Native Hawaiian Education Act
Greater Oversight Would Increase Accountability and Enable Targeting of Funds to Areas with Greatest Need Gao ID: GAO-08-422 March 25, 2008The Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) seeks to develop innovative educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians. The Department of Education (Education) administers NHEA and has provided grants for a wide range of activities. Education is authorized to establish a Native Hawaiian Education Council and seven island councils to help implement NHEA. To inform reauthorization, GAO was asked to analyze (1) what is known about NHEA's impact on Native Hawaiian education, (2) Education's efforts to oversee NHEA grants, and (3) the extent to which Education and the Native Hawaiian councils have fulfilled their roles and responsibilities. To do this, GAO reviewed federal laws and regulations and departmental documents, and interviewed Education officials, council members, grantees, and experts in Native Hawaiian education.
Little is known about the NHEA's impact on Native Hawaiian education. Education has not evaluated NHEA due to its relatively small funding level, about $30 million annually, and academic research that shows educational improvements for Native Hawaiians does not indicate whether NHEA was a contributor to reported gains, such as in preschool enrollment and high school and college graduation rates. Some grantees have reported positive outcomes in education and other areas for Native Hawaiians served by NHEA grants. However, the extent to which NHEA has contributed to these outcomes has not been determined. Education has made efforts in recent years to improve NHEA grant management and oversight, and plans to address other weaknesses in the future. Education has established three performance measures that grantees are expected to use to assess their activities, conducted community outreach, and improved reporting requirements for grantees. However, these performance measures are not applicable to some of the educational outcomes that could result from NHEA's many activities. Moreover, Education has yet to establish a method to track grantee activities, such as how funds have been distributed across activities or islands, and some grantees said that in the past they have received little direction or guidance from Education. Education officials said they plan to address these weaknesses. They plan to reexamine the performance measures and provide additional guidance and technical assistance to grantees this year. Officials also stated that they would like to develop a tracking system to better manage grants funded by NHEA, but could not say specifically when this would occur. The parties responsible for administering NHEA--Education, the Education Council, and the island councils--have not fulfilled many of their respective roles and responsibilities under the act. Education has not provided sufficient oversight to ensure that the Education Council carries out many of its responsibilities under the law, or provided guidance to the Education Council on how to assist island councils represent local interests. The Education Council has not fulfilled its primary duty to collect data on the status of Native Hawaiian education, assess current needs in the different communities, make recommendations for the future use of grant funds, or, until recently, provided Education with the required annual reports on its activities. In regard to the island councils, some have not ensured the adequate representation of local interests, or supported the Education Council in efforts to assess and prioritize local needs and make recommendations to Education. In the absence of complete information on NHEA activities and local needs, Education has not targeted grant funds or reported to Congress on NHEA activities, as required. The overall lack of information about NHEA leaves participants and policymakers in a knowledge vacuum, unable to make informed decisions that will help meet and advance NHEA's goals.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-422, Native Hawaiian Education Act: Greater Oversight Would Increase Accountability and Enable Targeting of Funds to Areas with Greatest Need
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-422
entitled 'Native Hawaiian Education Act: Greater Oversight Would
Increase Accountability and Enable Targeting of Funds to Areas with
Greatest Need' which was released on March 25, 2008.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2008:
Native Hawaiian Education Act:
Greater Oversight Would Increase Accountability and Enable Targeting of
Funds to Areas with Greatest Need:
Native Hawaiian Education Act:
GAO-08-422:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-422, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) seeks to develop innovative
educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians. The Department of
Education (Education) administers NHEA and has provided grants for a
wide range of activities. Education is authorized to establish a Native
Hawaiian Education Council and seven island councils to help implement
NHEA. To inform reauthorization, GAO was asked to analyze (1) what is
known about NHEA‘s impact on Native Hawaiian education, (2) Education‘s
efforts to oversee NHEA grants, and (3) the extent to which Education
and the Native Hawaiian councils have fulfilled their roles and
responsibilities. To do this, GAO reviewed federal laws and regulations
and departmental documents, and interviewed Education officials,
council members, grantees, and experts in Native Hawaiian education.
What GAO Found:
Little is known about the NHEA‘s impact on Native Hawaiian education.
Education has not evaluated NHEA due to its relatively small funding
level, about $30 million annually, and academic research that shows
educational improvements for Native Hawaiians does not indicate whether
NHEA was a contributor to reported gains, such as in preschool
enrollment and high school and college graduation rates. Some grantees
have reported positive outcomes in education and other areas for Native
Hawaiians served by NHEA grants. However, the extent to which NHEA has
contributed to these outcomes has not been determined.
Education has made efforts in recent years to improve NHEA grant
management and oversight, and plans to address other weaknesses in the
future. Education has established three performance measures that
grantees are expected to use to assess their activities, conducted
community outreach, and improved reporting requirements for grantees.
However, these performance measures are not applicable to some of the
educational outcomes that could result from NHEA‘s many activities.
Moreover, Education has yet to establish a method to track grantee
activities, such as how funds have been distributed across activities
or islands, and some grantees said that in the past they have received
little direction or guidance from Education. Education officials said
they plan to address these weaknesses. They plan to reexamine the
performance measures and provide additional guidance and technical
assistance to grantees this year. Officials also stated that they would
like to develop a tracking system to better manage grants funded by
NHEA, but could not say specifically when this would occur.
The parties responsible for administering NHEA”Education, the Education
Council, and the island councils”have not fulfilled many of their
respective roles and responsibilities under the act. Education has not
provided sufficient oversight to ensure that the Education Council
carries out many of its responsibilities under the law, or provided
guidance to the Education Council on how to assist island councils
represent local interests. The Education Council has not fulfilled its
primary duty to collect data on the status of Native Hawaiian
education, assess current needs in the different communities, make
recommendations for the future use of grant funds, or, until recently,
provided Education with the required annual reports on its activities.
In regard to the island councils, some have not ensured the adequate
representation of local interests, or supported the Education Council
in efforts to assess and prioritize local needs and make
recommendations to Education. In the absence of complete information on
NHEA activities and local needs, Education has not targeted grant funds
or reported to Congress on NHEA activities, as required. The overall
lack of information about NHEA leaves participants and policymakers in
a knowledge vacuum, unable to make informed decisions that will help
meet and advance NHEA‘s goals.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that, among other things, the Secretary of Education
report to Congress on the activities under the act, establish
additional performance measures, track grant activities, and provide
more guidance and assistance to grantees and the Education Council.
Education agreed with the majority of recommendations, but not fully or
in part with two regarding establishing performance measures and
tracking grant activities. GAO believes these recommendations remain
valid.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-422]. For more information, contact
Cornelia M. Ashby @ (202) 512-7215 or AshbyC@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
NHEA: Native Hawaiian Education Act:
PREL: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 25, 2008:
The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan:
Chairman:
Committee on Indian Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
United States Senate:
The Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA), originally enacted in 1988
and last reauthorized in 2002 as part of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA), was designed to develop innovative educational programs for
Native Hawaiians, who often experience academic disparities. Since
2002, the Department of Education (Education) has provided about $30
million annually for grants under the act to fund a wide range of
prenatal through postsecondary education programs for Native Hawaiians.
The act also authorized Education to establish a Native Hawaiian
Education Council (Education Council) to--in conjunction with seven
island councils--represent local interests, coordinate existing
services, identify unmet needs, and make recommendations to Education
for focusing future grant funds. The act also requires Education to
report to Congress on activities conducted under the act.
To respond to your interest in knowing whether implementation of NHEA
has been effectively managed, we answered the following questions:
* What is known about the impact of NHEA on Native Hawaiian education?
* What is the status of Education's efforts to manage and oversee NHEA
grants?
* To what extent have Education, the Education Council, and island
councils fulfilled their roles and responsibilities in implementing
NHEA?
On November 6, 2007, we briefed requesters' staff on the interim
results of our work. This report formally conveys the information
provided during that briefing and additional results developed after
the briefing. (See app. I.) In summary, due to the lack of research
linking activities under NHEA to outcomes for Native Hawaiians, we
found that little is known about the act's impact on Native Hawaiian
education. With respect to the management, oversight, and
implementation of NHEA activities, Education and the councils have not
fulfilled many of their roles and responsibilities. Education has, in
the past, provided limited management and oversight of grant activities
and little guidance to the Education Council, and the Education Council
and island councils have not assessed the educational needs of Native
Hawaiians as required. However, Education has plans for improving its
management and oversight of NHEA grants, and Education and the
Education Council are now collaborating on several efforts. More
specifically:
* We did not find any impact evaluations, studies, or other types of
research linking activities under NHEA to changes in Native Hawaiian
educational outcomes. While some grantees reported positive outcomes in
education and other areas for Native Hawaiians served by NHEA grants,
the extent to which grant activities contributed to these outcomes has
not been determined.
* Education established three performance measures that grantees are
expected to use to assess their programs, conducted outreach to Native
Hawaiian communities, and strengthened grantee reporting requirements.
However, these performance measures are not applicable to all grant-
funded activities. Moreover, Education has not tracked these
activities, and some grantees told us they need more guidance and
assistance from the department. Education plans, however, to reexamine
the performance measures and provide more guidance and technical
assistance to grantees this year. Education also plans to develop a
tracking system to improve grant management, although department
officials could not say specifically when this would occur.
* Education did not report to Congress in 2006 as required, and
although the department funds the Education Council's activities, it
did not provide the council with sufficient guidance and oversight.
Similarly, the Education Council--in conjunction with the island
councils--has not fulfilled its duties to collect data on the status of
Native Hawaiian education, coordinate available resources, assess
current needs in the different communities, or make recommendations for
the future use of grant funds. Nor has it, until recently, provided
Education with past and current required annual reports on its
activities. Further, we found that there is some concern about the
composition of the Education Council and that some of the island
councils have not adequately represented local interests.
We are making the following seven recommendations to the Secretary of
Education.
To improve oversight of NHEA grantees, assess program activities, and
fulfill Education's reporting responsibilities, we recommend that the
Secretary:
* establish additional or broader performance measures to cover the
range of educational outcomes that could result from activities funded
by NHEA and include in its report to Congress a time frame for when
such action will be completed;
* expedite development of a method to track how grant funds are
allocated and spent across islands and activities, and include in its
report to Congress a time frame for when development will be completed;
and:
* provide additional direction and guidance to NHEA grantees to help
them fulfill their responsibilities and meet their stated goals,
including their reporting requirements.
To enable the department to provide grant funds aligned with local
needs and priorities for improving educational outcomes for Native
Hawaiians, we recommend that the Secretary:
* work with the Education Council to identify and coordinate existing
services for each of the islands; determine what needs remain unmet
through a transparent, evidence-based process; and ensure that the
Education Council provides the department the required annual reports
on its activities;
* provide guidance to the Education Council on actions it can take to
best help the island councils represent local interests and determine
local needs and priorities; and:
* help ensure appropriate representation on the Education Council by
reviewing the composition of the Education and island councils and, if
necessary, advising them to appoint members who can ensure that needs
are adequately identified across all communities.
In addition, to provide Congress with information useful for program
accountability and policy direction, we recommend that the Secretary
fulfill the statutory responsibility to report to Congress on the
activities of the Education Council and the allocation and use of grant
funds, with policy recommendations for advancing the education of
Native Hawaiians. If necessary, the report could explain why certain
reporting requirements could not be met and what steps will be taken to
provide the missing information in the future.
To develop our findings, we first reviewed relevant federal laws,
regulations, and existing literature and interviewed agency officials
from Education. To further our understanding, we conducted site visits
on the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai, and Molokai. During our site
visits, we interviewed various stakeholders, including members of the
Education Council and the six island councils that are currently in
operation, officials from the Hawaii Department of Education,
researchers and experts in Native Hawaiian education, and community
members such as parents, teachers, and students. Additionally, we met
with a judgmental sample of 22 current and former grantees selected for
the range of services they provided, for priorities noted in the law,
and for their geographic locations. Some of these grantees had received
the largest grant amounts, and some were recommended by Education and
the Education Council because they were considered particularly
innovative or effective. We also reviewed a judgmental sample of
performance reports of 25 grant projects for many of the grantees we
visited to assess the extent to which grantees were reporting on the
current performance measures established by Education.[Footnote 1]
Further, we reviewed grant abstracts for 93 NHEA grants awarded between
2003 and 2007 to determine what types of activities have been funded,
and other documents from Education. We conducted our work between July
2007 and March 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Education
for review and comment. Education's written comments are reprinted in
appendix II. In written comments on our draft report, Education
concurred with five of our seven recommendations and disagreed with the
remaining recommendations in whole or in part.
Specifically, Education concurred with our third, fourth, and fifth
recommendations that grantees and the Education Council should receive
additional direction and guidance to fulfill their responsibilities
under the act, and has taken several actions, such as increasing
department staff assigned to the Native Hawaiian program, holding
workshops for grantees, and working with the Education Council's
executive director on plans for conducting a needs assessment across
islands to identify local needs and priorities. Education also agreed
with our sixth recommendation to help ensure appropriate representation
on the Education Council, and has begun a review of the council's
bylaws and membership. Education also concurred with our seventh
recommendation and said it will submit a report to Congress, as
required by law, saying it would do so upon receipt of requested
information from the Education Council.
Education agreed, in part, with our first recommendation, that the
department establish additional or broader performance measures to
cover the range of educational outcomes that could result from NHEA
activities. Education acknowledged that the current performance
measures cover only a subset of authorized activities and agreed with
the need to determine whether the department should modify or adopt
additional measures that cover a broader range of activities. Education
stated that it was working through the department's Data Quality
Initiative to help refine performance measures and data collection
practices. While Education said it expected to identify broader or
alternative measures for the program by the end of this calendar year,
it questioned the feasibility of developing measures that would cover
each allowable activity. We applaud the department's efforts to improve
its performance measures; however, we continue to believe that the
department needs to be able to assess the educational outcomes for all
funded activities.
Education disagreed with our second recommendation, to track how grant
funds are allocated and spent across islands and activities, saying
that it would be burdensome to the grantee, and would require data and
a tracking system that other programs do not require. Education
described the current grants administration and payment system that
tracks grant funds by administrative categories, such as personnel and
supplies. Our recommendation was not intended to have the department
track the fiscal expenditures of grantees. To clarify, our
recommendation was intended to have the department track how funds are
allocated across islands and the 11 activity categories authorized by
the law, such as postsecondary education and curriculum development. As
discussed in this report, Education officials could not tell us the
extent to which federal funding supported the various activities under
NHEA and where grantees were providing services. Our recommendation is
in response to these conditions. Given that Education is required under
the law to report to Congress describing the allocation and use of
funds under NHEA, we continue to believe that tracking funds across
NHEA activity categories and islands is necessary for Education to
fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Major contributions to this report are listed in
appendix III.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Native Hawaiian Education Act: Greater Oversight Would Increase
Accountability and Enable Targeting of Funds to Areas with Greatest
Need:
Briefing for Staff of Chairman Byron L. Dorgan and Senators Daniel K.
Inouye and Daniel Akaka Senate Committee on Indian Affairs:
November 6, 2007*:
* Updated March 2008:
Introduction:
The Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA), last reauthorized in 2002 as
part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), was enacted to
develop innovative educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians* by
providing grant funds for Native Hawaiian educational activities and
fostering community participation in strategies for improvement. Since
2002, Congress has designated about $30 million annually for NHEA.
The NHEA authorized the Department of Education (Education) to:
* make competitive grant awards to eligible organizations;
* establish and fund a statewide Native Hawaiian Education Council
(Education Council) to carry out the purposes of NHEA through the
coordination of educational resources, assessment of local needs, and
issuance of reports and recommendations to the department on issues
related to Native Hawaiian education; and:
* facilitate the establishment of seven individual island councils to
carry out NHEA‘s purposes and to ensure adequate representation of
island and community interests within the Education Council (see map of
islands on the next slide).
(* As defined in the Native Hawaiian Education Act, Native Hawaiians
are citizens of the United States who are descendants of the aboriginal
people who occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now
constitutes the state of Hawaii prior to 1778, as evidenced by
genealogical or birth records or verification by elders or long-term 2
unity residents. According to the 2000 Census, which is based on self-
reported data, Native Hawaiians alone or in combination with one or
more other race, make up percent of the total U.S. population and 20
percent of the state of Hawaii‘s population.)
Figure: Hawaii:
This figure is a map of Hawaii.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO based on Map Resources.
Note: Kahoolawe is an uninhabited island and does not have an island
council.
[End of table]
Objectives:
In view of pending reauthorization of NCLBA and due to concerns about
whether NHEA is fostering better educational outcomes and is being
administered and managed effectively to meet the most pressing needs of
Native Hawaiians, GAO was asked to answer the following questions:
1. What is known about the impact of NHEA on Native Hawaiian education?
2. What is the status of Education‘s efforts to manage and oversee NHEA
grants?
3. To what extent have Education, the Education Council, and island
councils fulfilled their roles and responsibilities in implementing
NHEA?
Scope and Methodology:
To answer these questions, we:
reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and existing literature
on Native Hawaiian education and needs;
conducted site visits on the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai, and
Molokai, covering each of Hawaii‘s four major counties;
reviewed a judgmental sample of performance reports of 25 grant
projects for many of the grantees we visited,* abstracts of 93 grants
awarded between 2003 and 2007 and other documents from Education; and:
interviewed officials from the U.S. Department of Education.
(* Some grantees had multiple grant projects. GAO reviewed at least one
performance report for each of the current grantees we visited.
However, we generally did not review the performance reports of former
grantees because their grant projects had ended prior to the
establishment of the current performance measures in 2004.)
During our site visits, we met with:
* twenty-two current or former NHEA grantees that reflect a diversity
of geographic locations and services, including those receiving some of
the largest grant amounts in recent years, and those considered by the
department and the Education Council to be innovative or effective;
* officials from the Hawaii Department of Education;
* the Education Council and island council members from the islands of
Hawaii, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau (Maui‘s council
disbanded in 2006);
* researchers and experts in Native Hawaiian education from Kamehameha
Schools, Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL), and the
University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hilo; and:
* community members such as parents, teachers, and students.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to March 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary of Findings:
There are few data available for determining the impact of NHEA,
although research indicates progress for Native Hawaiians in some
areas, and some grantees have reported positive changes among those
served by NHEA grants.
Education has taken limited steps to improve grant management and
oversight, but plans to address some weaknesses in the future.
Administering parties have not fulfilled many of their respective roles
and responsibilities to fully implement NHEA, such as ensuring that
needs are identified so funds can be appropriately targeted.
Background:
History and Purpose of NHEA:
Originally enacted in 1988 and last reauthorized in 2002 as part of
NCLBA, the NHEA was designed to develop innovative educational programs
for Native Hawaiians, who often experience academic disparities. As
noted in the 2001 law:
Native Hawaiian students score below national norms on standardized
education achievement tests at all grade levels.
They are also overrepresented in special education, but
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs and postsecondary
institutions.
NHEA Funding for Educational Activities:
From 2002 through 2007:
Nearly $30 million to over $33 million was designated annually for
grants to organizations in Hawaii to develop innovative educational
programs or expand existing ones.
* Education reports awarding over 100 different grants to more than 30
organizations in Hawaii.
* Entities eligible for NHEA funds include Native Hawaiian educational
or community-based organizations, and other public and private
nonprofit organizations that have experience developing or operating
Native Hawaiian programs, or a consortia of these entities.
A total of $500,000 of the funds designated annually is reserved for a
direct grant to the Education Council to carry out its responsibilities
under the law.
Grant Activities:
The NHEA, as amended by NCLBA, authorizes grantees to carry out a wide
range of activities:*
1. development and maintenance of a statewide Native Hawaiian early
education care system;
2. operation of family-based education centers to deliver, conduct
research on, and assess early childhood and preschool programs for
Native Hawaiians;
3. beginning reading and literacy in Hawaiian or English for Native
Hawaiian students in kindergarten through third grade and addressing
combined English and Hawaiian literacy for Hawaiian students in fifth
and sixth grades;
4. meeting the special needs of Native Hawaiian students with
disabilities;
5. meeting the special needs of Native Hawaiian students who are gifted
and talented (list continued on next slide);
(* In addition, competitive preference is given to project grants that
address one of the four priorities in the law: (1) beginning reading
and literacy among students in grades K-3, (2) needs of at-risk youth,
(3) needs of fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are
underemployed, and (4) use of Native Hawaiian language in instruction.)
6. academic and vocational curriculum development to address the needs
of Native Hawaiian children and adults;
7. professional development for educators of Native Hawaiian students;
8. community-based learning centers that address the needs of Native
Hawaiian families and communities;
9. postsecondary education for Native Hawaiians;
10. research, data collection, or evaluation on Native Hawaiian‘s
educational status and needs and programs under NHEA; and:
11. other activities consistent with the purposes of the program to
meet the educational needs of Native Hawaiian children and adults.
Roles and Responsibilities:
As specified in the law, Education:
* is authorized to award direct grants to eligible organizations;
* is authorized to establish the Education Council and facilitate the
establishment of seven island councils;
* appoints members of the Education Council based on recommendations
from the Native Hawaiian community;* and:
* was required to submit to Congress by January 2006 a report that
summarizes annual reports of the Education Council, describes the
allocation and use of NHEA funds, and recommends policy changes to
advance the purposes of the program.
As grantor of NHEA funds to grantees and the Education Council,
Education is responsible for:
* monitoring compliance with grant requirements and overseeing grantee
performance and:
* overseeing and providing guidance to the Education Council and island
councils.
(* Additional conditions and terms relating to Education Council
membership, including term lengths and term renewals, are required to
be determined by a majority of the Education Council.)
The law specifies the duties and composition of the Education Council.
Duties:
* coordinate educational and related services and programs available to
Native Hawaiians and assess the extent to which these meet the needs of
Native Hawaiians;
* collect data on the status of Native Hawaiian education;
* make recommendations to appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies to focus and improve the use of resources related to Native
Hawaiian education;
* prepare and submit annual reports to Education on its activities;
and:
* provide administrative and financial assistance to the island
councils, as determined by Education to be appropriate.
Composition:
* Unless otherwise determined by a majority of the Education Council,
no more than 21 members, serving for 3 years.
* At least 10 members shall be Native Hawaiian education service
providers; 10 members shall be Native Hawaiians or Native Hawaiian
education consumers; and a representative of the State of Hawaii Office
of Hawaiian Affairs shall also serve as a member.
The law specifies the purpose and composition of the island councils.
Purpose:
* Assist with advancement of NHEA‘s purposes.
* Ensure the adequate representation of island and community interests
within the Education Council.
Duties:
* Meet at least four times each calendar year.
Composition of island councils:
* Each island council shall consist of parents, students, and other
community members who have an interest in the education of Native
Hawaiians, and shall be representative of individuals concerned with
the educational needs of all age groups, and three-fourths of the
members must be Native Hawaiians.
Objective 1: Availability of Impact Information
Few data exist to determine NHEA's impact, though some grantees have
reported positive outcomes for those served by their projects.
No study or evaluation has been conducted to determine the impact of
NHEA on educational outcomes.
Some research does show improvements for Native Hawaiians, but these
study results cannot be linked to NHEA.
Grantees‘ performance reports showed some positive outcomes for those
served by their projects, but the extent to which NHEA has contributed
to these outcomes has not been determined. Little data exist to
determine NHEA‘s impact, though some grantees have reported positive
outcomes for those served by their projects.
No study or evaluation has been conducted to determine the impact of
NHEA on educational outcomes.
Education has not conducted evaluations of NHEA‘s educational outcomes.
* Education has not employed the Program Assessment Rating Tool”the
Office of Management and Budget‘s (OMB) governmentwide method for
evaluating the effectiveness of federal programs”because OMB generally
does not require programs under $40 million to conduct such an
evaluation, according to department officials.
* Education has not conducted or sponsored any other research to
determine NHEA‘s impact.
Other organizations performing research in the area of Native Hawaiian
education have not conducted studies evaluating the overall impact of
NHEA.
Academic research comparing Census data from 1990 and 2000 showed some
improvements in school enrollment for Native Hawaiians.*
* Preschool enrollment of Native Hawaiians increased and was about
proportionate to their numbers in the general population of 3– and
4–year olds.
* High school graduation and college enrollment rates increased
slightly, though they were still below Hawaii statewide averages.
The same research examining state achievement test data between 1992
and 2000 showed some improvements in reading and math.
* The gap between Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian middle school
students in reading proficiency decreased by 20 percent.
* The gap between Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian high school
students in math proficiency decreased by 24 percent.
This research, however, does not indicate whether the NHEA was a
contributor to these improvements for Native Hawaiians.
(* See Shawn K. Kana‘iaupuni, Nolan Malone, and Koren Ishibashi. ’Ka
huaka‘i: 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment“ (Honolulu,
Hawaii: Kamehameha Schools, Pauahi Publications, 2005).
Grantees‘ performance reports showed some positive outcomes for those
served by their projects.
Grantees‘ performance reports showed some positive outcomes for those
served by their projects.
Grantees‘ annual and final performance reports measuring student
progress showed some positive outcomes across various levels of
education.
improvements in vocabulary for students in early education programs;
improvements in reading scores among students in elementary school and
math and reading scores among those in high school;
greater interest in science among students participating in a science
career mentoring program; and:
increases in the number of students enrolling in college through the
provision of scholarships to those in financial need.
Interviewed grantees described some other benefits:
* building program capacity to serve more people and provide better
services;
* revitalizing Hawaiian language and culture;
* engaging parents and the community; and:
* improving students‘ sense of self-identity and self-esteem.
However, the extent to which NHEA has contributed to these outcomes
among students receiving services has not been determined.
Objective 2: Grant Management and Oversight:
Education has taken limited steps to improve grant management and
oversight, and plans to address remaining weaknesses in the future.
Steps to improve grant management and oversight include establishing
some performance measures, conducting community outreach, and
strengthening grantee reporting requirements.
Education has yet to establish performance measures for all activities,
develop a system to track grant activities, and provide sufficient
guidance and assistance to grantees.
Education plans to address these weaknesses in the future.
Education has established some performance measures.
To meet government standards for performance and accountability, in
2004, Education established three GPRA* performance measures of program
performance:
* improvements in school readiness and literacy for children in early
education programs;
* increases in the number of students meeting or exceeding proficiency
standards in math, science, or reading; and:
* increases in the percentage of teachers who participate in
professional development relating to Native Hawaiian education.
Grantees are expected to use these measures to the extent they apply
when reporting on their progress and outcomes.
(* The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was
enacted to improve federal program effectiveness, accountability, and
service delivery and enhance congressional decision making by providing
more objective information on program performance.)
Education has taken other steps to improve the grant process.
Since 2004, the department has:
* performed community outreach to encourage a greater number of grant
applications;
* conducted information sessions on what is required in the grant
application; and:
* improved the rigor of grantee reporting requirements to include
quantifiable baseline data, yearly goals, and annual progress.
Education has not established performance measures relevant to some
activities funded by the NHEA.
Established measures do not always apply, and are not relevant to
educational outcomes that could result from some grant activities:
* Grantees are not required to use established measures if they do not
apply to their project activities and may instead establish their own
measures.
* Our review of a sample of 25 performance reports covering reporting
periods between 2005 and 2007 found that 11 of 25 grant projects did
not report on any of the three GPRA measures.
* Our review of 93 grant abstracts indicated that established
performance measures may not be relevant to activities frequently
funded over the past 5 years, such as higher education and curriculum
development* (see next slide).
Education officials noted that it has been difficult to establish a set
of relevant performance measures for such a broad range of activities.
As a result of the broad range of allowable activities, Education‘s
established measures cannot be used to measure performance of all
activities.
(* GPRA measures may have been relevant to other activities funded
under the same grants.)
Grants awarded from 2003 through 2007 fall within 11 categories of
activities.
Figure:
This figure is a horizontal bar graph. The X axis represents number of
activities, and the X axis represents the activity categories.
Activity category: Development of a statewide early education and care
system;
Number of Activities 3.
Activity category: Family-based education centers to deliver early
childhood and preschool programs;
Number of Activities 20.
Activity category: Beginning reading and literacy in Hawaiian or
English;
Number of Activities 12.
Activity category: Specific needs related to disabilities;
Number of Activities 3.
Activity category: Gifted and talented programs;
Number of Activities 5.
Activity category: Curriculum development;
Number of Activities 34.
Activity category: Professional development for educators;
Number of Activities 27.
Activity category: Community-based learning criteria that address the
needs of families and communities;
Number of Activities 13.
Activity category: Postsecondary education;
Number of Activities 17.
Activity category: Research and data on Native Hawaiian' educational
status and needs or on programs under NHEA;
Number of Activities 10.
Activity category: Other activities consistent with NHEA's purpose;
Number of Activities 4.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of abstracts from Education of grants awarded
under the NHEA program between fiscal years 2003 and 2007.
Note: Many of the 93 grant abstracts we reviewed addressed multiple
categories of activities.
[End of program]
Stakeholders cited other weaknesses in the current performance
measures.
While some grantees were satisfied with the current measures, other
grantees, as well as some Education Council and island council members,
and researchers said they were not always appropriate or adequate:
lacked a component to support programs that integrate and help preserve
Native Hawaiian language and culture;
failed to consider outcomes such as improvements in attendance rates,
grades, personal self-esteem, or community involvement; and:
prematurely asked for outcomes that may not be realized until after the
3-year grant cycle.
Education also lacks a system to track funded activities.
Education lacks a method to track grant activities. In response to our
request for information, officials:
did not have a list available showing grantees that provide services on
the different islands and:
could not provide a summary of how funds had been spent across activity
categories, such as early education or higher education.
Education‘s guidance and assistance to grantees have been limited.
Some grantees we interviewed stated that they have received limited
assistance from Education:
* lack of feedback on project evaluations submitted by grantees in
their performance reports and:
* limited technical assistance for preparing annual reports and
ensuring fiscal accountability.
Grantees wanted support in several areas to improve their performance:
* information on promising practices or related research to use
resources more efficiently and avoid ’reinventing the wheel;“
* guidance and technical assistance to establish performance measures,
collect and analyze data, and conduct evaluations; and:
* local assistance for first-time grantees to help them meet grant
requirements.
Education plans to address weaknesses.
This year, Education plans to:
* Provide more guidance and technical assistance. According to
officials, the plan is to:
- review all grantees‘ budgets and performance reports to identify
grantees that are at risk of not meeting their financial and project
goals or complying with program requirements and:
- provide more guidance to grantees, such as in reporting, as well as
technical assistance to those at risk.
* Reexamine the three performance measures and seek input from grantees
and others. However, officials did not know how or when measures would
be changed if they determined this was appropriate.
At some point in the future, Education would like to develop a tracking
system to better manage grants funded by NHEA.
Responsible parties have not fulfilled many of their respective roles
and responsibilities under NHEA.
Objective 3: Fulfillment of Roles and Responsibilities:
Education has not provided sufficient direction and guidance to the
Native Hawaiian Education Council and island councils, or submitted the
required report to Congress.
The Education Council has not conducted a needs assessment, provided
recommendations for targeting grant funds, or, until very recently,
provided annual reports to Education.
Island councils may not have adequately represented local interests.
Education has not provided sufficient direction and guidance to the
Education Council and island councils or submitted its report to
Congress.
Education officials said that other priorities and lack of complete
information have precluded the department from:
providing sufficient direction and guidance to the Education Council on
how to fulfill its responsibilities, including assisting the island
councils to represent local interests; and:
reporting to Congress, as required in January of 2006, with a summary
of the annual reports from the Education Council, a description of the
allocation and use of funds, and recommendations for policy changes to
advance NHEA.
The Education Council has not performed its duties to identify and
report on local needs.
The Education Council has not:
* conducted needs assessments;
* coordinated available resources;
* collected data on the status of Native Hawaiian education in Hawaii;
* made recommendations to Education for targeting grant funds;
* provided sufficient assistance to the island councils to help them
fulfill their roles and responsibilities; and:
* submitted timely annual reports on its activities to Education.
Lack of relevant grantee information from the department may have
affected the councils ability to perform some of its duties, according
to some Education Council members.
Concerns were raised by grantees and council members about the
appropriateness of having current grantees sit on the Education Council
insofar as this body has responsibility for making recommendations for
tie use of future grant funds.
Island councils may not have adequately represented local interests or
helped further the advancement of NHEA.
Lack of direction and capacity may have affected some island councils‘
ability to:
ensure adequate representation of local interest within the Education
Council:
* One island, Maui, lacks any representation because the council
disbanded in 2006, in disagreement with the Education Council over the
use of funds.
* Island councils may not be representative of all communities‘
interests, according to some grantees.
assist the Education Council in advancing purposes of NHEA:
* Island councils, except Kauai, have not assessed and reported on
community needs and priorities.
* Until recently, most island councils were spending their monies for
direct services and other activities, which the Education Council does
not view as appropriate in advancing the purposes of NHEA.
Parties administering NHEA are taking steps to fulfill their roles and
responsibilities.
Education has conducted some outreach to the Education Council and
grantee communities with a few site visits, and has plans to work more
closely with the Education Council to prioritize its activities.
Over the last 2 years, the Education Council has started to build
relationships with the department and strategic partners in the
community, and has established some fiscal control over island
councils‘ use of NHEA funds.
Most island councils are recognizing the need to identify available
resources and assess local needs. A few island councils have:
* hosted meetings with grantees and:
* informally surveyed community members to identify community needs.
Program participants also cited additional "impediments" to meeting
NHEA'goals.
Lack of consensus among Education, grantees, and island council members
as to whether funds should be awarded primarily as seed money or for
project expansion.
Absence of a grant requirement for collaboration and community
involvement that could promote effectiveness and sustainability.
Disagreement about cultural preservation as a goal of NHEA.
Lack of information sharing, such as through a Web-based clearinghouse
for use by the Education Council and grantees.
Perceptions of traditional hierarchies, patronage, and conflicts of
interest among the council members.
Concerns about the law‘s low ceiling on administrative costs and its
impact on the financial viability of small organizations.
Conclusions:
While some individual grantees have reported successes, the lack of
research and evaluations has made it difficult to determine the overall
impact of NHEA on Native Hawaiian education.
The relatively low funding level of NHEA activities may not warrant a
comprehensive impact evaluation.
However, Education has not established a method to capture basic
information related to grantee activities.
Without sufficient and relevant performance measures in place to
appropriately assess all the activities funded by NHEA, or a method to
track how funds have been spent, Education is unable to effectively
assess activities and outcomes, manage and oversee grants,
strategically target future resources, and report to Congress on NHEA‘s
activities, as required.
The size of the funding levels under NHEA is small relative to other
Education programs, and until recently, Education has paid little
attention to the management and oversight of NHEA grants. However,
moving forward, it will be important for Education to fulfill its
stated intention to reexamine the performance measures, implement a
system to track and monitor grantee activities, and provide additional
direction and guidance to grantees.
Without appropriate oversight to ensure that the Education Council
carries out many of its responsibilities”primarily determining the most
urgent unmet needs across the state and providing the department with
annual reports on its activities”Education will continue to lack the
information it needs to best target funding for future grant cycles and
report to Congress on the activities under NHEA as required.
* In view of the wide range of activities allowed under NHEA, an
evidence-based assessment of local needs and priorities is critical for
leveraging the program‘s limited funds.
* Concerns of Education Council and island council members as well as
grantees about appropriate representation suggest that more guidance
from Education may be needed to ensure that appointed members can
adequately represent local interests.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve oversight of NHEA grantees, assess program activities, and
fulfill Education‘s reporting responsibilities, we recommend that the
Secretary of Education:
establish additional or broader performance measures to cover the range
of educational outcomes that could result from activities funded by
NHEA, and include in its report to Congress a time frame for when such
action will be completed;
expedite development of a method to track how grant funds are allocated
and spent across islands and activities, and include in its report to
Congress a time frame for when development will be completed; and:
provide additional direction and guidance to NHEA grantees to help them
fulfill their responsibilities and meet their stated goals, including
their reporting requirements.
To enable the department to provide grant funds aligned with local
needs and priorities for improving educational outcomes for Native
Hawaiians, we recommend that the Secretary:
work with the Education Council to identify and coordinate existing
services for each of the islands, determine what needs remain unmet
through a transparent and evidence-based process, and ensure that the
Education Council provides the department the required annual reports
on its activities;
provide guidance to the Education Council on actions it can take to
best help the island councils represent local interests and determine
local needs and priorities; and:
help ensure appropriate representation on the Education Council by
reviewing the composition of the Education and island councils and, if
necessary, advising them to appoint members who can ensure that needs
are adequately identified across all communities.
To provide Congress with information useful for program accountability
and policy direction, we recommend that the Secretary fulfill
Education‘s statutory requirement by reporting to Congress:
* the activities of the Education Council,
* the allocation and use of grant funds, and:
* policy recommendations to advance the education of Native Hawaiians.
The report could contain reasons why certain reporting requirements
could not be met, and what steps will be taken to provide the missing
information in the future.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Elementary And Secondary Education:
600 Independence Ave. S.W.:
Washington. D.C. 20202-6100:
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote
educational excellence throughout the Nation.
The Assistant Secretary:
March 13, 2008:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO 08-422), dated March
2008, entitled "Native Hawaiian Education Act Greater Oversight Would
Increase Accountability and Enable Targeting of Funds to Areas with
Greatest Need." I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft
report.
The following are responses to the specific recommendations in the
report calling for the Department to take actions to increase oversight
and accountability in order to target funds to areas with the greatest
need:
Recommendation I. Establish additional or broader performance measures
to cover the range of educational outcomes that could result from
activities funded by the Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) and
include in its report to Congress a time frame for when such action
will be completed.
The Department agrees in part with the recommendation that the
performance measures need to be re-examined to capture the actual
performance of the program.
Section 7205(a)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001,
authorizes a wide range of very diverse activities and services for
Native Hawaiian grantees, When we first developed performance measures
for this program, we faced the challenge of identifying indicators that
would cover the full spectrum of funded activities. At the time, we
selected indicators that we believed would best capture the success and
progress of the overall program. However, the current performance
measures cover only a subset of the authorized activities.
We acknowledge the need to determine whether the Department should
adopt additional performance measures that cover a broader range of the
activities carried out under the program, or modify the current
measures. However, given the wide range of allowable activities and
services under the Act, it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, and not meaningful to develop measures that would cover
each allowable activity.
We are currently working through the Department's Data Quality
Initiative (which has been successful in helping other Department
programs refine their GPRA measures and their performance data
collection practices) on this effort. We are hopeful that this endeavor
will result in refined, or possibly additional, measures that will
allow for improved and consistent reporting on the programs and
services funded by NHEA grants. We expect to identify broader or
alternative measures for the program by the end of this calendar year.
Recommendation 2. Expedite development of a method to track how grant
funds are allocated and spent across islands and activities, and
include in its report to Congress a time frame for when development
will be completed.
To the extent that GAO is recommending that the Department develop a
method to track the fiscal expenditures of Native Hawaiian grantees by
activity or services, we do not concur with this recommendation.
When any applicant for a discretionary grant submits a proposal to the
Department, it includes a standard budget form (Standard Form (SF) 424)
that is divided into ten general line item categories: personnel,
fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual,
construction, other, indirect costs, and training stipends. Costs for
some grant activities may include expenditures that fit into several
categories. From the SF 424, we would have information on how grant
funds will be spent in each of the ten categories to achieve the
project's goals and objectives, but we would not be able to know how
much a grantee has requested for each activity in its application. To
request information for each activity would be very burdensome on the
grantee, and would require data that other programs do not require.
After we make the grant award, we monitor a grantee's general draw-down
activity through our Grants Administration and Payment System (GAPS).
However, the GAPS system does not give us information on how much is
spent on each activity. We can examine the total amount that the
grantee has drawn down, but we do not know what activity – or budget
line item – the expenditure covers. If we have concerns about the size
of the draw-down request, we contact the grantee for additional
information.
Our best tools for monitoring expenditures are our annual performance
report, grant monitoring, and the single annual audit. The annual
performance report requires grantees to report actual budget
expenditures and to identify unexpended (carryover) funds. Again, this
information is based on the original budget line items and categories
of expenditures; however, because grantees are reporting actual
expenditures and are linking those expenditures to grant performance,
we are likely to have a better understanding of how grant funds were
used to support grant activities. Additionally, when we conduct on-site
monitoring we are able to review the grantee's fiscal records to ensure
that the expenditures are allowable and support the activities
described in the grant proposal. Further, the annual single audits
provide additional oversight on the expenditures made by grantees and
whether they are allowable.
In sum, the Native Hawaiian program is using the tools and resources
that all other discretionary grant programs use, and requiring the
development of a separate system to track how grant funds are allocated
and spent across islands and activities in greater detail would be
extremely burdensome and not practical.
Recommendation 3. Provide additional direction and guidance to NHEA
grantees to help them fulfill their responsibilities and meet their
stated goals, including their reporting requirements.
The Department acknowledges the importance of adequate guidance and
direction, and concurs with the recommendation that grantees should
receive additional guidance, especially related to reporting
requirements. This is a recommendation that is already being
implemented.
Over the past several years, we have worked closely with the program
applicants and grantees to identify areas to provide needed technical
assistance and support. In 2005, program staff conducted application
workshops for program applicants in Hawaii. This technical assistance
was provided to applicants – both first-time and veteran – in helping
them apply for grant funds and design more effective programs. In 2006,
program staff held a grantee meeting in Hawaii, and provided technical
assistance on topics including the following: reporting requirements,
performance indicators, carryover, no-cost time extensions, and other
general budget management issues. Most recently, in January 2008,
program staff held a project directors' meeting in Oahu with over 100
grantees in attendance. Staff members held sessions on topics including
reporting, performance monitoring and evaluation, and budget
management.
As a result of these efforts, and through increased grant monitoring,
we have identified additional areas of needed technical assistance. We
have recently increased the number of Department personnel assigned to
the Native Hawaiian program and are committed to continuing our
technical assistance efforts, particularly in the areas of data
collection, analysis, and the synthesis of data for program
improvement.
Recommendation 4. Work with the Education Council to identify and
coordinate existing services for each of the islands, determine what
needs remain unmet through a transparent and evidence-based process,
and ensure that the Education Council provides the department the
required annual reports on its activities.
Recommendation 5. Provide guidance to the Education Council on actions
it can take to best help the island councils represent local interests
and determine local needs and priorities.
The Department agrees with Recommendations 4 and 5, and has already
begun to implement these recommendations. In the fall of 2007, we met
with the executive director of the Education Council to discuss how the
Council could conduct a needs assessment across the islands in order to
better identify the local needs and priorities. We requested that the
Council include this plan with its other annual reports that were due
to the Department by December 2007.
We have reviewed the plans and reports and have had a follow-up
discussion with the Council regarding its submission. We recently sent
the Council a written request for additional information so that we can
fully analyze the plan, and so that it can be enhanced if necessary.
Once we have received the additional information we will be able to
determine whether the Council's plans, among other things, adequately
include and address local interests and priorities.
Recommendation 6. Help ensure appropriate representation on the
Education Council by reviewing the composition of the Education and
island councils and, if necessary, advising them to appoint members who
can ensure that needs are adequately identified across all communities.
The Department agrees with the importance of ensuring appropriate
representation on the Council, but notes that its ability to help the
Council in selecting members is restricted by the authorizing statute.
The NHEA provides significant flexibility to the Council with regard to
member composition, membership, and term length. Although the statute
provides certain conditions and terms related to membership, most of
the requirements may be overridden by a majority of the Council (See §§
7240(b) & (c)(4)).
In December 2007, the Department received a copy of the bylaws of the
Council, as well of a list of the current members. We are reviewing the
bylaws to ensure that the Council is complying with the rules and laws
it has established for itself. Additionally, we are reviewing the list
of current members and will provide guidance to the Council on the
appointment of new and continuation council members. The review of the
Council's submission under Recommendations 4 and 5 above will also help
us ensure that there is adequate representation across the islands.
Recommendation 7: To provide Congress with information useful for
program accountability and policy direction, we recommend that the
Secretary fulfill Education's statutory requirement by reporting to
Congress the activities of the Education Council, the allocation and
use of grant funds, and policy recommendations to advance the education
of Native Hawaiians. The report could contain reasons why certain
reporting requirements could not be met, and what steps will be taken
to provide the missing information in the future.
The Department agrees with this recommendation, and is already taking
steps to implement this recommendation. As noted above, we have
thoroughly reviewed the Council's annual plan and reports and have
recently sent the Council a written request for additional information
so that we can complete our review of the materials. We will complete
the report to Congress as soon as we have sufficient responses to our
requests for additional information from the Council.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments and plans. If you
need additional information, please contact Ms. Sylvia Lyles at 202-260-
2551 or by email at: Sylvia.Lyles@.ed.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kerri L. Briggs, Ph. D.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, at (202) 512-7215 or AshbyC@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
Lacinda Ayers, Assistant Director, and Susan Chin, Analyst-in-Charge,
managed this assignment. Theresa Lo made significant contributions to
this report. In addition, Brian Tremblay provided assistance in data
analysis; Susan Bernstein provided writing assistance; Sheila McCoy and
Doreen Feldman provided legal assistance; and Jay Smale assisted in
methodology.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Some grantees had multiple grant projects. GAO reviewed at least
one performance report for each of the current grantees we visited.
However, we generally did not review the performance reports of former
grantees because their grant projects had ended prior to the
establishment of the current performance measures in 2004.
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
