Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training Programs
Gao ID: GAO-11-509T April 6, 2011This testimony discusses GAO's recent report entitled "Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue." This report delineates dozens of areas across government where fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication merit the attention of Congress and the Administration spanning a range of government missions: agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and social services. The report also describes other opportunities for federal departments, agencies or Congress to consider taking action on that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. Taking actions on these opportunities and reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services. With regard to issues of specific interest to this Committee, GAO found fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in the areas of federal programs to improve teacher quality and employment and training. Each of these areas is characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national need but are administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues. This testimony draws upon the results of our recently issued report and will address what is known about fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among federal teacher quality and employment and training programs. It also addresses options for Congress to help minimize fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication and how it can use recent legislative tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs.
1) We identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher quality administered across 10 federal agencies, many of which share similar goals. However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these many programs. The fragmentation and overlap of teacher quality programs can frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost effective, and ultimately increase program costs. Congress could address these issues through legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Department of Education (Education) has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal. (2) We found that 44 of the 47 employment and training programs we identified overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts. As part of its proposed changes to the Workforce Investment Act, the Administration proposes consolidating nine programs into three. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS. (3) Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing these issues. Specifically, this Committee can look for opportunities to enhance program evaluations and performance information, foster coordination and strategic planning for program areas that span multiple federal agencies, and consolidate existing programs or coordinate service delivery.
GAO-11-509T, Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-509T
entitled 'Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and
Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and
Training Programs' which was released on April 6, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 6, 2011:
Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential
Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training
Programs:
Statement of Gene L. Dodaro:
Comptroller General of the United States:
GAO-11-509T:
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss GAO's recent report entitled
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.[Footnote 1] This report
delineates dozens of areas across government where fragmentation,
overlap, and potential duplication merit the attention of Congress and
the Administration spanning a range of government missions:
agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general
government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and
social services. The report also describes other opportunities for
federal departments, agencies or Congress to consider taking action on
that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance
revenue collections for the Treasury. Taking actions on these
opportunities and reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or
fragmentation could save billions of tax dollars annually and help
agencies provide more efficient and effective services.
With regard to issues of specific interest to this Committee, GAO
found fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in the areas
of federal programs to improve teacher quality and employment and
training. Each of these areas is characterized by a large number of
programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities
that are administered by multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of
programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national
need but are administered across different federal agencies or
offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs
have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to
achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and
fragmentation among government programs or activities can be
harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated
with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful,
thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues.
My testimony today draws upon the results of our recently issued
report and will address what is known about fragmentation, overlap,
and potential duplication among federal teacher quality and employment
and training programs. I will also address options for Congress to
help minimize fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication and
how it can use recent legislative tools to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of federal programs.
The key points I will make today are:
* We identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher
quality administered across 10 federal agencies, many of which share
similar goals. However, there is no governmentwide strategy to
minimize fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these
many programs. The fragmentation and overlap of teacher quality
programs can frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a
comprehensive manner, limit the ability to determine which programs
are most cost effective, and ultimately increase program costs.
Congress could address these issues through legislation, particularly
through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965,[Footnote 2] and the Department of Education
(Education) has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11
programs in its reauthorization proposal.
* We found that 44 of the 47 employment and training programs we
identified overlap with at least one other program in that they
provide at least one similar service to a similar population. To
facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing
administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of
Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and
disseminate information that could inform such efforts. As part of its
proposed changes to the Workforce Investment Act, the Administration
proposes consolidating nine programs into three. In addition, the
budget proposal would transfer the Senior Community Service Employment
Program from Labor to HHS.
* Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing these
issues. Specifically, this Committee can look for opportunities to
enhance program evaluations and performance information, foster
coordination and strategic planning for program areas that span
multiple federal agencies, and consolidate existing programs or
coordinate service delivery.
In preparing this statement in March 2011, we relied on our previous
work in these areas (please see the related GAO products Appendix at
the end of this statement). These products contain detailed overviews
of the scope and methodology we used. The work on which this statement
is based was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan
and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. We
believe that the evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Proliferation of Programs That Support Teacher Quality Complicates
Federal Efforts to Invest Dollars Effectively:
In fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent over $4 billion
specifically to improve the quality of our nation's 3 million teachers
through numerous programs across the government. Teacher quality can
be enhanced through a variety of activities, including training,
recruitment, and curriculum and assessment tools. In turn, these
activities can influence student learning and ultimately improve the
global competitiveness of the American workforce in a knowledge-based
economy. Prior GAO reports have noted that sustained coordination
among key federal education programs could enhance state efforts to
improve teacher quality.
Federal efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the creation
and expansion of a variety of programs across the federal government.
However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize
fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these many
programs. Specifically, GAO identified 82 distinct programs designed
to help improve teacher quality, either as a primary purpose or as an
allowable activity, administered across 10 federal agencies. Many of
these programs share similar goals. For example, 9 of the 82 programs
support improving the quality of teaching in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM subjects) and these programs alone
are administered across the Departments of Education, Defense, and
Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the
National Science Foundation. Further, in fiscal year 2010, the
majority (53) of the programs GAO identified supporting teacher
quality improvements received $50 million or less in funding and many
have their own separate administrative processes.
The proliferation of programs has resulted in fragmentation that can
frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive
manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost
effective, and ultimately increase program costs. For example, eight
different Education offices administer over 60 of the federal programs
supporting teacher quality improvements, primarily in the form of
competitive grants. Education officials believe that federal programs
have failed to make significant progress in helping states close
achievement gaps between schools serving students from different
socioeconomic backgrounds, because, in part, federal programs that
focus on teaching and learning of specific subjects are too fragmented
to help state and district officials strengthen instruction and
increase student achievement in a comprehensive manner. While
Education officials noted, and GAO concurs, that a mixture of programs
can target services to underserved populations and yield strategic
innovations, the current programs are not structured in a way that
enables educators and policymakers to identify the most effective
practices to replicate. According to Education officials, it is
typically not cost-effective to allocate the funds necessary to
conduct rigorous evaluations of small programs; therefore, small
programs are unlikely to be evaluated. Finally, it is more costly to
administer multiple separate federal programs because each program has
its own policies, applications, award competitions, reporting
requirements, and, in some cases, federal evaluations.
While all of the 82 federal programs GAO identified support teacher
quality improvement efforts, several overlap in that they share more
than one key program characteristic. For example, teacher quality
programs may overlap if they share similar objectives, serve similar
target groups, or fund similar activities. GAO previously reported
that 23 of the programs administered by Education in fiscal year 2009
had improving teacher quality as a specific focus, which suggested
that there may be overlap among these and other programs that have
teacher quality improvements as an allowable activity. When looking
across a broader set of criteria, GAO found that 14 of the programs
administered by Education overlapped with another program with regard
to allowable activities as well as shared objectives and target groups
(see figure 1). For example, the Transition to Teaching program and
Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program can both be used to fund
similar teacher preparation activities through institutions of higher
education for the purpose of helping individuals from non-teaching
fields become qualified to teach.
Figure 1: Areas of Overlap among Selected Programs Administered by
Education that Support Teacher Quality Improvement:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Objective: Improve Education in Specific Subjects;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Check];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Empty];
Title I, Part A: [Empty];
School Improvement Grants: [Empty];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Empty];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Empty];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Check];
Teach for America[A]: [Empty].
Objective: Improve Education in General;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Check];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Check];
School Improvement Grants: [Check];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Check];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Check];
Teach for America[A]: [Check].
Objective: Improve Education for Special Populations;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Check];
School Improvement Grants: [Check];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Check];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Empty];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Check].
Target Group: Current Teachers;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Check];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Check];
School Improvement Grants: [Check];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Empty];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Check];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Empty];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]:
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Check];
Teach for America[A]: [Empty].
Target Group: Prospective Teachers;
Even Start[A]: [Empty];
Striving Readers[A]: [Empty];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Empty];
School Improvement Grants: [Empty];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Check].
Target Group: Other Education Professionals;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Check];
School Improvement Grants: [Check];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Empty];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Empty];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Empty];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Empty].
Activity[B]: Teacher Preparation;
Even Start[A]: [Empty];
Striving Readers[A]: [Empty];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Empty];
School Improvement Grants: [Empty];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Check].
Activity[B]: Professional Development Recruitment or Retention;
Even Start[A]: [Check];
Striving Readers[A]: [Check];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Check];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Check];
School Improvement Grants: [Check];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Empty];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Check];
Teach for America[A]: [Empty].
Activity[B]: Certification or Licensure;
Even Start[A]: [Empty];
Striving Readers[A]: [Empty];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Empty];
School Improvement Grants: [Empty];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Check];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Check];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Empty].
Activity[B]: Induction or Mentoring;
Even Start[A]: [Empty];
Striving Readers[A]: [Empty];
Mathematics and Science Partnerships[A]: [Empty];
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants[A]: [Check];
Title I, Part A: [Empty];
School Improvement Grants: [Empty];
Transition to Teaching[A]: [Check];
Advanced Certification or Advanced Credentialing[A]: [Empty];
Teacher Quality Partnership Grants[A]: [Check];
Language Resource Centers Teach for America[A]: [Empty];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow Program: Baccalaureate[A]: [Check];
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow: Masters[A]: [Empty];
Foreign Language Assistance Program[A]: [Empty];
Teach for America[A]: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education documents and
interviews.
Note: The 14 programs shown in the table are a subset of over 60
Education programs supporting teacher quality improvement either
specifically or as an allowable activity. Specifically, although Title
I, Part A, School Improvement Grants, and Even Start allow program
funds to be used for teacher quality activities, this is not their
primary focus. The 14 programs presented above overlapped with at
least one other program across objective, target group, and activity.
[A] Education has proposed consolidating this program under a broader
program in its proposal for the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
[B] This is not an exhaustive list of activities allowed under these
programs, but rather the activities GAO determined were most relevant
for the purposes of this analysis.
[End of figure]
Although there is overlap among these programs, several factors make
it difficult to determine whether there is unnecessary duplication.
First, when similar teacher quality activities are funded through
different programs and delivered by different entities, some overlap
can occur unintentionally, but is not necessarily wasteful. For
example, a local school district could use funds from the Foreign
Language Assistance program to pay for professional development for a
teacher who will be implementing a new foreign language course, and
this teacher could also attend a summer seminar on best practices for
teaching the foreign language at a Language Resource Center. Second,
by design, individual teachers may benefit from federally funded
training or financial support at different points in their careers.
Specifically, the teacher from this example could also receive teacher
certification through a program funded by the Teachers for a
Competitive Tomorrow program. Further, both broad and narrowly
targeted programs exist simultaneously, meaning that the same teacher
who receives professional development funded from any one or more of
the above three programs might also receive professional development
that is funded through Title I, Part A of ESEA. The actual content of
these professional development activities may differ though, since the
primary goal of each program is different. In this example, it would
be difficult to know whether the absence of any one of these programs
would make a difference in terms of the teacher's ability to teach the
new language effectively.
In past work, GAO and Education's Inspector General have concluded
that improved planning and coordination could help Education better
leverage expertise and limited resources, and to anticipate and
develop options for addressing potential problems among the multitude
of programs it administers. Generally, GAO has reported that
uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and
frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of
the federal effort. However, given the large number of teacher quality
programs and the extent of overlap, it is unlikely that improved
coordination alone can fully mitigate the effects of the fragmented
and overlapping federal effort.
In 2009, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Education work with
other agencies as appropriate to develop a coordinated approach for
routinely and systematically sharing information that can assist
federal programs, states, and local providers in achieving efficient
service delivery. Coordination is essential to ensure that programs do
not work at cross-purposes, do not repeat mistakes, and do not engage
in wasteful duplication of services. Education has established working
groups to help develop more effective collaboration across Education
offices, and has reached out to other agencies to develop a framework
for sharing information on some teacher quality activities, but it has
noted that coordination efforts do not always prove useful and cannot
fully eliminate barriers to program alignment, such as programs with
differing definitions for similar populations of grantees, which
create an impediment to coordination.
Congress could help eliminate some of these barriers through
legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other key education
bills. Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation and
overlap among teacher quality programs, Congress may choose either to
eliminate programs that are too small to evaluate cost-effectively or
combine programs serving similar target groups into a larger program.
Education has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs
in its reauthorization proposal, which could allow the agency to
dedicate a higher portion of its administrative resources to
monitoring programs for results and providing technical assistance.
Congress might also include legislative provisions to help Education
reduce fragmentation, such as by giving broader discretion to the
agency to move resources away from certain programs. Congress could
provide Education guidelines for selecting these programs. For
example, Congress could allow Education discretion to consolidate
programs with administrative costs exceeding a certain threshold or
failing to meet performance goals, into larger or more successful
programs. Finally, to the extent that overlapping programs continue to
be authorized, they could be better aligned with each other in a way
that allows for comparison and evaluation to ensure they are
complementary rather than duplicative.
Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating
Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies Across Multiple
Employment and Training Programs:
Federally funded employment and training programs play an important
role in helping job seekers obtain employment. In fiscal year 2009, 47
programs spent about $18 billion to provide services, such as job
search and job counseling, to program participants. Most of these
programs are administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, and
HHS.
GAO has previously issued reports on the number of programs that
provide employment and training services and overlap among them. In
the 1990s, GAO issued a series of reports that identified program
overlap and possible areas of resulting inefficiencies. In 2000 and
2003, GAO identified programs for which a key program goal was
providing employment and training assistance and tracked the
increasing number of programs. GAO recently updated information on
these programs, found overlap among them, and examined potential
duplication among three selected large programs--HHS's Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Department of Labor's
Employment Service and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult programs.
Forty-four of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO
identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose
block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they
provide at least one similar service to a similar population. Some of
these overlapping programs serve multiple population groups. Others
target specific populations, most commonly Native Americans, veterans,
and youth. Even when programs overlap, they may have meaningful
differences in their eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may
provide similar types of services in different ways.
GAO examined the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs for
potential duplication and found they provide some of the same services
to the same population through separate administrative structures.
Although the extent to which individuals receive the same services
from these programs is unknown due to limited data, GAO found these
programs maintain parallel administrative structures to provide some
of the same services such as job search assistance to low-income
individuals (see figure 2). It should be noted that employment is only
one aspect of the TANF program, which also provides a wide range of
other services, including cash assistance. At the state level, the
TANF program is typically administered by the state human services or
welfare agency, while the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs
are typically administered by the state workforce agency and provided
through one-stop centers. Agency officials acknowledged that greater
efficiencies could be achieved in delivering services through these
programs but said factors such as the number of clients that any one-
stop center can serve and one-stop centers' proximity to clients,
particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities
provide the same services.
Figure 2: Selected Employment and Training Services Provided by the
Employment Service, TANF, and WIA Adult Programs, Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Program name: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (DOL);
Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service;
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Primary service;
Job referrals: Primary service;
Job search or job placement activities: Primary service.
Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS);
Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service;
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Secondary service;
Job referrals: Secondary service;
Job search or job placement activities: Secondary service.
Program name: WIA Adult Program (DOL);
Employment counseling and assessment: Primary service;
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Primary service;
Job referrals: Primary service;
Job search or job placement activities: Primary service.
Source: GAO survey of agency officials.
[End of figure]
Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may
increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be
challenging. Some states have colocated TANF employment and training
services in one-stop centers where Employment Service and WIA Adult
services are provided. Three states--Florida, Texas, and Utah--have
gone a step further by consolidating the agencies that administer
these programs, and state officials said this reduced costs and
improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost
savings. States and localities may face challenges to colocating
services, such as limited office space. In addition, consolidating
administrative structures may be time consuming and any cost savings
may not be immediately realized.
An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative
efficiencies is that little information is available about the
strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is
known about the incentives that states and localities have to
undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives are
needed.
To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing
administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we
recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work
together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such
efforts. This should include information about state initiatives to
consolidate program administrative structures and state and local
efforts to colocate new partners, such as TANF, at one-stop centers.
Information on these topics could address challenges faced, strategies
employed, results achieved, and remaining issues. As part of this
effort, Labor and HHS should examine the incentives for states and
localities to undertake such initiatives, and, as warranted, identify
options for increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS agreed they
should develop and disseminate this information. HHS noted that it
lacks legal authority to mandate increased TANF-WIA coordination or
create incentives for such efforts.
To the extent that colocating services and consolidating
administrative structures reduce administrative costs, funds could
potentially be available to serve more clients or for other purposes.
For the TANF program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160
million to administer employment and training services in fiscal year
2009. According to a Department of Labor official, the administrative
costs for the WIA Adult program were at least $56 million in program
year 2009. Officials told GAO they do not collect data on the
administrative costs associated with the Employment Service program,
as they are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation.
Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000
for each WIA Adult participant who receives training services. In
periods of budgetary constraints, it is all the more important that
resources are used effectively. Depending on the reduction in
administrative costs associated with colocation and consolidation,
these funds could be used to train potentially hundreds or thousands
of additional individuals.
Options for Congress to Consider as it Addresses Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Potential Duplication:
This Committee has authority over a wide range of programs intended to
help many of our neediest and most vulnerable citizens. With pending
reauthorizations, it is an opportune time to consider options for
addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among
these programs. In the past, Congress has taken a range of actions to
address these issues that may help you as you seek approaches on how
to proceed. Today, I would like to highlight 3 of these approaches:
1. enhancing program evaluations and performance information,
2. fostering coordination and strategic planning for program areas
that span multiple federal agencies, and:
3. consolidating existing programs or coordinating service delivery.
Enhancing Program Evaluations and Performance Information:
Information about the effectiveness of programs can help guide
policymakers and program managers in making tough decisions about how
to prioritize the use of scarce resources and improve the efficiency
of existing programs. However, there can be many challenges to
obtaining this information. For example, it may not be cost-effective
to allocate the funds necessary to conduct rigorous evaluations of
small programs and as a result these programs are unlikely to be
evaluated. As we have reported, many programs, especially smaller
programs, have not been evaluated, which can limit the ability of
Congress to make informed decisions about which programs to continue,
expand, modify, consolidate, or eliminate. For example,
* We found that of 47 employment and training programs we identified,
23 have not had a performance study of any kind completed since 2004,
and only 5 have had an impact study completed since 2004.
* We recommended that Labor comply with the requirement in the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998[Footnote 3] to conduct an impact
evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most
effective for improving outcomes. However, Labor has been slow to
implement this requirement, and does not expect to complete the study
until June 2015.
* In 2009, GAO reported that while evaluations have been done, or are
under way, for about two-fifths of 23 programs we identified as being
focused on teacher quality, little is known about the extent to which
most programs are achieving their desired results.
* In 2010, GAO reported that there were 151 different federal K-12 and
early education programs,[Footnote 4] but that more than half of these
programs have not been evaluated, including 8 of the 20 largest
programs which together accounted for about 90 percent of total
funding for these programs.
There are also other governmentwide strategies that may play an
important role. Specifically, in January 2011, the President signed
the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA),[Footnote 5] updating the
almost two-decades-old Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
[Footnote 6] Implementing provisions of the new act--such as its
emphasis on establishing outcome-oriented goals covering a limited
number of crosscutting policy areas--could play an important role in
clarifying desired outcomes and addressing program performance
spanning multiple organizations. Specifically, GPRAMA requires
agencies to (1) disclose information about the accuracy and
reliability of performance information (2) identify crosscutting
management challenges, and (3) report quarterly on priority goals on a
publicly available Web site. Additionally, GPRAMA significantly
enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when
establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. OMB and
agencies are to consult with relevant committees, obtaining majority
and minority views, about proposed goals at least once every 2 years.
This information can inform deliberations on spending priorities and
help re-examine the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and
performance of a number of federal education programs. However, to be
successful, it will be important for agencies to build the analytical
capacity to both use the performance information, and to ensure its
quality--both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and
availability of research and evaluation resources.[Footnote 7]
Fostering Coordination and Strategic Planning for Program Areas that
Span Multiple Federal Agencies:
Where programs cross federal agencies, Congress can establish
requirements to ensure federal agencies are working together on common
goals. For example, Congress mandated--through the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010--that the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), develop and maintain an inventory of STEM education
programs, including documentation of the effectiveness of these
programs, assess the potential overlap and potential duplication of
these programs, and develop a 5-year strategic plan for STEM
education, among other things.[Footnote 8] In establishing these
requirements, Congress put in place a set of requirements to provide
information it can use to inform decisions about strategic priorities.
Consolidating Existing Programs or Coordinating Service Delivery:
Consolidating existing programs or coordinating service delivery are
other options for Congress to address fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication. In the education area, Congress consolidated several
bilingual education programs into the English Language Acquisition
State Grant Program as part of the 2001 ESEA reauthorization. As we
reported prior to the consolidation, existing bilingual programs
shared the same goals, targeted the same types of children, and
provided similar services. In consolidating these programs, Congress
gave state and local educational agencies greater flexibility in the
design and administration of language instructional programs. Congress
has another opportunity to address these issues through the pending
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation and overlap among
teacher quality programs, Congress may choose either to eliminate
programs that are too small to evaluate cost effectively or to combine
programs serving similar target groups into a larger program. In the
employment and training area, Congress took steps to better coordinate
service delivery for many employment and training programs when it
enacted the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). Specifically, WIA
established one-stop centers in all states and mandated that numerous
programs provide their services through the centers. In doing so, WIA
sought to unify a fragmented employment and training system and create
a single, universal system--a one-stop system that could serve the
needs of all job seekers and employers.
In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation among federal teacher quality and
employment and training programs is clearly challenging. These are
difficult issues to address because they may require agencies and
Congress to re-examine within and across various mission areas the
fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number
of long-standing federal programs or activities. Implementing
provisions of GPRAMA--such as its emphasis on establishing priority
outcome-oriented goals, including those covering crosscutting policy
areas--could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes,
addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and
facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation. Sustained attention and oversight by
Congress will be critical also. As the nation rises to meet its
current fiscal challenges, GAO will continue to assist Congress and
federal agencies in identifying actions needed to address these
issues. Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the
areas we have already identified.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the
Committee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
GAO Contact:
For further information on this testimony please contact Barbara
Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security, who may be reached at (202) 512-7215, or BovbjergB@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
offices may be found on the last page of this statement.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Education Programs:
Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early Childhood
Education Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-51]. Washington, D.C.: January 27,
2010.
English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to
Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More
Coordination. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-575].
Washington: D.C.: July 29, 2009.
Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices Support
Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and
English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination
Could Enhance This Assistance. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-573]. Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2009.
Teacher Quality: Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education
Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-593]. Washington, D.C.:
July 6, 2009.
Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key
Federal Efforts. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-861T].
Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007.
Higher Education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Trends and the Role of Federal Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-702T]. Washington, D.C.: May 3,
2006.
Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-114]. Washington, D.C.: October 12,
2005.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination
Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-659].
Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-394]. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2002.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of
Adult Education and Literacy. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-348]. Washington, D.C.: March 29,
2002.
Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-657]. Washington, D.C.:
May 14, 2001.
Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess
Crosscutting Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-78]. Washington, D.C.: April
28, 2000.
Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-
Income Families. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-11]. Washington: D.C.:
November 15, 1999.
Federal Education Funding: Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise
Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-98-46]. Washington, D.C.:
November 6, 1997.
Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities
and Student Aid. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-130]. Washington, D.C.:
April 6, 1995.
Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services,
and Target Groups. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-71FS]. Washington, D.C.:
February 22, 1995.
Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-56]. Washington, D.C.:
January 18, 1995.
Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target
Groups. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-4FS].
Washington, D.C.: October 31, 1994.
Employment and Training Programs:
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could
Promote Efficiencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. Washington, D.C.: January 13,
2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-589]. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs
Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-71]. Washington, D.C.: October 13,
2000.
Department of Labor: Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker Protection
and Workforce Development. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-125]. Washington, D.C.:
April 4, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163
Employment and Training Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-85FS]. Washington, D.C.:
February 14, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Create
a More Efficient, Customer-Driven System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-70]. Washington, D.C.:
February 6, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce
Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-53]. Washington, D.C.:
January 10, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Basic Program Data Often
Missing. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-239].
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: How Legislative Proposals
Address Concerns. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-221]. Washington, D.C.:
August 4, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises
Questions About Efficiency. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-193]. Washington, D.C.: July
11, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-109].
Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements
Underscore Need for Change. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-120]. Washington, D.C.:
March 2, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not
Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-88]. Washington, D.C.: March
2, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add
Unnecessary Administrative Costs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-80]. Washington, D.C.: January
28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper
Delivery of Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-78]. Washington, D.C.: January
28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment Training Strategy
Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HRD-93-27].
Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1993.
Multiple Employment Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-93-26R]. Washington, D.C.: June
15, 1993.
Multiple Employment Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-92-39R]. Washington, D.C.: July
24, 1992.
Both Employment and Training Programs and Education Programs:
List of Selected Federal Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping
Objectives, Provide Similar Services, or Are Fragmented Across
Government Missions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R]. Washington, D.C.: March 18,
2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-441T]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 1,
2011.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated
Federal Effort. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-98-38]. Washington, D.C.:
November 5, 1997.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise
Efficiency Questions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-34]. Washington, D.C.: March
6, 1996.
Federal Reorganization: Proposed Merger's Impact on Existing
Department of Education Activities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/T-HEHS-95-188]. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
1995.
Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge Education,
Labor, and EEOC. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-140]. Washington, D.C.: June
7, 1995.
Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal
Missions and Approaches. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-AIMD-95-161]. Washington, D.C.: June
7, 1995.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). An interactive, Web-based version of the report
is available at: http://www.gao.gov/ereport/gao-11-318SP].
[2] Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, as most recently amended and
reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-
110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
[3] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998).
[4] See GAO, Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early
Childhood Education Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-51] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27,
2010).
[5] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).
[6] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[7] See GAO, Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides
Opportunities to Help Address Fiscal, Performance, and Management
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-466T].
(Washington, DC: Mar. 16, 2011).
[8] Pub. L. No. 111-358, § 101(b), 124 Stat. 3982 (2011).
[End of section]
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 "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
