No Child Left Behind Act
Education Actions May Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services Gao ID: GAO-07-738T April 18, 2007The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools that receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses early implementation of SES, including how (1) SES participation changed in recent years; (2) providers work with districts to deliver services; (3) states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S. Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES implementation. This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and also provides information on actions Education has taken that respond to our recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all states and a nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to offer SES, visited four school districts, and interviewed SES providers.
SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation have included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as does attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts and students with disabilities. To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery, SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the extent of these efforts varied, as some providers did not have any contact with teachers in almost 40 percent of districts or with parents in about 30 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and district and school officials reported that greater involvement of schools can improve SES delivery. While states' monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts also increased their oversight role. However, many states continue to struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers' effect on student academic achievement. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification and assistance in certain areas, such as evaluating SES. Many states also voiced interest in Education's pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, including the recently expanded pilot allowing certain districts identified as in need of improvement to act as providers. Since GAO's report was published, Education has taken several actions to help improve SES implementation and monitoring, such as disseminating promising practices and guidance, and meeting with states, districts, and providers.
GAO-07-738T, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions May Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-738T
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions May Help Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services'
which was released on April 18, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Education Actions May Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of
Supplemental Educational Services:
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-07-738T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-738T, a report to Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires districts with schools
that receive Title I funds and that have not met state performance
goals for 3 consecutive years to offer low-income students supplemental
educational services (SES), such as tutoring. This testimony discusses
early implementation of SES, including how (1) SES participation
changed in recent years; (2) providers work with districts to deliver
services; (3) states monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) the U.S.
Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports SES
implementation.
This testimony is based on an August 2006 report (GAO-06-758) and also
provides information on actions Education has taken that respond to our
recommendations. For the report, GAO surveyed all states and a
nationally representative sample of districts with schools required to
offer SES, visited four school districts, and interviewed SES
providers.
What GAO Found:
SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years
2003-2004 and 2004-2005. District actions to increase participation
have included greater efforts to notify parents. However, timely and
effective notification of parents remains a challenge, as does
attracting providers to serve certain areas and students, such as rural
districts and students with disabilities.
To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery,
SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district
instruction and communicate with teachers and parents. However, the
extent of these efforts varied, as some providers did not have any
contact with teachers in almost 40 percent of districts or with parents
in about 30 percent of districts. Both providers and district officials
experienced challenges related to contracting and coordination of
service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in school
facilities, providers and district and school officials reported that
greater involvement of schools can improve SES delivery.
While states‘ monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement
SES had been limited in past years, more states reported conducting on-
site reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006.
Districts also increased their oversight role. However, many states
continue to struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are
improving student achievement. While a few states have completed
evaluations, none provides a conclusive assessment of SES providers‘
effect on student academic achievement.
Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and
compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support
through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education
monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES
provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy
clarification and assistance in certain areas, such as evaluating SES.
Many states also voiced interest in Education‘s pilot programs that
increase SES flexibility, including the recently expanded pilot
allowing certain districts identified as in need of improvement to act
as providers. Since GAO‘s report was published, Education has taken
several actions to help improve SES implementation and monitoring, such
as disseminating promising practices and guidance, and meeting with
states, districts, and providers.
What GAO Recommends:
The GAO report recommended that Education clarify guidance and provide
information on promising practices, consider expanding flexibility and
clarifying state authority, and collect information on district SES
expenditures and provide evaluation assistance. Education generally
supported GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-738T].
To view the full product including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at
(202)512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to present information from our August
2006 report on early implementation of the supplemental educational
services (SES) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA).[Footnote 1] While our September testimony before the full
committee provided an overview of that report,[Footnote 2] at your
request, today I will expand on SES access and delivery; state and
federal oversight of SES implementation and quality; and recent U.S.
Department of Education (Education) actions to improve SES
implementation.
In school year 2006-2007, Title I of NCLBA--the most recent
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--
provided $12.7 billion in federal funds to more than 50,000 public
schools nationwide in order to improve the education of low-income
students. When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet state
performance goals designated under NCLBA for 2 years, the district must
offer students the choice of transferring to another school in the
district that is not in improvement status. When a school receiving
Title I funds does not meet state NCLBA performance goals for 3 or more
years, the district must offer SES to all of the low-income students
enrolled in the school. SES includes tutoring and remediation that are
provided outside of the regular school day by a state-approved
provider, such as a for-profit company or a community-based
organization. Districts with schools required to offer school choice
and SES must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I
funds to provide choice-related transportation and SES for eligible
students in these schools.
While states set NCLBA performance goals and schools are judged on the
performance of their students, responsibility for SES implementation is
primarily shared by states and school districts. Specifically, states
are responsible for reviewing provider applications to assess each
provider's record of effectiveness and program design and approving,
monitoring, and evaluating providers. Districts are responsible for
notifying parents of their child's eligibility for SES and contracting
with the state-approved providers that parents select for services.
Although some districts were first required to offer SES in school year
2002-2003, others did not have to offer SES until 2003-2004 or after,
and therefore, states and districts are at different stages of
implementing the SES provisions. My testimony today will focus on early
implementation of SES. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how the
proportion of eligible students receiving services has changed in
recent years and actions that have been taken to increase
participation; (2) how providers are working with districts and schools
to provide services that increase student achievement; (3) the extent
to which states and districts are monitoring and evaluating SES; and
(4) how Education monitors state SES implementation and assists state
and district efforts.
In summary, the SES participation rate increased from 12 to 19 percent
of eligible students between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
While districts have provided written information notifying parents of
SES and taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges
remain, such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner.
Regarding local SES implementation, while providers took steps to align
their curriculum with district instruction and communicate with
teachers and parents to promote improved student academic achievement,
both providers and districts experienced contracting and coordination
difficulties. In part because SES is often delivered in school
facilities, providers as well as district and school officials reported
that involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES
delivery and coordination. Further, while state monitoring of SES had
been limited, at the time of our review, more states reported taking or
planning to take steps to monitor district and provider efforts to
implement SES in school year 2005-2006 than had done so in 2004-2005.
However, monitoring continues to be a challenge, and states also
continue to struggle to develop meaningful evaluations of SES
providers. Regarding federal oversight of SES implementation, although
several Education offices monitor various aspects of SES activity
across the country and provide support, states and districts reported
needing additional assistance and flexibility with program
implementation.
Our August report made several recommendations to Education to help
states and districts implement SES more effectively and use SES funding
to provide services to the maximum number of students and to improve
federal and state monitoring of SES. Education expressed appreciation
for the report's recommendations and has made significant progress
toward addressing some of them.
Our prior report was based on a Web-based survey of SES coordinators in
all 50 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico, and a
mail survey of SES coordinators in a nationally representative sample
of districts with schools required to offer SES. Our district survey
sample included all 21 districts required to offer SES with 100,000 or
more total enrolled students. Seventy-seven percent of district SES
coordinators, including all coordinators from districts with 100,000 or
more enrolled students, and all state SES coordinators responded to the
surveys. In addition, we conducted site visits to one school district
in each of four states (Woodburn, Ore; Newark, N.J; Chicago, Ill; and
Hamilton County, Tenn.) during which we interviewed state, district,
and school officials. We also conducted interviews with 22 SES
providers in our site visit districts and others. In addition, we spoke
with staff at Education involved in SES oversight and implementation
and reviewed Education's data on SES. In our surveys and other data
collection efforts, we asked questions about SES implementation during
specific school years; therefore, all years cited refer to school
years. We conducted the review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Background:
Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states and
schools to improve the academic performance of their students so that
all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under NCLBA,
each state creates its own content standards, academic achievement
tests, and proficiency levels, and establishes and implements adequate
yearly progress (AYP) goals for districts and schools. Students in
specified grades are tested annually to determine whether districts and
schools are making AYP.
Title I[Footnote 3] authorizes federal funds to help elementary and
secondary schools establish and maintain programs that will improve the
educational opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under
NCLBA, districts are required to implement specific interventions in
schools receiving federal Title I funds when they do not meet state AYP
goals (see table 1). Students from low-income families who attend
schools receiving Title I funds that have missed AYP goals for 3
consecutive years are eligible for SES. Because some schools receiving
Title I funds had not met state goals set under ESEA before the
enactment of NCLBA, these schools were first required to offer SES in
2002-2003, the first year of NCLBA implementation.
Table 1: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly Performance
Goals over Time:
Number of years school misses performance goals: First year missed;
School status in the next year: N/A; NCLBA interventions for Title I
schools: None.
Number of years school misses performance goals: Second year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement - First Year;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice.
Number of years school misses performance goals: Third year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs Improvement - Second Year;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Fourth year missed;
School status in the next year: Corrective Action[B];
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Also required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Fifth year missed;
School status in the next year: Planning for Restructuring[C];
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Also required to offer school
choice and SES[A].
Number of years school misses performance goals: Sixth year missed;
School status in the next year: Implementation of Restructuring;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Also required to offer school
choice and SES.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] Students who opt to transfer to another school in the district that
is not in improvement status are not eligible to receive SES, as they
are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its
students.
[B] Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is
designed to remedy the school's persistent inability to make adequate
progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and
mathematics.
[C] Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving
fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's
staffing and governance. For example, some schools may be converted to
charter schools during restructuring.
[End of table]
Under NCLBA, SES primarily include tutoring provided outside of the
regular school day that is designed to increase the academic
achievement of economically disadvantaged students in low-performing
Title I schools. These services must consist of high-quality, research-
based instruction that aligns with state educational standards and
district curriculum. SES providers may include nonprofit entities, for-
profit entities, school districts, public schools, public charter
schools, private schools, public or private institutions of higher
education, educational service agencies, and faith-based organizations.
However, a district classified as needing improvement or in corrective
action because it failed to meet state AYP goals for several years may
not be an SES provider, though its schools that are not identified as
needing improvement may provide services. In addition, individual
teachers who work in a school or district identified as in need of
improvement may be hired by any state-approved provider to serve as a
tutor in its program.
A district must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I
allocation to fund both SES and transportation for students who elect
to attend other schools under school choice. After ensuring all
eligible students have had adequate time to opt to transfer to another
school or apply for SES, the district may reallocate any unused set-
aside funds to other Title I activities. For each student receiving
SES, a district must spend an amount equal to its Title I per-pupil
allocation or the actual cost of provider services, whichever is
less.[Footnote 4]
Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and
providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I
regulations, and SES guidance outline the roles and responsibilities
states, school districts, service providers, and parents have in
ensuring that eligible students receive additional academic assistance
through SES (see table 2).
Table 2: SES Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities:
Stakeholder: State;
Roles and responsibilities: Set criteria and standards for approving
providers; Identify, approve, and maintain public list of providers;
Ensure that the list of approved providers includes organizations that
are able to serve students with disabilities and limited English
proficiency; Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of provider
services; Monitor district SES implementation; Develop and use policy
criteria for withdrawing providers from state-approved list, including
if;
* provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase student
proficiency relative to state academic content and achievement
standards;
* provider fails to adhere to applicable health, safety, and civil
rights requirements.
Stakeholder: School district;
Roles and responsibilities: Provide an annual notice to parents, which
must identify available providers; describe the enrollment process and
timeline; describe the services, qualifications, and demonstrated
effectiveness of each provider; and be easily understandable; Help
parents choose a provider, if requested; Protect the privacy of
students eligible for and receiving services; Calculate and establish
the SES per pupil allocation if not determined by the state; Determine
which students should receive services if more students apply for SES
than can be served with available funds; Enter into contracts with
providers; Ensure eligible students with disabilities and eligible
students with limited English proficiency may participate in SES; At
the discretion of the state, may be involved in collecting data from
providers to assist state monitoring and evaluation activities.
Stakeholder: Providers;
Roles and responsibilities: Provide services in accordance with
district agreements; Enable students to attain their individual
achievement goals; Measure student progress and inform parents and
teachers of progress made by students; Ensure non- disclosure of
student data to the public; Provide services consistent with applicable
health, safety, and civil rights laws; Provide services that are
secular, neutral, and non-ideological.
Stakeholder: Parents;
Roles and responsibilities: Choose a provider from the state-approved
list; Are encouraged to be actively involved in their child's SES
program.
Source: GAO, per P.L.107-110, 34 C.F.R. Part 200, or the U.S.
Department of Education, Supplemental Educational Services Non-
Regulatory Guidance, June 2005.
[End of table]
SES Participation Has Increased as Districts Have Taken Actions to Ease
Access, but Challenges Remain:
Nationally, the SES participation rate increased substantially from 12
percent of eligible students receiving SES in 2003-2004 to 19 percent
in 2004-2005. In addition, the number of students receiving services
almost quadrupled between 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 from approximately
117,000 to 430,000 students nationwide, based on the best available
national data at the time of our work.[Footnote 5] This increase may be
due in part to the increase in the number of schools required to offer
SES over that time period.
While approximately 1,000 of the over 14,000 districts nationwide were
required to offer SES in 2004-2005, SES recipients were concentrated in
a small group of large districts--56 percent of recipients attended
school in the 21 districts required to offer SES with more than 100,000
total enrolled students (see fig. 1). Further, about 20 percent of the
districts required to offer SES in 2004-2005 had no students receiving
services. A majority of these districts were rural or had a total
enrollment of fewer than 2,500 students.
Figure 1: School Districts Required to Offer SES in 2004-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO>
[End of figure]
Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain
characteristics. For example, districts reported that most students
receiving services were among the lower-achieving students in school.
Further, over half of SES recipients were elementary school students in
the majority of districts, and about 60 percent of schools required to
offer SES in 2004-2005 were elementary schools.[Footnote 6] In some
districts, the majority of SES recipients were African-American or
Hispanic. In about 40 percent of districts, over half of SES recipients
were African-American, and in about 30 percent of districts, over half
of SES recipients were Hispanic. However, districts varied in the
percentage of students with limited English proficiency receiving
services, and students with disabilities made up less than 20 percent
of students receiving services in about two-thirds of districts.
In order to increase SES participation, districts have taken multiple
actions. For example, in line with the federal statutory requirement
that districts notify parents in an understandable format of the
availability of SES, over 90 percent of districts provided written
information in English, held individual meetings and/or phone
conversations with parents, and encouraged school staff to talk with
parents about SES. See table 3 for a list of district actions taken to
encourage participation.
Table 3: District Actions Taken to Encourage SES Participation (2005-
2006):
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided written
information in English to parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 99.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Held individual meetings
and/or phone conversations with interested parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 95.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Encouraged principals,
teachers, or other school staff to talk with parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 93.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Offered supplemental
services in locations that are easily accessible to students after
school (e.g., on or near the school campus);
Estimated percentage of districts: 90.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Offered SES at a variety
of times (e.g., after school, weekends, summer break);
Estimated percentage of districts: 79.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Lengthened the period of
time parents have to submit applications for SES;
Estimated percentage of districts: 79.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Held events where
parents of eligible students can learn about providers;
Estimated percentage of districts: 78.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided written
information in language(s) other than English about SES to parents;
Estimated percentage of districts: 72.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Made public
announcements (e.g., television, billboards, newspaper ads, school
newsletters);
Estimated percentage of districts: 67.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Worked with a local
community partner to raise awareness of SES (e.g., Parent Information
Resource Center);
Estimated percentage of districts: 39.
Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year: Provided or arranged for
transportation of students receiving SES to off-site providers;
Estimated percentage of districts: 33.
Source: GAO analysis of district survey results.
[End of table]
Despite these promising approaches to encourage participation,
notifying parents in a timely manner remains a challenge for some
districts. An estimated 58 percent of districts did not notify parents
that their children may be eligible to receive SES before the beginning
of the 2005-2006 school year, which may be due in part to delays in
states reporting which schools were identified for
improvement.[Footnote 7] Effectively notifying parents is also a
challenge for some districts. For example, officials in all four
districts we visited reported difficulties contacting parents to inform
them about SES in part because some families frequently move and do not
always update their mailing addresses with districts. In addition, some
providers we interviewed indicated that parental notification letters
are confusing and poorly written or not accompanied by additional
outreach.
Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting more
SES providers for certain areas and groups of students. Specifically,
some rural districts surveyed indicated that no students received
services last year because of a lack of providers in the area.[Footnote
8] Ensuring there are providers to serve students with limited English
proficiency or disabilities has also been a challenge for some
districts. We estimate that there were not enough providers to meet the
needs of students with limited English proficiency in one-third of
districts and not enough providers to meet the needs of students with
disabilities in one-quarter of districts.
Providers Have Taken Steps to Deliver Quality Services, but Local
Implementation Challenges Include Contracting and Coordination:
To promote improved student academic achievement and service delivery,
providers took steps to gather information on district curriculum and
student needs. Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum with
district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and
communicating with the teachers of participating students. However,
when providers did not hire district teachers, the frequency of contact
between tutors and teachers varied, and we estimate that some providers
did not contact teachers in almost 40 percent of districts in 2004-
2005. Regarding communication with parents, providers reported mailing
information as well as meeting with parents over the phone and in-
person to communicate information on student needs and progress;
however, the frequency of communication with parents also varied.
Specifically, we estimate that some providers did not contact parents
in about 30 percent of districts in 2004-2005. Despite these
communication challenges, an estimated 90 percent of districts
indicated that their working relationships with providers during 2004-
2005 were good, very good, or excellent. In addition, many of the
providers we interviewed during our site visits also reported having
positive working relationships with district officials.
While providers have taken some steps to deliver quality services and
establish positive relationships with districts, both providers and
districts experienced contracting and coordination difficulties.
Regarding contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said
certain districts imposed burdensome contract requirements, limited the
marketing they could do to parents and students, or restricted the use
of school facilities. Districts also reported that contracting is a
challenge. We estimate that negotiating contracts with providers was a
moderate, great, or very great challenge in about 40 percent of
districts nationwide. For example, district officials at three of the
sites we visited expressed concern about their lack of authority to set
parameters in provider contracts around costs and program design, such
as tutor-to-student ratios and total hours of instruction.
Specifically, Chicago, Ill., district officials expressed concern about
the variation among providers in the hours of instruction and cost of
services because the district does not have sufficient funds to serve
all eligible students, and officials would like to maximize the number
of students they can serve.
Coordination of service delivery has also been a challenge for
providers and districts, and sometimes these coordination difficulties
have resulted in service delays. For example, services were delayed or
withdrawn in certain schools in three of the districts we visited
because not enough students signed up to meet the providers' enrollment
targets and districts were not aware of these targets.[Footnote 9]
Coordination difficulties also occurred during the enrollment process.
Though districts are responsible for arranging SES for eligible
students, in two districts we visited, both the district and providers
sent enrollment forms to parents, which caused confusion among parents
as well as additional work for the district staff processing the forms.
In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers
and officials in the districts and schools we visited reported that
involvement of school administrators and teachers can improve SES
delivery and coordination. Although schools do not have federally
defined responsibilities for administering SES, many officials said SES
implementation is hindered when school officials are not involved. For
example, some providers we interviewed said that a lack of involvement
of school principals can make it difficult for them to coordinate with
schools to encourage student participation. In addition, Illinois and
Oregon school principals told us they found it difficult to manage
afterschool activities because they didn't have sufficient authority to
oversee SES tutors operating in their buildings at that time. While
helping to administer the SES program adds additional administrative
burden on schools, school officials in all four of the districts we
visited said they welcomed a stronger or more clearly defined role.
State and District SES Monitoring Is Increasing Though It Remains a
Challenge, and Many States Continue to Struggle with Developing
Evaluations:
While monitoring of SES had been limited, more states reported taking
steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to implement SES in
2005-2006. For example, more states conducted or planned to conduct on-
site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-2006 than had done so
in 2004-2005. In addition to state efforts to monitor providers,
districts have also taken a direct oversight role, and their monitoring
activities similarly increased during this time. For example, while we
estimate that less than half of districts collected information from
parents, school staff, on-site reviews, and students to monitor
providers in 2004-2005, 70 percent or more were collecting or planning
to collect information from these sources in 2005-2006.
States and districts both collected information on several aspects of
SES programs, such as elements related to service delivery and use of
funds, to monitor providers (see table 4). For example, 94 percent of
states monitored or planned to monitor parent or student satisfaction
with providers, and 93 percent of districts monitored or planned to
monitor billing and payment for services and student attendance
records. District assistance with monitoring is likely welcomed by
states, as over two-thirds of states reported that on-site monitoring
of providers has been a challenge. During our site visits, officials
explained that both state and district capacity to implement SES is
limited, because there is typically one staff person at each level
coordinating all aspects of SES implementation, and sometimes that
person may also oversee implementation of additional federal education
programs.
Table 4: Percentage of States and Districts That Reviewed Specified
Program Elements to Monitor Providers in 2005-2006:
Program element: Parent/student satisfaction with a provider;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 27;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 67;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 94;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 34;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 57;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 91.
Program element: Provider communication with teachers and parents;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 37;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 56;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 92;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 46;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 43;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 89.
Program element: Extent to which a provider's program, as enacted,
reflects its program design, as outlined in its application to the
state;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 19;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 73;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 92;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 30;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 41;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 70.
Program element: Evidence of meeting academic achievement goals as
stated on student learning plan;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 23;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 65;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 88;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 28;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 60;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 88.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on any
statewide assessment;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 15;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 71;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 87;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 26;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 65;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 91.
Program element: Alignment of provider curriculum with district/school
curriculum or instruction;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 25;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 62;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 87;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 35;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 39;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 74.
Program element: Student attendance records;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 27;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 56;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 83;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 67;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 25;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 93.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on
provider assessments;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 27;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 56;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 83;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 39;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 52;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 91.
Program element: Protection of student privacy;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 33;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 50;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 83;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 55;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 28;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 82.
Program element: Adherence to applicable health, safety, and civil
rights laws; Percentage of states: Monitored: 29; Percentage of states:
Planned to monitor: 48; Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to
monitor: 77; [Empty]; Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 48;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 26; Estimated
percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 74.
Program element: Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, financial
statements);
Percentage of states: Monitored: 31;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 42;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 73;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: N/ A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: N/A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: N/
A.
Program element: Evidence of improved student achievement based on
grades, promotion, and/or graduation;
Percentage of states: Monitored: 12;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: 58;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: 69;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 23;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 57;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 80.
Program element: Billing and payment for services;
Percentage of states: Monitored: N/A;
Percentage of states: Planned to monitor: N/A;
Percentage of states: Monitored or planned to monitor: N/A;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored: 72;
Estimated percentage of districts: Planned to monitor: 21;
Estimated percentage of districts: Monitored or planned to monitor: 93.
Source: GAO.
Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review
these program elements to monitor providers in 2005-2006 and the
percentage of states that did not answer these survey questions are not
shown in this table. In addition, we did not ask states if they
monitored billing and payment for services, and we did not ask
districts if they monitored provider financial stability.
[End of table]
Although states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES
implementation, many continue to struggle with developing evaluations
to determine whether SES providers are improving student achievement.
Specifically, over three-fourths of states reported that determining
sufficient academic progress of students, having the time and knowledge
to analyze SES data, and developing data systems to track SES
information have been challenges to evaluating SES providers. Although
states are required to withdraw approval from providers that fail to
increase student academic achievement for 2 years, at the time of our
survey in early 2006, only New Mexico and Tennessee had drafted or
completed evaluation reports assessing how all SES providers serving
students in their states impacted student academic
achievement.[Footnote 10] However, because of the limitations of these
two evaluations, neither provided a conclusive assessment of SES
providers' effect on student academic achievement.
Likely because of states' struggle to complete SES evaluations, states
did not report that they had withdrawn approval from providers because
their programs were determined to be ineffective at increasing student
academic achievement.[Footnote 11] Rather, although over 40 percent of
states reported that they had withdrawn approval from some providers,
they most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval because the
provider was a school or district that had entered needs improvement
status, the provider asked to be removed from the state-approved
provider list, or because of provider financial impropriety.
Several Education Offices Oversee SES Implementation, but States and
Districts Reported Needing Additional Assistance and Flexibility:
Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES
activity across the country and provide support, but states and
districts reported needing additional assistance and flexibility with
SES implementation. Education conducts SES monitoring in part through
reviews of policy issues brought to the department's attention and
structured compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES
support through guidance, grants, research, and technical assistance.
The Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) and the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) are primarily responsible for
monitoring and supporting SES implementation, while the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), Policy Program and Studies Service, and Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives also contribute to these efforts (see
fig. 2).
Figure 2: U.S. Department of Education Offices Monitoring and
Supporting SES:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: This figure reflects the coordination of Education's offices
rather than the statutory reporting relationships.
[End of figure]
Specifically, OII leads SES policy development and provides strategic
direction, and its staff also primarily monitor SES policy issues
through "desk monitoring," which involves review of SES-related
research and media reports. In addition to these activities, OII also
conducts more intensive monitoring of specific SES implementation
challenges when states, districts, and providers bring them to
Education's attention. Regarding other support for SES implementation,
OII has provided SES implementation assistance in part through
presentations at conferences and grants to external organizations. For
example, OII funded the Supplemental Educational Services Quality
Center (SESQC), which provided technical assistance to states and
districts until its grant period ended in December 2005. OII is also
responsible for coordinating the publication of the non-regulatory SES
guidance. Since 2002, OII has coordinated four versions of this
guidance, each updated to address ongoing challenges with SES
implementation.
OESE, which oversees and supports NCLBA implementation, is involved in
monitoring SES implementation through its overall monitoring of state
compliance with Title I and NCLBA. To monitor Title I, OESE staff visit
state departments of education and selected districts within each state
to interview officials and review relevant documents. Following these
visits, OESE issues reports to each state outlining any instances of
Title I noncompliance, including those related to SES, and actions
needed to comply with regulations. OESE also monitors SES through its
oversight of the collection of state NCLBA data, including data on SES,
in the annual Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). To support
SES implementation, OESE funded the Comprehensive Centers Program
through grants that established technical assistance centers across the
country to help low-performing schools and districts close achievement
gaps and meet the goals of NCLBA. Of these, the Center on Innovation
and Improvement provides support to states and districts on SES and
other Education programs.
Through its SES monitoring efforts, Education has found that
implementation of the SES provisions has been uneven throughout the
country. Consequently, in May 2006, the department issued a policy
letter announcing plans to take significant enforcement actions, such
as withholding federal funds, placing conditions on Title I grants, or
entering into compliance agreements with states. Related to this, an
Education official reported that the department placed conditions on
California's Title I grant because of compliance issues with SES and
school choice implementation. In addition, to gather more information
that will allow the department to take future enforcement actions, the
department revised its Title I monitoring protocols and added
additional monitoring related to SES and school choice. Beginning in
the spring of 2007, the department is conducting additional Title I
monitoring visits to states and districts targeted at assessing SES and
school choice implementation efforts. Seven states were selected for
the targeted monitoring based on Education's previous monitoring
findings and high percentages of schools in need of improvement. In
addition to the seven selected states, beginning this year, all states
that Education visits as part of its regular Title I monitoring cycle
will receive additional SES-and school choice-specific monitoring.
Specifically, the department plans to visit additional districts in
each state and interview SES providers to obtain greater detail on SES
and school choice implementation.
While Education's policy letter and monitoring actions reflect the
department's concern that SES implementation has been uneven throughout
the country, many states and districts reported needing clearer
guidance or additional assistance with certain SES provisions to
improve implementation. Specifically, 85 percent of states and an
estimated 70 percent of districts needed additional assistance with
methods for evaluating SES, and over 60 percent of both groups also
needed assistance with developing data systems. Many districts also
needed more information on provider quality and effectiveness. Although
OESE and OIG monitoring results have also continually indicated that
states and districts struggle with SES evaluation, at the time of our
report, Education had not yet provided comprehensive assistance in this
area, and during our site visits, officials mentioned that they have
been relying on other states, organizations, or individuals for
evaluation assistance.
In addition, several states commented through our survey that they also
needed additional guidance on managing costs and fees, implementing SES
in rural areas, and handling provider complaints. During three of our
site visits, officials also expressed some concern about the lack of
clarity in the SES guidance with regard to student eligibility
requirements and how to craft a parental SES notification letter that
is both complete and easy for parents to understand. Specifically,
though Education's monitoring reports have found many states and
districts to be non-compliant with the federal requirement that
district SES parental notification letters include several specific
elements,[Footnote 12] Education's SES guidance provides a sample that
does not clearly specify all of the key elements required by SES law
and regulations. Furthermore, a few state and district officials
commented that, when followed, the SES regulations yield a letter that
is unreasonably long and complex.
Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered
through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006.
The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible
students receiving SES and to generate additional information about the
effect of SES on student academic achievement. For example, several
state and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education's
pilot program that allowed two districts in needs improvement status to
act as SES providers. As a condition of the pilot, these districts
agreed to expand student access to SES and collect achievement data to
determine SES program effectiveness. The other SES pilot allowed four
districts in Virginia to offer SES instead of school choice in schools
that have missed state performance goals for 2 years and are in their
first year of needs improvement. During our site visits and through our
surveys, many states and districts expressed interest in adjusting the
order of the SES and school choice interventions (see table 5). In line
with interest in increased flexibility with the order of these
interventions, Education announced in May 2006 that it was expanding
this pilot for 2006-2007.
Table 5: State and District Opinion on the Ordering of School Choice
and SES:
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: SES should precede school
choice;
States: 48;
District: 62.
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: Both school choice and SES
should be offered at the same time;
States: 27;
District: 15.
In percent: Order of school choice and SES: School choice should
precede SES;
States: 15;
District: 23.
Source: GAO.
Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In
addition, district percentages are estimates.
[End of table]
Prior Recommendations:
Our August report recommended that Education clarify guidance and
provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them
comply with the federal requirements for parental notification letters
and ensure that letters are easy for parents to understand, collect and
disseminate information on promising practices used by districts to
attract providers for certain areas and groups, and collaborate with
school officials to coordinate local SES implementation. In addition,
we recommended that Education consider expanding its current SES pilot
program allowing selected districts in need of improvement to serve as
providers and clarify state authority to set parameters around service
design and costs. Finally, we also recommended that Education require
states to collect and submit information on the amount spent by
districts to provide SES and the percentage of districts' Title I funds
that this amount represents and provide states with technical
assistance and additional guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES
on student academic achievement.
In written comments on the report, Education expressed appreciation for
our recommendations, and the department has since made significant
progress toward addressing some of them. Specifically, Education has
taken a variety of steps that address our recommendations focused on
increased dissemination of promising practices related to parental
notification, attracting providers for certain areas and student
groups, and improved local coordination. For example, between November
2006 and March 2007, Education staff conducted an outreach tour focused
on school choice and SES during which they met with state and district
officials, providers, and parents in 14 large school districts around
the country. Education staff met with these groups in each district,
and participants discussed issues including parental outreach, parental
notification, serving special student populations, and local
coordination. The department plans to disseminate information collected
through the outreach tour by publishing a handbook that shares
strategies on informing parents and implementing SES and school choice.
In addition, officials indicated that they plan to convene a national
meeting during the summer of 2007 to share the handbook with state and
district SES and school choice coordinators and discuss effective
implementation. In addition to the tour, Education directed the Center
on Innovation and Improvement to focus on providing assistance related
to parental outreach during school year 2006-2007. Consequently, in the
fall of 2006, the center began providing examples of related materials,
such as documents that states and districts have used to notify parents
of services, through its Web site. The center also plans to provide
assistance and guidance on parental outreach to four states that
requested assistance starting before the end of the current school year
and continuing into school year 2007-2008.
Education has also taken some actions that address our recommendations
targeted at improving state and district use of SES funding to provide
services to the maximum number of students. Specifically, the
department extended and expanded its pilot program to allow four
districts in need of improvement to serve as SES providers for the 2006-
2007 school year. As we noted in our report, allowing districts to act
as providers may ease student access to SES for rural districts that do
not have providers located nearby and allow more students to
participate in SES because district costs to provide services are
sometimes lower than other providers' costs. While we suggested in our
other recommendation that Education could clarify how states can set
parameters around provider program design and costs by providing
written guidance on these issues, according to department officials,
Education has instead addressed state questions on these issues on a
case-by-case basis.
Concerning our recommendations to improve federal and state monitoring
of SES, Education officials reported that beginning with the 2006-2007
school year all states are required to submit information to the
department on the amount of funds spent by districts to provide SES.
The department has also taken action to provide states with technical
assistance and guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES on student
academic achievement. Specifically, Education directed the Center on
Innovation and Improvement to focus on SES evaluation assistance during
school year 2006-2007. To that end, the center issued an updated
version of the guidebook on SES evaluation in November 2006, and it
plans to provide technical assistance before the end of the current
school year to sixteen states that requested such assistance.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
GAO Contacts:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Bryon Gordon, Rachel Frisk, and David Perkins.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better
Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency. GAO-07-
646T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services. GAO-
06-1121T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local
Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States
Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency.
GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic
Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661.
Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006.
No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated
in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-
05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005:
No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional
Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School
Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.
Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved.
GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child
Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Local Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational
Services, GAO-06-758 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).
[2] GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve
Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services, GAO-
06-1121T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2007).
[3] In this testimony, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as "Title
I." Other Parts of Title I (Parts B, C, and D) are targeted at specific
populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by their program
names, such as Even Start.
[4] A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per pupil
allocation by dividing the district's total Title I, Part A allocation
by the number of children residing within the district aged 5 to17 who
are from families below the poverty level, as determined by the most
recent Census Bureau estimates from the Department of Commerce.
[5] Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to
Education through their NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports
for all years. Specifically, 2002-2003 data from Kansas and North
Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data from New
Jersey are not included in our estimates. In addition, 2002-2003 data
from New York only include information from New York City. Further,
Education did not collect data on the number of students eligible for
SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the SES participation
rate is unavailable for that year.
[6] Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have a
margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See
table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information.
[7] GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty notifying
schools of their status in meeting proficiency goals in a timely
fashion in part because of the time involved in identifying and
correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left
Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for Tracking
States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 30, 2004).
[8] GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created
difficulties for rural districts in implementing SES. Specifically,
rural district officials stated that traveling long distances to meet
providers was not a viable option and use of online providers was
challenging in some small rural districts where it was difficult to
establish and maintain Internet service. See GAO, No Child Left Behind
Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would
Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2004).
[9] In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy case
studies also found that in some cases, approved providers that
initially expressed interest in serving a certain district later
decided not to provide services because too few students enrolled. See
the Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year
4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006).
[10] At the time of our survey, several additional states, including
Louisiana and Pennsylvania, were in the process of drafting an SES
evaluation report that would assess the impact of SES providers serving
students in their states, but the reports were not yet available to the
public.
[11] Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its
providers because that provider's program was generally ineffective.
However, this provider's program was found to be ineffective because
the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it
enrolled. This state also indicated that it had not yet completed an
evaluation of SES's effect on student academic achievement.
[12] OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits of
state SES implementation to be deficient with respect to parent
notifications. In addition, in our analysis of the 40 OESE Title I
state monitoring reports publicly issued as of June 2006, we found that
OESE cited 9 of the states it had visited for SES noncompliance with
respect to district parent notifications.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
