The record of these hearings pretty well establishes a pattern of close relationships between ACTION officials and many of the beneficiaries of the first 12 grants under the National VISTA Grants Program (the grants made without the usual published notice of their availability). The first two grants made-both among the larger amounts awarded-were to organizations with which Ms. Tabankin had rather close associations (as a lecturer at Midwest Academy and as an early benefactor of ACORN through a grant from the Youth Project). While this record does not on its face show the kind of wrongful intent which would be necessary to establish unlawful conduct and I am glad that it does not-it does demonstrate vividly the kind of conduct of government officials which Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965, and in effect through all this time, was designed to guard against.

E.O. 11222 sets forth a code of ethics for federal employees. It is viewed as being of sufficient importance to be printed in full at the end of Sec. 201 of title 18 of the U.S. Code Annotated. It prohibits, among others, actions which "might result in or create the appearance of” giving preferential treatment to any organization or person, losing complete independence or impartiality of action, making a governmental decision outside official channels, or "affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the government". (Italic added.)

The appearance of preferential treatment is inescapable from the record of these hearings and the undisputed facts. The extraordinary attention given the ACORN grant, for example, both in the agency assistance in the original preparation of the grant application and the concern about the audit of the grant, raises all sorts of questions, many of which are unanswered.

We do not know, for example, whether it was on her own initiative that Ms. Diana London, Chief of the VISTA Program Development Branch, flew down to Little Rock with an assistant in June of 1977 to assist the ACORN people in preparing their grant, or whether it was at the direction of Ms. Tabankin. Certainly it was an extraordinary effort on the part of a Federal agency to assist an organization applying for a grant.

There are other questions at that point. On page 5 of Ms. Carolyn Carr's prepared testimony on behalf of “CORAP/ACORN" in this hearing she said that at a Washington meeting shortly after the session with Ms. London in Little Rock she delivered a copy of her draft proposal (the one worked out with the help of Ms. London) to "Marge Tabankin". But that would have flatly contradicted Ms. Tabankin's earlier sworn testimony about when she received the application. So the attorney who prepared the testimony had scratched out "Marge Tabankin" at that point and inserted "Diana London", describing the "error" as a "typo”. It may indeed have been a perfectly honest mistake of the kind we al make from time to time-but if it was, it might more accurately be described as a "Freudian error" rather than a "typographical error", by which we usually mean transposing or using the wrong letters in a word. It is the type of thing some of our more sensational journalists would probably describe as a "mysterious change”. But there is no mystery about the political nature of ACORN and its union organizing and lobbying activities, all of which were contributed to in a substantial way by having VISTA volunteers assigned to the organization—and all of which are forbidden by law as VISTA activities. The Report of the Committee on Appropriations spells that out in detail and the pertinent parts are included in this record, so I need not repeat them.

What must strike any fair observer, however, is the completely unsuccessful "hocus-pocus" of ACORN's Mr. Rathke in attempting to deny either the political activity of ACORN or the involvement in it of VISTA volunteers. Mr. Rathke claimed in effect that it was not really ACORN involved in political activity or union organizing, but ACORN-sponsored groups such as the ACORN Political Action Committee and the United Labor Organizations. With respect to the APAC the House Appropriations Investigative Staff report found that VISTA volunteers had been actively engaged in its activities, and with respect to the ULO the Appropriations staff investigators were unable to distinguish between ACORN and the labor organizing groups. In both instances, VISTA volunteers used to organize community groups for ACORN and collect their dues were contributing directly to the ability of ACORN to mount political action and union organizing activities.

It is futile to try to distinguish between organizing and collecting dues for a group which is going to carry on certain activities and active participation in such activities. Nobody would suggest that organizing a Republican or Democratic club would not constitute a political activity, even though involvement

did not go beyond organization and dues collecting. It is a distinction without a difference.

Nevertheless, it is on such meaningless distinctions that the National VISTA Grants Program is predicated, and the "new directions" for ACTION defended. The poor-and as it turns out, very often the not-so-poor-are to be organized into political-social/activist groups. Or to use VISTA's own euphemistic language: "People must be organized into effective groups so they may increase the strength of their voice as they advocate for their interests."

In short, the American taxpayer is footing the bill for political action by groups sharing the philosophy of and approved by Ms. Tabankin and Mr. Brown. That cannot conceivably have been the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation, and we ought to make that clear when we deal with the legislation on the House floor.

APPENDIX

RESPONSES BY SAMUEL Brown, Jr., DIRECTOR, ACTION AGENCY

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF CONGRESSMAN MILLER

Question. What happens to that program (Atlanta FICC project) this year? Do you have to get an additional $32,000, or does the local community have to pick them up?

Response for the record. The Atlanta Fixed Income Consumer Counseling project (FICC) was refunded for a second year at $20,000 using Title I, Part C demonstration monies. This funding occurred on April 1, 1979, for a one year period, or through March 30, 1979.

The satellite components of the Atlanta project, located at Athens and Savannah, Georgia, were funded for a second year at $10,000 each on April 1, 1979, or through March 30, 1979. Funds were awarded to the RSVP project grantees located in Athens and Savannah, using RSVP program monies.

ACTION does not have Title I, Part C monies to fund the Atlanta FICC in the future. Should the proposed Urban Program, and specifically the Fixed Income Consumer Counseling component of the Urban Volunteer Corps, be approved and funded by the Congress in FY 1980 the Atlanta project would of course be eligible to apply for funds.

ACTION's recommendation is that FICC and Technical Management Assistance projects in the proposed Urban Volunteer Corps receive Federal funding for a limited period of time (three to five years) with the intent that the community assume total responsibility for the activity thereafter.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF CONGRESSMAN HAWKINS

Question. Please furnish to the Committee other examples of ACTION projects generating activity that has returned tax dollars to the taxpayer.

Response for the record. In 1977 a study was conducted that showed that VISTA volunteers would, on the average, be paid $10,258 for the work they performed if privately employed. In that same year it cost ACTION $5,500 to place and maintain the average volunteer. From this it can be seen that a volunteers' performance worth was 187 percent of his/her cost.1

The cost of placing and maintaining a VISTA volunteer in FY 1979 is $6,266. Although no performance worth values are available for the current year, the ratio between the two can be expected to remain about the same.

In addition to the performance worth of VISTA volunteers, many ACTION programs reap additional benefits for the communities they serve.

On a project in New York State, VISTA and RSVP volunteers work hand-inhand serving the frail and handicapped elderly. The VISTA volunteers locate and do an initial assessment of the senior citizen and then match them with RSVP volunteers. In addition to the savings brought about by not having to institutionalize the frail elderly, some other benefits have been: a van adapted for handicapped persons, discount shopping cards for seniors, Title IX slots for some seniors as well as much craft material and clothing for the senior citizens.

On a Rhode Island project a VISTA volunteer assisted mothers who wanted to start child care services in their own homes. This would allow the women who were starting the child care services, as well as the mothers who would send their children to them, to get off welfare.

An arthritic man relied upon homemaker services, but due to shortages in that program, could get services only once a week. He now receives frequent visits (3 per week) from a Senior Companion which permit him to remain at home, rather than going to a nursing home.

In Belen, N.M., an RSVP volunteer assisted elderly citizens to apply for tax rebates to which they were entitled. In 1978 a total of $78,000 had been refunded to these seniors.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF CONGRESSMAN KRAMER

Question. Would you be so kind as to furnish the reports? (Quarterly Reports of the FICC and TMA projects)

1 National VISTA study fiscal year 1977, ACTION, Office of Policy and Planning Evaluation Division; Washington, D.C.

Response for the Record. All ACTION programs are required to submit quarterly program reports which are used as the primary monitoring vehicle. These reports are reviewed by ACTION headquarters and field staff to assess actual performance against planned activity stated in the original grant application. We have attached FICC quarterly reports from the Denver, Orange County, Springfield, Massachusetts and Atlanta demonstrations. In addition, quarterly reports for the management assistance demonstration in Cincinnati are being forwarded from ACTION's state program director in Columbus, Ohio and will be forwarded to you when received.

To date no evaluation has been conducted on the Cincinnati management assistance program because one $15,000 grant does not justify the expense. Through the quarterly reports and on-site monitoring visits we are acquiring sufficient information to document the success this program is having in meeting its objectives.

As stated in the testimony, no complete and final formal evaluation of the FICC demonstration projects are yet available. However, the Agency's Office of Evaluation has been in the process of conducting a FICC evaluation since November 1978. We are attaching an incomplete working paper which is a preliminary draft of the FICC evaluation currently being conducted. Under our evaluation procedures, additional steps must be taken to complete the report. More current data must be incorporated, site visit data from the California and Massachusetts FICC projects must be analyzed and included, and, based on the additional data, the report must be revised and finalized. The final report is due July 1, 1979. When the evaluation is completed we will be glad to transmit copies to you.

FIXED INCOME CONSUMER COUNSELING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT-OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, EVALUATION DIVISION, JANUARY 1979

INTRODUCTION

This brief report consists of very preliminary findings and has been written to provide timely feedback for the FICC conference. It has been written while the evaluation is still in progress after site visits to two of the four FICC demonstration sites, Denver and Georgia.

The methodology to date has used 10 interviews with FICC staff, 4 persons in FICC's sponsoring agencies, 21 volunteers (7 Denver, 14 Georgia), 21 persons from organizations which have sponsored or requested FICC sessions (7 Denver, 14 Georgia) and 10 others including ACTION State staff and recipients. Additionally, evaluation staff observed five FICC sessions. Data on FICC activities for the months of August to October were obtained from the monthly statistical reporting forms.

The fewer number of Denver interviews reflects the fact that Denver was used to test the interview methodology and will be visited for further interviews in late January. The Denver project was visited in November and Georgia (all three sites) in December. The California project will be visited in January.

IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

As FICC is a very new program it is too early to make definitive statements about its impact on recipients and requesting organizations. But it is clear that the program is having positive impact, and FICC appears to have great potential. The initial interviews have indicated that information and assistance imparted by FICC volunteers is useful to and being used by recipients. In some instances referral for and solution to specific personal problems have taken place, oftentimes as a program spinoff. In several instances recipients have contacted volunteer presenters after the completion of sessions and have contacted persons and organizations recommended by volunteer presenters.

Key elements in FICC appear to be the imparting of basic information (e.g., insurance needs, generic drugs, and comparison shopping) and the imparting of an awareness of rights and available services, particularly as they relate to individual specific problems. The following are examples of persons using and benefitting as a result of FICC-imparted information.

A senior citizen cancelled an unneeded health insurance policy and three others brought their policies to a person for a free evaluation.

Three high school work study students were using FICC budget forms, under advisement of their teacher, to manage money earned from their parttime jobs.