financial management of the funds, monitor the closing of the awards and grantee draw down. we're making progress, mr. chairman, we've got an opportunity to make even more. >> thanks. >> yes, sir. for us, i think it's about getting good, quality information and data for us to make the right decisions on when we issue a card. it's about continuing to get that information after we issue the cards so we can monitor the individual to ensure they haven't done something as to disqualify them. whether it's on a terrorism watch list or something through a criminal issue. i think the other thing that is going to make us better is installing readers. we believe that the coast guard, whom we're close partners with, made the right decision to take a risk-based approach and put readers where they need to be. and that -- we think that's going to be a measure in our program for our program considering it's a biometric credential. i think the last thing is share information. which we do on a daily basis. so we need good, quality information to make good decisions with. we need the informati

to recipient, the grantees. >> thank you. >> so, we did identify that as the particular compliance finding and the department's corrective action plan is to include that information going forward at the time of the award to the [inaudible]. that is the only recurring finding that we have. we had three prior year findings as it related to your single audit. the first one was [speaker not understood] for two different hiv programs. the finding was that the advance number different identifying number for federal award was not obtained from [speaker not understood] or the grantee as required by the award and also the monitoring, the [speaker not understood] monitoring required by -- for the city department was not performed for one out of nine of the recipients that we had tested. so, this year we went back and we were able to perform procedures to set aside that the government had implemented their corrective action plans for the current fiscal year. the second prior year finding related to indirect costs for the eecbg program that was administered by the department of the environment and the

we have some of our grantees that will be talking later here in the second panel. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to a continuing to working with congress, working with you all as it considers these important issues. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. hanson. miss rich? >> good afternoon, chairman franken and ranking member flake. my name is jessica rich and i'm the director of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission. i very much appreciate this opportunity to present the commission's testimony on consumer protection issues involving geolocation information and to offer initial views on the privacy protection act. protecting consumers privacy is a key focus of the commission's efforts and we commend the committee for its continued attention to this really important issue. products and services that use geolocation data make consumers' lives easier and more efficient as you've noted, chairman franken. consumers can get turn by turn directions to their destinations, find the closest bank, check the weather when th

financial management of the funds, monitor the closing of awards and grantee drawdown. we are making progress mr. chairman and we have an opportunity to make even more. >> thanks. mr. sadler. >> for us it's about getting good quality information and data for us to make the right decisions on when we issue a card. it's about continuing to get that information after we issue the cost and monitor the individual to be sure they haven't done something that is disqualified whether on a terrorism watch list or some type of criminal issue. i think the other thing that is going to make this better is installing readers. we believe that the coast guard who we are close partners with as with everyone else on the panel has made the right decision to take a risk-based approach and put readers where they need to be. and we think that's going to be a major improvement for our program. i think the last thing we have to do is share information which we do on a daily basis. so we need good quality information to make good decisions with. we need the information to keep on coming so we ca

as a work order to them and create a process that is competitive it create, and to generate new grantees. >> got it, thank you. >> i would support supervisor mar's proposed motion, to move funding to cultural equity grants, specifically, i think that is the better move. last year, we were given a commitment that there would be that the department would look into our concerns very and would take our concerns about equity within grants for the arts very seriously and we will work towards creating a more equitable process from the recent grant allegation and i don't believe that anything has changed much and i don't have confidence in allowing a process to continue, and to be over seen by the grants to the arts directly, i am much more comfortable with a commission that over sees cultural equity under the san francisco arts commission where the decisions are competitive and the decisions are voted on and they truly go to organization and we do have a problem and i am looking forward to a thorough discussion at the government audit and oversight committee which i chair to really dig into the

financial management of the funds, monitor the closing of awards and grantee drawdown, we're making progress, mr. chairman, and have an opportunity to make even more. >> mr. sadler. >> yes, sir. for us, i think it's about getting good quality information and data for us to make the right decisions on when we issue a card. it's about continuing to get that information after we issue the card so we can monitor the individual to ensure that they haven't done something to disqualify, whether it's on a terrorism watch list or through some type of criminal issue. i think the other thing that is going to make us better is installing readers. we believe that the coast guard, who are very close partners with us, we are with everyone else on the panel, has made the right decision to take a risk-based approach and put readers where they need to be. and we think that's going to be a major improvement for our program, considering it's a biometric credential. the last thing we have to do is share information. which we do on a daily basis. so we need good, quality information to make good decision

through the threat hazard identification and risk assessment process, we are asking grantees to do a lot of what you are talking about in terms of identifying capabilities and then using the investments to close the capability gaps, so we are moving in that direction. i'm not aware of a single analysis where we have put a price tag on what it would take to close the gap. we'll certainly take a look at that. >> i just think that the really important thing to know because you're going to have limited funds from here on out. send in the tlarz where the greatest risk is. >> i would just recommend you look that the. i don't know what the gao has any comments on that or not. >> if i might, we'll take a close look at that. i think the threat has identification risk assessment process, and the area maritime security working groups at the local and port level i think they're getting at a lot of that, but i agree with you we could make it more progress. >> if i could just -- until your points, the first had to do with how do you account for a risk down with previous grant p money in determinin

we've taken a number of steps to assist grantees in the spend down. one, we remind them quarterly. we're in touch. we've shotened the period of grants to two years. but your question was where are we? in august of '12, for -- and we follow up in writing with these numbers, but for the program years, '08 to '11, 80% of the available funds were not yet drawn down. a year later, for fy 8-12. of course every year one goes off the books. we move the needle down to 44% of funds not being drawn down, and we did a check at the end of april. right now we're at 39.3%. not yet drawn down from '08 to '13. >> i'll have to recess. senator carper will be back in a moment. >> thank you, senator. let see if we can see if there's any consensus on the metrics that we're using. how do we measure success. let start with you, miss mclean. what are the metrics we are using and ought to be using. how are we doing? >> mr. chairman -- i think there is several -- there are several indicators that evidence and success in securing the ports. i would note in the last seven years, our relationships are programs

in addition there is a 1.5% cost of doing business increase to all grantees. and the mayor is proposing $75,000 to fund the family friendly workplace ordinance out yeev in partnership with community based advocacy based organization. next slide. ~ outreach [speaker not understood] prevention grants program, our single largest program, together work to support survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. with those increases i just mentioned, the total becomes 4.65 million. and the pie chart reflects how those monies are allocated.

in addition there is a 1.5% cost of doing business increase to all grantees. and the mayor is proposing $75,000 to fund the family friendly workplace ordinance out yeev in partnership with community based advocacy based organization. next slide. ~ outreach [speaker not understood] prevention grants program, our single largest program, together work to support survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. with those increases i just mentioned, the total becomes 4.65 million. and the pie chart reflects how those monies are allocated. about 48% fund crisis lines, legal services, intervention and advocacy programs. about 30% funds bed night and domestic violence transitional programs, a quarter of the funds go to support prevention efforts. i want to acknowledge beverly up ton who is in the auen

there was a 68% overlay of grants for the arts [speaker not understood] over the cultural equity grantees. that's money on top -- money for the arts grant on top of the grant from the cultural equity program. i think that during the last few years there's been kind of, especially during recession years, the money has helped -- there hasn't been increased dollars for grants for the arts to include more programs. but i do believe that it is something that we all care about, that there is equitable distribution of funds to all cultural organizations. and i think that i look forward to that hearing in july to discuss collaboratively with the board of supervisors on thing that we can do to make sure organizations that we have equitable distribution of funds. >> i know that commitments were made last year at this time for -- from your office and michelle [speaker not understood] from grants for the arts that equity and fairness, more of an even playing field for some of the smaller younger upcoming arts groups that serve populations that both supervisor breed and i and others referenced. i know

prosecution has vastly more resources, more experts available, more laboratories, they can go to the fbi in granteecoe, get ex -- quantico. they have the availability and have availed themselves of jury consultants in the o.j. case and in phil spectre's case. they have a level playing field and a significant advantage when it comes to resources. >> certainly the state resources. it seems like a lot of high-profile clients had good representation. you know, throughout the book you talk about this other issue. how all of this does seem to take us away from idealistic notions of a fair trial. you know is there something wrong with a system that can be manipulated by figuring out where a jury will go. >> no, because the truth is our system of advocacy relies on the prosecution and the defense being the strongest advocate for the clients, trying, as it were to manipulate the jury towards a verdict. it's part of the system of advocacy. we have a pure notion of fairness that essentially everything will happen, and that's not the way human judgment is, we rely on experiences to decide the cases. if we bett

montana has also a grantee of the office of violence against women. that grant comes along with technical assistance that can enable them to mount kind of all listed responses on campus. another thing that i think is quite important is data collection and reporting because a university can only get a sense of whether it has a problem by keeping track of the problems and the complaints and the reports that receives. reporting, to us, in cases in which we have agreements also enables us to do any kind of follow up, work with them to ensure the provisions of our agreement are being respected. >> aren't required to do that under present law? >> the clear reactor requires them to report campus crimes. one of the things that there has been a fair amount of discussion about is the overlap between perry and title ix. the to do not fit together exactly. >> let me just jump in. i would love it if you would help us with language that would unify the requirements on reporting of title ix. when we have this overlap that does not fit well, then when it does not wor

through the threat hazard identification and risk assessment process, we are asking grantees to do a lot of what you're talking about in terms of identifying capabilities and using the investments to close the capability gaps so we are moving in that direction. but i'm not aware of a single analysis where we put a price tag on by port what it would take to close the gap in every port in one level. we'll look at that. >> i think that would be really important to know because you're going to have limited funds from here on out. it's not going to change. sending the dollars -- this is all risk bagsed, right? >> yes. >> acceptsending the dollars whe greatest risk is should be the priority. i don't know if the gao has any comments on that. >> if i might, we'll take a close look at that. i think the threat hazard identification risk assessment process and the maritime security working groups at the local -- at the port level are getting at a lot of that. but i agree we can make even more progress. >> if i can just on two of your points, first had to do with, how do you account for risk bou

system where our program staff on our routine basis look at every award, look at the history of the grantee, the history of the outcomes achieved, their financial measures from draw down, rate of expenditure, rate of obligation. that, then, is reviewed. we do prioritize based on the risk we see in their management of the grants all the way up to desk reviews where we request a lot of information from grantees and site visits. what i would tell you, senator, i look forward to continue working with you and continue to get the data we need to form more effective measures. i agree with you that everybody can point to the examples, and they really are some stunning camp -- camexamples of how usef and effective it is. we will continue to refine our measures to get that data. >> yeah. as i noted, i think it's improved. i think we still, you know, my underlying concern somebody is going to be sitting up here ten years from now and the amount of money spent on the type of program isn't going to be there. so how we spend the money today is really important. because there's going to come a time, i mea

i will look forward if i am confirmed to ensuring that we're vigilant with our grantees with the nsp program and other programs as well. >> ms. wertheimer, we have discussed the steps you plan to take if confirmed. to address potential conflicts of interest relating to your past work on behalf of clients as well as potential conflicts with respect to your husband's work. can you please describe these steps to the committee? >> absolutely. thank you, senator. when the president -- when i was advised that the president sought to nominate me, i appreciated the need to get ahead of potential conflicts of interest. so i spoke at length with the designated officer of the federal housing finance agency and explained my strong interest in avoiding either actual or perceived conflicts of interest or even the appearance of a conflict. so to that and the designated ethics officer of the agency in consultation with the office of government ethics and i accrue that i would refuse myself entirely from my matter in which my law firm, appears before the agency or before the fhfaiog so not just limit

violence against against women and the department of justice which is what they do at the campus grantees. there are a number of different ways to do it but the training should be as uniform as possible and therefore it should be controlled at a fairly detailed level by the federal government and should be required. and you also deal with the funding issues because if the federal government is providing that training in schools don't have to come up with the money to provide it themselves. and from my perspective that is how you get -- that is part of the way you get these various messages and information about multiple goals and the fact that there are title ix rights as well as the right to be free from crime and things of that sort. >> i agree with nancy and something in terms of the administrative process that we have discussed i really recommend looking to the association of student conduct administrators for best practices. i recognize clearly their outlier institutions. they are institutions not doing the right thing. >> there a lot of them doing the right thing. >> there are a lot

and i look forward if i am confirmed to ensuring that we're vigilant with our grantees with the nsp program and other programs as well. >> ms. wertheimer, we have discussed the steps you plan to take if confirmed to address potential conflicts of interest relating to your past work on behalf of clients as well as potential conflicts with respect to your husband's work. can you please describe these steps to the committee? >> absolutely. thank you, senator. when the president -- when i was advised that the president sought to nominate me, i appreciated the need to get ahead of potential conflicts of interest. and so i spoke at length with the designated ethics officer of the federal housing finance agency and explained my strong interest in avoiding either actual or perceived conflicts of interest, or the -- or even the appearance of a conflict. so to that end, the designated ethics officer of the agency, in consultation with the office of government ethics, and i agreed that i would recuse myself entirely from any matter in which my law firm, willmer, cutler, pickering hail and dohr, appear

who is identified by office vw, and the justice department, which is what they do with the campus grantees. there are a number of different ways to do it, but the training should be as uniform as possible and therefore it should come -- it should be controlled in -- at a fairly detailed level by the federal government, and should be required. you also deal with the funding issues, because if the federal government is providing that training then schools don't have to come up with the money to provide it themselves. you know, from my perspective, that's part of the way you get these various messages and information about multiple goals and the fact there are title ix rights as well as the right to be free from crime and things of that sort. >> i agree with nancy, and something that i -- in terms of the administrative process that we've discussed, i would really recommend looking to the association of student conduct administrators for best practices. i recognize clearly there's outlier institutions, institutions that are not -- >> but there are a lot that are doing the right thing. >> there

we have some of our grantees that are going to be talking here later on in the second panel. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to continuing to working with congress, working with you all as it considers these important issues. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hanson. ms. rich? >> good afternoon, chairman franken and ranking member flake. my name is jessica rich and i'm the director of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission. i very much appreciate this opportunity to present the commission's testimony on consumer protection issues involving geolocation information and to offer some initial views on the draft location privacy protection act. protecting consumers' privacy is a key focus of commission's efforts and we commend the committee for its continued attention to this really important issue. products and services that use geolocation data make consumers' lives easier and more efficient as you've noted, chairman franken. consumers can get turn by turn directions to their destinations, find the closest bank, check the we

montana is also a grantee of the office of violence against women. and that grant comes along with technical assistance that can enable them to mount kind of holistic response on campus. another thing that i think is quite important is data collection and reporting because a university can only get a sense of whether it has a problem by keeping track of the problems and the complaints and reports that it receives. reporting to us in cases in which we have agreements also enables us to do any kind of follow-up work with them to ensure the provisions of our agreement are being respected. >> aren't they required to do that under present law? >> the clearry act requires them to report campus crimes and one of the things there's been a fair amount of discussion about is what's the overlap between cleary and title 9? the two don't fit together exactly precisely. >> let me jump in here. i would love it if you would help us with language that would unify the requirements on reporting of title 9 in the cleary act. that would be a great thing we can do to clar

over 10 agencies within the thertment that provide funding to grantee that state and local level.theeates a deficiency federal level in state and local level because they are having to oftenor multiple brands, very small amounts, which creates an administrative burden. we have asked the department to look at that and see if there is a way to consolidate the funding to better use the limited resources we have. host: the last piece of the report, the duplication in the current report. dod has task force, a different task force to find pow mia's. a separate control centers at shriver's air force base in colorado operating 10 satellite programs. these are issues you seen in the past. guest: you have multiple agencies providing the same service from the same population. in the case of the p.o.w., eight from lack of clear role in effort we found duplicate woody's. found duplicate organizations. you can see how it lead to duplication if it is not properly coordinated. host: gal's role is to do the role is to do's the survey and report back. your responsibility is not to whittle down the

montana is a grantee of the office of violence against women. comes along with technical assistance that can enable them to mount a holistic response on campus. another thing that is quite portentous data collection and a universitycause can only get a sense of whether it has a problem by keeping track of the problem and the complaint and the reports that it receives. reporting to us in cases in which we have agreements also enables us to do any kind of ensure theo provisions of our agreement are being respected. >> aren't they required to do that under present law? act requires and report campus crimes. there has been a fair amount to discussion about what is the overlap between that and title ix? the two do not fit together exactly precisely. jump in here. i would love it if you would help us with language that would unify the requirements on according of title ix in the prairie act. that will be a great thing we could do to clarify that data way,ction anyway -- in a because we have this overlap but does not sit well, we say we were following