Archived Information

Performance Data Quality and Timeliness

The quality of the Department's data lies on a continuum, as do the
procedures used to verify and validate those data. The Department is
working on a number of fronts to increase the quality of its data by
improving its data systems and procedures. As an example of high-quality
data, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data undergo
extensive reviews and must conform to the rigorous standards of that
statistical division of the Department. NCES is listed as the data
source for over one-third of our fiscal year (FY) 2003 measures. An
additional group of our measures derive their results from statistical
divisions of other federal agencies, such as the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) or the Census Bureau, and as such also undergo vigorous
validation and verification. Most of the remaining performance measures
use program files or self-reported information from grantees, such as
the consolidated state report, as their data source. Program file data
varies in quality. Some offices have instituted internal data quality
review, others use peer review, and some have required quality reviews
by the relevant data collection and analysis contractors. In addition,
the Department has undertaken several initiatives discussed below to
improve the timeliness and quality of its data.

To provide more information on the data source for each performance
measure, the Department identifies verification, validation, and
limitations in appendix A under the "Data Quality" subsections. In this
appendix, we present some of the initiatives to improve data quality
Department-wide and within specific programs.

The Department took a number of steps to address the fundamental issues
of data quality in FY 2003. Quality, for the purposes of this report,
refers not only to the issue of data accuracy, but also to the issues of
timeliness in reporting, efficient and effective reporting procedures
and systems, and the use of data to inform management decisions. Among
the Department's steps this past year were the following:

-   Implementing the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative
    (PBDMI), to transmit key K--12 indicator data directly from states
    into a new Department-wide data repository that will come online in
    the spring of 2005, the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

-   Increasing the frequency of the National Assessment of Educational
    Progress (NAEP) testing while decreasing the time from test
    administration to reporting.

-   Improving program performance measures for all programs through
    direct technical assistance, regular training sessions and
    coordination around Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) reviews.

-   Notifying our potential grantees in their applications of the data
    requirements for the programs by identifying Government Performance
    and Results Act (GPRA) indicators and performance reporting
    requirements in grant application packages.

-   Improving grantee focus on data quality by developing innovative
    approaches to encourage attention to and improvement of grantees'
    own data systems.

Developing the Performance-Based Data System and the Education Data
Exchange Network

"We spend millions of dollars every year to collect data on and evaluate
our programs," Paige said. "This is a serious effort to provide more
value for the taxpayer's dollars in these activities. We aim to
establish a more efficient data collection and dissemination system, one
that provides timely and more useful information to those who work every
day to improve student achievement." The PBDMI is a major component of
this data-based approach to program improvement. This initiative is
building a collaborative electronic exchange system for performance
information on federal K--12 education programs.

In FY 2003, the Department completed the identification of the minimum
information requirements for a core set of programs and developed a list
of data elements. Data requirements for state formula grant programs in
elementary and secondary education, vocational and adult education,
special education, and English language acquisition were reviewed
together with data gathered in national surveys by NCES and the Office
for Civil Rights (OCR). Visits to 51 state educational agencies (SEAs)
documented their capacity to provide these data elements and to
negotiate data transfer protocols. The SEAs indicated that it was useful
to know what types of information will be included in PBDMI so that they
can begin to adjust their data collection systems, which they are
revamping to meet the reporting requirements for No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) as well as state needs for improved information. In addition, the
visits helped SEA staff obtain a more comprehensive view of data
collection activities within their states and helped Department staff
learn more about how data are collected from districts and schools and
how technology can be used to streamline data collection.

The Department's assistance to SEAs with the provision of data through
PBDMI continued beyond the site visits. Following each site visit, the
Department negotiated with each state a cooperative services agreement
that provided each state with \$50,000 to assist in developing the
state's capacity to participate in the resulting EDEN. The Department
also provided experienced education data consultants to work with states
to improve the quality, timeliness and accessibility of their education
data.

The Department also began plans to migrate the OCR Elementary and
Secondary Schools Survey (E&S Survey) to the Department's EDEN system.
As a central database, EDEN will become the main repository for
Department K--12 data, including NCLB data. Based on feedback from
states, we know that there will be some critical civil rights data needs
that cannot be fulfilled by the states through EDEN's common set of data
elements by 2004. In light of this, OCR will aid PBDMI in developing an
EDEN supplemental survey tool earlier than originally planned. This tool
will capture data that cannot be currently captured through the
state-federal data exchange, so that full migration of the OCR Civil
Rights Survey into PBDMI can occur in 2004. Because the E&S Survey is
migrating to EDEN and will no longer need to conduct its own Web-based
data collection survey, OCR invested FY 2003 funds previously targeted
specifically for developing and implementing an OCR Web-based survey in
a contract to develop EDEN's supplemental survey tool and pilot the
tool's capability. OCR's contribution to EDEN will expedite the
Department's development of an integrated data collection system that
has the capacity to capture essential NCLB data, important civil rights
data, and other significant Department program data not routinely
available from SEAs.

To test the value of a shared data repository in 2003, the Department
developed a demonstration system that linked a number of the
Department's various sources of state demographic, academic, and funding
information together. This system provided an example of how PBDMI can
support educational program performance and achievement analysis. The
test also identified a number of limitations of the current program data
and areas where additional education data would be useful. These lessons
will be incorporated into EDEN.

Increasing Timely Achievement Data

NAEP, also known as "the Nation\'s Report Card," now tests students more
frequently and reports the data faster than ever before. NAEP is the
only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what
America's students know and can do in various subject areas. To provide
state and national policy makers with reliable and timely data on
student achievement, the Department made major changes in NAEP
administration, including increasing the frequency of reading and
mathematics assessments for grades 4 and 8, which are now administered
every other year in all states, and reducing the time to report the
data. Previously, the time from test administration to reporting results
was 15 months; the new target is 6 months.

Improving Program Performance Measures

The Department is working with all offices to develop performance
measures that provide valid and reliable evidence that programs are
meeting their strategic planning goals while minimizing the burden of
reporting for grantees. The Department has also taken a number of steps
to integrate performance measurement into our planning, budget, and
grant management procedures.

Another effort underway in the Department is to develop common
performance measures of teacher quality. The Department, encouraged by
OMB, invited the federal program offices that administer the major
teacher-related grants to evaluate individual program office performance
measures with an eye to finding "common measures" that all
teacher-related program offices could support. More than a dozen
Department programs focus entirely or in large part on teachers,
providing more than \$4 billion a year for competitive and formula
grants to states, local educational agencies, institutions of higher
education, and other entities. Through a series of discussions, the
Department's teacher-related programs chose a common measure derived
from the NCLB requirement that all teachers of core academic subjects
are highly qualified by the 2005--06 school year. The common measure
tentatively selected by seven of the Department's teacher-related
programs was "the percentage of highly qualified teachers." The use of
this measure will align data collection and allow for greater
simplicity, reduced burden, and comparisons across programs.

Focusing Grant Applications on Data Quality

The Department also made the policy in FY 2003 to notify our potential
grantees, where applicable, of the data requirements for the programs by
inserting the GPRA indicators or other relevant information into grant
application packages. By knowing the requirements in advance, grantees
should be able to plan and implement performance information systems
that will provide accurate and timely data to the Department.

Improving Grantee Focus on Data Quality

Many of the Department's program offices made data quality improvements
throughout FY 2003. Just a few of those are highlighted here.

**Special Education.** The Department implemented focused monitoring
procedures of special education programs under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to improve the quality of special
education data. A joint initiative was initiated in July 2003, to
provide technical assistance to states around five critical performance
indicators that are used to measure state performance through continuous
improvement monitoring of special education programs. This initiative
establishes technical assistance "Communities of Practice" around each
of the performance indicators to address IDEA data validity and
reliability. States with an interest in improving their performance
around one or more of the critical performance indicators join these
Communities of Practice to engage in joint problem solving and to access
resources and expertise on up-to-date research-based practices.

**Federal Student Aid (FSA).** As part of the development of an
Enterprise Data Strategy, the Department mapped the \"As-Is Data Flows\"
of the financial aid operating systems. The goal of this mapping was to
provide a common understanding of how information is introduced,
captured, and passed among FSA systems to support the business of
delivering and overseeing financial aid authorized by Title IV of the
Higher Education Act. Mapping led to a creation of an enterprise view
that resulted in a deeper understanding of how and when customers and
other aid-related entities pass information through the various
financial aid operating systems. This understanding has led to
suggestions for improved data quality, enhanced data standards, and the
early stages of a target business architecture that addresses existing
inefficiencies in information processing.

**Adult Education.** The Department published and disseminated to all
state adult education offices a data quality handbook titled *Using NRS
(National Reporting System) Data for Program Management and
Improvement.* Four regional training institutes were conducted and
representatives from 48 states attended. The institutes used a "train
the trainer" model and were designed to enable states to roll out
state-level training to local program staff on data-quality issues.

An accountability system, such as the NRS, relies on quality data for
its integrity. The key questions that public and private supporters have
about the adult education program can be answered only with reliable
data. This important activity provided critical guidance, practical
information, materials, and formalized training that enabled states to
develop and implement data quality training and technical assistance to
thousands of local programs throughout the adult education delivery
system.

**Rehabilitation Services Administration.** The Department has moved the
focus of its monitoring from one based on compliance to one based on
performance. New approaches to monitoring state agency performance on
the standards and indicators developed pursuant to section 106 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are an example of this new focus on
performance. To analyze the reason a particular agency does poorly on a
particular standard or indicator, staff must rely on tables of relative
state agency performance. Central office staff have worked hard to clean
state agency data through FY 2001 and have provided regional office
staff with many tables that they can use in working with state agencies.
In addition, training on analyzing state agency performance is being
provided to rehabilitative services regional office staff.

**Civil Rights**. In FY 2003, the Department implemented a Web-based
Civil Rights Case Management System (CRCMS). The CRCMS integrates both
case and document management, which will facilitate end-to-end
electronic complaint processing. The capacity for electronic complaint
filing was added to the Department's Internet site in the fall of 2001
and data suggest that as many as one-third of complaints are now filed
electronically. The CRCMS provides staff and managers with network
access to data and case information, as well as the ability to perform
customized queries. CRCMS' document storage and retrieval capabilities
move the Department's civil rights case management from a paper-based
system of files toward compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act.

Sample Program Performance Report

Department of Education programs with performance measures publish
performance reports on the Department\'s Web site at
[http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2003report/index.html]{.underline}.
Lists of the Department\'s programs are on pages 58-59, 69, 78, and
89-90. A sample program performance report as it appears on the Web site
is provided below.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.2in"
height="4.6228346456692915in"}![](media/image3.png){width="5.166535433070866in"
height="4.453543307086615in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.2in"
height="5.121653543307087in"}![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.2in"
height="4.971653543307086in"}

Evaluation Findings and Recommendations

Information used to improve the Department's programs and management
comes from many sources, including findings from Department of Education
evaluations and General Accounting Office (GAO) reports.

In FY 2003, the Department of Education published findings from four
evaluation studies of three different Department programs: Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP),
21st-Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC), and Even Start.
These programs address increasing the educational opportunities and
services available to low-income and minority youth and their families
to ensure that these children are not left behind. By evaluating the
practices of these programs, the Department can better identify what
practices are most effective in improving student achievement.

Also this past year, GAO issued reports covering several of the
Department of Education's programs or management. GAO reports are
available at www.gao.gov/audit.htm; links to specific reports are
provided below. This appendix is a summary of report findings and
recommendations that were and will be used by management and leadership
to improve our services.

Goal 1: Accountability

GAO completed three reports related to Goal 1, Accountability, in
FY 2003:

-   Flexibility Demonstration Programs: Education Needs to Better Target
    Program Information (GAO-03-691, June 2003).

-   Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses;
    Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies
    (GAO-03-389, May 2003).

-   No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States
    Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified (GAO-03-631, July
    2003).

**Flexibility Demonstration Programs**. After reviewing the one
applicant for State-Flex and the three applicants for Local-Flex and
interviewing nonapplicants, GAO concluded that the Department should
provide states and districts with more information and should better
target that information to states and districts in the best position to
apply for additional flexibility. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03691.pdf>.)

**Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses**. Given
that significant expenses may be associated with testing (GAO estimates
range from \$1.9 to 5.3 billion per state), GAO recommended that the
Department facilitate the sharing of information on states' experiences
in attempting to reduce expenses. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03389.pdf>.)

**No Child Left Behind Act**. To help states determine which teachers
are highly qualified and decide what actions they need to take to help
teachers become highly qualified, GAO recommended that the Secretary
provide more information to states, especially on ways to evaluate the
subject area knowledge of current teachers. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03631.pdf>.)

Goal 2: Student Achievement

The Department continued or completed three evaluations related to Goal
2, Student Achievement. One was an interim report on an after-school
program: *When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the
21st-Century Community Learning Centers Program* (available at
<http://www.ed.gov/pubs/21cent/firstyear/index.html>)*.*

Two studies concerned the Even Start program: *State Administration of
the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Structure, Process and
Practices* (available at
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/evenstartstate/highlights.html>)
and *Third National Even Start Evaluation: Program Impacts and
Implications for Improvement* (available at
<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#evenstart-4>).

**Evaluation of After-school Program**. 21st CCLC was created in 1994 to
provide safe and supervised academic and recreational activities for
students at school outside of regular school hours and was one of the
fastest growing programs in the Department (from \$40 million in FY 1998
to \$1 billion in FY 2002) and supports programs in 7,500 public
schools. The first-year evaluation and subsequent report *When Schools
Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st-Century Community
Learning Centers Program* was the largest and most rigorous look at
after-school programs done to date, with the purpose of examining the
characteristics and outcomes of typical programs in elementary and
middle schools.

The first-year findings reveal that although 21st CCLC after-school
centers changed where and with whom students spent some of their
after-school time and was associated with increased parental
involvement, they had limited influence on academic performance, no
influence on feelings of safety or on the number of "latchkey" children,
and some negative influences on behavior. However, the first-year
findings also indicated that grantees generally had succeeded in
implementing their planned programs and in gaining support from and
creating working relationships with school principals and teachers. Most
programs provided academic, enrichment, and recreation activities, with
homework help being the most common academic activity. Perhaps the most
significant implementation problem was the low level of student
participation, averaging less than two days a week when the centers were
often open four or five days per week. As a result, the Department is
considering ways to address low student participation and low academic
content within the program, including program structures that would
facilitate more frequent attendance, such as focusing on serving
students who are having difficulty in reading or math and asking them to
participate a minimum number of days each week. The study will release a
second report in December 2004, including an additional year of
follow-up data and a wider scope of programs. The final report will be
released in March 2005.

**Evaluation of Even Start**. Even Start was created in 1989--90 as a
federally administered program and in 1992 was converted to a
state-administered formula program with an FY 2003 appropriation of
\$248 million, supporting approximately 800 sites across the United
States. The program helps break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by
improving the educational opportunities of low-income families by
integrating early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic
education, and parenting education into a unified family literacy
program. Two studies were released in 2003 concerning Even Start: *State
Administration of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Structure,
Process and Practices* and *Third National Even Start Evaluation:
Program Impacts and Implications for Improvement*. The first study
systematically describes all major areas of Even Start administration
and the factors that facilitate or impede program improvement
activities. The study aims to be both a self-assessment and reference
guide for state coordinators and a guide for Even Start administrators
at the federal level to better target their assistance to states. This
first study revealed the following:

-   Even Start staffing in some states has been very stable while some
    states have experienced frequent changes in state coordinators.

-   Staff resources for Even Start at the state level are limited.

-   States rarely deny continuation funds to local Even Start projects.

-   States differed greatly in every aspect of Even Start performance
    indicators that were submitted in June 2001, including the measures
    used, performance standards set, and subgroups to which the
    measurements and standards are to be applied.

The second study, which included a small experimental design component,
found the following:

-   Although Even Start children and parents made gains on literacy
    assessments and other measures, children and parents in the 18 Even
    Start programs that participated in the assessment made no more
    school readiness or educational gains than those who did not receive
    Even Start services. Recipients did not gain more than children and
    parents in the control group, about one-third of whom received early
    childhood education or adult education services.

-   Even Start serves a very disadvantaged population.

-   Compared with Head Start, Even Start parents are much less likely to
    have a high school diploma, and Even Start families have
    substantially lower annual household incomes.

-   Families do not take full advantage of the services offered by Even
    Start projects, participating in a small amount of instruction
    relative to their needs and goals. The extent to which parents and
    children participated in literacy services is related to child
    outcomes.

Based on statements made by state coordinators and the areas of
administrative challenges identified in this study, the evaluation
recommended providing the following:

-   Comprehensive clearinghouse of information and materials related to
    topics such as Even Start legislative and program guidance; family
    literacy curricula; research-based instructional approaches for
    early childhood education, adult education, and parenting education;
    child and adult assessments; family literacy staff development; and
    local evaluation approaches.

-   More opportunities for state and local Even Start staff, including
    their evaluators and technical consultants, to attend high-quality
    educational and technical assistance workshops led by national
    experts.

-   More opportunities for state coordinators to work together in which
    state coordinators would take the lead in setting the agenda,
    presenting effective practices or lessons learned, and conducting
    collaborative problem solving sessions.

-   Federal leadership to promote collection of core program and
    participant data that are comparable across states.

GAO completed four reports related to Goal 2 Student Achievement in
FY 2003:

-   Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training,
    but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced (GAO-03-6,
    December 2002).

-   Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of
    Federal Disciplinary Provisions (GAO-03-550, May 2003).

-   Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a
    Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed
    Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services (GAO-03-397, April 2003).

-   School Lunch Program: Efforts Needed to Improve Nutrition and
    Encourage Healthy Eating (GAO-03-506, May 2003).

**Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher Training**.
To improve teacher quality reporting, GAO recommended that the Secretary
further develop and maintain a system for regularly communicating
program information with grantees and establish a systematic approach
for evaluating all grant activities. In addition, the Department should
define key terms from the legislation clearly and allow sufficient time
for the verification of the required information. (The report is
available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d036.pdf.)

**Special Education**. Special education guidance could also be
improved. Although the Department provided guidance and oversight to
states and school districts for special education disciplinary
placements by providing information on federal requirements; by
reviewing state self-assessments, improvement plans, and data; and by
conducting on-site data collection visits in selected states, according
to some state and local officials, this guidance has not been specific
enough. In particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative
examples specifying whether the days of in-school suspension should be
counted as days of removal under the 10-day rule. Therefore, GAO
recommended that the Secretary issue supplemental guidance to state and
local education agencies to assist them in implementing the disciplinary
provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
(The report is available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03550.pdf>.)

**Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice.** GAO also noted the need for
increased focus on mental health services availability. Child welfare
directors in 19 states and juvenile justice officials in 30 counties
estimated that in FY 2001 parents placed over 12,700 children into the
child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could
receive mental health services.

Given this, GAO recommended that the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Justice (DOJ) consider the feasibility of tracking
children placed by their parents in the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems to obtain mental health services. HHS, DOJ, and the
Department of Education should develop an interagency working group to
identify the causes of the misunderstandings at the state and local
levels and create an action plan to address those causes. (The report is
available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf>.)

**School Lunch Program**. Although schools are moving toward meeting
school lunch nutrition requirements, more improvements are needed.
According to national studies, lunches meet requirements for nutrients
such as protein, vitamins, calcium, and iron, but do not meet the
required 30 percent limit for calories from fat. GAO recommended that
the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education
work together to identify specific strategies to help schools promote
nutrition education while meeting the demands of state academic
standards and to encourage each state to identify a focal point to
promote collaborative efforts that would further develop nutrition
education activities for schools. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03506.pdf>.)

Goal 3: Safe Schools, Strong Character

There were no Department evaluations or GAO studies completed in FY 2003
that related to Goal 3, Safe Schools and Strong Character, with the
exception of those mentioned under Goal 2 on student achievement.

Goal 4: Research

There were no Department evaluations or GAO studies completed in FY 2003
that related to Goal 4, Research, with the exception of those mentioned
under Goal 2 on student achievement.

Goal 5: Postsecondary and Adult Education

The Department completed one evaluation related to Goal 5, Postsecondary
and Adult Education: *The Evaluation of Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)* (available at
[www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup.html](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup.html)).

**GEAR UP college access program gains momentum but faces implementation
challenges**. Created in 1998, GEAR UP is a discretionary grant program
designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared
to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.  The services include
distributing information about colleges; offering academic support; and
promoting parental involvement in education, educational excellence,
school reform, and student scholarships.  The study released this year,
*National Evaluation of GEAR UP: A Summary of the First Two Years,*
examines the characteristics of students being served by GEAR UP, the
activities and services provided to these students and their parents,
and the additional professional development opportunities for teachers
and curriculum development efforts that are taking place in these
schools. 

The study showed 237 GEAR UP partnerships were serving nearly 200,000
students in its second year of operation (2000--01). Of those 200,000,
90 percent were in the seventh or eighth grade and were predominately
minority: 36 percent were Hispanic; 30 percent, African American; 26
percent, white; 5 percent, Native American and Hawaiian; and 3 percent,
Asian. The climate in which GEAR UP had been received by local educators
and school districts had taken a positive turn. Initially, GEAR UP was
met with resistance by these schools because most viewed it as a
hindrance that might dilute their school's focus on improving academics
and test scores. However, by the second site visit in spring 2001,
school staff perceptions of GEAR UP had significantly improved, with
GEAR UP being seen as a positive force for academic improvement.

On average in 1999--2000 and 2000--01, GEAR UP partnerships received
federal grants of \$713,000, or about \$660 per student. Most of the
federal funds were used to fund staff, which usually consisted of a
full-time director and possibly one other full-time staff member who
were centrally located. In addition, these projects generally had
full-time site coordinators and some part-time assistants at each
participating middle school. Many projects had planned on having fairly
elaborate decision-making processes and on involving numerous community
partners. But in reality, GEAR UP partners relied heavily on project
staff (e.g., project directors and coordinators) to plan and carry out
project operations. Most of the partners have been education providers.

Two other areas where grantees' original designs have been difficult to
implement are involvement of parents and volunteers. The sites visited
as part of the evaluation study indicated they had a great deal of
difficulty in getting parents involved in GEAR UP activities. A few
sites reported success with institutes that enrolled parents in 9- to
10-week workshops or with extensive outreach efforts, individual
meetings, and home visits. Sites also had problems with recruiting the
intended number of volunteers to fill their staffing needs, which
resulted in making more use of paid professional staff to provide
services. An example of this occurred with tutoring, one of the two
major services GEAR UP provides. Because the pool of volunteers was
insufficient, schools had to rely on paid professionals, usually
teachers, to act as tutors to GEAR UP students. Although there were
benefits of having paid professional tutors---high dosages of tutoring,
experienced tutors, and curriculum alignment---a negative result that
arose was the reduction of planned mentoring activities because of
volunteer shortages. Additionally, projects experienced difficulty in
attracting students during out-of-school hours because of transportation
problems and competing interests.

However, college-planning activities such as fairs and college visits
took place at almost all projects and were well received by students. In
addition, one-third of the sites visited provided individual guidance to
all students or to students having academic or behavioral difficulties.
Professional development activities also increased significantly between
years one and two as teachers became more accepting of GEAR UP. Focus
groups indicated that teachers were generally satisfied with the
professional development opportunities that GEAR UP provided. Some
projects scaled back their summer plans in the second year (summer 2001)
in terms of length and expected number of participants because of
difficulties in attracting summer participants.

There were five GAO studies in FY 2003 that related to Goal 5,
Postsecondary and Adult Education:

-   Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving
    Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth (GAO-03-773, July 2003).

-   Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
    Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
    Persist (GAO-03-697, June 2003).

-   Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
    Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and
    Information Sharing Is Needed (GAO-03-725, June 2003).

-   College Completion: Additional Efforts Could Help Education With Its
    Completion Goals (GAO-03-568, May 2003).

-   Student Financial Aid: Monitoring Aid Greater Than Federally Defined
    Need Could Help Address Student Loan Indebtedness (GAO-03-508, April
    2003).

**Special Education: Actions Can Assist States in Improving
Postsecondary Outcomes**. Of all IDEA youth who left high school during
the 2000--01 school year, 57 percent received a standard diploma, and an
additional 11 percent received an alternative credential. High school
completion patterns of IDEA youth have remained stable over recent years
despite concerns that states' increasing use of exit examinations would
result in higher dropout rates. In light of this, GAO recommended that
the Department of Education (1) gather and provide states with
information on sound strategies to collect and use postsecondary data;
(2) develop a plan to provide states with timely feedback and consistent
quality of technical assistance; and (3) coordinate with other federal
agencies to provide IDEA students and their families with information on
federally funded transition services. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03773.pdf>.)

**Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations**. Sixty-two federal
programs---most of which are administered by the Departments of Health
and Human Services, Labor, Education, and Transportation---fund
transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. GAO
recommended that the Departments of Labor and Education join the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. GAO also recommended that
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation strengthen the Coordinating Council's strategic plan,
include long-term goals and measures for coordination in their agencies'
strategic and annual performance plans, and develop and distribute
additional guidance and information to encourage coordination. The
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation generally concurred with the findings and recommendations
in this report. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03697.pdf>.)

**Workforce Investment Act**. Of the 14 one-stop centers in GAO's study
that were identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce
development experts, all had implemented a range of promising practices
to streamline services for jobseekers, engaged the employer community,
and built a solid one-stop infrastructure. While Labor currently tracks
outcome data---such as job placement, job seeker satisfaction, and
employer satisfaction---and funds several studies to evaluate workforce
development programs and service delivery models, little is known about
the impact of various one-stop service delivery approaches on these and
other outcomes. Therefore, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Labor
collaborate with the Departments of Education, Health and Human
Services, and Housing and Urban Development to develop a research agenda
that examines the impact of various approaches to one-stop program
integration on outcomes, such as job placement and retention, and
jobseeker and employer satisfaction. GAO also recommended that the
Secretary conduct a systematic evaluation of the Promising Practices Web
site and ensure that it is effective. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03725.pdf>.)

**College Completion**. More than half of all students who enrolled in a
four-year college completed a bachelor's degree within six years.
Students were less likely to complete if neither parent had completed a
degree, they were black, they worked 20 or more hours per week, or they
transferred to another college. GAO recommended that the Secretary
consider multiple measures that would help account for the other goals
of higher education and differences among colleges and take steps to
identify and disseminate information about promising practices in
retention and graduation. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf>.)

**Student Financial Aid**. GAO found that in school year 1999--2000, of
the 3.4 million full-time/full-year federal aid recipients, 22 percent
(732,000) received a total of \$2.96 billion in financial aid that was
greater than their federally defined financial need. Changing the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to limit the receipt of aid that is greater than
students' federally defined financial need is not likely to achieve
significant federal savings, although the use of substitutable loans may
increase overall student indebtedness. In terms of cost implications,
limiting those instances where federal aid recipients receive
substitutable loans---which is the main reason that students received
aid greater than their federally defined need---will not likely result
in significant savings. Although the government will not have to pay
default claims or special allowance payments on loans it guarantees, it
would forgo any interest earnings on loans it makes directly. Any
savings from limiting these loans would be substantially less than the
total amount of the loans made---the \$2.72 billion. However, the
widespread use of substitutable loans may increase the average debt of
borrowers and may affect the Department's ability to help students and
their families maintain their loan debt at manageable levels. To ensure
that substitutable loans will not lead to unmanageable student loan
indebtedness, GAO recommended that the Secretary monitor the impact of
substitutable loans on student loan-debt burden and, if debt burden
associated with substitutable loans rises substantially, develop
alternatives to help students manage student loan-debt burden. (The
report is available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03508.pdf>.)

Goal 6: Department Management

There were seven GAO studies in FY 2003 that related to Goal 6,
Department Management:

-   Department of Education: Status of Efforts to Address Major
    Management Challenges (GAO-03-531T, March 2003).

-   Student Loans and Foreign Schools: Assessing Risks Could Help
    Education Reduce Program Vulnerability (GAO-03-647, July 2003).

-   Taxpayer Information: Increased Sharing and Verifying of Information
    Could Improve Education's Award Decisions (GAO-03-821, July 2003).

-   Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be
    Improved (GAO-03-377, February 2003).

-   Federal Student Aid: Timely Performance Plans and Reports Would Help
    Guide and Assess Achievement of Default Management Goals
    (GAO-03-348, February 2003).

-   Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
    Education Management (GAO-03-99, January 2003).

-   Federal Student Aid: Progress in Integrating Pell Grant and Direct
    Loan Systems and Processes, but Critical Work Remains (GAO-03-241,
    December 2002).

**Department of Education: Status of Efforts to Address Major Management
Challenges**. GAO noted that the Department was taking steps to reduce
vulnerabilities in its student aid programs and improve its financial
management. The report cited the establishment of a senior management
team to address management problems, including financial management,
throughout the agency. Although noting that we have made significant
progress, GAO said that weaknesses remain that will require the
continued commitment and vigilance of Education's management to resolve.
(The report is available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03531t.pdf>.)

**Student Loans and Foreign Schools.** Almost 70 percent of all U.S.
residents receiving Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) funds to attend
foreign schools are in medical school, and they account for
three-quarters of the total loan volume. GAO found that FFEL is
vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse in several ways. For instance,
many foreign schools do not submit required audited financial statements
and program compliance audit reports, which would allow the Department
to monitor for and detect significant fraud or other illegal acts. GAO
recommended that the Department develop online training resources
specifically designed for foreign school officials and undertake a risk
assessment to determine how best to ensure accountability while
considering costs, burden to schools and students, and access to foreign
schools. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03647.pdf>.)

**Taxpayer Information**. A 1998 amendment to HEA was intended to
authorize the matching of student aid applicant information with several
elements of federal income tax return information. However, HEA could
not be used as intended because Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 was
not specifically amended so that the Department and its contractors,
which assist the Department in administering the various financial aid
programs, could have access to taxpayer information. Based on a study
that matched Department data and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) income
information, the Department estimates that it made approximately \$602
million in grant overpayments during fiscal years 2001 and 2002. GAO did
not make any recommendations for the Department. However, GAO previously
recommended that Congress consider legislation to authorize IRS to
release individual income data to the Department so that the Department
could verify income on student-aid applications. (The report is
available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03821.pdf>.)

**Disadvantaged Students: Oversight of Title I.** Although Title I
program officials had little difficulty in applying the Maintenance of
Effort (MOE) provision because it involves a straightforward
calculation, state and local program officials and auditors with whom
GAO spoke cited a number of factors that made it difficult to enforce
the Supplement Not Supplant (SNS) provision under certain circumstances.
One of the challenges auditors faced was determining whether a school
district would have removed its own funds from a program and allocated
them elsewhere even if federal funds had not been available---an action
that is allowable. Another challenge was applying the SNS provision in
circumstances where it is difficult to track federal dollars, such as in
schoolwide programs---where all funds are pooled---or in districts
undergoing significant districtwide reforms---where comparisons to
previous budgets are problematic. To more effectively focus audit
resources, Congress should consider eliminating the SNS requirement for
schoolwide programs---where it is unworkable---and increase the MOE
requirement. In addition, GAO recommended that the Secretary enhance
technical assistance and training efforts to ensure better oversight of
Title I's fiscal requirements and more effective use of the single audit
process. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03377.pdf>.)

**Federal Student Aid: Timely Performance Plans and Reports.** The
default management goals of the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) were
mostly to prevent defaults, increase collections, and verify student
eligibility, but the agency lacked a plan to guide its efforts. FSA met
or exceeded most goals, but did not prepare timely performance reports.
According to GAO's analysis, FSA met or exceeded performance targets for
36 of its 39 default management goals during fiscal years 2000 through
2002. However, FSA did not issue performance reports for fiscal years
2000 and 2001, as required by HEA. Instead, in December 2002, FSA issued
one report for both fiscal years that lists accomplishments, but does
not clearly indicate the extent to which goals were or were not met. GAO
recommended that the Secretary and FSA's chief operating officer produce
a five-year performance plan annually as required by the HEA, and
prepare and issue timely reports to the Congress on FSA's performance
that clearly identify whether performance goals were met. (The report is
available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03348.pdf>.)

**Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education
Management.** GAO noted that the Department has taken steps to address
its continuing challenges of reducing vulnerabilities in its student aid
programs and improving its financial management, such as establishing a
senior management team to address key issues. However, GAO noted that
the Department will face new management challenges as it helps states
and school districts meet the goals and requirements of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). In particular, GAO noted that the Department
will need to monitor states' and school districts' efforts to have
students meet challenging academic standards and ensure that all
teachers meet standards outlined in NCLB, develop and enforce rigorous
standards for research projects we conduct and fund, and help states
meet the increased assessment and accountability requirements of NCLB.
(The report is available at <http://www.gao.gov/pas/2003/d0399.pdf>.)

**Federal Student Aid: Progress in Integrating Pell Grant and Direct
Loan Systems and Processes**. GAO noted that although FSA has made
progress in implementing the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD)
process, the implementation of the COD process is behind schedule, and
its ultimate success hinges on FSA's completing critical work, including
addressing serious postimplementation operational problems and having
thousands of postsecondary schools implement the common record. GAO
recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief Operating Officer, FSA,
to establish a process to capture and disseminate lessons learned to
schools. (The report is available at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03241.pdf>.)

#   {#section .07-PAR-Objective-Table-Text1}

# 

# ![](media/image6.png)

# 

# 

## Management Challenges of the Department of Education

## October 2003

We are providing the management challenges for the Department of
Education in accordance with the provisions of the Reports Consolidation
Act of 2000 (PL 106-531).

Detailed information about our work is available on our website at
<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OIG>

![](media/image7.png){width="2.854861111111111in"
height="1.5034722222222223in"}

CHALLENGE 1: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Sound financial management is essential to the Department's ability to
provide accurate financial information, to manage for results, and to
ensure operational integrity. The Department's stewardship of billions
of federal education dollars depends on a reliable, consistent financial
management system to deliver services and benefits to recipients.
Improving financial performance is also an item on the President's
Management Agenda (PMA). Two significant financial management challenges
face the Department: accelerated reporting and re-implementing its
financial management system.

-   [Accelerated reporting]{.underline}

The production of interim and final financial statements for the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) on an accelerated schedule is a prominent
challenge for the Department. The Department's Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO) produces the Department-wide financial
statements and separate statements for Federal Student Aid (FSA). OMB
guidance shortens the time to prepare and audit these year-end financial
statements from 120 days for fiscal year (FY) 2003, to 45 days for FY
2004 and beyond. The guidance also shortens the time to prepare
unaudited interim statements from 45 days to 21 days. The Department's
ability to meet these accelerated time frames will depend on having
effective and timely interim and year-end procedures to accumulate and
record financial transactions, close the books, and prepare the
financial statements.

-   [Implementation of Oracle 11i]{.underline}

OCFO and FSA recently completed separate implementations of Oracle
Federal Financials. The Department plans to re-implement the Oracle
system as version 11i to take advantage of enhancements and to stay
current with Oracle-supported products. An implementation of this
magnitude is a significant and complex undertaking that must be
carefully planned and diligently executed. Many decisions are yet to be
made that will significantly affect financial reporting capabilities
within the Department. In addition, an implementation of this magnitude
will eventually draw upon the current resources of OCFO and FSA staff
focused on financial management and reporting responsibilities.

# 

# Department's Progress

The Department has made improvements in financial management. The
Department's and FSA's FY 2002 financial statements received an
unqualified audit opinion, a major milestone in the Department's
progress toward strengthening its financial management. The Department
also successfully met OMB's accelerated due date for its FY 2002
Performance and Accountability Report. The Department has issued the FY
2003 quarterly financial statements required by OMB. In addition, the
Department has set a goal of issuing its and FSA's audited FY 2003
financial statements by November 15, 2003. Issuing statements in
November implements the FY 2004 reporting requirement one year ahead of
schedule.

The Department's target date to go live with the Oracle 11i system is
October 2006. The Department has developed a four-tier approach for
implementation: conduct impact assessments, develop an upgrade strategy
and approach, develop a detailed implementation plan, and implement
version 11i.

CHALLENGE 2: FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS

The Department's student financial assistance programs are large and
complex, affecting more than 37 million parents and students, and
involving about 6,000 schools, more than 4,000 lenders, three dozen
guaranty agencies, and many third-party servicers and contractors. Last
year the Department disbursed and guaranteed approximately \$65 billion
and managed a \$267 billion loan portfolio. Funding for these programs
has doubled in the last ten years alone. These programs are inherently
risky due to their complex design, reliance on numerous entities, and
the nature of the borrower population. They have been on the General
Accounting Office's (GAO) high risk list since 1990, and the PMA
includes elimination of fraud and error in student aid programs and
deficiencies in the Department's financial management as a program
initiative. Reducing this risk while maintaining access to these
programs is a dominant challenge for the Department.

-   [Income data match with Internal Revenue Service]{.underline}

Matching income information that applicants provide with information
maintained by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the single most
effective way to address falsification on applications for student
financial assistance. The Higher Education Act requires applicants for
aid to provide certain information that will enable the Department to
determine their eligibility. Some applicants give false information
about their income or dependency status to receive aid they are not
eligible to receive. The Department estimated that \$336 million in Pell
grants was improperly disbursed in FY 2001 because applicants
understated their income. Obtaining amendments to the Internal Revenue
Code, in a manner that can provide an effective match with the IRS on
income information, is critical to addressing this problem.

-   [Oversight and program review]{.underline}

FSA is responsible for oversight of schools, guaranty agencies, lenders,
and third-party servicers retained by these entities. Adequate oversight
and program review are key components to reducing abuse in student
financial assistance programs. We have found a number of deficiencies
that could have been prevented by more stringent oversight and review.
For example, during FY 2002 we performed audits at nine guaranty
agencies and recommended recovery of approximately \$164 million in
federal funds. The number of on-site program reviews at schools has
dropped, and the average program review liability has also declined
sharply. Fewer and limited-scope on-site reviews increase the potential
for abuse and mismanagement.

-   [Contract monitoring]{.underline}

FSA must improve its contractor oversight to ensure that contract terms
and conditions are met and that it receives the high-quality goods and
services required. We have performed a number of audits and found
weaknesses in FSA's contracting processes. Although FSA was provided
certain procurement flexibilities under the Performance Based
Organization provisions of the Higher Education Act, it still must
adhere to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

# Department's Progress

The Department has made a strong commitment to addressing factors that
resulted in the student financial assistance programs' placement on
GAO's high risk list, and has made progress in reducing risk in these
programs. The Department has committed to brief GAO periodically on its
progress. The Department also worked with OMB and the Treasury
Department to draft proposed amendments to the Internal Revenue Code
necessary to implement the IRS match, and continues to work with OMB to
support the proposed legislative change.

FSA also has taken steps to improve its program oversight and contract
monitoring. It is developing an improved electronic management system to
provide case teams electronic access to all information on a school.
Implementation of this system would streamline and improve the process
for reviews of statutorily required audits and recertifications of
schools. At FSA's request, we have performed audits of several of FSA's
major contracts, and preaward reviews of proposals submitted for a new
loan servicing system contract.

CHALLENGE 3: Information technology

The Department's more than 70 systems must be capable of ensuring the
availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the data they contain.
Critical operations, assets, and sensitive information must be
safeguarded from unauthorized access, disruption, and loss. It is
essential for the Department to continue its efforts to address
information technology (IT) security weaknesses to protect the systems
used to administer billions of education dollars under its stewardship.

-   [IT investment management]{.underline}

The Department needs both an enterprise architecture and an investment
management capability to use its systems in a cost-effective and
efficient way. The development of a formal process for ensuring that
investment decisions are consistent with the enterprise architecture is
also necessary for IT systems to function well across the Department.

-   [IT security]{.underline}

We have determined that the Department has not fully implemented an
agency-wide information security program in accordance with the Federal
Information Security Management Act. We have also identified significant
security weaknesses on the servers and databases that support the
Department's mission-critical systems. Although the Department has made
significant improvements within the agency-wide information security
program, the majority of its general support systems (GSS) and major
applications (MA) have not been formally certified to process data in
accordance with OMB guidance. We continue to find repeated management,
operational, and technical control weaknesses in systems operated at
Departmental contractor facilities.

-   [Critical infrastructure protection program]{.underline}

While participating in a government-wide audit coordinated through the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, we found that the
Department needs to improve its critical infrastructure protection (CIP)
program to secure the infrastructure necessary to provide services for
its core missions. As stated in our March 2003 audit report, we found
that while the Department has made significant progress since our 2000
review of the program, it still needs to take major steps before
mission-essential cyber assets and related infrastructures are fully
identified and adequately protected. The Department's cyber assets and
related infrastructures are still at risk.

-   [IT contingency planning]{.underline}

IT resources are vital to an organization's success, and it is critical
that the services provided by the Department's systems operate
effectively in the event of a disaster or disruption to normal system
services. The Department needs viable IT contingency plans to support
this requirement. In our assessment of FSA's IT contingency planning, we
concluded that FSA needs to improve IT contingency planning, testing,
and coordination.

# Department's Progress

The Department has made significant progress since our 2002 report on
the Government Information Security Reform Act. For example, it has
implemented a plan to prioritize security weaknesses on all its systems,
and is currently addressing the identified security vulnerabilities. It
has also embarked upon a formal certification and accreditation process
(C&A) for all GSS and MA, and it plans to complete C&A for its most
critical systems by December 2003 and for all other systems by December
2004. The Department recently announced that it has certified and
accredited 10 systems, including two of its mission-critical systems,
although we have not had an opportunity to verify that assertion. The
Department also indicated that it has funded a Project Matrix
interdependency study for all mission essential assets. It is also
working toward completion of an enterprise-wide architecture and
development of mature investment management processes. In addition, the
Department is devoting considerable resources to establish and test
contingency provisions for its systems.

## 

CHALLENGE 4: Program performance and\
accountability

Performance and results are increasingly linked to financial reporting
and to budget and funding decisions, and budget and performance
integration is an item on the PMA. OMB assessed the performance of more
than 200 federal programs in formulating the President's FY 2004 budget.
Eighteen education programs were included in that assessment, including
Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants, Even Start, and Pell Grants. We
reviewed these assessments and reported our results to OMB. Since
program performance and results now may have financial consequences,
there is a greater risk of fraudulent reporting of performance
information.

-   [Data reliability]{.underline}

The No Child Left Behind Act mandated major changes in federal education
policy and placed additional requirements on states to gather and report
data. Successful implementation of the Act's provisions pertaining to
teacher quality, student achievement, and other areas depends on
reliable data. Many states lack procedures and controls necessary to
report reliable data, including school improvement data.

This year, at the request of the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, we audited the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of
vocational education and performance data in three states and a sample
of sub-recipients in each of those states. We found that one state did
not report vocational education and performance data for 64 percent of
its community colleges. Another state did not report performance data
for 15 percent of its sub-recipients and used a previous year's data to
estimate academic attainment reported for secondary schools. For one
local agency, 49 percent (852 of 1,743) of students' records were
reported more than once in some performance indicators. Accurate data is
critical as it could affect how much funding states receive. The
vocational education and performance data is used to identify states
that are eligible for incentive grant awards under the Workforce
Investment Act.

-   [Monitoring]{.underline}

Monitoring is an essential component for improving accountability of
federal education expenditures. Vigorous program and contract monitoring
helps ensure that federal education dollars are administered and used in
the most effective and efficient manner, and is critical to program
success. We have identified areas that can be improved in the
Department's monitoring of its programs and contracts. For example, we
found that the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
needed to implement a systematic process to identify and monitor
high-risk grantees. We also recently issued a management information
report suggesting that the Department revise its contract monitoring
directive to include a definition of a high-risk contract and specific
guidelines for identifying and monitoring high-risk contracts. The
Department agreed with our suggestion.

-   [Program accountability and compliance]{.underline}

Our work disclosed special accountability and compliance issues for
federal education programs in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
Pacific Outlying Areas. There are serious instances of misuse of
education funds by grantees that might have been detected and prevented
through consistent oversight, such as on-site monitoring and the timely
submission and effective resolution of Single Audits and performance
reports. Our investigations and audits found internal control weaknesses
in Puerto Rico. An investigation between 1995 and 2000 of the former
Puerto Rico Secretary and Associate Secretary of Education disclosed a
conspiracy to fraudulently obtain approximately \$4.3 million for
education contracts valued at approximately \$138 million.

# Department's Progress

The Department has focused attention on the need to improve data quality
and reliability. It has addressed this issue in its strategic plan, and
the Secretary has made accountability a key priority. The Assistant
Secretary for OESE convened a working group that developed and issued
improved strategies and procedures for identifying high-risk grantees,
and outlined the steps program officers should take when dealing with a
grantee that is at risk of becoming, or currently is, a high-risk
grantee. The Department also established an Insular Affairs Committee
comprised of senior program office representatives to address
accountability and compliance issues in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
and the Pacific Outlying Areas. This committee is focusing on resolving
findings in the Single Audits submitted by these areas. In addition, the
Department has imposed special conditions on grants to some of these
entities.

## 

CHALLENGE 5: HUMAN CAPITAL

GAO placed strategic management of human capital on its high risk list
in 2001. The fundamental human capital problem GAO identified is the
long-standing lack of a consistent strategic approach to managing and
maintaining the workforce necessary for a more effective and efficient
government. On the PMA, the need for the strategic management of human
capital is the first item listed. The PMA, referencing the GAO report,
cites the need for workforce restructuring \"to reduce the distance
between citizens and decision-makers;\" implementation of knowledge
management systems to generate, capture, and disseminate knowledge and
information; human resources planning to address upcoming retirements;
and greater attention to recruiting and retaining a highly qualified
workforce. In addition, GAO noted that continuing the implementation of
strategic human capital measures, including succession planning and
staff development, were important to reducing the high risk designation
of the SFA programs. The Department needs to address the challenges
identified by GAO and the PMA, including planning for the impact of
changes in existing personnel; about 34 percent of its career staff were
eligible to retire in 2001.

# Department's Progress

The Department included a specific human capital objective in its
strategic plan, and in 2002 developed its One-ED Report, which it calls
its human capital plan. This report discusses the PMA's call for
strategic management of human capital. Human capital action steps also
were included in the Department's Blueprint for Management Excellence.
Specific functions in five offices in the Department have completed
initial work under One-ED. One-ED includes a discussion of competitive
sourcing, a five-tier performance appraisal system, and learning tracks.
It does not, however, offer a Department-wide or Department-specific
approach to some significant human capital issues such as human resource
planning, workforce restructuring, and knowledge management. We have
started a review of the first phase of the Department's implementation
of One-ED and a review of human capital action steps under the Blueprint
for Management Excellence that have been identified as completed. Based
on our work, we will make recommendations to aid the Department in
strengthening its human capital management.

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

21st CCLC 21st Century Community Learning Centers

AARTS Audit Accountability and Resolution Tracking System

ACSI American Customer Satisfaction Index

AEFLA Adult Education and Family Literacy Act

AID Aid for Institutional Development

AP Advanced Placement

ATA Assistive Technology Act

ATMD Assistive Technology Mobility Device

BCP Business Continuity Plans

C&A Certification and Accreditation

CCD Common Core of Data

CDC Centers for Disease Control

CHAFL College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans

COD Common Origination and Disbursement

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CPS Central Processing System

CRA Civil Rights Act

CRCMS Civil Rights Case Management System

CSB Common Services for Borrowers

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act

DCMS Debt Collection Management Systems

DEOA Department of Education Organization Act

DLOS Direct Loan Origination System

DM Department Management

DOEAA Department of Education Appropriations Act

DOJ Department of Justice

DRP Disaster Recovery Plan

DVR Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

ECEPD Early Childhood Educator Professional Development

EDA Education of the Deaf Act

EDCAPS Education Department's Central Automated Processing System

EDEN Education Data Exchange Network

EDNet Education Department's Basic Communications Network

EDPAS Education Department Performance Appraisal System

ELL English Language Learner

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESRA Education Sciences Reform Act

FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FBCO Faith-Based and Community Organization

FECA Federal Employees Compensation Act

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System

FFB Federal Financing Bank

FFEL Federal Family Education Loan

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act (Social Security)

FIE Fund for the Improvement of Education

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act

FMSS Financial Management System Software

FSA Office of Federal Student Aid

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAO General Accounting Office

GAPS Grant Administration and Payment System

GED General Educational Developmental

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

GISRA Government Information Security Reform Act

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GRS Graduation Rate Survey

HBCU Historically Black College and University

HEA Higher Education Act

HEFL Higher Education Facilities Loans

HEROES Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HKNCA Helen Keller National Center Act

HSI Hispanic-Serving Institution

IASA Improving America's Schools Act

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IDS Intrusion Detection Services

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IRS Internal Revenue Service

IT Information Technology

LAP Lender Application Process

LaRS Lenders Reporting System

LEA Local Educational Agency

MECEA Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961

MIS Management Information Systems

MOE Maintenance of Effort

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MS Minimally Successful

MSI Mathematics and Science Initiative

MSP Mathematics and Science Partnership

MVHAA McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NAGB National Assessment Governing Board

NBPTS National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NCER National Center for Education Research

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NCLB No Child Left Behind Act

NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey

NHES National Household Education Survey

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLA National Literacy Act

NPEC National Postsecondary Education Cooperative

NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

NRS National Reporting System

NSF National Science Foundation

NSLDS National Student Loan Data System

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition

OERI Office of Educational Research and Improvement

OIG Office of Inspector General

OM Office of Management

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSDFS Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

PAR Performance and Accountability Report

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

PBDMI Performance-Based Data Management Initiative

PIRC Parental Information and Resource Centers

PIRWG-LT Planning and Investment Review Group Leadership Team

PL Public Law

PLUS Parental Loans for Undergraduate Students

PMA *President's Management Agenda*

POA&M Plan of Actions and Milestones

RA Rehabilitation Act

REAP Rural Education Achievement Program

RFMS Recipient Financial Management System

RFP Request for Proposal

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources

SEA State Educational Agencies

SEOG Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant

SERV School Emergency Response to Violence

SFA Student Financial Assistance

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

SNS Supplement Not Supplant

SS/HS Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative

SY School Year

T²RERC Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer

TAC Teacher Assistance Corps

TASSIE Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts

TCU Tribal College and University

U Unacceptable

USC United States Code

USCO Unsafe School Choice Option

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

VTEA Vocational and Technical Education Act

WWC What Works Clearinghouse

YRBSS Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System

Additional copies of the

**Department of Education**

**FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report**

are available by contacting ED Pubs, the Department's Publication
Center.

ED Pubs

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Telephone: (877) 4EDPUBS \[(877)-4333-7827\]

or: (800) USALEARN \[(800)-872-5327\]

Fax: (301) 570-1244

E-mail: edpubs@inet.ed.gov

TDD/TYY: (877) 576-7734

Web: <http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2003report/index.html>

The Department's Strategic Plan is available on the Web at:

<http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2002-07/index.html>

Department annual plans and annual reports are available on the Web at:

<http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html>

> The Department welcomes all comments and suggestions on both the
> content and presentation of this report. Please forward them to:
>
> Strategic Accountability Service
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> Washington, D.C. 20202-0600
>
> E-mail: sas@ed.gov
>
> The following companies were contracted to assist in the preparation
> of the FY 2003 U.S. Department of Education *FY 2003 Performance and
> Accountability Report*:
>
> For research and general layout: American Institutes for Research,
> Inc.
>
> For database design and support: Digicon Corporation
>
> For graphic design: Ketchum
>
> For accounting services: IBM Business Consulting Services
>
> KPMG, LLP
>
> Cotton & Company, LLP

![](media/image8.png)

**www.ed.gov**