U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–499 PDF 2011

STREAMLINING FEDERAL EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE PROGRAMS: A LOOK AT THE 

GAO REPORT ON GOVERNMENT WASTE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 6, 2011 

Serial No. 112–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

[Vacant] 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 6, 2011 ................................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Additional submission: Letter, dated April 22, 2011, from Hon. Hilda 

L. Solis, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor .................................... 57 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 52 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dodaro, Hon. Gene, Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional submissions: 

‘‘Employment and Training Programs That Have Shown Positive 

Results’’ ........................................................................................... 53 

‘‘Teacher Quality Programs That Have Shown Positive Results’’ .. 54 

Table: ‘‘Federal Programs That Support Teacher Quality and 

Allow Funds to be Used for Activities Aimed at Improving 

the Performance of School Administrators’’ ................................. 56 

(1) 

STREAMLINING FEDERAL EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE PROGRAMS: A LOOK AT THE 

GAO REPORT ON GOVERNMENT WASTE 

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, 

Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, Bucshon, Gowdy, Barletta, Noem, 

Roby, Heck, Ross, Kelly, Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Woolsey, 

Tierney, Kucinich, and Wu. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media 

Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, General Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Daniela Garcia, 

Professional Staff Member; Ben Hoog, Legislative Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; 

Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services Oversight 

Counsel; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Linda Stevens, 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, 

Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing Clerk; Jody 

Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy 

Director of Education Policy; Sophia Kim, Minority Legislative Fellow, Education; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; 

Jerrica Mathis, Minority Legislative Fellow, Labor; Celine 

McNicholas, Minority Labor Counsel; Megan O’Reilly, Minority 

General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Meredith Regine, Labor Minority Policy Associate; Alexandria Ruiz, Minority Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy; 

Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director for Education; Minority Press Secretary; Laura Schifter, Minority Senior 

Education and Disablity Advisor; Michele Varnhagen, Minority 

Chief Policy Advisor and Labor Policy Director; and Michael Zola, 

Minority Chief Investigative Counsel. 

Chairman KLINE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the Committee will come to order. Well, good morning and welcome. 

I would like to thank the U.S. Comptroller General, Mr. Dodaro, 

for joining us today as we shed light on wasteful federal govern-
2 

ment spending. Your time is valuable and we appreciate the opportunity to get your thoughts on duplicative teacher and workforce 

training programs. 

At a time when our nation faces an historic fiscal crisis we must 

make a concerted effort to reduce federal spending. A necessary 

step in this process is to eliminate and streamline federal programs. Now more than ever it is critical to ensure taxpayer dollars 

are spent wisely. 

Thanks to the work of Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, and 

the Government Accountability Office, we have recently learned of 

massive amounts of waste and duplication within federal programs. 

According to the March 2011 report, billions of dollars are being 

squandered on redundant programs. As our nation continues to 

borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent, this muse of tax—misuse of 

taxpayer funds is unacceptable. 

This committee is particularly concerned about the 82 individual 

teacher quality programs and the 47 separate job training programs detailed in the report. 

We all recognize the importance of placing more qualified and 

better prepared individuals in our schools and workplaces. This 

will help provide our children with a quality education and keep 

our nation competitive in the global economy. But the magnitude 

of duplication and overlap among the programs listed in the GAO 

report is counterproductive to the achievement of these fundamental goals. 

Of the 82 distinct programs focused on improving teacher quality, several aren’t administered by the Department of Education. 

Ten separate agencies are responsible for overseeing various teacher quality programs, including the Departments of Defense, Interior, State, Agriculture, and Energy. 

In 2009, $4 billion in taxpayer funds was dedicated to improving 

teacher quality. Instead of instituting a government-wide strategy 

to ensure these funds were being used wisely and effectively, communication between agencies was limited and programs continued 

to be implemented without coordination or concern about existing 

initiatives. As a result of this fragmented process, taxpayer dollars 

were wasted and student achievement saw little improvement. 

Nine federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Agriculture, Defense, 

Justice, and Veterans Affairs, are currently responsible for implementing 47 different employment and job training programs that 

cost the taxpayers approximately $18 billion in 2009. Forty-four of 

the 47 programs overlap with at least one other program. 

In fact, many of the programs provide the same services to the 

same populations through separate administrative structures. This 

lack of coordination in workforce training programs and teacher 

quality programs is irresponsible, wasteful, and careless. 

We must act now to return fiscal sanity to Washington. This report illustrates considerable opportunities to cut federal spending 

and consolidate wasteful government programs. If we allow taxpayer funds to be wasted and federal spending to continue unchecked we are putting our children in a more precarious position 

and risking the future stability of our country. 
3 

We all have a responsibility to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse 

of taxpayer dollars and make the tough choices necessary to 

streamline federal programs within this committee’s jurisdiction. A 

failure to act when confronted with such compelling evidence of 

waste would be indefensible. 

And again, I would like to thank the Comptroller General for 

joining us. 

And I will now recognize my distinguished colleague, George Miller, the Senior Democratic Member of the Committee, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome. I’d like to thank the U.S. Comptroller General, Mr. 

Gene Dodaro (DOE-DAR-OH), for joining us today as we shed light on wasteful federal government spending. Your time is valuable and we appreciate the opportunity 

to get your thoughts on duplicative teacher and workforce training programs. 

At a time when our nation faces a historic fiscal crisis, we must make a concerted 

effort to reduce federal spending. A necessary step in this process is to eliminate 

and streamline federal programs. Now more than ever, it is critical to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. 

Thanks to the work of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and the Government Accountability Office, we have recently learned of massive amounts of waste and duplication within federal programs. According to the March 2011 report, billions of dollars are being squandered on redundant programs. As our nation continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent, this misuse of taxpayer funds is unacceptable. 

This committee is particularly concerned about the 82 individual teacher quality 

programs and the 47 separate job training programs detailed in the report. We all 

recognize the importance of placing more qualified and better prepared individuals 

in our schools and workplaces. This will help provide our children with a quality 

education and keep our nation competitive in the global economy. But the magnitude of duplication and overlap among the programs listed in the GAO report is 

counterproductive to the achievement of these fundamental goals. 

Of the 82 distinct programs focused on improving teacher quality, several aren’t 

administered by the Department of Education. Ten separate agencies are responsible for overseeing various teacher quality programs, including the Departments of 

Defense, Interior, State, Agriculture, and Energy. In 2009, $4 billion in taxpayer 

funds was dedicated to improving teacher quality. Instead of instituting a government-wide strategy to ensure these funds were being used wisely and effectively, 

communication between agencies was limited and programs continued to be implemented without coordination or concern about existing initiatives. As a result of this 

fragmented process, taxpayer dollars were wasted and student achievement saw little improvement. 

Nine federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Justice and Veterans Affairs, are 

currently responsible for implementing 47 different employment and job training 

programs that cost the taxpayers approximately $18 billion in 2009. Forty-four of 

the 47 programs overlap with at least one other program. In fact, many of the programs provide the same services to the same populations through separate administrative structures. This lack of coordination—in workforce training programs and 

teacher quality programs—is irresponsible, wasteful, and careless. 

We must act now to return fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C. This report illustrates considerable opportunities to cut federal spending and consolidate wasteful 

government programs. If we allow taxpayer funds to be wasted and federal spending 

to continue unchecked, we are putting our children in a more precarious position 

and risking the future stability of our country. 

We all have a responsibility to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars and make the tough choices necessary to streamline federal programs within 

this committee’s jurisdiction. A failure to act when confronted with such compelling 

evidence of waste would be indefensible. 
4 

Again, I’d like to thank Mr. Dodaro (DOE-DAR-OH) for joining us, and I will now 

recognize my distinguished colleague George Miller, the senior Democratic member 

of the committee, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 

hearing. 

And I want to also welcome Comptroller General Dodaro, again, 

to the committee. 

Witnesses from the General Accountability Office aren’t new to 

this committee. The GAO has completed some incredible work on 

behalf of this committee. 

Your undercover investigations 2 years ago showed us the Bush 

administration failed to respond to serious allegations of waste and 

child labor violations. This investigation resulted in the hiring of 

200 new investigators and ordering the retraining of current investigators. 

Your work about the residential boot camps and the abuse of special needs children under the guise of discipline garnered national 

attention and led to legislation that passed this committee and the 

House with bipartisan support. 

Today I am reintroducing that bill in this Congress. In the years 

since the bill has passed hundreds of kids have continued to be 

abused and we can prevent those abuses by setting minimum safety standards among the states. 

Your food safety investigations identified major gaps within 

USDA that led to administrative changes to protect the food of our 

students eating the school lunch and nutrition programs. In these 

prior investigations GAO reports told how a great—a great deal 

about what the need is on the ground and where the avenues for 

action might be. 

The report before us today seems to be of a different nature. 

There is absolutely a need to identify, reduce, and eliminate government waste. It is clear from reading the testimony and related 

reports that when it comes to the issues within the jurisdiction of 

this committee, the relevant agencies recognize the need to address 

many of the issues identified by the GAO over the years. 

On the education side, the Department of Education has taken 

proactive action to better align programs and consolidate where 

possible. They have established a working group across the agencies to better collaborate and propose to consolidate programming 

in a number of areas, including consolidating 38 teacher training 

programs into 11. 

With Secretary Duncan at the helm, the department has identified areas where the consolidation makes both—makes sense both 

for the taxpayer and the students, teachers, and schools. But as the 

GAO noticed in the past, Congress must take action to address program realignment, which I hope we will have a chance to do so 

with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year. 

In regards to job training, GAO found that there are 47 programs 

that spend $18 billion to provide training services. What I would 

like to hear from GAO’s view on—I would like to hear GAO’s views 

on how many individuals receive effective job training, how many 

individuals have been denied service, and what specific savings and 
5 

program improvements can be achieved by consolidating administrative structures. 

While the report before us today has already been the subject of 

congressional hearings and discussion, I hope that today’s hearing 

can somehow move us forward in the consideration of the items I 

have just mentioned. If Congress is to act and to address the issues 

of government waste then there is very specific detailed information that we need to know about the effectiveness of the programs 

you reviewed. 

If, on the other hand, the information we hear today is limited 

to what has already been reported, then the hearing that the majority has called unfortunately may be redundant and, in fact, duplicative of what already has taken place in the Congress. And 

with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning and welcome Comptroller General Dodaro. 

Witnesses from the Government Accountability Office aren’t new to this committee. 

GAO has completed some incredible work on behalf of this committee. 

Your undercover investigation two years ago showed us how the Bush administration failed to respond to serious allegations of wage theft and child labor law violations. 

This investigation resulted in the hiring of 200 new investigators and ordering the 

retraining of current investigators. 

Your work about residential boot camps and abuse of special need children under 

the guise of discipline garnered national attention and lead to legislation that 

passed this Committee and the House with bipartisan support. 

Today, I am reintroducing that bill in this Congress. In the year since the bill 

passed this House, hundreds of kids have been abused and we can prevent those 

abuses by setting minimum safety standards. 

Your food safety investigations identified major gaps within USDA that led to administrative changes to protect the food our students eat in school. 

In these prior investigations, GAO reports told us a great deal about what the 

need is on the ground and where the avenues for action might be. 

The report before us today is of a different nature. 

There is absolutely a need to identify, reduce and eliminate government waste. 

It is clear from reading the testimony and related reports that when it comes to 

the issues within the jurisdiction of this committee, the relevant agencies recognize 

the need to address many of the issues identified by GAO over the years. 

On the education side, the Department of Education has taken proactive action 

to better align programs and consolidate where possible. 

They’ve established working groups across agencies to better collaborate and have 

proposed to consolidate programming in a number of areas, including consolidating 

38 teacher training programs to 11. 

With Secretary Duncan at the helm, the Department has identified areas where 

consolidations make sense both for the taxpayer and for students, teachers and 

schools. 

But as GAO has noted in the past, Congress must take action to address program 

alignment which I hope we will have a chance to address through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year. 

In regards to job training, GAO found that there are 47 programs that spent $18 

billion to provide job training services. 

I’d like to hear GAOs views on how many individuals received effective job training, how many individuals have been denied services, and what specific savings and 

program improvements can be achieved by consolidating administrative structures. 

While the report before us today has already been the subject of congressional 

hearings and discussions, I hope today’s hearing could somehow move us forward. 

If Congress is to act to address issues of government waste, there is very specific, 

detailed information that we need to know about the effectiveness of the programs 

you reviewed. 
6 

If, on the other hand, the information we hear today is limited to what has already been reported, then this hearing that the majority has called is, unfortunately, just more government waste. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness. 

The Honorable Gene Dodaro became the eight Comptroller General 

of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office on December 22, 2010, when he was confirmed by the 

U.S. Senate. 

As Comptroller General, Mr. Dodaro helps oversee the development and issuance of hundreds of reports and testimonies each 

year to various committees and individuals Members of Congress. 

His longstanding career at GAO dates back more than 30 years. 

Prior to serving as the Comptroller General, he served as the Chief 

Operating Officer for 9 years, assisting the Comptroller General 

and providing direction and vision for GAO’s diverse, multidisciplinary workforce. 

I now recognize the Comptroller General. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE DODARO, COMPTROLLER 

GENERAL, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Miller, members of the committee. I am very pleased to be 

here today to discuss our recent report on opportunities to reduce 

potential duplication in federal programs, reduce costs, and to enhance revenues. 

This report is the first of a statutorily required mandate for GAO 

to produce a report each year on these topics. In this first report 

we identified 34 areas that we believe are a subject of either program fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication, and they 

range across the spectrum of the federal government’s activities 

from defense, to energy, to economic development programs, to 

transportation programs, to those that you already mentioned in 

your opening statements, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller, today on education and employment and training. 

In addition to those 34 programs we identify 47 other opportunities to reduce costs and to enhance revenues, particularly to address a yawning tax gap of $290 billion, which is estimated at this 

point in time. So we cover the full range of the federal government’s activities. 

The 81 areas offer opportunities to save billions of dollars, and 

importantly, also, make programs more effective and efficient. And 

the objective of the review was to do both. 

Now, of special interest today are two of the 81 areas on teacher 

quality and the employment and training programs. With regard to 

the teacher quality programs, as mentioned, we identified 82 distinct teach quality programs administered by 10 states. 
7 

Importantly, however, we found there was no government-wide 

strategy to reduce fragmentation and overlap and potential duplication in those programs. And this fragmentation has led to limitations on agencies’ abilities to comprehensively tackle this issue, to 

evaluate the individual programs to determine what is working effectively and what is not working effectively in the programs, and 

it adds to administrative burdens not only at the federal level but 

at the state and local level as well. 

As you mentioned, Ranking Member Miller, the Education Department has already put forth a proposal to consolidate 38 of 

these areas into 11 areas, and we think this is a good starting 

point for the discussions and that Congress should use the opportunities afforded through its legislative vehicles, Mr. Chairman, as 

you approach reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act. And we would be happy to support the committee 

in that endeavor. 

Now, with regard to the employment and training programs, 44 

of the 47 programs overlap, at least providing the same service to 

the same types of populations over time. Now, importantly, in 

terms of the question about what do we know about the effectiveness of these programs, 23 of these programs have not been subject 

to any evaluation since 2004. So there is limited information and 

a lot of our recommendations in the past have been encouraging 

the Department of Labor to evaluate these programs, and we can 

talk more about that in the Q&A session. 

We think at a minimum there are opportunities to gain administrative efficiencies in dealing with these programs, but the federal 

departments and agencies have to move forward with some of our 

recommendations about determining what is being experimented 

with at the state and local level, what is working well, disseminating some of these best practices, and importantly, trying to figure out what incentives there are or could be to incentivize the 

state and local governments to more effectively come up with pilots 

to administer these programs. We think this is very important, and 

one of the departments believes there are some legislative limitations on their abilities to work with agencies in the TANF program, 

and we think that is something that the Congress could remedy. 

Now, there are activities that, in the short term, can be dealt 

with; and also in the employment training area the administration 

has put forth a proposal to consolidate nine of the programs into 

three and to shift another program from Labor to HHS, and so we 

think those merit congressional attention as well. 

Now, while there are a lot of opportunities in the short term to 

deal with these two areas, in the longer term legislation the Congress passed last year in the Government Performance Results Act 

Modernization provides additional legislative tools to help deal 

with these issues. 

It requires, for example, OMB to set a specific number of crosscutting goals and requiring greater coordination across agencies 

and areas. It requires individual agencies to identify what they are 

doing to collaborate and coordinate with other agencies in related 

program efforts. It requires quarterly reviews with performance 

measures to be posted on public Web sites. And importantly, it requires the executive agencies to consult with the Congress in the 
8 

development of performance measures and in determining what the 

priorities would be for these program areas. 

So there is a heavy role contemplated and increased requirements for consultation with the Congress, which I think offer important opportunities. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Chairman, to 

discuss these issues. GAO stands ready to help the Congress deal 

with the enormous fiscal pressures that are upon us right now and 

to help make decisions in a careful, deliberative manner, and these 

areas require careful consideration, and I am sure this committee 

will give. 

And so I would be happy to answer questions at this point. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. Again, thank you for being 

here and for your time and the hard work that the GAO does. 

And I am keenly mindful of the ranking member’s comments 

about we don’t want this hearing to be either redundant or duplicative. We have actions that we need to take. We have been discussing here, in fact, for some years whether—whichever side was 

occupying this chair—that we need to address some of this duplication, some of the problems, some of the shortfalls in WIA and other 

areas. 

Your report just sort of put a double underscore over the scale 

of the problem that has been sitting out there. And as you know, 

we have some—it is not only a question of nine or 10 agencies; it 
27 

is also a question of, sometimes, nine or 10 committees here in 

Congress, and we have to work that out. And I am hoping that 

some of the questions and discussion that we go through here today 

can kind of help us sort that out, and I think it is part of my job 

to work with the leadership and other chairmen to see if we can 

sort out some of these jurisdictional challenges here in Congress. 

You mentioned some of the things that the administration is 

doing; Mr. Miller mentioned some of the things that Secretary 

Duncan is doing. But you also said, or I certainly inferred from 

your testimony, that there are some legislative actions that should 

be taken. 

Can you expand that a little bit? What are the things that you 

are thinking about, looking at, that the Congress should be taking 

up? 

Mr. DODARO. First, there are reauthorizations that are upon you 

in both of these programs in the education area as well as employment training activities, and the reauthorization of Workforce Investment Act. So I do think those reauthorizations provide really 

pivotal, timely opportunities to reassess what the federal role 

should be. 

A lot of these programs have developed over a period of time, and 

it is a good opportunity to take a step back to try to determine 

what is working well, what isn’t, to set priorities, and for the Congress to be clear on what the desired outcomes it would like to 

achieve in these programs, and to also potentially use legislative 

vehicles to require coordination across federal government’s programs and activities. 

The Congress did that recently with the Competes America Act 

in the areas dealing with the scientific technical engineering and 

math programs requiring a strategic plan, requiring a role of OMB 

and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. So 

I think the Congress can use its legislative platform to make sure 

that there is more coordination across the executive branch and to 

get clearer reports from the executive branch activities. 

The other legislative change that we would suggest the Congress 

consider is in the employment and training area. The Department 

of Health and Human Services has indicated that there are legislative barriers to them in the TANF program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, in order to allow them to deal 

properly with incentives to work with other program activities. So 

we think that makes sense. 

Also, I think this is also a very important opportunity for the 

Congress to get input from the state and local level as well as it 

considers legislation. Most of these programs are administered at 

the state and local level. They are under enormous fiscal pressures 

as well. 

We have done long-range simulations of the collective fiscal path 

of the state and local sector and it is on the same difficult longrange unsustainable path that the federal government is on. And 

so trying to work with them to give them incentives to streamline 

administrative operations to provide more efficient delivery services I think would be enormously helpful at all levels of government. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 
28 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

In the media advisory—the majority media advisory for today’s 

hearing—it says that the GAO has identified a number of programs 

aimed at improving teacher quality and it says that GAO has identified a number of employment and training programs in the same 

vein. And I think that is accurate. 

However, the advisory asserts that GAO has found, and I 

quote—‘‘Many of these programs are managed by multiple agencies 

and aimed at the same beneficiaries, causing unnecessary duplication and wasted tax dollars.’’ I don’t see that in your report, and 

I do not see in the evidence of your testimony that that is the case 

of showing unnecessary duplication or identifying specific tax dollars wasted. 

In fact, where you discuss the teacher quality programs at the 

top of page 6 you actually say, ‘‘Several factors make it difficult to 

determine whether there is unnecessary duplication in these programs,’’ and you go on to say that, ‘‘when similar teacher quality 

activities are funded through different programs and delivered by 

different entities, some overlap’’—the word you use, overlap can be 

unintentional but it is not necessarily wasteful. And I think that 

is a difference from the cast of the advisory on this hearing. 

Later in your testimony, with regard to job training and employment programs, you say on page 8 that the extent to which individuals receive the same services from job training programs is unknown. More than 15 times throughout your testimony you include 

the title and the use of phrase ‘‘potential duplication,’’ but you don’t 

find the massive duplication. I recognize, and we have been very 

concerned on this committee, about who is offering—in the Competes Act we try to get rid of some of the duplication and let the 

National Science Foundation deal with science and STEM. 

But let me ask you in the time remaining, as quickly as I can, 

did you—in this GAO report did you identify specific examples of 

programmatic duplication—not administrative duplication, but specific examples of programmatic duplication? 

Mr. DODARO. What we did identify were fragmentation and overlap, which we believe can be harbingers of potential duplication—— 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. I understand. But—— 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. But for these two program areas we 

did not identify any examples of duplication. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. And I think that your response comports 

with what is on page 6, where you talk about the overlap, and 

some overlap can occur unintentionally, but again, it is not necessarily wasteful—— 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. In terms of tax dollars. 

Did you identify and calculate specific cost savings to be achieved 

by consolidating administrative structure? 

Mr. DODARO. We believe that it is Congress’s prerogative to decide the priorities on these programs, so we did not provide specific 

recommendations on how to address this area. What our main recommendation was is that to get ahead of this, to make sure there 

isn’t—— 
29 

Mr. MILLER. No, I understand that. But in your report where you 

find overlap and whatever you have not assigned a cost or concern 

about what that would be—— 

Mr. DODARO. No. We have pointed out some limitations in the 

ability to be able to do that because—— 

Mr. MILLER. You also mentioned that some states have done this 

and you say they said they saved a lot of money, and yet—but they 

couldn’t provide you any dollar amounts. 

Mr. DODARO. Not at this time. And this is why we think the federal agencies should have a stronger role in developing that information. 

Mr. MILLER. So we don’t know whether they saved or didn’t save. 

They said they saved, and I appreciate that, but—okay. 

Mr. DODARO. And I think given their situation, I mean they are 

looking for ways to reduce costs. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand. 

Did you assess the effectiveness of the programs identified in the 

report? 

Mr. DODARO. We had not been asked to assess the effectiveness, 

and we think this is an important area where the agencies have 

not stepped up to fulfill their responsibilities to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. 

Mr. MILLER. Are you planning on doing effectiveness—looking at 

these teacher programs or the training programs? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I think first and foremost our effort is making 

sure that the agencies fulfill their responsibilities to do these effectiveness studies. Like, for example, in the workforce investment 

area the 1998 legislation mandated that they do an impact study 

and that study is way late and it is not due to be completed until 

2015, almost 17 years after. So—— 

Mr. MILLER. I guess my concern is here is if the recommendation 

is—and the department, at least in education, is heading toward 

consolidation and made these recommendations, when you are 

doing consolidation I assume what you would take would be the 

most effective programs and try to provide for that consolidation. 

And therefore, you would somehow wring the savings out of here. 

But we really don’t have those recommendations from this report. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. There are some programs—and I would be 

happy to provide for the record—that have had evaluations, that 

have shown positive results that could be built off of, and so we 

will provide that for the record. 

But in the other—many other areas’ programs aren’t evaluated 

so it is really hard to determine at this point. You know, that is 

why we think this Government Performance and Modernization 

Act requires agencies to do more rigorous evaluations, to discuss 

the quality of the data, to provide publicly available results to help 

not only the Congress but the public understand what is effective 

in these programs—— 

Mr. MILLER. That would be a methodical—— 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Reevaluation or periodic effectiveness 

evaluation of the programs that would be required by the act? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Thank you. 
30 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Foxx, you are recognized. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here, Mr. Dodaro. I appreciate it. 

I am very interested in the comments that you made about—particularly, it has been 17 years since the law was passed to create 

evaluation and some effectiveness. I think the American public 

would find that absolutely appalling that here we justify paying 

high wages to the people who work in the federal government 

based on the fact that they have degrees and should be very highly 

skilled, and yet they can’t come across with an evaluation program 

in 17 years. I think something is really lacking. 

I am really curious, also, about some of the things that you have 

talked about. I wonder if we could focus a little bit more on the 

evaluation aspect. I think there is a great irony here that we are 

debating No Child Left Behind or the ESEA reauthorization and 

the concerns that local school systems have on how they have been 

evaluated. 

And I think perhaps we ought to bring in a group of teachers and 

principals and let them set up the evaluation programs for the Department of Education. Since the Department of Education has 

been able, it seems, to design extraordinarily intricate evaluation 

programs for the school systems and yet have failed completely to 

set up evaluation programs for themselves. 

I noted in the information we were given that in 2003 Congress 

attempted to streamline federal literacy efforts by establishing a 

commission to look at how to eliminate areas of overlap, and that 

commission found absolutely no areas of overlap. So it looks like we 

can’t do evaluation from within. 

Did you come across, in your work, any evaluative systems that 

you thought were really good and that should—or people from outside or inside who could then establish models for evaluations? Did 

you find any of those? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. There have been some evaluations that have 

been done in the teacher quality area and in the employment and 

training area, and I would be happy to provide, you know, that for 

the record. 

You know, one of the challenges here is that of the 82 programs, 

53 of them are relatively small programs, making it difficult to 

evaluate it. And I think that is part of the rationale for the Education Department’s consolidation efforts, to be able to have programs large enough, you know, particularly given the fact that the 

federal government’s efforts are supplemental to what is already 

being spent at the state and local level, and that is another complicating factor in the evaluations. 

I think the Congress’ oversight activities could be enhanced in 

these areas to make sure that the agencies do do the evaluations 

that are scheduled to be done and that are critically important to 

make sure that the Congress gets good information to make informed decisions. 

Mrs. FOXX. I was also curious about the comment you made 

about the 38 programs being collapsed into 11 programs. When we 

heard from Secretary Duncan he talked about that also, but I 

asked him the question, because we have been informed by staff 
31 

that there will be no savings as a result of consolidating those programs, and I think there has to be some emphasis placed on savings. 

You didn’t mention that in your comments, but did you find that 

we could have some savings as a result of that? You mentioned administratively, but how about in other areas? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Well, first of all, I would point out that two 

teacher quality programs of the ones we have mentioned Congress 

has already eliminated in these continuing resolutions that it has 

passed to date, so there have been two programs that have been 

eliminated. Obviously savings attended with those. 

We haven’t formally evaluated the department’s consolidation effort and what is to be gained from savings. We would be happy to 

look at that and provide our thoughts to the committee. 

Then there are 20 remaining programs within the department, 

which I think in the reauthorization program and the teacher quality area questions could be put forward to the department to determine why those programs weren’t consolidated, as well and what 

the opportunities are there and whether there are evaluations 

there. 

So I think there is a systematic way to look at the 60 of the 82 

programs that are within the Department of Education’s purview, 

and then there are questions of the other programs outside the department that could then be pursued as a line of questioning that 

would be, I think, very informative to the reauthorization deliberations. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Kildee, you are recognized. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dodaro, you mentioned there were 82 teacher quality programs. Is the problem the number of the substantive redundancy 

in many of these programs? 

Mr. DODARO. I think the issue is both, in terms of the number 

and the size of some of these programs, as I mentioned, are relatively small. In some programs, Congressman, what we found was 

that it is an allowable activity among many activities, and then 

there are specific smaller targeted programs intended to get at different particular issues. 

So because of that, it is hard to plan, you know, sort of a comprehensive approach to the program, both at the federal level and 

at the state and local level. So it is both the number, I think, the 

size of the programs, and the specific areas that involve some degree of overlap that need to be rationalized. 

And I think they are all well-intended. The question is, what is 

the most efficient way to do it? And because there aren’t evaluations it is difficult to provide information from the Education Department to the state and local level of what techniques have 

worked well, what should be replicated. And so I think that is limiting the—ultimately achieving the goals of all these programs. 

Mr. KILDEE. If they are allowable the agency or the state could 

do away with those programs themselves; if they are mandated 

then we would have to take action on that. 
32 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Well, a lot of them are competitive grants too. 

Where people apply for education determines that. So there is a 

cost associated with filling out the applications, reviewing them, 

that needs to be taken into account as well. 

Mr. KILDEE. So these 82 are spread through various levels of government, various states—— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. KILDEE [continuing]. So the entire—— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. KILDEE [continuing]. Country then. 

You said that some of these programs could be shifted from 

Labor to HHS. How would that help? Are some of the programs 

that similar that they could carry out their—both their missions? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. The administration’s proposal in the employment and training area is to shift one program dealing with senior 

services to the Department of HHS, which has other related programs dealing with that population. So it would allow them to try 

to provide a more, you know, comprehensive approach in dealing 

with that part of our population. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. Thank you for your good 

work. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentelman. 

Dr. Roe, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. 

I want to thank you for this report. I had a chance to read in 

detail and you all did a great job of really clarifying for me where 

all these programs were. And your staff and you are to be commended for that. It is very enlightening for me to see what this 

bowl of spaghetti looked like. 

And obviously it is complicated when you have this many programs. And just to bring up a couple here, both in workforce and 

in education: In 2010 the GAO reported there were 151 different 

federal K through 12 programs in early educational programs. 

More than half of these programs have not been evaluated, including eight of the 20 largest programs, which together accounted for 

about 90 percent of the total funding of these programs. 

I can’t believe that, that we haven’t looked at it in some detail 

to find out if they work. There is no business in the world that 

would spend the kind of money we are spending and not find out 

if it is effective. 

And I think your points you just made were the number of programs, the size, and then to evaluate the effectiveness of it—I 

mean, that is our fiduciary responsibility. And to have those tools 

we have to have the—we have to have the information about 

whether they are working or not. 

Mr. DODARO. That is exactly right. I mean, one of the laws that 

was passed in 1993 was the original Government Performance and 

Results Act, which was—required agencies to set goals, to provide 

measurements on that. And that has produced some additional impetus but it really hasn’t produced systematic program evaluations 

of what has worked. 

That is why I mentioned this Modernization Act that was passed 

last year. And, you know, my belief is it won’t work effectively 
33 

without the Congress’ oversight role and participation as a stakeholder. 

So I think it is a great opportunity that Congress should seize. 

Hold the agencies accountable. It fixes more accountability with a 

performance officer in the agencies, and I think it is a—it could be 

a sort of a game changing paradigm. 

Mr. ROE. I don’t think you all looked at this specifically, but how 

much—when you have this many duplicative programs how much 

cost is there in just the administration and how much of it actually 

gets to the classroom, or to the teacher, or whatever? I wonder if 

there is any way to know how much we are spending, because we 

know how much charitable organizations—and I don’t donate to 

them when 50 percent of their money goes to administration, and 

I don’t think taxpayers ought to be donating to something where 

it’s not going to the classroom and being effective. 

Mr. DODARO. It is very difficult to obtain that information both 

at the federal level and at the state and local level. I think the only 

two areas in our report where we identify clearly administrative 

costs associated with the employment and training programs are in 

the employment services area and the Workforce Investment Act 

Adult services, and I think we—those administrative costs are between—I think they are over $150 million just for those two programs. 

Mr. ROE. That is a lot. And the other one—another point here 

in workforce, and you mentioned it before, but 47 employment and 

training programs, 23 have not have a performance study of any 

kind completed since 2004 and only five have had an impact study 

since 2004, so we don’t know what they are doing. We don’t know 

whether they are effective. And as you pointed out, when you have 

got—in addition to the states administer a lot of these are overlapping, we are singing to the same people with both administrations. 

The other thing you pointed out, which I thought was excellent, 

was the fact that if your program was small enough it never got 

evaluated. And I think you mentioned 53. 

And the Secretary is to be commended for trying to shrink these 

down; I give him credit for that and that is a very good start, I 

think. But he can’t know what to shrink if he doesn’t know—having the accountability either. He can’t know whether he is making 

any forward progress or not. 

So I think that those 53 programs—I want to be in one of those 

where I never get looked at. 

Mr. DODARO. I think it is very important to make sure that everything that is done is evaluated. I mean, I think that, you know, 

there is a presumption that things continue to get funded unless 

there is a proven problem as opposed to making sure things work 

and are evaluated properly before they get additional funding. 

Mr. ROE. What kind of timeline do you think is reasonable to get 

this done so that we—it is a huge task, but what kind of timeline 

do you think we should be on? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I think there are things that could be tackled 

relatively short-term. I think it is clear the way to do that would 

be to set priorities with the administration and build off of some 

of the work that they have already done. That would be my recommendation. And then set priorities for where there are gaps in 
34 

evaluation and requiring them to begin to close those gaps as soon 

as possible on a sort of a set schedule. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. Again, thank you very much. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might—— 

Chairman KLINE. You may. 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. For a second, one thing I forgot to do 

is introduce our program experts that are with me here today. We 

have our managing director for employment and workforce and income security programs, Barbara Bovbjerg. George Scott and Andy 

Sherrill are experts in these areas, too. And if I might, I might ask 

them to help to answer some of the more detailed questions. 

Chairman KLINE. You certainly may. When I saw you look over 

your shoulder, I suspected that that indeed might be the case. 

So we welcome all of you here, and we welcome any input that 

you have got. 

Mr. Payne, you are recognized. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

It is good to see you, and I thought that you just had it all in 

your head since you are one of the first presenters that I have seen 

that have not used a prepared text. Let me commend you for knowing your information so well that you don’t need any notes. I have 

some, so you are ahead of me. [Laughter.] 

Let me just ask a question. In your testimony you said that the 

GAO found that many federal programs to improve teacher quality 

and employment and training had similar goals, beneficiaries, and 

allowable activities. Did the GAO report take into consideration the 

effectiveness of these programs or capacity for each program to 

meet the demand for the provided services? I mean, in light of the 

fact that you said there are duplicates, what were the results? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. We tried to find out whether or not there had 

been evaluations done on these programs and in these areas. And 

as I mentioned earlier, in many areas there really wasn’t a lot of 

information about program evaluations that were available. 

So those that we did have available we were able to use, but 

there were a lot of gaps. So you weren’t able to systematically look 

at all the 82 programs and determine, of the 82, which one’s program evaluation showed the most promising results, and I think 

for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, some of them were too 

small, some of them are part of a broader program. And so there 

are a lot of difficulties in gaining that picture that you are seeking. 

Mr. PAYNE. In your testimony you said that, you know, as you 

have just mentioned, that 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. Are there any examples of that that you can cite where that 

would occur? 

Mr. DODARO. In the teacher quality area? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I don’t have notes but I do have people, and 

I would like to ask George Scott to come up as our expert in that 

area. He can enlighten you on that—— 

Mr. PAYNE. Great. 
35 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. If I will. 

George, please? 

Mr. SCOTT. Good morning, Congressman Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. How are you? 

Mr. SCOTT. So again, what was your specific question? 

Mr. PAYNE. That in the testimony it said that 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. And I just wondered if there were any 

examples of how this might occur. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, there are examples across some of the teacher 

quality programs where either, you know, through comparative 

grants or through allowable activities you may see very similar activities but, you know, they could be targeted to very similar populations. That is why we were very careful to distinguish between 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. 

And what we say clearly in our work is that, you know, we have 

found evidence of fragmentation, where you have a lot of activity 

spread across several agencies or departments. We also have some 

indication of overlap, at least for a small number of programs 

under the Department of Education. 

But we talk about potential duplication but we did not actually 

find examples of duplication in the teacher quality programs. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Just a final question: This is probably for the future, but as, you 

know, in H.R. 1 they are regarding—in the program there will be 

an effort to close 3,000 one-stop career centers, eliminate summer 

youth employment programs, which provide access to job training 

and education to up to 7,000 disadvantaged students, and then the 

workforce development support provided to more than 1 million 

dislocated workers. Is this effort in line with the recommendations 

submitted in the report or have you dealt on what the potential 

would be if these cuts went into effect? 

Mr. DODARO. I don’t think we have evaluated that, so I will go 

back and we will take a look at it and if we have evaluated that, 

Congressman, we will provide it for the record, get it to you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Great. Thank you very much. 

Yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, thanks for being here, for your testimony. Your report— 

I was going through the report—specifically identified 47 separate 

employment training programs across nine agencies. The programs 

spent $18 billion. 

And certainly, you know, workforce development, I think, is the 

key to America’s competitiveness, but in your findings only five of 

those 47 programs had self-evaluations outcomes or impact studies 

of really outcomes. And as a former workforce investment board 

member I certainly have seen the value of workforce development 

programs in my local areas. 

And everyone—everyone—is concerned about jobs. What are 

some immediate actions the committee can take to assure that 
36 

value and outcomes for employment training are delivered with the 

investment that we are making with taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. DODARO. I think the best way to go about it is to hold the 

department accountable for producing the evaluations that they 

were supposed to produce, and they are behind. Labor Department 

has been slow to produce the evaluations. We have made many recommendations over the years to try to get them to improve the performance measures. 

So, you know, I believe that you really have to, you know, put 

the responsibilities with them and try to get them to give you what 

they have. Now, they do have some of the evaluations and some 

show positive results, so I think it is important to understand that. 

But I think in these other areas you have to really, you know, basically hold them accountable for providing the type of evaluations 

that you are looking for. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So I am sure we will do oversight hearings on 

this. I think that is kind of what I am taking from your recommendations. 

But there will be some program areas where there is—based on 

your department’s analysis there really isn’t good data or tracking 

of outcomes with some programs? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. In fact, let me ask Andy Sherrill, who is our 

expert in the employment and training area, to come up and give 

you sort of a rundown on what is available and what isn’t. 

Mr. SHERRILL. Okay. With regard to the tracking of outcomes, we 

found that most all of the 47 employment and training programs 

do track certain outcomes, most frequently things like entered employment, or retention of a job, or wages, that kind of thing. 

But we also found that, with regard to the evaluations, as we 

have said, you know, programs typically track outcomes but not a 

lot is known about sort of the effectiveness—to what extent do the 

programs contribute to the achieving the outcomes? What would 

have happened in the absence of the programs? 

And so that is sort of historically—in the work we have done on 

the Workforce Investment Act programs, sort of a repeated theme 

of our work has been the need for more information about what 

works and what doesn’t. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Well, thank you. 

I want to change gears just a little bit. The report states that in 

April 2010 the GAO recommended to the Department of Agriculture—I sit on the Agriculture Committee as well—that it identify and develop methods for addressing potential inefficiencies and 

reduce unnecessary overlap in smaller food assistance programs, 

including convening a group of experts to examine the issue. To 

date, however, the USDA has not implemented any of the recommendations. 

Were you able to determine why the USDA ignored this proposal? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. My understanding is the reason that they gave 

our team was that they didn’t have funding in order to implement 

the recommendation. But I think this is something that the Congress should expect. It is part of normal management activity; it 

should be budgeted for and it should be done. 
37 

Now, in this particular area we found 18 food assistance programs, 11 of which there weren’t a lot of evaluations done. There 

was a lot known about the seven larger ones but these other 11 

there really weren’t, and so we were trying to encourage them to 

close that gap. 

And I think this, you know, it is something that should be—Congress should expect the agencies putting the money out to be able 

to tell you what we received for the money and whether it is working effectively or not. And so we will keep pressing our recommendations but I would encourage the Congress to follow up. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, General. 

I yield back, Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for your testimony, and the others as 

well. 

I am interested in what you said about the—and what your associates said about measuring the outcomes on the Workforce Investment programs. Last time we reauthorized that bill it was a big 

conversation about the fact that we had been measuring the data 

in terms of the number of people it served, the number of dollars 

allocated to those people, but not enough on the outcomes. 

Now, if I am hearing right, what you are saying is we have information about the outcomes of those programs—how many people 

now have jobs, and how many people have increased wages—and 

you think that there is a need to measure, somehow, how it is that 

the program got those outcomes. How would you go about measuring that? 

Mr. SHERRILL. Well, for example, the WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Worker programs track outcomes with regard to, you know, how— 

and have performance goals with regard to the percentage of people 

that they want to have enter employment, have certain wage levels, and retain jobs. And, for example, for the program year 2009, 

if you look at to what extent were those goals achieved, in many 

cases they weren’t achieved, in part—you know, obviously the economy has a key effect. But any time, you know, you have outcome 

measures you also want to get some sense of whether the programs 

meet them or not, to what extent are sort of funding for the program responsible for those? 

Mr. TIERNEY. So if I am hearing you, what you are saying is they 

had the outcomes but they didn’t match them up with the expectations, so they didn’t have the goals as they relate to the outcomes? 

Mr. SHERRILL. Well, they had the performance goals, performance—things that they wanted to achieve, but we don’t have a good 

enough sense of to what extent are the things that the programs 

are doing, and sort of the one-stop center approach, actually making a difference. In other words—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, and I guess my question to you is, how do you 

do that, all right? If you have the goals and then you have the outcomes you can match those up and see whether or not it is working, or to what extent. But how do you determine whether or not 

the action you took is the action that got it to that point or some 

abstract thing that—I don’t know how you measure—— 
38 

Mr. SHERRILL. Well, there are two kinds of key ways. One is to 

do an impact study that relies on random assignment, so you have 

a control group of people who don’t go through the program, and 

so you compare what effects the program has versus those for the 

control group. 

There has also been other kinds of studies that use administrative data to do sort of comparisons, where there isn’t a control 

group, but to look at other people who are similar to the people 

going through the program and try to assess the outcomes. Are 

there differences in outcomes of the program versus the comparison 

group? 

And so there have been studies in some of the WIA programs to 

assess, is the program, as far as we can tell, having an impact on 

results? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Now, General Dodaro, you did say in your report that you don’t 

question the fact that the job training programs play an important 

role in helping job seekers obtain employment. Is that accurate? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But that there are some overlap you think. But I 

don’t think you made a judgment as to whether or not all of the 

overlap was, in fact, problematical. And I draw that to a distinction 

on some veterans programs. 

I know in many districts on that—there is a veterans program 

that serves the veterans homeless; there is another veterans program that might target, you know, disable veterans, for instance. 

Really, that is two different challenges that might be required of 

them. 

So you are not making an evaluative judgment on whether those 

should be allowed together or anything. You are saying that they 

exist and they are separate? 

Mr. SHERRILL. That is right. I mean, when we say that there was 

overlap and that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population we are not saying that that in itself is a problem, 

but that might warrant a deeper look, just as you are saying, because there are several programs that serve youth, for example, 

but as a target population, you know Job Corps provides services 

to—in a residential setting, other programs, you know, provide different—so we think that overlap provides an opportunity to look 

deeper at some of these programs to see the extent they are coordinated, the extent they might potentially be duplicating services. 

Mr. TIERNEY. No, in the context of trying to reauthorize this bill 

over the last several years have you made any evaluation—I know 

that we have made efforts, the different groups on both sides, of 

trying to consolidate some of these programs and make the kinds 

of adjustments you are talking about, as has the administration. 

Have you taken that work to date and seen how it measures up 

to your suggestions, whether or not what you are suggesting is, in 

fact, being addressed at all in that process? 

Mr. SHERRILL. We haven’t made any evaluations of the consolidation proposals there. The focus of our recommendation on the employment training front was really to foster more innovation at the 

state and local area, and for the federal agencies to disseminate in-
39 

formation about what is working there and what might be replicated in terms of achieving greater cost efficiencies. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, there is an effort going on, but I know—just 

because I happen to be fortunate enough to have a workforce investment board that is one of the national models so I brag a little 

bit about that—but I know that those types of studies are going on, 

and in fact, work is being done within that network of workforce 

investment boards on monitoring each other, mentoring each other, 

and trying to bring best practices around. Was that evaluated at 

all—that effort? 

Mr. SHERRILL. Well, we think that is a—we didn’t evaluate that 

effort but we think that is a good avenue for looking for cost efficiencies and mining what states are doing. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But you didn’t take any measure of how that is 

doing—— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Bucshon? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you for cutting me off, Mr. Chairman. Very 

polite. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is just the type of report I think the American people just 

hate to hear out of Washington, D.C. I mean, I think it confirms 

their impression of what we do here with their money. 

I am also continued to be amazed at the resistance by some in 

Congress to tackling this problem, especially, in fact, that we continue to find excuses of why we can’t consolidate programs and 

make things more efficient here in Washington, D.C., including 

some comments that have been recently made right here in this 

hearing. 

In my view, it is not good enough to consolidate programs but actually not decrease the size and scope of government. Putting the 

same number of Washington bureaucrats under different titles 

without actually eliminating those with duplicative roles doesn’t accomplish anything. And in that vein, I look forward to the specifics 

from the administration in regards to this process within the Department of Education. 

The question I have is, could you discuss briefly how inclusive 

the research was? Did it include all federal departments and programs? What were the limitations and why did you choose to limit 

the limitations that you chose? 

Mr. DODARO. Basically, the statute requires us to produce an annual report every year, and we don’t have the resources to cover 

the entire federal government every year. And so what we decided 

our plan was is we started with discretionary programs and work 

that GAO had already done over the years that we could build 

upon for this first report, which was done. 

And so we included defense and civilian agencies. We are going 

to be looking, in the next 2 years, in entitlement areas and also tax 

expenditures. 

You know, at any one time every year there is as much revenue 

foregone through tax expenditures as there is outlaid in discretionary programs, and some tax expenditures, particularly, like, in 

the student loan area, overlap some of the lending programs. So we 
40 

are going to be looking at lending programs as well as tax expenditures, discretionary and mandatory programs, as well. 

And so we hope over the next 2 years we will cover the entire 

federal government in these first three reports. That is our goal 

and we are aiming toward that. 

Now, we also included in the report additional recommendations 

on cost savings that did not involve overlap, duplication, or fragmentation, that GAO had identified in its work, and also ways to 

enhance revenue coming into the government. And so we plan to 

continue to do that, Congressman. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. 

And also, you did comment some about the states, and did you 

look at state-funded programs around the country and crosscheck 

those with some of these federal programs within the departments? 

And would that likely have even led to a higher number of redundant programs within the federal government? 

Mr. DODARO. You know, I have had that similar question myself, 

and our mandate goes to federal programs, so federal programs 

that are administered through the state and local level we are including in our review. But I do believe one of the next things we 

need to do once we get through the federal government is look at 

that very issue, because I think the intergovernmental delivery system that we have is rather fragmented as a whole, and I think 

there are opportunities there as well. 

And if we did look at that, you know, I think we would come up 

with some potential recommendations. But that is down the road. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the challenges we have is trying to figure out an idea that 

we want to have here in Washington and then you—by the time 

the idea gets down to our local districts, as you have suggested, the 

money gets caught up in bureaucracy and red tape. And another 

consideration we have is a teenager, even if there is overlap, if you 

have got a job—a summer job program a teenager is only going to 

get one job so the fact that there may be overlap in programs isn’t 

much of a problem. 

Can you tell us what we can do with the money we are spending 

to enhance the number of young people who have summer jobs? 

Mr. DODARO. Let me ask Andy to come to the table and talk 

about that, Congressman. 

Mr. SHERRILL. One of the areas we looked at under our Recovery 

Act work was the WIA Summer Youth Employment program, and 

what we found there was that states really—well, states had a very 

short time to gear up because Congress did emphasize the importance of providing summer youth employment. It was, in general, 

a success story. Most of the states we visited and analyzed were 

able—and some states hadn’t previously had summer youth programs—most were able to quickly ramp up and serve a lot of additional youth with their summer youth programs. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. So with the money that we provided an 

appropriate number of youth actually got jobs? 
41 

Mr. SHERRILL. In some cases they weren’t able to meet the entire 

demand at some places. In other places they had trouble finding 

enough youth to sort of—that they wanted to serve. But what we 

heard sort of in most places was that people thought that was a 

very useful program for serving youth. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Was there any overlap or any bureaucratic red tape between Washington and the youth actually getting 

a job? 

Mr. SHERRILL. I mean, part of one of the issues we found was 

that Department of Labor—in fact, we recommended—needed to 

provide more guidance in terms of the outcomes expected for the 

youth program, in terms of sort of the guidance, because we found 

that what states were measuring in terms of skill attainment for 

the youth, the way they were measuring it kind of across the board 

didn’t easily allow you to tell—sort of to assess the gains across localities and states. So we recommended that Department of Labor 

provide more guidance in this area and pay attention to that issue. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. Okay. I noticed that you have a lot of 

overlap in programs to enhance teacher quality. Again, even 

though they may overlap, each teacher will presumably only get 

one program. Can you tell us how we are doing on teacher quality? 

Mr. DODARO. I will ask George Scott to come up and elaborate, 

but we do have an example in our testimony about how one individual teacher could get several different assistance over a period 

of their career. So it is possible for one teacher to get aid under 

multiple programs that may or may not be duplicative. It might be 

quite appropriate in some circumstances. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. But that could be a good thing, that they 

would learn a lot of different things. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. But again, it will only be known if there is 

evaluation done of these programs, which, in many cases, is not 

happening. But let me ask George to elaborate. 

Mr. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA. And is the answer to the problem evaluation or is the problem red tape getting the program from idea in 

Washington to on the ground in our districts? 

Mr. SCOTT. The issue we have highlighted is the lack of rigorous 

evaluation of many of these programs. As the Comptroller General 

mentioned, there are instances where teachers, under either the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act or under the Higher 

Education Act, can qualify for various teacher quality programs 

throughout their career. That is not where the problem is. 

From our perspective, one of the key issues is it is not clear 

based on the limited number of evaluations that the Department 

of Education has conducted, you know, to what extent are those 

programs achieving their stated objective? And so from our perspective, that is really why it is really important to hold the department accountable for ensuring that in addition to rolling out 

these programs that there is some evaluation component built in 

so that at the end of the day we have a clear picture of whether 

these programs are achieving their intended objective. 

Mr. DODARO. I think basically, Congressman, also, in the department’s justification for consolidating the 38 programs into 11 they 

point out that, I think, they think the problem is both, that there 

is a lot of effort and time that goes into evaluating these competi-
42 

tive grant programs that could be better spent focusing on programs that have a proven track record, and that is part of their 

justification for the consolidation. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mrs. Roby, you are recognized. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being here. I appreciate 

your testimony and your willingness to answer our questions. 

On page 141 of the report it mentioned that some states have colocated the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, employment, 

and training services in one-stop centers where employment services and the Workforce Investment Act Adult Services are provided. 

Additionally, three states, as stated in the report—Florida, Texas, 

and Utah—have consolidated the agencies that administer these 

programs, and state officials said that this reduced cost and improved services. 

Could you just expand further on how either colocating services 

or consolidating agencies can improve the services and what kind 

of improvements we might expect to see? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. That is a very good question. I will let Andy 

explain the details. 

Mr. SHERRILL. On the colocation theme, part of what we found 

in our work—previous work on WIA—is that provides an opportunities for different program partners to do things like cross-training 

staff, have common intake processes, share computer systems, sort 

of provide services more efficiently and sort of have a more common 

face for the people coming through, a single plan for the person, 

that kind of thing. So it provides opportunities for better serving 

customers. 

On the three states that we—Utah, Texas, and Florida—that had 

consolidated their state welfare and workforce agencies, they basically told us that this had—in their view, has allowed them to save 

some administrative costs and better serve people, as well. But as 

we have said here, there is not a lot known about this. 

You know, what were the challenges? What were the results? 

What were the approaches that they used? What are the remaining 

issues to doing those kinds of initiatives? 

So that is where we think there can be more focus. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. And I guess, to add on to that, I mean, I think 

you said earlier in your testimony that 23 of the—there are 44 out 

of 47 that have been identified, but 23 of them haven’t been evaluated at all as it relates to the administrative efficiencies, but of the 

programs that have been evaluated, are there any performance 

measurements to show that they actually result in individuals finding jobs faster or securing jobs at higher pay? Has any of this been 

looked at? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. There are some limited studies. I will ask 

Andy to elaborate on them. There are two that we know of. They 

are not generalizable to the entire population but they do provide 

some insight into people gaining employment that leads to a higher 

income. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. 

Mr. SHERRILL. Right. Both of these studies—one in 2008, one in 

2005—were impact evaluations of the Workforce Investment Act 

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs that—one of them, I think, 
43 

was 12 states; another was in seven states. Both found that the 

program had positive impacts compared to other sort of similar 

populations where they did statistical data-matching. 

So people coming through the WIA—these WIA programs tended 

to have higher getting into jobs, like one of them found receiving 

any WIA services in these two programs was generally—result in 

a 10 percent gain in sort of—10 percentage point gain in entering 

employment, so getting into jobs more. They also found sort of increases in people’s earnings achieved as well, compared to the comparisons group they had. So some positive impacts. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Woolsey, you are recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And my apologies for not being here during your testimony, and 

I may be somewhat repetitive. But I am definitely concerned that 

if we were to consolidate all the programs that you studied, and 

maybe—which is four more, you are recommending, than the department has recommended—I am really worried about how it 

would affect the quality of our education system. 

And would there actually be a net positive in terms of bringing 

more efficiencies, or would it just leave teachers and students who 

receive federal assistance hanging because all of a sudden there are 

fewer programs and less funding and they are all competing for 

the—out of the same pot? 

This is, like, three questions. Here is the third: Isn’t it reasonable to believe that new programs have been added over time to 

cover areas not included in the existing programs, and how will we 

ensure that those programs don’t get left out? 

Mr. DODARO. I will ask George to elaborate a little bit, but it is 

clear that programs have been added over time to fill what is a 

perceived need or a gap in particular services. But what we have 

observed in looking at programs over time, after a period of time 

the original intent of the program can change over a period of time 

and there needs to be careful monitoring to make sure that it actually achieved what it did. 

Right now one of our messages is that in many of these programs 

we really don’t know whether they are achieving their original objectives or not in the first place. Now, there is a danger of unintended consequences. If you do change those programs or consolidate in some way it may have unintended consequences, but unless 

the department clearly monitors what is going on and provides 

feedback to the Congress we won’t know whether these programs 

either serve their intended purpose or what the revised purpose 

will be that the Congress sets for itself. 

There are safeguards that could be put into the programs to 

make sure—Congress could give the Education Department, for example, some additional flexibility if something goes wrong. There 

could be more flexibility given to the state and local governments 

as well to be able to deal with those issues. 

So I think there are possibilities for consolidation while building 

in appropriate safeguards that guard against unintended consequences. But let me ask George to elaborate. 
44 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So, George, while you are elaborating, tell me 

what that safeguard would look like or sound like. 

Mr. SCOTT. As our work has pointed out, there is a mix of programs across a range of agencies, including both specific programs 

as well as allowable activities, and our message here has been, you 

know, while clearly, you know, these programs are serving—can 

serve similar target populations, can provide similar types of assistance, can even have very similar objectives, but what that does 

is it raises a couple challenges. 

One is that it really complicates efforts—and we have heard this 

from the Department of Education—it really complicates efforts to 

effectively administer these programs in the comprehensive manner across—not only within the department, but across other federal agencies. That is why it is important that to the extent that 

there can be a higher level of strategic planning about some of 

these activities—for example, as the Congress did with Competes 

Act, it really sort of allows agencies to look outside of themselves 

and look across the other—to similar activities across the federal 

government. 

That could be, for example, one of the safeguards we can build 

into these other programs to ensure that their folks are ensuring 

that the programs are reaching the target populations. 

One of the other challenges that the Department of Education 

has raised, and we certainly concur with, is that by having such 

broadly fragmented programs it makes it very difficult to understand and to evaluate which programs work and which are not. 

Out of the 23-plus programs that we looked at back in 2009 only 

about six of them have completed evaluations. And the bottom line 

from those evaluations was little is known about how effective 

these programs are. 

So clearly, you know, it creates problems or challenges for the 

Department of Education as well as for the grantees, in terms of 

having to apply for these grants. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, were there any programs that you thought 

had legitimate reason for overlap? I mean, could you—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, as we said, you know, out of the 82 programs 

we looked at—we looked at those specifically within the Department of Education—we found that 14 of those actually overlapped 

with at least one other program across a couple key areas—similar 

objectives, target populations, activities, and services. We did not, 

however, find the duplication, which is sort of doing the exact same 

thing for the exact same target group. 

So we are very careful in terms of how we phrase what we found 

in terms of the teacher quality programs. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So out of 80 there was 14? 

Mr. SCOTT. Fourteen of the programs within the Department of 

Education. There were 63 programs administered by the Department of Education, and out of those we found 14 overlapped. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlewoman. 

Mrs. Noem, you are recognized. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
45 

Thank you for coming today, Mr. Dodaro. And I appreciate your 

testimony and your willingness to be here, and your explanations 

as well. 

You know, your report is very comprehensive and I appreciate 

that. I think it has, unfortunately, confirmed a lot of the public’s 

sentiments, that a lot of what we do at the federal government 

level is fragmented and duplicative, and frankly, we can’t keep 

track of what we do ourselves. So I thank you for that report. 

I also wanted to talk to you a little bit specifically, because I represent the state of South Dakota—the entire state—which is filled 

with rural, small schools. And so I know that there are a lot of 

challenges that they face because they have very small staff, they 

have difficulty complying with the different requirements between 

different programs and keeping them straight, between agencies 

and departments. 

And so I would like you to tell me a little bit of, do you feel that 

this duplication puts small schools and rural schools at a disadvantage in trying to comply and qualify for a lot of these different programs in order to receive possible funding or assistance? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, what we have found over time—and George 

can talk specifically in the education area to your question about 

the small schools—but it is difficult for a lot of people to identify 

what federal funding is available, how to foresee—to achieve that 

funding, how to write a good grant application to be competitive in 

that area. 

So it does put a burden on entities that are applying for assistance, and that was one of the things that we thought could be 

looked at in this particular case to streamline that. In fact, that is 

one of the reasons that the Education Department puts forth its 

consolidation proposal is to eliminate some of that competitive 

grant kind of process and allow its employees to focus more on improving teacher quality and outcomes—— 

Mrs. NOEM. But competitive grants would also create that same 

problem for rural schools that maybe don’t have a staff that are 

used to writing grants, as well. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Well, but you would be able to—yes, right, 

you would be able to free up resources that are consumed through 

administrative processes competing for small amounts of money to 

be able to look at it in a broader standpoint and to give more flexibility to the local officials to meet their needs, which is, I think, 

an important tenet of the program. 

But let me see if George has anything to add. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. We have not yet specifically looked at this issue 

of the capacity—basically it is a capacity issue—of states or LEAs. 

We do have a couple ongoing reviews, but I think we will touch on 

that issue. 

We have work going on looking at both Race to the Top, the competitive large federal grant—competitive grant program, as well as 

state improvement grants. And so we are out in the states, and so 

we will be able to provide here this summer some—a better picture 

of some of the challenges. And the Comptroller General has already, you know, laid out what we have heard generally about the 
46 

capacity of certain states in terms of competitive grants, but we 

will have more specific information on that this summer. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. I will look forward to that. 

You know, Mr. Dodaro, one more question: I know that the Federal Tea Taster was abolished already, but in your view, after putting this report together, what do you feel is the most wasteful or 

duplicative program that you found when you were putting this together? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, there are a lot to look at. I don’t have any 

personal favorites. 

There are some, though, that we were able to put some dollar 

savings on, which I think are really important. Like, for example, 

in the Social Security program state and local workers that aren’t 

in the program, their spouses—the Social Security offsets if somebody is receiving another government pension, they don’t have, 

really, the information from the state and local level to be able to 

offset those pensions. If IRS put one line on one form to be able 

to collect that information it is estimated by CBO the federal government could save $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion every 10 years if we 

collect more information. 

There is also $640 billion that has been sitting for 10 years in 

the customs service of an additional duty that was imposed, and 

really, nobody has determined what the proper use of that money 

would be. We recommend a look at the duplication between the 

Ethanol Tax Credit and the Renewable Fuel Standard and basically say, ‘‘We don’t believe you need both at this point in time,’’ 

and if you reduced the tax credit last value was about $5.7 billion 

in amount of money that could be saved. 

And so we also point out that there could be more competition 

in federal contracts. About 30 percent of those contracts aren’t competed or there is only one person competing it, and where there 

have been competition the federal government’s costs go down 

through that activity. 

We point out the oil and gas revenue management. We just 

added that to our high-risk list. And we don’t believe there is reasonable assurance the federal government is getting its value for 

oil that is produced on federally leased lands and that, you know, 

a lot more money could be achieved through that process. 

So that is just a sampling. 

Mrs. NOEM. That is a good list. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Dr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, General Dodaro. I am appreciative for your 

thoughtful and candid comments and the very thorough and knowledgeable preparation of your staff. It is a pleasure to have you 

here. 

In the report in March it states that overlap and fragmentation 

among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, 

or fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually. 
47 

And then in the March 18th letter to congressional addressees it 

was stated that determining whether and to what extent these programs are actually duplicative requires programmatic information 

that is often not readily available. 

I recently introduced a resolution that would require Congress to 

proactively list any duplicative programs as part of the committee 

process prior to authorizing a new program. Would that help GAO 

better track and highlight duplication and overlap of programs? 

And what, in your opinion, could Congress do better? 

We can always talk about what is out there now, but what can 

we do moving forward to prevent this from happening? What can 

we do better to avoid these pitfalls in the future? 

Mr. DODARO. That is a very good issue. In fact, I was testifying 

before the Senate Budget Committee and they asked me the exact 

same question. 

I think, you know, having something going forward that involves 

some sort of an analysis about a new program proposal to make 

sure it doesn’t duplicate or overlap something that already exists 

would be a very good process for the Congress to incorporate into 

its deliberations and decision making. That function could be performed by OMB or CBO. Some have suggested GAO as another alternative for that. 

And so I think that that is just a prudent approach to be able 

to do it. Like, right now there are cost estimates of CBO about 

what it costs to implement new legislation. I think having some 

safeguard in place—or at least informing the Congress—and it may 

decide to proceed for very valid reasons in any event, but I think 

having that information is better than not. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. Ross? 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

You know, I want to focus on workforce because I think that is 

rather important. I mean, we have been up here talking about jobs 

and I think that the federal government doesn’t have a responsibility for creating private sector jobs but I think it has a responsibility for creating the environment and making sure, of course, that 

we have programs out there that will train and provide the qualifications necessary for people to find sustainable private sector employment. 

And I see in your report where three states, one of which is 

mine—Florida, Texas, and Utah—have gone a step further by consolidating, but you can’t determine what the savings is from that. 

Now, the reason for consolidating—are there any federal incentives 

in these programs to consolidate the resources? 

Mr. DODARO. Not enough. That was our recommendation. Our 

recommendation was that the federal agencies should provide more 

incentives to the states. 

I think, no, the states and the locals are closer to the ground. 

They understand the populations they are serving. They have their 

own individual arrangements within each state. 

And so, you know, we think there ought to be more incentives. 

And that was one of the concerns I had when HHS said that they 

can’t provide it legislatively under the TANF program. I think that 
48 

they should make a proposal and Congress should give them the 

flexibility to be able to do that. But I—— 

Mr. ROSS. Any idea what incentives you would suggest to encourage them to do that? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Well, there are pilot activities that could be 

made. There is some freedom from administrative requirements 

that could be put in place. 

There are a lot of incentives, and if they consult the state and 

local governments I bet they will get a longer list. 

Mr. ROSS. I think you are right. 

With regard to the 47 programs that you identified, would it be 

safe to say, however, that there are other state programs, as Mr. 

Bucshon was talking about, that may also receive federal funding 

that were not included in this? 

Mr. DODARO. Let me ask Andy if he knows that. 

Mr. ROSS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERRILL. That is possible. I mean, we focused for this on 

federally funded programs, so we didn’t look to see whether there 

are also state-funded programs that might also be providing similar services. 

Mr. ROSS. What about appropriations that may go through the 

educational system—say, like, into community colleges for their 

workforce or reemployment programs? Is that included as part of 

the 47 or is that something different? 

Mr. SHERRILL. No. Those weren’t included as part of the 47. I 

mean, Department of Labor has done certain grant programs in the 

past to provide sort of high-growth job initiatives, that kind of 

thing. 

Mr. ROSS. So in essence, there could be significantly more duplication than just what was found by the 47 if you take into account 

not only those 47 programs but also educational programs through 

the Department of Education as well as any state programs that 

may receive federal funding? 

Mr. SHERRILL. It is possible. I mean, we did focus on federally 

funded programs that have a primary focus on employment and 

training, which we defined as enhancing the skills—the job-related 

skills of workers, identifying job opportunities, and helping people 

find a job. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. 

Mr. Dodaro, you—— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I do want to look at that down the road. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. DODARO. We do a lot of work with the state auditors, and 

I think we can have a joint effort to look at that program. I think 

that makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. I commend you on what you are doing, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. MILLER. Would the gentleman from Florida just yield for 1 

second? 

Mr. ROSS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Just to follow up on his questions, in the case of 

WIA, though, at least it appears to me at the local level that some 

of that money is used—he was talking about community colleges, 

and when employer and community colleges and people sit down 
49 

and some of that money is used to develop a program—they may 

have a need because of a new employer or somebody coming and 

talking. And so would that be duplicative or is that—you know, because the community college is now—— 

Mr. SHERRILL. No. I think that would be typically included in the 

kinds of WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs where, you 

know, they would work with contractors or community colleges to 

provide training for people—— 

Mr. MILLER. So the make-up is they might shift—it might, you 

know, in one case Dow Chemical is doing all of the training themselves; in another case they have outsourced that to the community 

colleges because they wanted a broader spectrum of training. But 

the introduction of different parties doesn’t necessarily make that 

a duplicative effort? 

Mr. SHERRILL. No. No. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I make a quick comment in relation to what Mr. Miller said? 

Chairman KLINE. If Dr. DesJarlais will yield to you, which I now 

recognize him. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Actually, I don’t really have any questions, so 

I would be happy to yield my time to Congresswoman Foxx. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you. 

I just wanted to tell Mr. Miller that in my experiences as a community college president we did work with folks who were running 

WIA programs, but in many cases there were three or four layers 

of administration, and it appeared as though the WIA programs 

were funding unnecessary and duplicative administrative structures in various committees across the district and across the state. 

In many cases the community college was doing all of the work, 

basically, but other agencies were skimming off as much as 30 percent of the money that was being provided, and all that was doing 

was paying for administrators in those agencies. And I think it is 

a real issue that needs to be looked at. 

Mr. MILLER. If the gentlewoman would yield just for a second, 

and that may be the case. I guess my experience, I think—I guess 

I would say in my area that was more likely to be the case 10 years 

ago. 

What I find now is as they sit down on a regular basis—the education institutions and the employers and representatives of local 

government—they basically make a decision, how are they going to 

farm this project out? And then that entity, in the case of community colleges or a single employer or a group of employers who 

share the same need—I have a lot of heavy manufacturing in my 

district—they then take the responsibility for that. 

One of the reasons I was kind of down on WIA as they had an 

opportunity to reauthorize it because I still had concerns about 

kind of a heavy overhead in a lot of instances. 

Mr. SHERRILL. One of the ongoing studies we have in this area 

that we think might shed some light is to look at WIA one-stop locations that experts view as having promising practices as really 

bringing in multiple partners, economic development and others, 

and to really collaborate in new ways. So this is part of what we 
50 

are doing currently and I think this should yield some examples of 

ways that are doing this in promising ways. 

Chairman KLINE. I forget whose time it is, but I think, Dr. 

DesJarlais, if you are yielding back, Mr. Barletta, you are recognized. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for testifying today. 

Yesterday I met with two middle school principals from Northeastern Pennsylvania who suggested that teacher quality programs 

should consider school administrators or those individuals who actually hire and evaluate teachers. Do any of these teacher quality 

programs consider school administrators or educational leaders 

that actually do the hiring? 

Mr. DODARO. We will provide you an answer for the record. I 

don’t know offhand. It is a good question, and I will get you an answer. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Just a follow up: Can you identify how the fragmentation and duplication of federal programs impacts states, 

school districts, and school administrators and how do they impact 

students? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Our evaluation did not go down to that level 

of granularity. We were just looking at the federal level and coordinating it. I think ultimately if some of these consolidations go 

through that the department is looking at we can then do followup studies and to see if we can identify some additional areas. 

But I can tell you from evaluating federal programs that are administered at state and local level for many years, state and local 

governments appreciate greater flexibility and being able to use the 

funds to meet what their local needs are. And that could work effectively as long as there are good accountability mechanisms in 

place. But we will try to focus on that in the future. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. And to go back to the original question, if they do not—if these teacher quality programs do not—I believe they should. I think it makes sense to include those that are 

actually doing the hiring. 

Mr. DODARO. And the administrators and the hiring—yes, we 

will get you a quick answer. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

I think all Members have had an opportunity to ask a question. 

I obviously want to thank the Comptroller General. 

I will yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he has. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, 

again. 

And I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what Congresswoman Noem talked about, and we have had this discussion a little 

bit on the—for rural areas, these small pots of money you really 

have to raise the question of whether or not it is worth the cost 

of applying for those monies. 

And one of the things we are trying to look at in reauthorization 

is the consolidation with allowable uses, and they can make the determination how they want to use that professional development 

money within the guidelines, but have that kind of flexibility. 
51 

But if they got something it would be worth applying for. I guess 

we have kind of come to that stage for a number of different reasons. 

And so we have tried to think about this in rural areas because 

it is starting to make less and less sense, and yet could they acquire the services, the resources to do that it would probably help 

improve the educational experience in that district. But a lot of 

times that district, you know, is not very big. There is one school 

and not a lot of alternatives. 

So I just want to say that I think what we are looking at in reauthorization—I guess I am making a commercial for reauthorization—is this kind of—these kinds of changes that we would look to 

adopt in terms of both flexibility and consolidation, so it would 

make sense for—I think it would make—the same case can be 

made even for large urban districts, in terms of how we—funds are 

segregated back and forth. 

Mr. DODARO. I agree with you. And that is one of the reasons we 

were raising the issues we were, to stimulate that type of discussion and debate, Congressman, so I think it makes sense. 

Mr. MILLER. Let me just raise one other point: As I understand 

the authorization under which this report—the big report—is done, 

department and government report annually to the Congress the 

findings, including the cost of duplication and recommendations for 

consolidation and elimination. Is there a follow-on to this initial report where—— 

Mr. DODARO. There will be one—the legislation requires an annual report, so we will be doing one every year. I am hoping that 

we will cover—the first three reports will cover the entire federal 

government and then I will be able to work with the people who 

authorize that legislation. It was initially sponsored by Senator 

Coburn—— 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. And to see if it makes sense for us to 

do it—keep doing it in perpetuity. Right now, yes, there will be a 

report every year. 

Mr. MILLER. But in this report—I am sort of suggesting two 

things. One is, you didn’t find duplication, but yet if you had found 

outright duplication as opposed to overlap or shared missions or 

whatever they call it, would you then be making—in the future 

would you be making a recommendation with—for consolidation 

and elimination? 

Mr. DODARO. We could. If we have the necessary work done we 

would present some options to the Congress, yes. 

And one of the things I would suggest for this committee, if there 

are areas that you would like us to look at and incorporate into our 

future work in this area we would be more than happy to do so. 

Actually, the 81 areas that I mentioned in this first report were 

really done as part of work for well over a third of the committees 

in both the House and the Senate over a period of time, and so we 

just built off of that work, created some new work. But we would, 

and some areas where we are doing that. 

We were also trying to get ahead of—you know, not waiting for 

duplication to occur—— 

Mr. MILLER. No, I understand. 
52 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, and so, but we would be happy to entertain 

areas that this committee thinks are important to look at and incorporate into our work. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

And this is one of those committees, and sometimes we agree on 

other sides of the aisle, and occasionally Mr. Miller and I exactly 

agree. And it happens rarely, and so we try to make note of it. 

But I identify with his comments about the difficulties that, 

again, Mrs. Noem raised of rural schools, and these programs that 

are very small, and you indicated that some of them haven’t been 

even evaluated; they are too small and people don’t bother with it. 

And the small schools don’t have the—maybe some of these 

school districts are one school, and they simply can’t. They simply 

can’t find people to put in grant applications and so forth. So we 

are looking for much more flexibility and consolidation. 

And I appreciate the plea or advertisement for reauthorization. 

We are moving on reauthorization on a number of fronts, and one 

of them—obviously ESEA is in front of us, but WIA is in front of 

us. 

And again, I want to thank you very much for coming in, for the 

really terrific work that you do. And I know it is a lot of work and 

there is a temptation, which we apparently can’t resist, to keep 

tasking you to do more working. And I heard you volunteering to 

do more work, so probably more will be coming your way. 

So again, thank you very much to our guests and to our witnesses and to my colleagues. There being no further business, the 

committee stands adjourned. 

[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Indiana 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. We are here today to address a very important issue— 

the continued spending of money that our Country does not have. As a member of 

the House Budget Committee, I have spent the past few months working with our 

colleagues on ways to rein in Washington’s out of control spending problem. The 

issue we have before seems to me to be a very strong step forward—eliminate those 

programs our government is spending money on that are duplicative, wasteful, and 

ineffective. 

As a new Member of Congress, I have already learned that the rules in Washington are stacked in favor of people who want to spend more money. I come from 

the great state of Indiana—we have a balanced budget, triple-A bond rating, and 

we have not raised taxes because we know taxes are not the problem. The problem 

is our colleagues who continue to push for more government spending knowing that 

our debt is over $14 trillion and climbing. 

The U.S. borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends. When the Federal government borrows money, we are passing along a tax increase to our children and grandchildren. In fact, I call it a ‘‘birth tax’’ because every baby born today owes $45,000 

as his share of the public’s debt. Moreover, every taxpayer alone owes $127,000 of 

the debt. 

Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report entitled ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.’’ We have always known that waste exists, this report 

quantifies it. According to the report, billions of dollars are being squandered on redundant programs and many of these programs are managed by multiple agencies 

only adding to the confusion and waste. In our current economic situation, how can 

we ignore this data? 

I appreciate the first steps the Administration took by identifying 13 programs to 

eliminate and 38 more for consolidation. However, this does not come close to what 
53 

1GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating 

Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 

(Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011). 

needs to be done. In the GAO report alone, 82 programs are identified as being focused on teacher quality. Can anyone honestly tell me that all 82 are necessary and 

have been proven effective? It is time for us to rein in our spending problem, put 

taxpayer dollars to work where they can be most effective, and reduce the regulatory burden imposed on states and school districts. 

I refuse to leave the next generation less freedom and a lower standard of living— 

and that is what we continue to do by keeping the status quo. 

[Additional submissions from the GAO follow:] 

Employment and Training Programs That Have Shown Positive Results 

As part of GAO’s recent study of multiple employment and training programs, we 

conducted a survey of federal agency officials and asked them to identify impact 

studies that had been completed since 2004 to assess program performance with respect to employment and training activities.1 An impact study assesses the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would 

have happened in the absence of the program. This type of study is conducted when 

external factors are known to influence the program outcomes, in order to isolate 

the program’s contribution to the achievement of its objectives. Of the 8 studies 

cited by survey respondents, we determined that 5 can accurately be described as 

completed impact studies. These studies found that 4 programs had positive impacts 

on participant outcomes. 

1. Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult (Labor) 

Study citation: Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R. Troske, 

Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact Evaluation, Final Report, 

a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (December 2008). 

Study design and scope: Quasi-experimental design (used a closely matched comparison group rather than a randomly assigned control group). Examined outcomes 

for 95,580 WIA Adult participants and compared them to outcomes for matched 

comparison group members selected from a pool of nearly 3 million individuals who 

had similar demographic characteristics but either did not receive WIA Adult services or did not receive WIA Adult training. Examined the impact of the programs 

on average earnings and employment using 16 quarters (4 years) of wage record 

data from 12 states, starting with the quarter in which the participant entered the 

program (between July 2003 and June 2005). Findings are not generalizable. 

Findings: The program had positive impacts on average earnings and employment 

up to 4 years after participant entry. Longer term impacts for participants receiving 

training were greater than for those receiving core and intensive services. Impacts 

were generally larger for women than for men. The authors caution that the impact 

estimates are averages, and differences across states were substantial. 

2. WIA Dislocated Worker (Labor) 

Study citation: Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R. Troske, 

Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact Evaluation, Final Report, 

a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (December 2008). 

Study design and scope: Quasi-experimental design (used a closely matched comparison group rather than a randomly assigned control group). Examined outcomes 

for 63,515 WIA Dislocated Worker participants and compared them to outcomes for 

matched comparison group members selected from a pool of nearly 3 million individuals who had similar demographic characteristics but either did not receive WIA 

Dislocated Worker services or did not receive WIA Dislocated Worker training. Examined the impact of the programs on average earnings and employment using 16 

quarters (4 years) of wage record data from 12 states, starting with the quarter in 

which the participant entered the program (between July 2003 and June 2005). 

Findings are not generalizable. 

Findings: For participants receiving core and intensive services, the program had 

positive impacts on their average earnings and employment, although these impacts 

were smaller than the impacts for WIA Adult participants and took several quarters 

to materialize. Impacts were generally more positive for employment than for earnings. The authors caution that there was uncertainty about the causes for the impacts that they found. They also caution that the impact estimates are averages, 

and differences across states were substantial. 
54 

1Outcome evaluations assess the extent to which a program achieves its outcome-oriented objectives, but may also assess program processes to understand how outcomes are produced. Impact evaluations use scientific research methods to assess the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of the 

program. 

3. National Guard Youth Challenge Program (Defense) 

Study citation: Dan Bloom, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks and Conrad Mandsager, Reengaging High School Dropouts—Early Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation (MDRC, 2009). 

Study design and scope: Experimental design (used a randomly assigned control 

group). Examined outcomes for program participants in 10 states and compared 

them to outcomes for youth who applied and were eligible to participate in the program but were not invited to participate because there were too few slots available. 

About 3,000 youth were assigned to either the experimental or the control group in 

2005-2006. About 1,000 youth in each group completed a brief survey approximately 

9 months after they entered the study (the survey did not target all study participants; the response rate among those targeted was 85 percent). 

Findings: The program had short-term positive impacts on participants’ education 

(high school diploma/GED receipt), employment, mental health, and criminal activity (lower arrest rates) in the first year of participation. However, since participants 

had not yet completed the program, it is too early to say whether the program will 

have positive, long-term impacts such as increased earnings. 

4. Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (Labor) 

Study citation: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, In Search of Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Corrections: An Evaluation of Florida’s Avon Park 

Youth Academy and STREET Smart Program, a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Labor (September 2009). 

Study design and scope: Experimental design (used a randomly assigned control 

group). Examined outcomes for 369 program participants and compared them to outcomes for 345 youth assigned to the control group. Youth in both groups had similar 

characteristics including criminal history and demographics. Youth were randomly 

assigned to one of these groups between June 2002 and February 2003, and then 

participated in residential programs between June 2002 and May 2005. After these 

youth were released to the community, about 67 percent of them participated in a 

series of post-release interviews over a period of several years. 

Findings: The program had short-term positive impacts on participants’ employment, earnings, and recidivism in the first year after release from a juvenile corrections facility, but these impacts were not sustained for all participants during the 

second and third years after release. Positive impacts on employment and recidivism 

were sustained for Hispanic youth in the second and third years after release. 

Teacher Quality Programs That Have Shown Positive Results 

Based on our review of outcome and impact evaluations of teacher quality programs administered by the Department of Education (Education), GAO identified 

two studies that found positive results for two programs: Early Reading First Program and Teacher Quality Partnership Grants Program.1

1. Early Reading First Program (Education) 

Study citation: National Evaluation of Early Reading First: Final Report to Congress, a report prepared by U.S. Department of Education, Decision Information Resources, Inc., Mathematica Policy Research, and Center for Improving the Readiness 

of Children for Learning and Education (May 2007). 

Study design and scope: The purpose of this national impact evaluation of the 

Early Reading First (ERF) program to assess the impact of ERF funding and program support for preschools on the language and literacy preparedness of preschool 

children. In particular, it was designed to measure the effects on children’s language 

development and emergent literacy when preschools receive funding to adopt scientifically based methods and materials and teachers are provided with focused professional development that supports the use of these materials and methods. The 

evaluation sample was composed of a treatment group, which consisted of 4-yearolds attending preschool in 28 of 30 ERF grantee sites, whereas the comparison 

group consisted of children attending preschool in 37 of the 67 unfunded applicant 

sites that had the highest application scores and that agreed to participate in the 

study. The study team randomly selected approximately 11 4-year-old students per 

classroom whose parents had provided written consent for participation in the 
55 

2 Examples of sub-groups they analyzed included teachers with and without a bachelor’s degree; teachers with five or more years of teaching experience and teachers with fewer years of 

experience; whether the preschool received Head Start funding; and whether the preschool offered full-time or part-time classes. 

study. ERF participants appeared to be more disadvantaged than the national average according to a number of demographic factors, including family income level, 

single-parent household status, among other factors. They also scored lower than 

national norms on three standardized assessments. 

Findings: The evaluation found that the program had positive, statistically significant impacts on several classroom and teacher outcomes and one of four child outcomes measured, including the following areas: 

• Classroom environments and teacher practices: classroom language environment; book-reading practices; materials and teaching practices to support print and 

letter knowledge and writing, among other areas. 

• Teacher outcomes: number of hours of professional development that teachers 

received and on the use of mentoring as a mode of training. 

• Classroom quality: quality of teacher-child interactions; classroom organization; 

activity planning. 

• Child outcomes: Children’s print and letter knowledge. 

Limitations: The design of this study was based on the assumption that the grant 

application score fully reflects the selection rule Education used to award ERF 

grants. Furthermore, the authors of the report noted several limitations of their 

sub-group analysis that meant that they could not draw conclusions about the program’s effectiveness for the groups considered.2

2. Teacher Quality Partnership Grants (Education) 

Study citation: Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation Through 

the Title II HEA Partnership Program (Final Report), a report prepared by American Institutes for Research and SRI International for U.S. Department of Education (May 2006). 

Study design and scope: The purpose of this outcome evaluation was to identify 

and describe the collaborative activities taking place in partnerships under the Title 

II Partnership Grants Program. It was also designed to examine approaches to preparing new and veteran teachers and to assess the sustainability of project activities 

after the grant ends. Specifically, the evaluation surveyed nearly 300 representatives from 25 grantees of the 1999 cohort of the partnership grants, including at 

least 66 colleges and universities, 28 community colleges, 179 school districts, and 

821 elementary schools in more than 25 different states. More than 500 principals 

were surveyed once, during the 2002—03 school year. The study also included secondary data analyses using publicly available data on school characteristics, schoollevel achievement data, and pass rates on teacher assessments reported as part of 

the Title II HEA reporting requirements. Five diverse projects were the subject of 

case studies that included repeated week-long visits. 

Findings: The evaluation found that the program had certain positive outcomes, 

such as enhanced collaboration between colleges/universities and schools around 

teacher preparation; a shared focus on the accountability concerns of the HEA Title 

II; and increased requirements for teachers entering and exiting teacher preparation 

programs. 

Limitations: The analytic sample for this study had several sources for potential 

bias, including survey- and item-level nonresponse (across and within partnerships). 

Nonresponse bias, which includes issues of missing data, nonrespondent bias and 

the potential for selection bias must be considered when interpreting the survey results presented in this study. Furthermore, this evaluation could not determine with 

precision the extent to which the partnership program alone was responsible for any 

of the measured outcomes. For example, the report authors indicated that some 

partners had multiple grants and projects operating simultaneously, sometimes with 

shared goals, making it difficult to separate the effects of these efforts from those 

of the teacher quality partnerships. 
56 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT TEACHER QUALITY AND ALLOW FUNDS TO BE USED FOR 

ACTIVITIES AIMED AT IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 

CFDA No. Program 

84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

84.048 Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States 

84.083 Women’s Educational Equity Act Program 

84.101 Career and Technical Education—Grants to Native Americans and Alaska Natives 

84.165 Magnet Schools Assistance 

84.206 Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Grant Program 

84.256 Freely Associated States—Education Grant Program 

84.283 Comprehensive Centers 

84.299B Indian Education Professional Development Grants 

84.336B Teacher Quality Partnership Grants 

84.363 School Leadership 

84.367 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

84.374 Teacher Incentive Fund 

84.377 School Improvement Grants 

Note: This is a preliminary list based on a review of information provided in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and the 

Department of Education documents. We interpreted the authority for these purposes broadly, but did not verify our interpretation with the Department of Education. Therefore, the list may be incomplete and some of the programs may not be targeted to providing services to school 

administrators or principals. 

[Letter, dated April 22, 2011, from Secretary Solis follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ