United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Information 

Policy, Census, and National Archives, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

FEDERAL DISABILITY 

PROGRAMS 

Coordination Could 

Facilitate Better Data 

Collection to Assess the 

Status of People with 

Disabilities 

Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 

 

GAO-08-872T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 4, 2008

FEDERAL DISABILITY PROGRAMS 

Coordination Could Facilitate Better Data Collection 

to Assess the Status of People with Disabilities 

Highlights of GAO-08-872T, a testimony 

before the House Subcommittee on

Information Policy, Census, and National 

Archives, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

Multiple federal programs provide

services and support to the 

approximately 50 million 

individuals with disabilities in 

America. While some health and 

economic data on people with

disabilities are currently available, 

these data have limited use in 

providing a comprehensive

assessment of how these 

individuals are faring. Additionally, 

the lack of more useful data limits 

the federal government’s ability to 

determine how well federal 

programs are serving individuals 

with disabilities. 

GAO is providing information on 

(1) the limitations of data currently

available to assess the status of 

individuals with disabilities and (2) 

how better coordination could help 

facilitate the collection of such

data to inform policy decisions. 

This statement is based on prior 

GAO reports, including the May 

2008 report on modernizing federal 

disability programs (GAO-08-635), 

the 2007 Comptroller General’s 

forum on disability (GAO-07-

934SP), and multiple reports on 

national indicators (e.g. GAO-05-1);

and studies by other organizations,

including the National Council on

Disability.

Disability policy and programs in the United States have been developed on an

individual basis over many years, with success being measured by individual 

program outcomes rather than with a unified set of national goals and 

indicators to assess how people with disabilities are faring. In 2005, GAO 

identified over 20 federal agencies and almost 200 federal programs serving 

individuals with disabilities that provided a wide range of assistance, such as

employment-related services, medical care, and monetary support. These 

programs often have different missions, goals, funding streams, eligibility 

criteria, and policies that sometimes work at cross-purposes with other 

federal programs. In addition, these programs collect data to measure specific 

programmatic goals but not to provide a set of metrics to assess how federal 

programs are improving the lives of individuals with disabilities. Although 

other data on individuals with disabilities are collected on a national level, 

these data do not share consistent definitions of disability. As a result, these 

data cannot be easily compiled to create a comprehensive picture of the status 

of individuals with disabilities, which could better inform federal disability 

policy and help ensure that beneficiaries are given timely and appropriate 

supports. GAO and others have acknowledged the need for creating a 

common set of outcomes for disability programs and the appropriate 

measures for assessing progress toward shared goals. 

To facilitate an effort of reaching consensus on desired outcomes for people 

with disabilities, coordination among the key players in the disability 

community is required. In May 2008, to better serve people with disabilities,

GAO suggested that Congress consider authorizing a coordinating entity 

consisting of leadership from appropriate agencies that serve this population 

to develop a cost-effective strategy to integrate services and supports for 

individuals with disabilities. Consistent with its proposed charter, such an 

entity should play a critical role in developing agreed-upon, desired outcomes 

for disability policies and programs and in determining what metrics and data 

will be used to assess progress toward meeting those outcomes.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-872T. 

For more information, contact Daniel Bertoni 

at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of comprehensive 

and reliable data to evaluate policy and assess the status of people living 

with disabilities. About 50 million individuals in the United States are 

reported to have a disability. Although some health and economic data are 

currently available, these data have limited use in providing insight into 

the status of people with disabilities. The lack of more useful data also 

limits the federal government’s ability to determine how well individuals 

with disabilities are faring and what role federal programs play. My 

remarks today focus on (1) the limitations of data currently available to 

assess the status of individuals with disabilities and (2) how better 

coordination could help facilitate the collection of such data to inform 

policy decisions. 

My statement is based on our May 2008 report on modernizing federal 

disability programs, our 2007 Comptroller General forum on disability, and 

other prior GAO reports. (See related GAO products at the end of this 

statement.) We also reviewed studies conducted by other organizations, 

including the National Council on Disability. We conducted our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

In summary, disability policy and programs in the United States have been 

developed on an individual basis over many years, with success being 

measured by individual program outcomes rather than with a unified set of 

national goals and indicators to assess how people with disabilities are 

faring. In addition, these programs collect data to measure specific 

programmatic goals but not to provide a set of metrics to assess how 

federal programs are improving the lives of individuals with disabilities. 

GAO and others have acknowledged the need for creating a common set 

of outcomes for disability programs and the appropriate measures for 

assessing progress toward shared goals. To facilitate this effort, 

coordination among the key players in the disability community is 

required. In May 2008, to better serve people with disabilities, we 

suggested that Congress consider authorizing a coordinating entity 

consisting of leadership from appropriate agencies that serve this 

population to develop a cost-effective strategy to integrate services and 

supports for individuals with disabilities. Consistent with its proposed 

Page 1 GAO-08-872T 
charter, such an entity should play a critical role in developing agreedupon, desired outcomes for disability policies and programs and in 

determining what metrics and data will be used to assess progress toward 

meeting those outcomes. 

Multiple federal programs provide services and support to individuals with 

disabilities. To hold federal agencies accountable for their programs, 

certain data are collected and used to assess program performance. The 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) mandates that 

federal agencies develop performance information describing the relative 

effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and requires federal 

agencies to publish strategic and annual performance plans describing 

specific program activities. While these performance data are critical for

assessing program effectiveness, it is unique to each program’s mission 

and has a limited focus. 

Data that are more comprehensive can help generate a broader 

perspective on the status or condition of various issues. Indicators, which 

can produce more comprehensive data, are used as quantitative measures 

to describe an economic, environmental, social, or cultural condition over 

time. The unemployment rate, infant mortality rates, and air quality 

indexes are a few examples of national indicators. There are several types 

of indicators; some involve specific or related sets of issues, such as 

health, education, public safety, employment, or transportation, while 

comprehensive indicator systems pull together only the most essential 

indicators on a range of economic, environmental, social, and cultural 

issues. These data can help inform policy areas by clarifying problems and 

opportunities, identifying gaps in what we know, setting priorities, testing 

effective solutions, and tracking progress toward achieving goals. The 

National Council on Disability and other disability experts have advocated 

for developing better indicators to assess the status of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Disability policy and programs in the United States have been developed 

on an individual basis over many years, with success measured by 

individual program outcomes rather than by a unified set of national goals 

and indicators that assess how people with disabilities are faring. In 2005,

we identified over 20 federal agencies and almost 200 federal programs 

serving individuals with disabilities that provided a wide range of 

assistance, such as employment-related services, medical care, and 

monetary support. These programs often have different missions, goals, 

Background 

Current Data Limit 

the Assessment of the 

Overall Status of 

People with 

Disabilities 

Page 2 GAO-08-872T 
funding streams, eligibility criteria, and policies that sometimes work at 

cross-purposes with other federal programs. In addition, these programs 

primarily collect data to assess whether they are meeting specific goals 

rather than collect data to make a more comprehensive assessment of how 

the population they are serving is faring. For example, the Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) performance measure of the average time to 

process a disability claim provides information on how SSA is meeting its 

program goals with respect to service delivery, but the measure does not 

provide direct information on the well-being of the individuals applying for 

benefits. 

While other data on individuals with disabilities are collected on a national 

level, these data do not share consistent definitions of disability. As a 

result of this variation, these data cannot be easily compiled to create a 

comprehensive picture of the status of individuals with disabilities, which 

could better inform federal disability policy and help ensure that 

beneficiaries are given timely and appropriate support. Some efforts are 

being made to improve the quality and usefulness of national data. For 

example, according to a Department of Labor official, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ national Current Population Survey (CPS) will incorporate new 

disability questions into its household survey. The CPS questions will be 

based on existing questions used in the American Community Survey and

will use the same definition of disability. These questions could advance 

federal efforts in assessing the status of people with disabilities. Also, to 

better define disability terms and concepts, experts have suggested 

applying a broader approach by creating a conceptual framework within 

which all disability programs would operate and use standardized 

disability language. Experts who participated in our 2007 Comptroller 

General Forum on Modernizing Disability Policy generally agree that a 

standardized language that can be used by related programs would 

facilitate consistent data collection, as well as any efforts to assess the 

status of individuals with disabilities. 

We and others have acknowledged that a common set of outcomes to 

measure the federal government’s success toward improving the lives of 

individuals with disabilities is needed. This includes the need to move 

beyond narrowly focused programmatic measures that capture specific 

data, like the average time an agency takes to process a disability claim. 

Experts have suggested using multiple indicators, including quality of life 

and economic indicators, to develop a more comprehensive picture of how 

individuals with disabilities are faring. Regardless of the indicators 

selected, data-reporting requirements should be established to track 

outcomes to obtain the data needed to inform disability policy. 

Page 3 GAO-08-872T 
The National Council on Disability’s (NCD) recent report Keeping Track: 

National Disability Status and Program Performance Indicators is 

consistent with our view that given the complex challenges facing our 

nation—including serving those with disabilities—indicator systems are 

useful for measuring progress toward national outcomes, assessing 

conditions and trends, and helping to disentangle complex program and 

policy issues.

1

 Such indicators could also help identify gaps in what we 

know and help Congress set priorities and track progress toward 

achieving results. In developing and implementing an indicator system, we 

have reported that it would be helpful to establish a clear purpose, define 

target audiences and their needs, and ensure independence and 

accountability. Finally, we have also called for a strategic plan for all of 

government, supported by a portfolio of national and outcome-based 

indicators for key programs. The NCD report and other data sources could 

help develop such a plan in the area of disability policy regarding metrics 

needed to assess the well-being of individuals with disabilities. 

To determine the status of people with disabilities and to define agreedupon outcomes, a coordinated effort is needed. In May 2008, we reported 

that a comprehensive federal strategy for coordinating federal disability 

programs was lacking. We suggested that Congress consider authorizing a 

coordinating entity consisting of leadership from agencies that serve 

people with disabilities. This entity could be responsible for leading the 

effort on reaching consensus on desired outcomes for federal disability 

policies and programs. This entity could also determine what measures are 

necessary to assess progress made toward meeting a unified set of goals 

for people with disabilities. A coordinated entity could also work to bridge 

the gap between needed and available information and prioritize further 

data collection. 

Coordinated Strategy 

Needed to Determine 

Desired Outcomes 

and Assess the Status 

of People with 

Disabilities 

As Congress considers authorizing such an entity, it should pay particular 

attention to the membership and goals of this coordinating body. In 1992,

Congress authorized the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council 

(IDCC) to coordinate federal activities to promote independence and

productivity of individuals with disabilities. However, to our knowledge, 

the IDCC has never met or reported to Congress, as required by law. In a 

prior report, we have identified criteria for successful coordination, 

 1

National Council on Disability, Keeping Track: National Disability Status and Program 

Performance Indicators (Washington, D.C., 2008).

Page 4 GAO-08-872T 
including defining and articulating common outcomes and establishing 

mutually reinforcing joint strategies among federal agencies to achieve 

identified goals that could be instructive for this purpose.2

 Additionally, 

the coordinated entity could work with the Interagency Commission for 

Disability Research to identify what data are available and what data 

should be collected to assess how individuals with disabilities are being 

served and how they are faring overall. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this

time. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Daniel 

Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at 

(202) 512-7215, or bertonid@gao.gov. Shelia Drake (Assistant Director), 

Susannah Compton, Jean Cook, and Anjali Tekchandani also contributed 

to this statement. 

GAO contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 2

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2005) 

Page 5 GAO-08-872T 
Page 6 GAO-08-872T 

Related GAO Products 

Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help 

Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation. GAO-08-635. 

Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2008. 

A Call for Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government’s Ability to 

Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges. GAO-08-93SP. 

Washington, D.C.: December 2007. 

Highlights of a GAO Forum: Modernizing Federal Disability Policy. 

GAO-07-934SP. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2007. 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,

D.C.: October 21, 2005. 

Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be 

Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626. Washington, 

D.C.: June 2, 2005. 

Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the 

USA’s Position and Progress. GAO-05-1. Washington, D.C.: November 10,

2004.

Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation’s Position and 

Progress. GAO-03-672SP. Washington, D.C.: May 2003. 

(130861) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER