget. Including cuts from HUD that we have funded from our 

city budget locally. 

But the question I had 2 years ago, and I have still got it, is, and 

I do not know, I have not gone through it and I should have called 

you about it before this. But the National Civilian Community 

Corps, it just seems like that is a lot of money. We had a couple 

of programs locally in our city when I was mayor, and it was so 

much more expensive to do this program than it was another one. 

It did not seem cost-effective. And then we are spending $29 million on approximately 1,000 people. That just seems to me to be a 

lot of money. I think if you look at AmeriCorps, if we spent it in 

a different way you would get more bang for the $29 million. 

Can you tell me what that is spent for? I remember 2 years ago 

when it was explained to me and it did not make any sense, and 

I would like to hear it again. 

Mr. VELASCO. Certainly. Be happy to. NCCC is a residentialbased program for volunteers. And so it offers a different model 

that AmeriCorps, which is usually more place-based to the particular site over a period of time. The model for NCCC is that it 

is a residence-based program, and so it is team-driven and the volunteers actually work in short-term deployments anywhere across 

the state, the region, across the country. 

And so they have a lot of flexibility and adaptability to be able 

to be deployed immediately to provide service or assistance anywhere across the country. In fact, the NCC Corps is a prevalent in 

providing most of the disaster relief that we are seeing across the 

country because of their nimbleness and ability to really be deployed to a particular situation at a particular time. 

Mr. ROE. So basically what you are doing with them, it is 

$29,000 a person. I mean, that is how much you are spending if 

it is 1,000 people and you are spending $29 million. But the reason, 

you are saying, is because they are not in a local community like 

where I am. But these are folks that may come in from the outside 

and have to be put up in a hotel, or wherever you put them up in. 
23 

Mr. VELASCO. There are five campuses across the country, and 

so their home base is at the resident facility, where they work as 

teams. And then they receive training there, and then they are deployed to different sites for particular periods of terms. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. I guess maybe what I would look at is, if you are 

going to use this $29 million, it looks like you could just maybe 

move some current people. We do that at home. We have interoperation agreements with fire departments between communities, 

where one fire department, instead of them having to have extra 

when a catastrophe occurs we just help them. 

And I wonder if it would not be better to look at something like 

that, where you could maybe use the $29 million to have more people actually in the program. I would like you to look at something 

like that. I mean, like let us say there was a flood in west Tennessee. We have got people live in east Tennessee and there is no 

disaster, we could move some people down there temporarily, not 

have them housed all the time. 

I would simply look at that, and see if you could use those funds 

more effectively. But I understand it better now. 

Madam Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Roe. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Director, thank you very much for coming this morning. Sorry I 

missed your opening statement. I have read it, and I am a little 

bit at a loss kind of why we are here. But I guess it appears that 

some of this is about the two incidents that others on the committee have referred to, one in New York and one in Washington. 

But when I go through the timelines and the discussion of it, it 

appears that you dispatched both of those incidents on a rather 

timely basis. One of the members asked you, the inspector general 

seemed to agree with that. Is that correct? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. So I guess we are here to discuss the program. I am kind of the school of Mr. Tierney here. You know, my 

contact with the corporation is obviously the volunteers that have 

been in our community that not only just provide their resources, 

but seem to also be somewhat catalytic in terms of their ability 

sometimes to organize local organizations that are not doing that 

well, are not really performing at their maximum. 

But by having a full-time person there, they seem to sort of be 

value-added, if you will, to those mechanisms. I know when the recession hit us very hard, and the food banks and the food distribution programs around our area, they were very helpful there. I 

watched them help sort of manage the in and out of the volunteers 

in Habitat for Humanity on a number of projects that we have had 

that have been very important to the neighborhood revitalization. 

Very successful but, again, having that person there on a constant basis as opposed to people who, making every best effort to 

show up at different times, that does not always happen with the 

all-volunteer organizations. And so you keep continuity in terms of 

projects being on time. 

My staff and myself, have worked in these projects, when we are 

home. And you can just see how important that is. And I think, 
24 

again, most of the experience with Habitat, when suppliers and 

others are volunteering their time, their materials, just like any 

building project, having a schedule is very important for when people are dropping them off and being able to utilize them so then 

the next weekend you can get to the next stage of that project. 

So the experience has been very good from my side, so I just 

want to say that. I do not know if this hearing is going on to some 

other part of it, there is some problem with it. I have been through, 

back in the 1980s, when there was a very clear effort to try to destroy the various national volunteer organizations and programs 

that were going on. And it was a very contentious set of hearings. 

At the time, they were being attacked because they were very effective. They were organizing poor people to become consumers and 

participants in their communities, and to participate in civic life. 

And they were attacked because they were, in effect, effectively organizing. But I guess this is different here. 

I do not know what we are doing here this morning, but anyway 

I just want to say that I appreciate the work of the corporation in 

our local area, certainly my congressional district, but in other 

areas around the San Francisco Bay area, where we have found 

them to be very, very helpful in developing additional community 

resources and keeping those resources attentive to the projects that 

they have undertaken. So thank you very, very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Dr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. First of all, thank you for coming. I just want to 

make a couple of comments about why we are here today. I mean, 

I think being new to the Congress, it is pretty clear to me. You 

know, we have an oversight role. And I think if there are concerns 

about how organizations like yours are functioning I think it is fair 

to bring those questions to light. 

And we may very well decide, based on your testimony today, 

that we do not necessarily find any major reasons to be concerned. 

But unless we ask the questions, we may not ever find that out. 

So I would say that it is fair to ask these questions, and we really 

appreciate your comments. 

And as far as your monitoring plans going forward, can you just 

outline? Have you had to make any changes or any improvement 

in the way you monitor things that happen within the program as 

a result of these recent incidents? 

Mr. VELASCO. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. We have a 

robust monitoring and oversight program at the Corporation, but 

we also have a spirit of continuous improvement. And from this 

particular incident, what we have done is we have put together an 

action plan that is going to be putting in some activities in place 

in three different areas, prevention, detection, and enforcement. 

So in prevention, we are going to be developing mandatory training for all of our grantees, specific on prohibited activities. We are 

also going to be communicating directly with our members to define prohibited activities more explicitly, to communicate and provide examples of what that means, and to communicate the requirements for compliance and the tools available to us for enforcement when those rules are violated. 
25 

With regards to detection, as I mentioned we have a new data 

system that is allowing us to look at placements. And so we will 

be doing some reviews of placements based upon the data from 

that system. We are also going to be using a sampling methodology 

to look at member position descriptions of organizations. 

And lastly within detection, we are also going to be adding a new 

component to our monitoring protocol that is specific to prohibited 

activities. We are going to ask all of our grantees to, annually, assure the activities that they are undertaking with regards to prohibited activities within their organizations. 

And then lastly in enforcement, we are going to be providing 

training both externally to our grantees as well as internally to our 

staff with regarding the spectrum of tools available to them, from 

corrective actions to suspension or termination. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. 

It appears that all of our members have had an opportunity to 

ask their questions, so I would like to thank Dr. Velasco for taking 

the time to testify before the subcommittee today. 

Mr. Hinojosa, do you have any closing remarks? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to say, as we 

draw this thing to a close, that I could not help but listen to members on my side of the aisle, and agree with something my mother 

used to tell me. And that is that when they give you a lemon, make 

lemonade out of it. 

This is an opportunity to put into the record those of us who are 

old enough to remember the damage done in 1967 by Hurricane 

Beulah in deep South Texas from Brownsville to Corpus Christi, an 

area that was extremely poor, neglected by the federal government 

like very few regions of the country had been neglected. 

And see that we did not have the kind of volunteer organizations 

like yours that can organize and recruit, and be able to get volunteers who want to help but nobody to put them together. And we 

see the tragic tornadoes that killed 150 persons in Joplin, Missouri. 

And again, your organization versus what I described in 1967, now 

with your help we were able to respond immediately to help them 

out. 

I was set back, my region was set back, 20 years by the flooding 

and the tornadoes of 1967 that came after Hurricane Beulah hit us 

in our area. So I recognize the importance of your corporation and 

the different groups that are being put together to help us throughout the country. 

So I greatly appreciate your testimony today, Mr. Velasco. And, 

as ranking member of this committee on higher ed and workforce 

training I look forward to working with you and your staff to advance CNCS’s mission and goals. National Service programs are 

truly a part of our nation’s history, democracy, and civic life, an we 

hopefully will use this record to increase your funding and to increase the numbers of volunteers that come from your program. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I want to thank Dr. Bucshon for saying specifically, and reminding people on this committee, that we are an oversight committee. 
26 

Every committee in Congress is an oversight committee, and a 

major part of our responsibility is to talk to the groups for whom 

we are responsible to make sure that they are doing their jobs 

properly. 

I do not think Congress spends enough time, frankly, on its oversight function. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Does the gentlewoman yield? 

Chairwoman FOXX. No, we are at the end. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Why have a discussion then? 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. And I think that it is very important 

that we do that. I have noticed that you have the right language 

down, you have robust monitoring, and an oversight plan. And we 

want to make sure that we understand that robust monitoring and 

oversight, again, since it is part of our responsibility. 

I often wonder about how we got to be such a great country before the 1960s, when so many government programs came into existence. And I do not have the citation on it, but I read recently 

a comparison of the recovery from the Johnstown floods in the 

early 1900s. 

And Mr. Hinojosa’s comments made me think about that, and 

how much more quickly that area of the country recovered when 

there was not a single federal government program there to help. 

But volunteers and the people there managed to do it. 

I am going to search for that citation, but it was comparing what 

happened with Johnstown and what has happened since the federal government got involved with volunteers and with FEMA. And 

the evaluation was not very good about it. I do think that the programs in your jurisdiction do some good things. 

But as I said to you before, it is our responsibility to make sure 

that the money that we take from hardworking taxpayers is spent 

effectively and efficiently. And I think not about the people who are 

being paid by the government to be volunteers every day. I think 

about people who are out working in factories who are doing their 

best to do what they are supposed to do. 

They are paying their taxes, they are working very hard, and we 

are taxing them at a very high rate to put other people to work. 

And I think it is our responsibility to make sure that if we are 

going to take money from hardworking Americans that that money 

is being very, very well-spent. 

And I think that is the responsibility of this committee and all 

our committees in Congress, and that we are being held to be accountable even more so by the American people under these really 

tight financial times. We should always be held to a strong level 

of accountability, but particularly now. 

And I thank you and the members of your group for wanting to 

work with us. I do know, however, that despite the fact that this 

was reported to the IG and that you took action, you did not have 

a plan to discover this yourself. And that is part of your responsibility. 

I also find it very curious that it takes episodes like this before 

most government agencies begin to look at evaluation and to look 

accountability. It seems to me that there needs to be a mindset 

within the federal government that any time you are given a dollar 
27 

you are going to produce, for the American people, a dollar’s worth 

of value for it. 

It is usually after something has happened before the bureaucracy decides to get engaged and start to do something about it. I 

hope that by having hearings like this we will send a message to 

other agencies in the federal government that we are not waiting 

until we have a violation of the law before we start looking at 

measures of accountability. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent to 

speak out of turn for 1 minute. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I would be happy, Mr. Tierney, to talk with 

you afterwards. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Wait a minute. So you are denying that request? 

You are objecting? You just went on and on and on with this whatever you want to call your dialogue there for a minute. You will 

not give 1 minute to another member of the subcommittee? 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Tierney, you had your time to speak. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And you had yours, over and over again. Now, I am 

asking you—— 

Chairwoman FOXX [continuing]. As you know—— 

Mr. TIERNEY [continuing]. The committee, unanimous request to 

just allow me to speak for 1 minute. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I will give you 1 minute, and it will be 1 

minute. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Oh, I am sure it will. 

First of all, we all should do oversight on these committees. We 

should choose the groups to oversee where there is a real problem, 

not where you have some ideological bent or somebody has an ideological bent about one particular agency, whatever, that happen to 

be peripherally involved. 

We all believe in oversight. Let us do it right, and let us do it 

where it really matters. And let us not do it for the wrong reasons. 

And secondly, when you take your waltz back in history you might 

remember that before the government got involved we did not have 

the kind of public health aspects that we have today that keep 

healthier longer. 

We did not have electricity in many rural parts of the country. 

We had abject poverty in many, many regions of the country. So 

I just hope that maybe you go back to your history books and take 

a look at that, as well, so the next time we get a lecture on things 

of that nature we will realize that as a group, as a country, we do 

many good things together. 

As a government, we do many good things as the people who 

elect that government. And let us get away from the self-loathing, 

which is what we essentially do when we attack government and 

say that it cannot seemingly, in some people’s eyes, do anything 

right. And understand that Mr. Velasco’s organization is one of 

those groups that are doing things extraordinarily right and serving a lot of people in this country, and we all benefit from it. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. And you were right on time. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[The statement of Mr. Loebsack follows:] 
28 

Prepared Statement of Hon. David Loebsack, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Iowa 

I wholeheartedly agree that any misuse of federal funds is extremely concerning, 

no matter what agency we are talking about. Especially in such difficult budget 

times, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. It is extremely important that any 

evidence of misconduct on the part of subgrantees from CNCS be addressed swiftly 

and fully and that every possible measure be taken to prevent similar incidents 

from occurring in the future. 

However, I think it is also disingenuous to claim that this error—which needs to 

be remedied—is a reflection of the work of the Corporation for National and Community Service as a whole. 

I have seen firsthand the great work that Americorps volunteers have done in my 

district. In 2008, my district was hit by the worst natural disaster in the state’s history. Severe flooding destroyed homes and businesses, and I am so grateful for the 

Americorps members that came to Cedar Rapids and other flood-affected areas immediately after the disaster hit. 

In the aftermath of the emergency, they were there helping to meet people’s basic 

needs and they continue to work in the area rebuilding homes, coordinating volunteer efforts, and revitalizing local community organizations. To date, about 2,800 

Americorps members have volunteered to help with the flood recovery effort and 

over 200,000 Iowans have helped with disaster recovery since 2008. 

Iowans owe a debt of gratitude to Americorps, VISTA, and NCCC members who 

have worked so hard for our communities, so I don’t want anyone to forget all of 

the good work that they do to help us respond to and recover from natural disasters, 

wherever they may occur. 

The Serve America Act is one of the votes that I’m most proud of in my time in 

Congress. I myself grew up in poverty and I wouldn’t have made it to where I am 

today without the help and support of people in my community. Initiatives like the 

Volunteer Generation Fund—an amendment to the Serve America Act sponsored by 

Senator Hatch and myself—and the other CNCS programs make it possible for more 

people to serve their communities, which is especially important in these tough economic times when local budgets are stretched so thin. 

I am fortunate to come from Iowa, where civic engagement and a strong sense 

of community are the norm. In fact, Iowa is second in the nation for volunteerism. 

I believe that national and community service programs are vital to supporting 

Iowans’ and the nation’s commitment to service and serve an important role in ensuring our communities are great places to live and raise a family. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, July 8, 2011. 

Mr. ROBERT VELASCO, II, Acting Chief Executive Officer, 

Corporation for National and Community Service, 1225 New York Avenue, Washington, DC 20525. 

DEAR MR. VELASCO: Thank you for testifying at the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training hearing entitled, ‘‘Demanding Accountability in National Service Programs,’’ on June 23, 2011. I appreciate your participation. 

Congressional oversight is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately. To that end, committee members request your response to the enclosed 

questions. Please provide written responses no later than July 29, 2011 for inclusion 

in the official hearing record. Responses should be sent to Mandy Schaumburg of 

the committee staff who may be contacted at (202) 225-6558. After receiving your 

responses, committee members will review the answers and pose any additional 

questions they may have. 

Thank you again for your contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

1. What key elements of the Corporation’s monitoring plans will help you identify 

problems in the future? 

2. In your written testimony, you mention that grant applications specifically require grantees to describe how they will ensure compliance with the prohibited activities. How does that response factor in to the awarding of grants? If a poor an-
29 

swer is provided on an otherwise good grant application, what additional steps does 

the Corporation take to ensure the grantee understands its responsibilities? 

3. Your testimony outlines the prevention activities undertaken by the Corporation, yet over the last year or so incidents continued to occur. Last year, we saw 

problems involving the National Endowment for the Arts; the peer review problems 

in awarding the Social Innovation Fund grants; and Planned Parenthood in New 

York City, New York and Tacoma, Washington. We appreciate your responsiveness 

when a problem arises, but we are more interested in preventing problems before 

they occur. What assurances can you give the committee that these controversial 

scandals will no longer happen? 

4. Your testimony put almost all responsibility for monitoring and properly enforcing the law on the grantees. I understand it is necessary to ensure they are doing 

their part, but it does not in any way lessen your obligation under the law. You are 

responsible for ensuring the law is followed, especially when it comes to prohibited 

activities. Please clarify your statement saying the grantee is ‘‘ultimately’’ responsible for the subgrants and explain how you view the Corporation’s role in that process. 

5. In placing so much responsibility on the grantees to ensure compliance with 

the law, can you tell the Committee how you ensure grantees are appropriately 

overseeing the subgrantees? Do you verify the grantees’ review with a direct review 

of the subgrantees? 

6. What actions has the Corporation undertaken to obtain better information on 

the activities grantees are funding through your programs? 

7. How often does the Corporation work with the Inspector General to identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse? In your opinion, does the Corporation rely too 

much on the Inspector General, thereby failing to provide clear guidance to grantees 

and subgrantees? 

8. Please discuss the changes the Corporation has put in place to satisfy the Inspector General’s concerns with the Corporation’s monitoring protocols. 

9. Do you have a sense as to how many calls the Inspector General’s office receives informing them that prohibited activities are taking place? 

10. Given state budgetary shortfalls, what does staffing look like at the state 

level? On average, how many individuals are employed by these state commissions? 

How many of those staff are engaged in grant monitoring? 

11. Your testimony mentions that the Corporation engages in some baseline monitoring activities and some additional monitoring activities, if the resources and 

funds are available. How often does the Corporation utilize the additional monitoring activities? 

12. You state in your testimony that the Corporation relies on risk assessment 

to monitor your grantees. As demonstrated by the evidence from the current situation with New York Planned Parenthood, this is not the most effective monitoring 

tool available. Please explain what the Corporation looks at when it conducts the 

risk assessment and how it actually finds problems. 

13. The law clearly states prohibited activities for grantees, subgrantees, and program participants. How could grantees or subgrantees believe the positions funded 

at Planned Parenthood would be appropriate based on the clear letter of the law? 

14. It is clear that the number of program participants at the current level is too 

many for the Corporation to effectively monitor for instances of abuse. With this in 

mind, how can you reach the goal for the total number of participants established 

in the last reauthorization and still effectively monitor them? 

15. As stated in the hearing, oversight is necessary to ensure all federal agencies 

are in accordance with the law and using taxpayer dollars effectively. In the past 

five years, how many oversight hearings or audits has the Corporation completed? 

16. What is the cost per participant for all programs under the Corporation’s jurisdiction? 

17. Do you currently have measures in place to evaluate your programs? If so, 

how can you evaluate their effectiveness if you have trouble guaranteeing that prohibited activities are not occurring? 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ