[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN: MAKING EVERY DOLLAR COUNT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
US POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-140 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Ranking Minority Member
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
RON DeSANTIS, Florida Columbia
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 10, 2013.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Dave Reichert, A Representative in The United States
Congress from the State of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Mr. Mark Lambert, Associate Director for Merit System
Accountability and Compliance, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 12
Ms. JuCoby Pittman, President and CEO, Clara White Mission
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. Kalman Stein, President and CEO, Earthshare
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 26
Ms. Debby Hampton, President and CEO, United Way of Central
Oklahoma
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Mr. Ken Berger, President and CEO, Charity Navigator
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN: MAKING EVERY DOLLAR COUNT
----------
Wednesday, July 10, 2013,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service
and the Census,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold
[chairman of the subcommittee], presiding.
Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Gowdy, Lynch,
Speier and Davis.
Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Majority Assistant Clerk;
Molly Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Daniel Bucheli, Majority
Assistant Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press
Secretary; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services
and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk;
Jennifer Hemingway, Majority Deputy Policy Director; Laura L.
Rush, Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Scott Schmidt, Majority
Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Lena Chang, Minority
Counsel; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Safiya
Simmons, Minority Press Secretary, Mark Stephenson, Minority
Director of Legislation.
Mr. Farenthold. Good afternoon. We actually kind of have a
tight schedule today. There are scheduled votes in the House of
Representatives at 2:00 o'clock, and we would like to try to
finish earlier rather than asking our witnesses and folks to
stick around for what will probably be a very lengthy series of
votes. I realize I am the only one here at this point, but in
order to keep us moving ahead, I am going to go ahead and call
the subcommittee to order, read my opening statement. Hopefully
by that time minority members will be here. If not, we will
address that issue when we come to it.
So the subcommittee will come to order. As is normal, we
will begin the hearing by reading the Oversight Committee's
mission statement. We exist to secure two fundamental
principles. First, Americans have a right to know the money
Washington takes from them is well spent. Second, Americans
deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them.
Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to
protect these rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold the government
accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to
know what they get from their government. We will work
tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the
facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the
Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
Thank you for being here.
Today we are going to talk about the Combined Federal
Campaign: Making Every Dollar Count. Through the Combined
Federal Campaign, Federal workers have donated more than $7
billion to thousands of local and national charitable
organizations. The CFC has marked its 50th anniversary with a
commission designed to ensure the campaign's long-term
viability. In the midst of the anniversary, the Inspector
General released a troubling report demonstrating how donations
could have been put to a better use.
With giving at an all-time low, it is clear that some
changes need to be made to bring workers back into the fold and
bring them back to donating. While I commend the OPM for moving
quickly to address the concerns by the IG, banning food and
entertainment paid for with charitable donations is one
example, I am troubled by several aspects of the agency's
proposed regulations. Its regulations lack specificity, yet
propose substantial untested changes to the administration of
CFC, the financing of the campaign and the operation of the CFC
federations.
A number of the proposed changes move well beyond the
recommendations of the commission. For example, the commission
recommended OPM encourage the use of online giving, yet OPM
proposes to eliminate paper donations. Past experience shows
the absence of flexible giving options can result in a
significant decline in donations. For example, the DC1 fund saw
a 79 percent decrease in donations when it shifted to a web-
only based campaign. Since it has returned back to a model that
allows both paper and online contributions.
The regulations also propose to reduce the local connection
between the hallmark of the programs. OPM describes this change
as part of its efforts to streamline the campaign. However,
OPM's history with managing large projects, from the failed
redesign of the USAJOBS to millions wasted on the failed
upgrade of the paper-based retirement claims system, does not
inspire confidence. Moreover, I question why OPM would
eliminate the opportunity for Federal employees to connect at
the local level. This seems the logical way to increase giving.
When it comes to donations, it always helps when the ``ask''
comes from a friend.
The committee has heard concerns from many, from postal
workers to charity watchdogs. I hope today's hearing will help
participants better understand the impact of OPM's proposal and
will lead to sensible changes that better support those who
choose to donate.
I thank the witnesses for their participation. We will now
to go Ms. Speier who will deliver an opening statement. Is it
yours or Mr. Lynch's or both?
Ms. Speier. I am just the oracle through which Mr. Lynch's
statement will be read.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to review
the operations of the Combined Federal Campaign and evaluate
OPM's proposed changes to CFC regulations.
The CFC is the largest workplace giving campaign in the
world. Federal employees, military personnel and postal workers
generously donate a portion of their hard-earned dollars to
help people and local communities in need. Since the CFC's
establishment in 1961, our Federal workforce and uniformed
service members have contributed nearly $7 billion to charities
that have helped men, women and children in need. Their
generosity has continued even in the face of a challenging
budget climate, a Federal pay freeze since 2011, sequestration,
layoffs, buyouts, furloughs and legislation targeting their pay
and benefits.
As a result, it is understandable that contributions to the
CFC have fallen from a high of $282.6 million in 2009 to $258.3
million in 2012.
However, despite these difficulties, our Federal Government
civilian and military personnel have donated more than $250
million each year since 2004 to help those who are less
fortunate. As the Administrator of the CFC, OPM has an
important responsibility to ensure that every dollar that is
donated by our Federal workers is effectively used to help the
individuals who need it.
I want to thank OPM for creating the CFC 50 Commission to
ensure the continued growth and success of this vital program.
I fully support the commission's goals of increasing the CFC's
accessibility, accountability, transparency and affordability.
I believe in the need to increase accountability, strengthen
program integrity and improve the quality and consistency of
local campaigns.
Last March, the OPM Inspector General found that the
campaign administrator improperly charged over $300,000 in
campaign expenses and should have used $764,000 in campaign
funds more effectively. We must vigilantly prevent waste and
abuse of donor contributions.
I appreciate OPM's commitment to make the CFC more
efficient and effective, and I appreciate the agency's efforts
to follow through on some of the commission's recommendations.
Many charities, donors and watchdog organizations, including
the witnesses here today, support proposed changes to the CFC
program.
But they also have concerns about a number of proposed
changes. I understand that OPM is still in the process of
reviewing the public comments received on the proposed rule.
This hearing presents a good opportunity to hear from OPM,
charities, donors and watchdog organizations about their views
on the proposed rule.
It is important that we have a conversation about whether,
for example, CFC's fund-raising structure should be
centralized, whether the paper pledges, charity lists and
donations should be eliminated, and whether charities should be
charged non-refundable application fees. Making a good thing
better is what should unite all of us here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the hearing
and the testimony from our witnesses.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, and again, we will get
underway. Our first witness is Congressman Dave Reichert. He
represents Washington's Eighth Congressional District. Mr.
Reichert, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVE REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you
to the members of the committee for inviting me here today.
I am here because this is something I am very passionate
about. I will share a couple of stories with you in a moment.
But I first want to say that as a member of Congress, I can
tell you that many of the programs, of course, that our
government runs don't work. I think we all recognize that. As a
former chair of the King County Employee Charitable Campaign in
Washington, which is King County's version of CFC, I can tell
you that the Combined and Federal Campaign is one of those
programs that we got right. That is why I have continued to
participate as a member of Congress.
So first I would like to share some of my history with CFC,
then I would like to share why I am concerned about OPM's
proposed changes. The CFC has given me the opportunity to
donate to causes like the Special Olympics and the Pediatric
Interim Care Center in Seattle, Washington.
Now, the Pediatric Interim Care Center is a very special
place. It is filled with little babies. Those babies are born
in surrounding hospitals in the Seattle area. They are born
drug-addicted. The hospitals don't have the ability to take
care of those little babies. So they are taken to the Pediatric
Interim Care Center in Kent.
I happen to have been involved as a detective in a case
that took 19 years to solve, the Green River Serial Murder
case. One of the victims' daughters in that case born as a drug
baby, was one of the first babies taken into that organization.
I wrote a book called Chasing the Devil. All the proceeds from
that book, through CFC, went to the Pediatric Interim Care
Center. I continue to support them today. What a wonderful
cause, to make sure that our babies have a home.
Two of my grandchildren are adopted from the Pediatric
Interim Care Center, one a meth-addicted baby, the other a
crack cocaine and heroin-addicted baby.
As the former chair of the King County Washington Employees
Campaign, I saw first-hand the benefits that the CFC and its
current structure of local control and support had on our
community. I also know what it takes to found a non-profit, and
have approved to be a part of the CFC. So when I was a
detective, my partner was shot and killed in the line of duty.
We organized a non-profit organization around him and his
family. That organization still exists today. I was the co-
founder of that organization, put together the organization.
Took a year or more to become a 501(c)(3), met individually at
every precinct, 1,100 employees, to gain their support at the
personal level with all those other folks that work with the
CFC in King County. Finally, we became a part of their choices
where people could say, I want to give to the Sheriff Fund, to
help support those families that have lost a loved one in the
line of duty, that have been killed in the line of duty.
So those are two special stories to me. That is why I am so
passionate about this. I have two grandkids that are drug-
addicted babies, I lost my partner, who was shot and killed.
And these charities helped those families.
Why I am here today and what concerns me is that the Office
of Personnel Management has proposed wholesale changes to the
regulations governing the Combined Federal Campaign. While I
say that these changes are based on a report produced by the
CFC 50 Commission, most of the proposed changes were never
discussed in the hearings leading up to the report, or even
mentioned in the report's final text.
The two proposed regulations that concern me the most are
OPM's plans to replace the local volunteer campaign structure
with a centralized Washington, D.C. campaign. The new structure
would be managed centrally by OPM and the volunteer local
Federal coordinated committees that have successfully conducted
the campaigns for decades will be eliminated. OPM would have
exclusive control in establishing each region.
I believe that removing local control over campaign
administration will alienate donors in smaller communities by
making them think that they are just giving their hard-earned
dollars away to a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
OPM further proposes to eliminate local operation of the
campaigns through the establishment of central campaign
administrators. This seems impractical and unwise and will only
add to the Federal workforce and remove the campaign from the
enthusiasm of local Federal agencies and staff.
I am also concerned about the proposed non-refundable
charity application fee. This could have the unintended
consequence of causing smaller, more local charities to leave
CFC. In my experience, these changes, taking away local control
and operation, would take away the attributes that make the CFC
so successful. The fact that local people know that they are
giving to a locally-administered campaign benefitting local
charities, helping local people, ultimately my concern is that
these changes would result in fewer CFC participants and
donations.
In these times of need, these charities cannot afford fewer
donations. I thank you again for the opportunity.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Reichert follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.003
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. As is normal procedure
of this committee, we typically do not have follow-up questions
to members of Congress. In your case, Congressman, it is not
necessary, I think you hit all the salient points I probably
would have talked about anyway.
So we will now take a very short recess again as we are
trying to get as much of this done as possible before votes, to
reset and make room for our next panel. We will reconvene as
soon as the setup is completed and the next panel is seated,
probably two minutes.
Thank you very much, Congressman.
In less than two minutes we have the next panel seated, in
record time. I appreciate your promptness.
We will now recognize our second panel, Mr. Mark Lambert,
the Associate Director for Merit System Accountability and
Compliance at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Ms.
JuCoby Pittman is President and CEO of the Clara White Mission
in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Kal Stein is President and CEO of
EarthShare. Ms. Debby Hampton is President and CEO of the
United Way of Central Oklahoma. And Mr. Ken Berger is President
and CEO of Charity Navigator.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. Would you please rise and raise your right
hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mr. Farenthold. Let the record reflect that all witnesses
responded in the affirmative. You may be seated.
In order to allow time for questions and in order for us to
squeeze this in, I don't mean to diminish the importance of
this hearing. This is one I fought for, but we are pressed for
time today. We ask that the witnesses limit their testimony to
five minutes. We have your full prepared testimony in our book.
It will be entered into the record.
So if you will summarize and do the best you can to stay
within five minutes, it would be very helpful.
So we will start with Mr. Lambert. You are recognized for
five minutes, sir.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF MARK LAMBERT
Mr. Lambert. Chairman Farenthold and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Combined Federal
Campaign. The Federal workplace giving program started in the
1950s under President Eisenhower. Back then, there were four
distinct campaigns administered by different charities.
Although a great program, it was considered expensive and
disruptive to Federal employees because of multiple
solicitations throughout the year.
In 1961, President Kennedy, by Executive Order, directed
the chairman of the Civil Service Commission to oversee the
program, which resulted in one campaign season that continues
today. Pledges to the CFC are used to support charities that
provide human health and welfare services throughout the world.
The CFC is managed and overseen by the Office of Personnel
Management to ensure the campaign is effectively and
efficiently administered and that campaign components meet
Federal requirements.
Currently the CFC has over 160 local campaigns, and each
campaign is managed by a local Federal coordinating committee
and administered by a principal combined fund organization. The
LFCC is a group of Federal employees that act as a de facto
board of directors while the PCFO administers the local
campaign under the direction and control of the LFCC and the
director of OPM.
Since 1961, Federal donors have pledged over $7 billion to
charities through the CFC. In 2012, contributions totaled
$258.3 million. In 2011, the CFC celebrated its 50th
anniversary and former Director of OPM John Berry announced the
formation of a Federal advisory committee known as the CFC 50
Commission. The commission was established to review the
present structure and processes of the CFC and was tasked with
developing recommendations to improve and modernize the CFC as
well as enhance accountability and transparency.
Convened in September 2011, the commission was comprised of
28 members, including Federal employees from multiple agencies,
members of LFCCs and PCFOs, the GAO, the OPM Office of
Inspector General, charitable watchdog groups, leaders of
charitable organizations and representatives from the National
Active and Retired Federal Employees Association and Young
Government Leaders.
The commission focused on four main areas: donor
participation, infrastructure, standards of transparency and
accountability, and an inspector general task force. In July
2012, the commission issued 24 recommendations. The
recommendations identified ways to enhance the donor
experience, address the rising costs of the CFC, and institute
better procedures for meeting the needs of donors and charities
in order to increase transparency and accountability and
improve the overall oversight of the CFC's use of funds.
OPM reviewed the commission report and concluded the
recommendations reflected changes that would improve the CFC
for both donors and the charitable organizations. To implement
the donor participation recommendations, we propose regulatory
changes, including moving the solicitation period to end on
January 15th, allowing new employees to make payroll
deductions, creating a disaster relief program, and recovering
administrative costs through an application fee from charities.
To implement the CFC infrastructure recommendations, we
propose regulatory changes, including reducing the
responsibilities of the LFCCs and changing them to regional
coordinating committees; eliminating redundant campaign
administration functions by consolidating them into one or more
central campaign administrators, requiring CFC charity lists be
made available exclusively through electronic means, and
requiring all donations to be made via electronic means.
To implement the standards of transparency and
accountability recommendations, we propose regulatory changes
including streamlining the application process to permit
charities to submit a full application every three years,
rather than annually; easing the financial reporting
requirements for charities with less than $250,000 in revenue
and requiring federations to disperse funds to member charities
on a specified cycle and prohibiting them from deducting dues
or fees from CFC funds.
At present, OPM is reviewing comments from the proposed
rule, which was issued on April 8th, 2013. Mr. Chairman, over
50 years ago, the Federal Workplace Giving Program was in need
of reform. The resulting CFC has served us well until now.
Through the CFC, we annually solicit millions of employees and
uniformed service members. However, over 37 percent of donors
in the past decade have walked away under the current
practices.
As such, it is evident that we are once again at a time of
needed reform. I believe the changes recommended by the CFC 50
Commission and proposed in our rule will usher in the needed
reforms to attract new donors and provide new contributions to
the participating charities. OPM has historically demonstrated
our commitment to working with our CFC stakeholders, and we
plan to continue to partner with them going forward.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today
and I am happy to address any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.008
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, and you did that right
on time.
We will now go to Ms. JuCoby Pittman. She is the President
and CEO of the Clara White Mission in Jacksonville, Florida.
Ms. Pittman?
STATEMENT OF JUCOBY PITTMAN
Ms. Pittman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee. It is indeed an honor to be here
today.
I am here as the CEO and President of the Clara White
Mission, where I have served for 21 years. I would like to
share my concerns on how several of the proposed changes to the
Combined Federal Campaign will hinder and negatively impact our
ability to deliver services in our community for the homeless
and low income in Jacksonville.
For over 109 years, the Clara White Mission has had a
history of providing services. And through the dollars that are
entrusted to our agency by Federal employees through the CFC
campaign, we are able to support and uplift the neediest in our
community. Our goal is simple. We help train and place
individuals in jobs so they can become self-sufficient and
independent in our society. Our programs are designed to train
and educate homeless veterans and low income individuals in
life and career skills that will allow them to give back while
training, serving and preparing meals to over 500 homeless
individuals seven days a week at the Clara White Mission.
To date, over 700 students have graduated from our program
and been placed in jobs within 90 days of graduating. And 67
percent of those placed in employment remain in the workforce.
Our track record is a direct result of continuous support from
the Combined Federal Campaign, from which we have received over
$190,000.
I would like to tell you about a story of a gentleman that
has been helped by our program. Hezekiah is a native of Havana,
Florida, reared by both parents. Upon graduating from high
school, he joined the Army on October 8th, 2005 and was
discharged in October 8th, 2008. He was stationed in Fort
Jackson and enjoyed the life of a family man and serving his
Country. He mentioned that being married and being in the
military made him grounded and stable.
Unfortunately, soon after he was discharged, his perfect
family life was shattered by the unexpected death of his wife,
whom he loved dearly. He found that coping and living without
her was very challenging, which led him to a spiraling life of
drugs. He began using cocaine, he ran away to Tallahassee in
hopes of starting a new life. But every day, he used drugs
while working.
Eventually, he lost his job and started stealing to support
his habit. He was arrested and served one year in prison. After
he completed his sentence and a rehab program, he moved to
Jacksonville for a fresh start once again. He enrolled in the
Clara White 20-week culinary arts and housing program,
certified by the State of Florida education program. After he
was accepted and enrolled, he took advantage of the total
program. He attended AA classes, life management classes,
developed a positive support system and joined a local church.
He excelled and graduated with honors. He stated that our
comprehensive programs helped him get his life back and
overcome his negative choices and focus on making positive life
changes.
Three days after graduation, he was employed by Morning
Star Foods. Three months later, he saved his money and moved
into his own apartment. He remains clean and met his personal
and career goals while enrolled in the Clara White Mission
program.
Our ability to reach out to Hezekiah and provide him with
tools and training to help him is an amazing, amazing factor
due to the generosity of the Federal workforce and the CFC
campaign. However, today I am afraid that the proposed changes
to the campaign will limit my access and the ability to provide
similar services in the future.
The proposed changes include a major reorganization, the
elimination of all forms of giving outside of solicitation, and
adding an undisclosed fee for agencies like myself
participating in the campaign. The reorganization of the
campaign will mean less opportunity to meet face to face with
employees, share our agencies' mission and also the opportunity
to educate donors about how donating to the CFC campaign will
build capacity and have a visible impact.
During these difficult times for all Americans, I urge OPM
to please, please be thorough about implementing changes that
could have a significant effect on the size, scope and role of
the combined campaign. I want to work with OPM to make sure the
proposed changes do not cause hardship and harm to our
communities up close and personal where we live, work,
volunteer, and play, up close and personal.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Pittman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.012
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Ms. Pittman. And thank
you for the hard work you do on behalf of the people of Florida
with the Clara White Mission.
We will now recognize Mr. Kal Stein, President and CEO of
EarthShare.
STATEMENT OF KALMAN STEIN
Mr. Stein. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lynch and members of the subcommittee. It is my honor to
address the subcommittee, as it has been my honor to work with
the Combined Federal Campaign for more than 25 years, in
pursuit of the CFC's mission to promote and support
philanthropy through a program that is employee-focused, cost-
efficient and effective, and to lessen the burden of
government.
I am speaking today on behalf of EarthShare, which
represents 80 national organizations and more than 600 local
charities as well as on behalf of seven national federations
that represent more than 500 national charities and thousands
of local charities across the Country. The CFC is the largest
organized charity campaign in the world and the largest in
history. It is a singular achievement of civilization, that
regular working people, Federal employees, our friends and
neighbors all across the Country and the world, have
contributed more than $7 billion to charity during the 52-year
history of the CFC. It is a unique American accomplishment that
demonstrates the generosity of Federal employees and it is an
extension of their public service.
The CFC, in turn, provides critical annual renewable and
unrestricted funds to more than 25,000 local, national and
international eligible charities. There is no remotely
comparable single source of funds for charity in the world. The
CFC provides a bedrock of contributions of support that funds
charitable services from disaster relief to assistance for
veterans and military families, including on-base family
support services, critical local human services, medical
research and patient assistance, conservation and much, much
more.
I was pleased to serve on the CFC 50 Commission with the
mission to ensure the continued growth and success of the CFC.
And I commend Director Barry and OPM for creating the
commission. With CFC participation at an all-time low, change
is in order, and opportunities do exist to make the CFC more
efficient and effective. While there are aspects of OPM's
proposed changes that are promising and that we support, we are
deeply concerned that any positive impacts will be overshadowed
by new regulations that will result in fewer donations, that
will in turn impact charitable services to local communities,
including Federal workers and their families.
There are also a number of proposed regulations that go
beyond the recommendations of the commission, while other
critical recommendations of the commission have not been
addressed, including the need to do further research and
testing and the formation of a working group of Federal leaders
to assess that.
In addition, there is a lack of detail on implementation
that makes it difficult to respond to the changes in an
informed manner and to suggest alternatives. Our primary
concerns are in three areas: loss of local ownership of the
campaign, the elimination of giving options and the lack of
testing and specificity regarding change in the cost recovery
method of the campaign.
One, loss of local ownership. In the current configuration,
Federal employees are organized as local Federal coordinating
committees, and engage all aspects of the campaign, including
hiring local charities to manage the campaign, and reviewing
and improving local charity applications. This gives Federal
employees a strong sense of ownership and a stake in the
success of the campaign. They can see the impact in their
communities.
The proposed regulations seek to eliminate the local
Federal coordinating committees that provide oversight. Local
charity management would be eliminated in favor of regional
marketing organizations. This would dramatically diminish the
role of local Federal employee volunteers to the detriment of
the campaign and OPM would need to create the capacity to
manage all fund-raising, web development, processing and
operations internally and it has no experience in these areas.
Such a radical reorganization in the campaign was not
considered or discussed by the CFC commission.
The most basic rule of fund-raising is that people give
when they are asked and the campaign succeeds because it is a
person to person endeavor, not because someone gets an email.
When you ask people why they give, the reason most often cited
is because someone asked, usually a person close to the donor.
The CFC has been effective over the years because it includes
hands-on, peer-peer communication and engagement at the local
level should not be eliminated.
While we recognize the current system may benefit from
efficiencies, the proposed changes are an overreaction. OPM has
been slowly merging campaigns and committees over the years, as
well as increasing its guidance and oversight, and that
evolution should continue. The recommendation of the commission
was to improve the governance of the CFC at the local level by
improving training and OPM support. It was not to abandon the
current system. And we support that recommendation.
Elimination of current giving options. While we strongly
endorse the expansion of online giving options for Federal
donors, we know from experience that it is a critical mistake
to eliminate traditional means of giving altogether, and the
commission did not recommend eliminating giving options. Many
Federal employees who give to the CFC do not have access to or
choose not to use online giving. This is a reality for many
members of the military, postal service employees, park service
personnel and others in similar circumstances and settings that
are frequently without access to computers or cell phones.
In 2012, $27 million was donated in cash, while $54 million
was donated online, out of a total of $257 million. We need to
increase participation in the campaign so we should expand
online giving options, but not eliminate other forms of giving.
Allowing donors to give in the method most convenient and
secure for them is the key to donor satisfaction and increased
participation. While some employees are content to give
electronically, others prefer to give in other ways. Forcing
people to give in a manner they are not comfortable with is not
conducive to encouraging people to pursue the giving process.
Third, and my final point, lack of testing and specificity
regarding change in the cost recovery method. No details have
been provided on the proposed up-front and non-refundable fees
for charities participating in the campaign, including the
amount of the fees and how they will be assessed and adjusted
each year. The proposal of an up-front fee against an unknown
return, and that will be non-refundable under any
circumstances, including withdrawal or denial, is patently
unfair.
Without more information, charities will be forced to make
expenditures without knowing the benefits, which is bad
governance. Due to the way that campaign cycles work, a charity
will have to pay the fee twice before it knows if it will see
any return on the investment. This is the equivalent of a
college insisting on two years' tuition fees up front, with the
possibility of rejection, but no possible refund.
The commission agreed that changing the fee structure is
critical in increasing participation. The objective is to
increase the value of the campaign to Federal employees.
However, charity fees should first be tested at the local level
before changing the entire campaign. Last year, OPM tested
universal giving, which allows donations outside of current
community stations in three local CFC's. This was a relatively
benign change in the campaign with no opposition or downside
concerns.
Changing the financial structure of the campaign is far
more reaching and potentially disruptive, so it should be
developed with an equally cautious approach that does not put
donations at risk. The commission recommendation was to develop
a series of focus groups to determine what donors want and that
OPM should organize an ongoing working group with wide Federal
department representation to recommend modifications to CFC.
OPM should follow that recommendation before proceeding
further.
Despite the numerous challenges, $257 million was
contributed last year by Federal employees at a cost of less
than 11 percent, which is outstanding by any measure of
effectiveness. I believe in the power of the CFC to be a
positive force for the government and Federal employees and the
communities where we live, work and play. We look forward to
working cooperatively with OPM to continue a dialogue that
ensures any changes in the current regulations will not only
promote efficiency but also result in greater charitable giving
and employee participation and will grow the campaign.
Thank you for your time.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.027
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Stein.
We will now go to Ms. Debby Hampton, the President and CEO
of the United Way of Central Oklahoma.
STATEMENT OF DEBBY HAMPTON
Ms. Hampton. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to
testify today in the hearing of the Combined Federal Campaign.
I am here today to express United Way's concerns about
OPM's proposed changes to the CFC. United Ways are the PCFO's
for more than 80 percent of the approximately 150 individual
CFC, working with LFCCs to manage more than half of the
approximately $265 million raised annually.
In 2012, Central Oklahoma CFC raised $3.2 million. We
solicited over 35,000 Federal employees; 9,100 chose to give to
1,500 charities. But more importantly, those charities helped
tens of thousands of individuals and families throughout
Central Oklahoma, including Federal employee families.
The United Way network has a longstanding relationship with
OPM, and while in partial disagreement with OPM's proposals, we
are confident that United Way and OPM will continue to have a
strong, productive partnership for years to come. Some modest
reforms may be needed to sustain the integrity and operational
strength and effectiveness of the CFC. But our view is that
this regulatory process needs to start from the beginning to
ensure meaningful involvement by organizations with greater
expertise in workplace charitable giving.
There are several specific recommendations that we believe
undercut the CFC's operational effectiveness and integrity.
Three main examples of that, first being elimination of local
involvement in favor of a limited number of regional
coordinated committees and central campaign administrators.
Second, charging charities a non-refundable, up-front fee to
participate. And third, shifting to an internet-only campaign.
Among the changes that I just mentioned, the most damaging
and destructive would be the disconnection of CFC from local
engagement and the transfer of local campaigns to a regional
administration. As a result of this, Federal employees would no
longer be able to make well-informed decisions on how they
support charities in their communities, not only monetarily,
but as they volunteer. CFC decisions would then be outsourced
to a regional authority without regard to unique needs of
individual communities.
There is a story I would like to share with you that
happened and really relates to the importance of the local
involvement. Early in the morning after May 20th, tornadoes
devastated Moore, Oklahoma. I received an email from the
executive director of the Federal Executive Board. The email
was a request for United Way to compile a list of charities
that were assisting or would be assisting in the aftermath of
the tornadoes. We wanted that request, so a special
solicitation of funds could be made by Federal employees. By
10:45 a.m., our staff had compiled and sent that list to our
CFC operations. By 3:48 p.m., the following day, only 29 hour
later, we received our approval letter.
This coordination between our two organizations
demonstrates an important benefit of the Combined Federal
Campaign. The relationship and trust we have built through 30
years with the CFC allowed us to work quickly in Oklahoma's
most important hour of need. It makes no sense to replace a
local-based CFC with an ineffective, generic campaign, run by
an outsourced fund-raising, marketing person who really doesn't
even know what is important to our local donors.
Another ill-informed change would require that charities be
charged a fee in order to receive donations. Of the 1,500
charities that received funds from the CFC of Central Oklahoma
in 2012, 1,200 of them received $2,000 or less. So imagine the
impact of a $500 to a $1,000 fee on our charities. I predict it
would discourage about 40 percent of the local charities from
participating in the CFC.
Additionally, the proposed changes would eliminate any kind
of paper form of donation and only electronic donations would
be allowed. From our experience with the United Way's annual
campaign, we had a large corporation that chose to do that very
same thing. The first year that they ran an online-only giving
campaign, they lost 61.5 percent of their total campaign
giving. Even three years later, we are still trying to make up,
and have lost over half of that original giving when they
offered both the paper donations as well as the online.
You need to realize that there are people that do not trust
doing anything financial online. They would rather have the
paper donation form, and we need to keep that option.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, United Way requests that
Congress instruct OPM to go back to the drawing board on these
proposed regulations and that they work with United Way and
other charities who can provide expertise and guidance in
crafting CFC reforms that will create efficiencies and more
importantly, deeply engage Federal workers in the CFC.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Hampton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.032
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
We will now go to Mr. Berger from Charity Navigator.
STATEMENT OF KEN BERGER
Mr. Berger. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
share my thoughts on the proposed regulation changes to the CFC
program.
Although I was a member of the CFC 50 Commission, I am most
interested in commenting on these changes from my viewpoint as
a donor advocate and leader of the charity watchdog
organization, Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator has as its
mission to be a guide to intelligent giving for donors to
charities of every kind. We achieve this by operating a website
where we rate the performance of charities, as well as provide
a wide variety of resources.
In 2012, we had 6.4 million visits to our website and
influenced billions of dollar of U.S. charitable donations.
Therefore, we believe we are the largest charity rating service
in the world.
However, today I am not expressing the official views of
Charity Navigator on these matters, since the organization
hasn't taken any position. Rather, I am speaking based upon my
own independent perspective and experience. Quite a few of us
on the CFC 50 Commission expressed the fundamental belief that
OPM shouldn't simply have a static list of recommendations and
then consider the work done.
Instead, we recommended that OPM develop a continuous
improvement process that engages Federal employees ongoing.
This involves creating a working group made up of a
representative sample of Federal employees that would be
consulted continuously by OPM regarding changes being
considered over time, as well as a vehicle for employees to
initiate new ideas to be considered.
However, I have seen no record of this and I fear that if
the CFC doesn't have such a baked-in process to its design, the
long-term viability of the program will be in jeopardy.
I am also extremely concerned that many of the proposed
changes don't reflect any plan to pilot test or conduct further
data analyses. The need for this is critical to the integrity
of the program, to meet the growing concern for transparency
and accountability, as well as best practices of securing
ongoing donor feedback.
Of the 13 OPM proposed actions that require regulatory
changes, there are 6 with which I am not in full agreement.
First, regarding the proposal to charge all charities an
application fee to participate. Eighty-three percent of
charities in the United States are $1 million or less in size.
But the proposed change biases the program toward larger non-
profits. If the application fee is substantial, it is likely
that the bigger charities will end up covering much less of the
overall cost of the CFC program. On the other hand, the added
cost up front could be enough to discourage many smaller
charities from participating at all.
In addition, the premise that this change will shift the
costs of the program from donors to charities is bogus. For
most charities, unrestricted money from donors is what is going
to pay for the up-front fee. So it is still donors' money that
is being used.
Second, I agree with the concern that any move to eliminate
non-electronic donations is likely to reduce the number of
employees who participate, as well as the overall amount of
money raised each year. Third, I believe the proposal to move
to regional committees has valid arguments on both sides, but
it needs to be pilot-tested to see where a good balance can be
struck.
Fourth, I agree with concerns about OPM's plan to eliminate
printing of various campaign materials and making them
available only via electronic means. This change should only
occur in locations where electronic data is easily accessible
to all Federal employees. Further research and pilot testing,
once again, is required.
Fifth, it is being proposed that every few years, charities
already in the program would be asked for a more limited set of
documents. Charities that get large amounts of program funding
each year shouldn't have this annual requirement lifted.
Sixth, OPM is proposing to waive the order requirement for
organizations with annual revenues less than $250,000. If a
charity gets a sizeable amount of money from the CFC each year,
it should be required to conduct an audit, regardless of its
size.
I believe the other seven proposed changes are good ones
that will help OPM to improve its oversight of the program.
In conclusion, I know that the generosity of the Federal
workforce is enormous, and OPM has a vitally important
responsibility to help ensure that every charitable dollar
raised is used effectively. My sense of the CFC leadership is
that they sincerely want that to happen. I hope it does, so
many more people receive the vital help they need. That is what
matters most.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions from you or the subcommittee.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Berger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82140.040
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I will recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
I think I speak for everybody on the dais here, that you
don't get into public service as an elected official if you
don't start in public service helping out non-profits and
charities. My wife, a member of the Junior League, considers
herself basically a professional fund-raiser. I have served on
the boards of the Texas State Aquarium, the art museum of South
Texas, several schools, private schools that my children
attended. My wife has been on the board of a small non-profit
no-kill animal shelter, PeeWee's in Corpus Christi. My company
before I came to Congress did websites, we had a special
program for non-profits. We were very involved in this.
This is an issue I am very passionate about, and understand
a little bit about fund-raising and the internet. I am deeply
concerned about doing away with paper donations and the
personal ask. I can guarantee you, I am much more effective
raising money for whatever I am raising money for when I look
somebody in the eye or talk to them on the telephone and say,
can you help out, rather than firing off an email or a letter.
I think we have heard testimony to the effect that we have had
negative results there.
Are there any thoughts, Mr. Lambert? Are there pilot
programs where we determine what impact this will have?
Mr. Lambert. Mr. Chairman, we are still evaluating the
comments on the proposed rule. We will move forward once we
have done so in a thorough way to finalize the reg. So a lot we
don't know yet. The regulations themselves are meant to be a
general framework. The details, the processes and procedures of
implementation will come after that.
We have historically shown our commitment to our
stakeholders to work with them on how best to implement those
changes, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Farenthold. Your agency's budget justification for
fiscal year 2014 states that ``OPM received legislative
permission to finance the CFC program via an administrative fee
charged to each participating charity and will begin collecting
the fee during fiscal year 2015.'' I asked our staff to look
into that and see where that legislative authorization was.
They couldn't find it. Could you help us out on that?
Mr. Lambert. I am not surprised they couldn't find it,
because that was included in our justification in error, that
language was.
Mr. Farenthold. I am obviously concerned about not running
up the Federal deficit by funding this program. But I am also
concerned that the administrative fee is going to cut out some
small charities.
Let me ask Mr. Berger, Charity Navigator, one of the
criteria you use in evaluating charities is how much actually
goes to the program and how much is eaten up in other expenses.
Would this OPM fee actually downgrade, potentially, their
rating as a charity that gives their money to the people and
projects they say?
Mr. Berger. I want to emphasize that overhead is one of a
number of things that need to be considered. So the overall
picture of a charity, its performance, its results, are most
important. Within that context, we certainly do think that the
higher overhead in some cases is a good indicator of
inefficiency and can be a problem that would impact the rating
of a charity if it became excessive.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. I am going to go to Ms. Pittman,
because she is a small, local charity. Just on a personal
level, and no offense to United Way, Ms. Hampton, but I tend to
like the local charities where I know the people involved and
can really see the impact that they are having. We heard some
testimony about the disparate impact these new rule changes
might have on smaller charities.
Can you spend maybe 30 seconds telling us some of the
negative impacts you see?
Ms. Pittman. Well, I will tell you, as you mentioned
earlier, the personal ``ask'' and the volunteer is important.
Just yesterday, I had an opportunity to go speak at the DEP and
because of a relationship that we had over five years ago, I go
at least every other year to give them an update of what is
going on locally with our organization. If I am not able to go
inside and talk to the Federal employees, that will definitely
impact what we do locally. That means that those dollars that
we are used to, depending on helping the homeless and low
income, those dollars will stop, they will cease.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I see my time is about
to expire. I want to give everybody on the panel a chance to go
with their first round of questioning before we have to go for
votes. So I will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to
thank Mr. Davis for his kindness. I served as his assistant, he
was my mentor before I took over ranking member here. I am sure
he ably conducted my duties in my absence. I want to thank him
and also Ms. Speier who delivered my opening statement.
I want to thank all of the panelists for coming forward and
helping the committee. This is a tremendous blessing we have in
so many Federal employees who are willing to donate. So I think
some of these recommended changes could be classified under the
no good deed goes unpunished category.
I just want to ask Mr. Lambert, have we looked at what
impact, now, we are in the third year of a pay freeze for
Federal employees. Third year, it started back in January of
2011. So we froze the pay of Federal employees. What impact has
that had on donations? Have we looked at that? I know they have
been dropping off in those years. Do we think any part of that
is the fact that we have withheld raises for our Federal
employees?
Mr. Lambert. Sir, we do not do any in-depth research
currently on why employees give or don't give. It is one of the
recommendations from the commission. And we are going to
implement that. It didn't require regulatory change, which is
why it wasn't seen by others in those regulatory changes we
proposed. But certainly I would have to think the economy and
the pay freeze has had an impact on donations.
Mr. Lynch. Furloughs, things like that that we are dealing
with. Okay. If we could, I would like to get an answer to that
question, if we can sort of quantify it. Not now, but in your
work.
A couple of the other issues jump out at me, one being, I
understand the desire to go to paperless donations. I
understand the reasoning behind that, and it is good for the
environment. However, sometimes ideology overtakes
practicality. A couple of things here. If I am running a home
like a Clara White Mission and I am trying to take care of
homeless veterans, and only 22 percent of the folks are
donating online, and 78 percent are donating with paper checks,
that is a huge part of my donation base.
Now, I wish everybody might be a little bit more up to
speed, but the plain fact of the matter is, it is not good for
the environment for my homeless veterans to not have a grant
that helps them either get retraining or get through rehab. It
is not good for my folks or families that are suffering from
Alzheimer's to not have a grant for their parents or
grandparents. It is not good for the environment, I have an
adolescent drug rehab facility in my district. It is not good
for their environment for those kids who are trying to get off
Oxycontin and heroin if there is no grant to make sure that
those 20 beds are open for those kids, and I have a line around
the block waiting to get in there.
So when we think about environment, I just hope that we are
not short-sighted. It is a wonderful ideal to pursue, but I
would not cut loose 78 percent of my donors because they are
sending me a check so I can do good work.
On top of that, you are asking letter carriers, the
National Association of Letter Carriers, to donate to your
campaign. You are asking postal workers to donate to your
campaign. It is antithetical for them to not use the mail. The
reason that they are being laid off is because people are
paying their bills online. Now you are asking those letter
carriers, those postal workers, don't use the mail, put
yourself out of work, take your donations and send them to us
online so that we can lay more of you off faster. That is just
not going to work. They are too smart for that. So we have to
back off a little bit, and do what we can to encourage e-
donations.
The last point I want to hit on is the disaster relief
piece. I think that is a wonderful idea. I know how patriotic
and loyal and good Federal employees are. I can see how they
would step up in a situation like the Oklahoma tornadoes or
even the terrorist attack in my district in Boston at the
marathon, or these firefighters that just were killed in such a
courageous line of work. I can see where folks would step up in
a tragedy like that, especially Federal employees.
Would this require a separate campaign? Is that how this is
envisioned? Because it lacks some detail here. Like if it was
outside the normal donation period, campaign period, would this
be a separate type of campaign? Because in my district, we are
getting 100-year storms every three weeks. So I can see where
the need for this would be spot-on. It is a great idea. I am a
little fuzzy on the details of how that might work.
Mr. Lambert. Congressman, it could be. Again, we are
seeking through the proposed regulations to get the authority
to be able to do that. Once we have that authority, we will
again work with all of our stakeholders to develop that
program. But you are right, it could be a year-round program
that is available immediately for Federal donors to be able to
start contributing to, and to get that money as fast as
possible to the local organizations that are responding to
those disasters.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. You have been very generous with my time,
Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. It is my pleasure.
We will now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here. I wish I could have heard you, but I have
had opportunity to review your statements.
Mr. Lambert, let me just ask, before I go back to some of
the train of thought that Mr. Lynch was going down, why did OPM
wait until after the public comment period to post comments on
the proposed regulation? Was it OPM's decision, consistent with
OMB's?
Mr. Lambert. Yes. We believe it was consistent with OMB
guidance. Our policy is to not post the comments until after
the comment period is over. So the comment period ended on June
7th, and after reviewing those comments and redacting PII, we
posted those comments, I believe it was by June 24th. So very
soon after.
Mr. Walberg. What is the rationale for the policy?
Mr. Lambert. I think it is that we don't want to bias the
comments that are being made. So we just try and hold off until
the end, and then post those. We don't get them all through
electronic means. A lot of them come in through the mail, so
they have to be kind of uploaded into the system and it takes a
little time.
Mr. Walberg. Interesting. Through the mail.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walberg. Let me ask you, how much will be saved by the
shift to electronic-only donations?
Mr. Lambert. I don't have a specific number, but I can tell
you shifting to an automated environment would be significant
savings. When you consider that we solicit over 4 million
donors, and that charity lists are produced, I guess pretty
close to 4 million, that is a lot of printing that happens. Not
too many contributions come in by cash or check. It is a small
percentage of what does come in. Probably around $20 million of
the $250 million that we raised.
So not having to print the brochure, not having to process
the cash or checks and not having to input pledge forms that we
get in the manual format, because all that information has to
be entered manually into systems then to determine who it
should go to and how it should be distributed.
So it would be a significant amount, but I don't have an
actual dollar amount.
Mr. Walberg. In light of that, do you have any idea of how
the dollar amount that decreased donations, overall amount
received from donations would result from this change?
Mr. Lambert. I don't know that it would decrease. Again,
cash and check donations are a very small percentage of what we
get. And we think a lot of those people, now again, automated
systems aren't available in all 160 of our campaigns. So right
now it might be a small percentage that are coming in that way.
We are seeing that this is growing every year.
But we also think that by implementing and going to an
automated fashion, we would attract a lot of new donors, new
younger donors, who are used to operating online. So they are
not going to contribute by filling out a pledge form. They want
to go online and be able to contribute, or they want to go to
their smart phone and use an app to contribute.
So we think we can attract a lot of new donors by going to
an automated giving environment.
Mr. Walberg. Okay, thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
They have called folks in the House, fortunately we are
about four minutes away from the Floor here. We have a nice,
quick way to get there. So I do believe we have time for Mr.
Davis' round of questions. We will now yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One of the reasons I think I like serving on this
subcommittee is the practical questions and answers that the
members give. As you were describing your wife and her
engagement and involvement in charitable activities, it sounded
like we had married two sisters.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. Charitable, charitable, charitable. I really
like the ranking member's economic outlook, that you don't
participate in a way to hurt yourself, that you try and help
yourself. I can certainly agree with his description of how
letter carriers might feel in terms of what they do.
Let me ask each one of you, there has been some expression
of concern about the proposed changes. And if you, Ms. Pittman
and Mr. Stein and Ms. Hampton and Mr. Berger could each just
indicate what is your greatest concern about the proposed
changes?
Ms. Pittman. I would say getting input from those
organizations that are on the front line, who need those
dollars and those dollars mean a whole lot. And not only that,
it allows us to leverage those dollars that we get from CFC to
get other dollars in the community. So it is very important,
and I would hate to see those dollars disappear because we
would have to cut back on services.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Stein?
Mr. Stein. It would be retaining the local component of the
campaign and retaining the giving options and testing the
change of the fee structure at the local level before
proceeding. And it would also be the establishment of an
advisory group, as Mr. Berger said, that could advise OPM going
forward with stakeholders, particularly fund-raising experts,
people that understand workplace giving, so we could proceed
with a cautious approach. These are charitable donations. Any
money lost is services that are denied.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Hampton?
Ms. Hampton. I would have to echo what Ms. Pittman and Mr.
Stein have said. But I also, it goes back to the local
presence. I also have concerns for the Federal employees,
because when they have that local presence, they also, they
themselves know where to go for help, and their families and
their co-workers. They seem to be a resource to others to tell
them where to go.
Oklahoma is a very disaster-prone State. I can tell you,
there were over 100 families off our military base that were
affected by these tornadoes, and they knew how to get help. And
it was thanks to the CFC campaign.
Mr. Stein. When I was on the CFC 50 Commission, one of the
things we kept saying, some of us, was, it shouldn't just be
about the 28 of us telling you what we think. It shouldn't be
me here telling you what I think. It really should be the
Federal employees that donate that have an ongoing voice, the
donors need to have a voice in this on an ongoing basis. That
is by far, far more than anything else.
And then also test, test, test. As you heard from a number
of the remarks, that there are a number of things where we
don't have the data, we don't know the answer. And that is
critical, to get those answers and to make informed decisions
as we move forward with any of these changes.
Mr. Davis. Let me ask, Mr. Berger, is it your hope that the
data you have received across the board, as people have
responded, would also indicate or would also have enough expert
opinion coming from people who are users of the service, or
people who are most involved, that that becomes very helpful to
OPM as it finalizes any new rules?
Mr. Berger. Absolutely. We value the comments that we have
gotten through this comment period with the proposed regs.
Certainly we will thoroughly consider those comments in
drafting the final version of the regs.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that we are doing away
with the local presence of the campaign. And that is not what
we are looking to do at all. We are not eliminating local
Federal coordinating committees. We are just changing the names
to regional coordinating committee to represent the larger
geographic district that they are going to represent. But they
still will have that local touch into the Federal agencies and
each of these local communities will still be able to do that
solicitation and that personal ask.
The automated means that we are trying to implement are
just a means to get those donations in. It is not to eliminate
that local touch, that local feel, the local interaction that
currently is there. We want that to continue. We realize the
importance of that, too.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, and as we conclude, I
do think we can sum up a lot of what we have heard here, we
don't want to take the local aspect out of it, we don't want to
place the Federal programs out of the reach of the smaller,
local charities. I think those are two of our big takeaways. We
have covered a very broad and important topic in a very small
amount of time.
But I do think we have gotten the information that we need.
We have a relatively thorough record here, with your written
testimony and questions. I would like to thank all the
witnesses for their involvement in their communities and their
States and our Country and in the world. Together we are all
making a difference, and we thank you for taking time to be
with us and educating us today. The subcommittee now stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]