United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, House of Representatives

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

ACT 

Education Actions Needed 

to Improve Implementation 

and Evaluation of 

Supplemental Educational 

Services 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, September 21, 2006 

 

GAO-06-1121T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 21, 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Education Actions Needed to Improve 

Implementation and Evaluation of 

Supplemental Educational Services 

Highlights of GAO-06-1121T, a report to 

Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, House of Representatives 

The No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLBA) requires districts with 

schools receiving Title I funds that 

have not met state performance 

goals for 3 consecutive years to

offer low-income students enrolled 

in these schools supplemental 

educational services (SES), such as 

tutoring. This testimony discusses 

early implementation of SES, 

including (1) how SES participation 

changed in recent years; (2) how 

providers work with districts to

deliver services; (3) how states

monitor and evaluate SES; and (4) 

how the Department of Education

(Education) monitors and supports 

SES implementation. 

This testimony is based on an

August 2006 report (GAO-06-758). 

For this report, GAO used the best

available data on participation and

obtained more recent information 

on other SES implementation 

issues through a state survey and a 

district survey, as well as visits to

four school districts and interviews

with providers. 

SES participation increased from 12 to 19 percent between school years 

2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Most students receiving services were among the 

lower-achieving students in school. District actions to increase participation 

have included greater efforts to notify parents and offering services on 

school campuses and at various times. However, timely and effective 

notification of parents remains a challenge, as well as attracting providers to 

serve certain areas and students, such as rural districts or students with 

disabilities. 

SES providers took steps to align their curriculum with district instruction 

and communicate with teachers and parents, though the extent of their 

efforts varied. For example, providers reported their efforts to communicate 

with the teachers of participating students, but some providers did not have 

any contact with teachers in about 40 percent of districts. Both providers 

and district officials experienced challenges related to contracting and 

coordination of service delivery. In part because SES is often delivered in 

school facilities, providers and officials in the districts and schools GAO 

visited reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers can 

improve SES delivery. 

State monitoring of district and provider efforts to implement SES had been 

limited in past years; however, more states reported conducting on-site 

reviews and other monitoring activities during 2005-2006. Districts have also 

increased their oversight role. While oversight has increased, many states

struggle with how to evaluate whether SES providers are improving student 

achievement. While a few states have completed evaluations, none provides 

a conclusive assessment of SES providers’ effect on student academic

achievement.

Education conducts SES monitoring in part through policy oversight and 

compliance reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support 

through written guidance, grants, and technical assistance. Education 

monitoring found uneven implementation and compliance with SES 

provisions, and states and districts reported needing SES policy clarification 

and assistance in certain areas. For example, 85 percent of states reported 

needing assistance with methods for evaluating SES. Many states also voiced 

interest in Education’s pilot programs that increase SES flexibility, including 

the recently expanded pilot allowing certain districts identified as in need of 

improvement to act as providers.

What GAO Recommends

The GAO report recommended that 

Education clarify guidance and

disseminate information on

promising practices, consider

expanding flexibility and clarifying 

state authority over program 

design, and collect information on 

district SES expenditures and 

provide evaluation assistance. 

Education generally supported 

GAO’s recommendations and has 

taken action to expand SES

flexibility. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1121T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

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

I am pleased to be here today to present information from our August 2006

report on early implementation of the supplemental educational services 

(SES) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).1

 In school year 

2005-2006, Title I of NCLBA—the most recent reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—provided $12.7 billion 

in federal funds to nearly all school districts and approximately half of the 

public schools nationwide in order to improve the education of lowincome students. When a school receiving Title I funds does not meet state 

performance goals designated under NCLBA for 2 years, the district must 

offer students the choice of transferring to another school in the district 

that is not in improvement status. When a school receiving Title I funds 

does not meet state NCLBA performance goals for 3 or more years, the 

district must offer SES to all of the low-income students enrolled in the 

school. SES includes tutoring and remediation that are provided outside of

the regular school day by a state-approved provider, such as a for-profit 

company or a community-based organization. Districts with schools 

required to offer school choice and SES must set aside an amount equal to

20 percent of their Title I funds to provide choice-related transportation 

and SES for eligible students in these schools. 

While states set NCLBA performance goals and schools are judged on the 

performance of their students, responsibility for SES implementation is 

primarily shared by states and school districts under the law. Specifically, 

states are responsible for reviewing provider applications to assess each 

provider’s record of effectiveness and program design, approving 

providers to serve students in their states, and monitoring and evaluating 

SES providers and their services. Districts are responsible for notifying 

parents of their child’s eligibility for SES and contracting with the stateapproved providers that parents select for services. At the federal level, 

the U.S. Department of Education (Education) oversees SES 

implementation nationwide and provides guidance and technical 

assistance. 

Although some districts were first required to offer SES in school year 

2002-2003, others did not have to offer SES until 2003-2004 or after, and 

 1

 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local 

Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services, GAO-06-758 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006). 

Page 1 GAO-06-1121T 
therefore, states and districts are at different stages of implementing the 

SES provisions. My testimony today will focus on early implementation of 

SES. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how the proportion of eligible students 

receiving services has changed in recent years, and actions that have been

taken to increase participation; (2) how providers are working with 

districts and schools to provide services that increase student

achievement; (3) to what extent states are monitoring and evaluating SES; 

and (4) how Education monitors state SES implementation and assists 

state and district efforts. 

In summary, the SES participation rate increased from 12 to 19 percent of 

eligible students between school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. While 

districts have provided written information notifying parents of SES and 

taken other actions to encourage participation, challenges remain, such as

notifying parents in a timely and effective manner. Regarding service 

delivery, providers aligned their curriculum with district instruction 

primarily by hiring district teachers and communicating with the teachers 

of participating students in order to promote improved student academic 

achievement. However, both providers and districts experienced 

contracting and coordination difficulties. In part because SES is often 

delivered in school facilities, providers as well as district and school 

officials reported that involvement of school administrators and teachers

can improve SES delivery and coordination. At the state level, while 

monitoring of SES had been limited—at the time of our review, more 

states reported taking or planning to take steps to monitor district and 

provider efforts to implement SES in school year 2005-2006. However 

monitoring continues to be a challenge, and states also continue to 

struggle to develop meaningful evaluations of SES providers. At the time 

of our review, no state had yet to produce a report providing a conclusive 

assessment of SES providers’ effect on student academic achievement. 

Regarding federal oversight of SES implementation, although several 

Education offices monitor various aspects of SES activity across the 

country and provide support, states and districts reported needing 

additional assistance and flexibility with program implementation. 

To help states and districts implement SES more effectively, our recent 

report recommended that Education collect and disseminate information 

on promising practices used by states and districts to attract more 

providers for certain areas and groups and involve school officials in SES 

implementation, and examples of sample parental notification letters that

meet federal requirements and are easy for parents to understand. Further,

to improve states’ and districts’ ability to provide services to the maximum 

number of students, we recommended that Education consider expanding 

Page 2 GAO-06-1121T 
its current SES pilot program allowing selected districts in need of 

improvement to serve as providers and clarify state authority to set 

parameters around service design and costs. To improve federal and state 

monitoring of SES, we recommended that Education require states to 

collect and submit information on the amount and percent of Title I funds 

spent on SES by districts and provide states with technical assistance and

additional guidance on how to evaluate the effect of SES on student 

academic achievement. In its comments on the report, Education 

expressed appreciation for the report’s recommendations and cited 

actions the department had already initiated or planned to take in 

addressing them. 

Our review was based on a Web-based survey of SES coordinators in all 50 

states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Puerto Rico, and a mail survey 

of SES coordinators in a nationally representative sample of districts with 

schools required to offer SES. Our district survey sample included all 21 

districts required to offer SES with 100,000 or more total enrolled 

students. In addition, we conducted site visits to one school district in 

each of four states (Woodburn, Ore.; Newark, N.J.; Chicago, Ill.; and 

Hamilton County, Tenn.) during which we interviewed state, district, and 

school officials. We also conducted interviews with 22 SES providers in 

our site visit districts and others. In addition, we spoke with staff at 

Education involved in SES oversight and implementation and reviewed 

Education’s data on SES. In our surveys and other data collection efforts, 

we asked questions about SES implementation during specific school 

years; therefore, all years cited refer to school years. 

Enactment of NCLBA strengthened accountability by requiring states and 

schools to improve the academic performance of their students so that all 

students are proficient in reading and math by 2014. Under NCLBA, each 

state creates its own content standards, academic achievement tests, and 

proficiency levels, and establishes and implements adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) goals for districts and schools. Students in specified 

grades are tested annually to determine whether districts and schools are 

making AYP. 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-06-1121T 
Title I2

 authorizes federal funds to help elementary and secondary schools 

establish and maintain programs that will improve the educational 

opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Under NCLBA, 

schools receiving federal Title I funds are required to implement specific 

interventions when they do not meet state AYP goals (see table 1). 

Students from low-income families who attend schools receiving Title I 

funds that have missed AYP goals for 3 consecutive years are eligible for 

SES. Because some schools had not met state goals set under ESEA before 

the enactment of NCLBA, some schools receiving Title I funds were first 

required to offer SES in 2002-2003, the first year of NCLBA 

implementation. 

Table 1: NCLBA Interventions for Schools Not Meeting Yearly Performance Goals over Time 

Number of years school 

misses performance goals School status in the next year NCLBA interventions for Title I schools 

First year missed N/A None 

Second year missed Needs Improvement – 

First Year 

Required to offer school choice 

Third year missed Needs Improvement – 

Second Year 

Required to offer school choice and SESa

Fourth year missed Corrective ActionbRequired to offer school choice and SESa

Fifth year missed Planning for RestructuringcRequired to offer school choice and SESa

Sixth year missed Implementation of Restructuring Required to offer school choice and SES 

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA. 

Note: N/A = not applicable. 

a

Students that opt to transfer to another school in the district that is not in improvement status are not 

eligible to receive SES, as they are no longer in a school required to offer these services to its

students. 

b

Corrective action is a significant intervention in a school that is designed to remedy the school’s 

persistent inability to make adequate progress toward all students becoming proficient in reading and

mathematics. 

c

Restructuring is a major reorganization of a school, involving fundamental reforms, such as 

significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance. For example, some schools may be 

converted to charter schools during restructuring. 

 2

 In this report, we refer to Title I, Part A of ESEA as “Title I.” Other Parts of Title I (Parts B,

C, and D) are targeted at specific populations or purposes and are commonly referred to by

their program names, such as Even Start.

Page 4 GAO-06-1121T 
Under NCLBA, SES primarily include tutoring provided outside of the 

regular school day that is designed to increase the academic achievement 

of economically disadvantaged students in low-performing Title I schools. 

These services must consist of high-quality, research-based instruction 

that aligns with state educational standards and district curriculum. SES 

providers may include nonprofit entities, for-profit entities, school 

districts, public schools, public charter schools, private schools, public or 

private institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, and 

faith-based organizations. However, a district classified as needing 

improvement or in corrective action because it failed to meet state AYP 

goals for several years may not be an SES provider, though its schools that 

are not identified as needing improvement may provide services. In 

addition, individual teachers who work in a school or district identified as 

in need of improvement may be hired by any state-approved provider to 

serve as a tutor in its program. 

A district must set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I 

allocation to fund both SES and transportation for students who elect to

attend other schools under school choice. After ensuring all eligible 

students have had adequate time to opt to transfer to another school or 

apply for SES, the district may reallocate any unused set-aside funds to 

other Title I activities. For each student receiving SES, a district must 

spend an amount equal to its Title I per-pupil allocation or the actual cost 

of provider services, whichever is less.

3

Education oversees SES implementation by monitoring states and 

providing technical assistance and support. NCLBA, the Title I regulations,

and SES guidance outline the roles and responsibilities states, school 

districts, service providers, and parents have in ensuring that eligible 

students receive additional academic assistance through SES (see table 2). 

 3

 A state or each of its districts calculates the Title I per pupil allocation by dividing the 

district’s total Title I, Part A allocation by the number of children residing within the 

district aged 5-17 who are from families below the poverty level, as determined by the most 

recent Census Bureau estimates from the Department of Commerce. 

Page 5 GAO-06-1121T 
Table 2: SES Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities 

Stakeholder Roles and responsibilities 

State Set criteria and standards for approving providers 

Identify, approve, and maintain public list of providers 

Ensure that the list of approved providers includes organizations that are able to serve students with disabilities 

and limited English proficiency 

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of provider services

Monitor district SES implementation 

Develop and use policy criteria for withdrawing providers from state-approved list, including if 

• provider fails for 2 consecutive years to increase student proficiency relative to state academic content and 

achievement standards 

• provider fails to adhere to applicable health, safety, and civil rights requirements 

School district Provide an annual notice to parents, which must identify available providers; describe the enrollment process and 

timeline; describe the services, qualifications, and demonstrated effectiveness of each provider; and be easily 

understandable 

Help parents choose a provider, if requested

Protect the privacy of students eligible for and receiving services 

Calculate and establish the SES per pupil allocation if not determined by the state 

Determine which students should receive services if more students apply for SES than can be served with

available funds

Enter into contracts with providers 

Ensure eligible students with disabilities and eligible students with limited English proficiency may participate in 

SES 

At the discretion of the state, may be involved in collecting data from providers to assist state monitoring and 

evaluation activities 

Providers Provide services in accordance with district agreements 

Enable students to attain their individual achievement goals

Measure student progress and inform parents and teachers of progress made by students 

Ensure non-disclosure of student data to the public 

Provide services consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws 

Provide services that are secular, neutral, and non-ideological 

Parents Choose a provider from the state-approved list 

Are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s SES program 

Source: GAO, per P.L.107-110, 34 C.F.R. Part 200, or the U.S. Department of Education, Supplemental Educational Services NonRegulatory Guidance, June 2005. 

Page 6 GAO-06-1121T 
SES participation increased between 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, as districts 

have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, such as offering 

services on or near the school campus or at various times. Most students 

receiving services were among the lower achieving students in school. 

Despite districts’ efforts, challenges to increasing participation remain, 

such as notifying parents in a timely and effective manner and ensuring 

there are providers to serve certain areas and students. 

SES Participation Has 

Increased As Districts 

Have Taken Steps to 

Improve Access, but 

Challenges Remain 

The SES Participation Rate 

Increased from 12 to 19 

Percent between 2003-2004 

and 2004-2005, and Most 

Participants Were Low 

Achieving 

Nationally, the SES participation rate increased substantially from 12 

percent of eligible students receiving SES in 2003-2004 to 19 percent in 

2004-2005. In addition, the number of students receiving services almost 

quadrupled between 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 from approximately 117,000 

to 430,000 students nationwide, based on the best available national data

(see fig. 1).4

 This increase may be due in part to the increase in the number 

of schools required to offer SES over that time period. 

 4

 Certain states did not submit SES recipient information to Education through their 

NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports for all years. Specifically, 2002-2003 data 

from Kansas and North Dakota, 2003-2004 data from Pennsylvania, and 2004-2005 data 

from New Jersey are not included in figure 1. In addition, 2002-2003 data from New York 

only include information from New York City. Further, Education did not collect data on 

the number of students eligible for SES in 2002-2003, and therefore, an estimate of the SES 

participation rate is unavailable for that year. 

Page 7 GAO-06-1121T 
Figure 1: Number of Students Receiving SES Nationwide (2002-2003 to 2004-2005) 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

200

2004-2005

3-2004

2002-2003

Number of students

Source: Education’s NCLBA Consolidated State Performance Reports and GAO state survey.

School year

116,626 

245,267

430,044

While approximately 1,000 of the over 14,000 districts nationwide were 

required to offer SES in 2004-2005, SES recipients were concentrated in a

small group of large districts—56 percent of recipients attended school in 

the 21 districts required to offer SES with more than 100,000 total enrolled 

students (see fig. 2). Further, some districts required to offer SES have no

students receiving services. Specifically, we estimate that no students 

received services in about 20 percent of the approximately 1,000 districts 

required to offer SES in 2004-2005. A majority of these districts were rural 

or had a total enrollment of fewer than 2,500 students. 

Page 8 GAO-06-1121T 
Figure 2: School Districts Required to Offer SES in 2004-2005 

















  





 







 













 







   







 



 





 



 





 







 



 





   

    

 



 







 





   

 









 

 



 



 











      







 









 

 











 













 

 













 

 



  





 

 



     

 



















  



 







  



 



    



   

  











  













   







 















 

 



  



 





 





















  

 





 

  







 



 

 

  





 













  











 





  



  







  

 





  



 

 



 

    













 











 



 







 











   



  



 

   



   

 

 

















 



 

 



 

 

    

  



 

   













 



  













   















  









   

   







 







   















  









 



 













   

 



 















 

 

   

 













 



 



   



















  







 





 





 

 











 







  

  







 

  







 















 

  







    

  







 

     











 























    

 



  



  



  

 

 











   









 



 







 



 













    

 



   







 

   







 

 





 

         





  

 

   

 



    

  

  

     

 



 









  



 



  

 











   

     

   







 





 

























 

  

     





      

 

  

    

    









 

 



















Other districts required to offer SES

Districts required to offer SES with over 100,000 total enrolled students

Source: GAO.

Nationwide, we estimate that districts required to offer SES spent the 

equivalent of 5 percent of their total Title I funds for SES in 2004-2005. 

Districts set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I funds for 

SES and choice-related transportation at the beginning of the school year, 

and the proportion of the set-aside spent on SES varied by district. While 

38 percent of districts spent no more than one-fifth of their set-aside to 

provide SES in 2004-2005,

5

 others reported that the full set-aside amount 

 5

 This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage 

points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information. 

Page 9 GAO-06-1121T 
was not sufficient to fund SES for all eligible students whose parents 

requested services in 2004-2005. Similarly, according to Chicago, Ill., 

district officials, the district budgeted the entire 20 percent Title I set-aside 

to fund SES in 2005-2006, and because parents’ demand for services 

significantly exceeded the amount of funding available, the district also 

allocated $5 million in local funds to provide SES. 

Many students receiving SES in 2004-2005 shared certain characteristics. 

For example, districts reported that most students receiving services were 

among the lower achieving students in school. Specifically, an estimated 

91 percent of the districts that reviewed the academic records of students 

receiving SES classified most or all of the students receiving SES as 

academically low achieving.6

 Further, over half of SES recipients were 

elementary school students in the majority of districts, and about 60 

percent of schools required to offer SES in 2004-2005 were elementary 

schools.7

 In some districts, the majority of SES recipients were AfricanAmerican or Hispanic. In about 40 percent of districts, over half of SES 

recipients were African-American, and in about 30 percent of districts, 

over half of SES recipients were Hispanic. However, districts varied in the 

percentage of students with limited English proficiency receiving services, 

and students with disabilities made up less than 20 percent of students 

receiving services in about two-thirds of districts. 

We estimate that about 2,800 providers delivered services to students 

nationwide in 2004-2005, and more providers were available to deliver 

services in the districts with the largest student enrollments.8

 The number 

of providers delivering services in the 21 districts with more than 100,000 

total enrolled students ranged from 4 to 45, and averaged 15 providers per 

district in 2004-2005. 

 6

We did not review the academic achievement records of students receiving SES or 

independently verify this information obtained through the district survey. 

7

 Many of the district estimates included in this paragraph have a margin of error that

exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for 

more information. 

8

 In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy reported that that as of August

2005, more than half of approved SES providers were private, for-profit entities. See the

Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No Child 

Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for more information. 

Page 10 GAO-06-1121T 
Districts have taken multiple actions to encourage participation, as shown 

in table 3. In line with the federal statutory requirement that districts 

notify parents in an understandable format of the availability of SES, over 

90 percent of districts provided written information in English, held 

individual meetings with parents, and encouraged school staff to talk with 

parents about SES. Some districts collaborated with providers to notify 

parents. For example, during our site visit, Illinois state officials described 

a provider and district sharing administrative resources to increase 

participation, which involved the provider printing promotional materials 

and the district addressing and mailing the materials to parents. In 

addition, we estimate that over 70 percent of districts lengthened the

period of time for parents to turn in SES applications, held informational 

events for parents to learn about providers, and provided written 

information to parents in languages other than English. For example, 

during our site visit to Woodburn, Ore., district officials reported 

extending the time parents had to sign up their children for SES and 

hosting an event where providers presented their programs to parents in 

English and Spanish. Further, Newark, N.J., district officials told us during 

our site visit that the district provided transportation for parents to attend 

informational events and worked with a local community organization to

increase awareness of SES, a method we estimate was also used by about

40 percent of all districts. Specifically, Newark district officials

collaborated with a local organization to inform parents and students 

living in public housing and homeless shelters about SES. Also to 

encourage participation, an estimated 90 percent of districts offered 

services at locations easily accessible to students, such as on or near the 

school campus, and almost 80 percent of districts offered services at a 

variety of times, such as before and after school or on weekends. 

Districts Used Several 

Methods to Notify Parents 

and Offered Services on 

School Campuses and at 

Various Times to Increase 

Participation 

Page 11 GAO-06-1121T 
Table 3: District Actions Taken to Encourage SES Participation (2005-2006) 

Action taken during the 2005-2006 school year 

Estimated percentage

of districts

Provided written information in English to parents 99

Held individual meetings and/or phone conversations with interested parents 95

Encouraged principals, teachers, or other school staff to talk with parents 93

Offered supplemental services in locations that are easily accessible to students after school 

(e.g., on or near the school campus) 

90

Offered SES at a variety of times (e.g., after school, weekends, summer break) 79

Lengthened the period of time parents have to submit applications for SES 79

Held events where parents of eligible students can learn about providers 78

Provided written information in language(s) other than English about SES to parents 72

Made public announcements (e.g., television, billboards, newspaper ads, school newsletters) 67

Worked with a local community partner to raise awareness of SES (e.g., Parent Information 

Resource Center) 

39

Provided or arranged for transportation of students receiving SES to off-site providers 33

Source: GAO analysis of district survey results. 

Notifying Parents in a 

Timely and Effective 

Manner and Attracting 

More Providers for Certain 

Areas and Students 

Remain Challenges

Despite some districts’ promising approaches to encourage participation, 

notifying parents in a timely manner remains a challenge for some 

districts. An estimated 58 percent of districts did not notify parents that 

their children may be eligible to receive SES before the beginning of the 

2005-2006 school year, which may be due in part to delays in states 

reporting which schools were identified for improvement.9

 Specifically, 

about half of districts that did not notify parents before the beginning of 

the 2005-2006 school year did not receive notification from the state of the 

schools identified for improvement by that time.10

Effectively notifying parents is also a challenge for some districts. For 

example, officials in all four districts we visited reported difficulties 

 9

 GAO previously reported that some states have difficulty notifying schools of their status 

in meeting proficiency goals in a timely fashion in part because of the time involved in 

identifying and correcting errors in student assessment data. See GAO, No Child Left 

Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process for Tracking States’

Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004), for

more information. 

10 This district estimate has a margin of error that exceeds plus or minus 8 percentage 

points. See table 9 in appendix I of GAO-06-758 for more information. 

Page 12 GAO-06-1121T 
contacting parents to inform them about SES in part because some 

families frequently move and do not always update their mailing address 

with districts. In addition, some providers we interviewed indicated that 

parental notification letters do not always effectively encourage SES 

participation. For example, some of the providers we interviewed said 

some districts use confusing and poorly written letters to inform parents 

of SES or send letters to parents of eligible children but conduct no further 

outreach to encourage participation in SES. 

Another challenge to increasing SES participation is attracting more SES 

providers for certain areas and groups of students. Specifically, some rural 

districts surveyed indicated that no students received services last year 

because of a lack of providers in the area.11 A few rural districts further 

explained that it has been difficult to attract providers to their area 

because there are few students to serve or providers have trouble finding

staff to serve as tutors. Ensuring there are providers to serve students with 

limited English proficiency or disabilities has also been a challenge for 

some districts. We estimate that there were not enough providers to meet 

the needs of students with limited English proficiency in one-third of 

districts and not enough providers to meet the needs of students with 

disabilities in one-quarter of districts. 

Encouraging student attendance has also been a challenge, in part because 

students may participate in other after-school activities, such as sports or 

work. For example, about one-quarter of districts reported that both 

competition from other afterschool programs and the availability of 

services that are engaging to students were challenges to implementing 

SES. To help address this problem, 19 of the 22 providers we interviewed 

used incentives to encourage student attendance, such as school supplies 

and gift certificates. 

 11 GAO previously reported that geographic isolation created difficulties for rural districts

in implementing SES. Specifically, rural district officials stated that traveling long distances

to meet providers was not a viable option and use of online providers was challenging in 

some small rural districts where it was difficult to establish and maintain Internet service. 

See GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective 

Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts, GAO-04-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 

2004), for more details. 

Page 13 GAO-06-1121T 
To promote improved student academic achievement, providers took 

steps to gather information on district curriculum and student needs from 

teachers and parents. Specifically, providers aligned their curriculum with 

district instruction primarily by hiring district teachers and 

communicating with the teachers of participating students. However, 

when providers did not hire district teachers, the frequency of contact 

between tutors and teachers varied, and we estimate that some providers 

did not contact teachers in almost 40 percent of districts in 2004-2005. 

Regarding communication with parents, providers reported mailing 

information as well as meeting with parents over the phone and in-person 

to communicate information on student needs and progress; however, the 

frequency of communication with parents also varied. Specifically, we 

estimate that some providers did not contact parents in about 30 percent 

of districts in 2004-2005.

Providers Have Taken 

Steps to Deliver 

Quality Services, but 

Contracting and 

Coordination Remain

Challenges to Local 

Implementation 

Despite communication challenges, most districts and providers reported 

that they had positive working relationships. Specifically, an estimated 90

percent of districts indicated that their working relationships with 

providers during 2004-2005 were good, very good, or excellent. Further, 90

percent of districts reported that none or few of the providers they worked 

with used incentives prohibited by state or district SES policy, and 89

percent of districts reported that none or few of the providers they worked 

with billed the district for services not performed. Many of the providers 

we interviewed during our site visits also reported having positive working 

relationships with district officials. 

While providers have taken steps to deliver quality services and establish 

positive relationships with districts, both providers and districts 

experienced contracting and coordination difficulties. Regarding 

contracting, some of the providers we interviewed said certain districts 

imposed burdensome contract requirements, such as requiring substantial

documentation to be submitted with invoices, limiting the marketing they

could do to parents and students, or restricting the use of school facilities 

to deliver services. Districts also reported that contracting is a challenge.

We estimate that negotiating contracts with providers was a moderate, 

great, or very great challenge in about 40 percent of districts nationwide. 

For example, district officials at three of the sites we visited expressed 

concern about their lack of authority to set parameters in provider 

contracts around costs and program design, such as tutor-to-student ratios

and total hours of instruction. Coordination of service delivery has also 

been a challenge for providers and districts, and sometimes these 

coordination difficulties have resulted in service delays. For example, 

services were delayed or withdrawn in certain schools in three of the 

Page 14 GAO-06-1121T 
districts we visited because not enough students signed up to meet the 

providers’ enrollment targets and districts were not aware of these 

targets.12

In part because SES is often delivered in school facilities, providers and 

officials in the districts and schools we visited reported that involvement 

of school administrators and teachers can improve SES delivery and 

coordination. Although schools do not have federally defined

responsibilities for administering SES, many officials said SES 

implementation is hindered when school officials are not involved. For 

example, some providers we interviewed said that a lack of involvement of

school principals can make it difficult for them to coordinate with schools 

to encourage student participation. In addition, Illinois and Oregon school 

principals told us they found it difficult to manage afterschool activities 

because they didn’t have sufficient authority to oversee SES tutors 

operating in their buildings at that time. While helping to administer the 

SES program adds additional administrative burden on schools, school 

officials in all four of the districts we visited said they welcomed a 

stronger or more clearly defined role. 

While state monitoring of SES had been limited, more states reported 

taking steps to monitor both district and provider efforts to implement 

SES in 2005-2006. For example, more states conducted or planned to 

conduct on-site reviews of districts and providers in 2005-2006 than had 

done so in 2004-2005. In addition to state efforts to monitor providers, 

districts have also taken a direct oversight role, and their monitoring 

activities similarly increased during this time. For example, while we 

estimate that less than half of districts collected information from parents, 

school staff, on-site reviews, and students to monitor providers in 2004-

2005, 70 percent or more were collecting or planning to collect 

information from these sources in 2005-2006. In addition, states and 

districts both collected information on several aspects of SES programs, 

such as elements related to service delivery and use of funds, to monitor 

providers (see table 4). District assistance with monitoring is likely 

welcomed by states, as over two-thirds of states reported that on-site 

States are Increasing 

SES Monitoring 

though it Remains A 

Challenge, and Many 

Continue to Struggle 

with Developing 

Meaningful 

Evaluations 

 12 In addition to our analysis, the Center on Education Policy case studies also found that in 

some cases, approved providers that initially expressed interest in serving a certain district 

later decided not to provide services because too few students enrolled. See the Center on

Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom, Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind 

Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2006), for more information. 

Page 15 GAO-06-1121T 
monitoring of providers has been a challenge. During our site visits, 

officials explained that both state and district capacity to implement SES 

is limited, because there is typically one staff person at each level 

coordinating all aspects of SES implementation, and sometimes that 

person may also oversee implementation of additional federal education

programs. 

Table 4: Percentage of States and Districts That Reviewed Specified Program Elements to Monitor Providers in 2005-2006 

Percentage of states Estimated percentage of districts 

Program element Monitored

Planned to

monitor

Monitored

or planned

to monitor Monitored

Planned to

monitor

Monitored

or planned

to monitor

Parent/student satisfaction with a provider 27 67 94 34 57 91

Provider communication with teachers and 

parents 37 56 92 46 43 89

Extent to which a provider’s program, as 

enacted, reflects its program design, as outlined 

in its application to your state 19 73 92 30 41 70

Evidence of meeting academic achievement 

goals as stated on student learning plan 23 65 88 28 60 88

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on any statewide assessment 15 71 87 26 65 91

Alignment of provider curriculum with 

district/school curriculum or instruction 25 62 87 35 39 74

Student attendance records 27 56 83 67 25 93

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on provider assessments 27 56 83 39 52 91

Protection of student privacy 33 50 83 55 28 82

Adherence to applicable health, safety, and civil 

rights laws 29 48 77 48 26 74

Provider financial stability (e.g., audits, financial 

statements) 31 42 73 N/A N/A N/A

Evidence of improved student achievement 

based on grades, promotion, and/or graduation 12 58 69 23 57 80

Billing and payment for services N/A N/A N/A 72 21 93

Source: GAO.

Note: The percentage of states that did not review or plan to review these program elements to 

monitor providers in 2005-2006 and the percentage of states that did not answer these survey

questions are not shown in this table. In addition, we did not ask states if they monitored billing and 

payment for services, and we did not ask districts if they monitored provider financial stability.

While states are beginning to increase monitoring of SES implementation, 

many states continue to struggle with developing evaluations to determine 

Page 16 GAO-06-1121T 
whether SES providers are improving student achievement. Specifically, 

over three-fourths of states reported that determining sufficient academic 

progress of students, having the time and knowledge to analyze SES data, 

and developing data systems to track SES information have been 

challenges to evaluating SES providers. Although states are required to 

withdraw approval from providers that fail to increase student academic 

achievement for 2 years, at the time of our survey in early 2006, only a few 

states had drafted or completed an evaluation report addressing individual 

SES provider’s effects on student academic achievement. Further, we 

found that no state had produced a report that provided a conclusive 

assessment of this effect. Likely because of states’ struggle to complete 

SES evaluations, states did not report that they had withdrawn approval 

from providers because their programs were determined to be ineffective

at increasing student academic achievement.13 Rather, although over 40 

percent of states reported that they had withdrawn approval from some 

providers, they most frequently reported withdrawing provider approval 

because the provider was a school or district that had entered needs 

improvement status, the provider asked to be removed from the stateapproved provider list, or because of provider financial impropriety. 

Several offices within Education monitor various aspects of SES activity 

across the country and provide support, but states and districts reported 

needing additional assistance and flexibility with SES implementation. 

Education conducts SES monitoring in part through reviews of policy 

issues brought to the department’s attention and structured compliance 

reviews of states and districts, and provides SES support through 

guidance, grants, research, and technical assistance. The Office of 

Innovation and Improvement (OII) and the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) are primarily responsible for monitoring and 

supporting SES implementation, while the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), Policy Program and Studies Service, and Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives also contribute to these efforts (see fig. 3). 

Several Education 

Offices Monitor and 

Support SES 

Implementation, but 

States and Districts 

Reported Needing 

Additional Assistance 

and Flexibility 

 13 Only one state reported withdrawing approval from one of its providers because that 

provider’s program was generally ineffective. However, this provider’s program was found

to be ineffective because the provider did not deliver services to all of the students it 

enrolled. This state also indicated that it had not yet completed an evaluation of SES’s 

effect on student academic achievement. 

Page 17 GAO-06-1121T 
Figure 3: U.S. Department of Education Offices Monitoring and Supporting SES 

Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) 

Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy 

Development 

Policy and Program 

Studies Service

Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 

Office of Innovation and 

Improvement (OII) 

Office of Elementary 

and Secondary 

Education (OESE) 

Monitoring

 Performed six state SES

 audits during 2003-2004 

 and 2004-2005 

 Performed audits of SES

 implementation and 

 providers in five CA 

 districts during 2005 

Support

 Issued several reports focused

 on Title I, including SES (e.g.

 National Assessment of Title I:

 Interim Report)

 Produced a nine-district case

 study report, Early 

 Implementation of SES under

 the NCLBA, with a follow-up

 report for 2003-2004

Support 

 Clarifies SES policy and 

 provides technical assistance, 

 in part through presentations

 Coordinates the publication of 

 non-regulatory SES guidance 

 Issued grant for SES

 technical assistance 

 provided by SESQC 

 Issued grants to increase 

 minority participation in SES

 Issued grants to increase 

 SES access in rural areas

Support 

 Provides technical 

 assistance to faith- and 

 community-based 

 organizations interested in 

 becoming SES providers

Support

 Clarifies SES policy and 

 provides technical assistance, 

 in part through presentations

 Issued grant to fund

 Comprehensive Center on

 Innovation and

 Improvement that provides

 technical assistance for 

 Education programs, including 

 SES

Monitoring

 Performs “desk monitoring” 

 of SES information 

 Performs ad-hoc monitoring 

 of SES issues as they arise 

Monitoring

 Performs on-site visits to 

 states and districts as part 

 of Title I monitoring 

 Oversees collection and 

 analysis of Consolidated 

 State Performance Reports, 

 including SES data

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: This figure reflects the coordination of Education’s offices rather than the statutory reporting 

relationships. 

Specifically, OII leads SES policy development and provides strategic 

direction, and its staff also primarily monitor SES policy issues through 

“desk monitoring,” which involves review of SES-related research and 

media reports. In addition to these activities, OII also conducts more 

intensive monitoring of specific SES implementation challenges when 

states, districts, and providers bring them to Education’s attention. 

Regarding other support for SES implementation, OII has provided SES 

implementation assistance in part through presentations at conferences 

and grants to external organizations. For example, OII funded the 

Supplemental Educational Services Quality Center (SESQC), which 

Page 18 GAO-06-1121T 
provided technical assistance to states and districts. OII is also responsible 

for coordinating the publication of the non-regulatory SES guidance. Since 

2002, OII has coordinated four versions of this guidance, each updated to 

address ongoing challenges with SES implementation. The latest and most 

comprehensive version of non-regulatory SES guidance was published in 

June 2005, though additional information was provided to states in May 

2006 concerning private school participation in providing SES and the 

definition of a district-affiliated provider. 

OESE, which oversees and supports NCLBA implementation, is involved 

in monitoring SES implementation through its overall monitoring of state 

compliance with Title I and NCLBA. To monitor Title I, OESE staff visit 

state departments of education and selected districts within each state to

interview officials and review relevant documents. Following the visit, 

OESE issues a report to the state outlining any instances of Title I noncompliance, including those related to SES, and actions needed to comply 

with regulations. Since the monitoring cycle began in 2003-2004, OESE has 

visited and publicly issued reports to 48 states, D.C., and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.14 OESE also monitors SES through its oversight of the 

collection of state NCLBA data, including data on SES, through the annual

Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). For the CSPR, each state 

is required to report the number of schools with students receiving SES,

the number of students eligible for services, and the number that received 

services.15 To support SES implementation, OESE funded the 

Comprehensive Centers Program through grants that established technical 

assistance centers across the country to help low-performing schools and 

districts close achievement gaps and meet the goals of NCLBA. Of these, 

the Center on Innovation and Improvement provides support to states and

districts on SES and other Education programs. 

Given the technical assistance and support Education has already 

provided to states and districts for implementation of SES and school 

choice, and the department’s view that implementation of these provisions 

has been uneven throughout the country, in May 2006, Education issued a 

 14 The federal government has direct responsibility for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

school system, and BIA schools depend almost entirely on federal funds. Similar to public 

schools, BIA schools are eligible to receive Title I funds. 

15 States have only reported the number of students eligible for SES since the 2003-2004 

CSPR. Also, starting with the 2003-2004 CSPR, Education gave states the option to report

the number of students who applied for SES.

Page 19 GAO-06-1121T 
policy letter announcing the department’s plans to take significant 

enforcement action. Specifically, Education plans to use the data collected 

through its monitoring and evaluation efforts to take enforcement actions 

such as placing conditions on state Title I grants, withholding federal 

funds, or entering into compliance agreements. In the letter, the 

department noted that its various monitoring activities have identified 

several areas of noncompliance with SES requirements. For example, 

because some states failed to adequately monitor their districts for 

compliance, some districts failed to include the required key components 

in parental notification letters or budget sufficient funding for services. 

While three-fourths of states reported that the most recent version of 

Education’s SES non-regulatory guidance has been very or extremely 

useful, many states and districts reported needing clearer guidance or 

additional assistance with certain SES provisions. Specifically, 85 percent 

of states and an estimated 70 percent of districts needed additional 

assistance with methods for evaluating SES, and over 60 percent also 

needed assistance with developing data systems. Many districts also 

needed more information on provider quality and effectiveness. Although 

OESE and OIG monitoring results have also continually indicated that 

states and districts struggle with SES evaluation, Education has yet to 

provide comprehensive assistance in this area, and during our site visits, 

officials mentioned that they have been relying on other states, 

organizations, or individuals for evaluation assistance. In addition, several

states commented through our survey that they also needed additional 

guidance on managing costs and fees, implementing SES in rural areas, 

and handling provider complaints. During three of our site visits, officials 

also expressed some concern about the lack of clarity in the SES guidance 

with regard to student eligibility requirements and how to craft a parental

SES notification letter that is both complete and easy for parents to 

understand. Specifically, though Education’s monitoring reports have 

found many states and districts to be non-compliant with the federal 

requirement that district SES parental notification letters include several 

specific elements,16 Education’s SES guidance provides a sample that does 

not clearly specify all of the key elements required by SES law and 

regulations. Furthermore, a few state and district officials commented 

 16 OIG found all six of the states it visited during its audits of state SES implementation to

be deficient with respect to parent notifications. In addition, in our analysis of the 40 OESE

Title I state monitoring reports publicly issued as of June 2006, we found that OESE cited 9 

of the states it had visited for SES non-compliance with respect to district parent 

notifications. 

Page 20 GAO-06-1121T 
that, when followed, the SES regulations yield a letter that is unreasonably 

long and complex, which may be difficult for parents to understand. 

Many states and districts expressed interest in the flexibility offered 

through two pilot programs that Education implemented during 2005-2006. 

The department designed these pilots to increase the number of eligible 

students receiving SES and to generate additional information about the 

effect of SES on student academic achievement. For example, several 

state and district SES coordinators expressed interest in Education’s pilot 

program that allowed two districts in needs improvement status to act as 

SES providers in exchange for their expansion of student access to SES 

providers and collection of achievement data to determine SES program 

effectiveness. Through both our surveys and site visits, officials suggested 

that allowing districts to act as providers may ease student access to SES 

for rural districts that do not have providers located nearby, allow more 

students to participate in SES because district costs to provide services 

are sometimes lower than other providers’ costs, and enable districts to 

continue their existing tutoring programs that they feel are effective and 

meet the same goals as SES. 

The other SES pilot allowed four districts in Virginia to offer SES instead 

of school choice in schools that have missed state performance goals for 2 

years and are in their first year of needs improvement. During our site 

visits and through our surveys, many states and districts expressed 

interest in adjusting the order of the SES and school choice interventions. 

Specifically, half of states and over 60 percent of districts suggested that 

SES should be made available before school choice (see table 5). In line 

with interest in increased flexibility with these interventions, in May 2006, 

Education announced that due to the positive results in Virginia districts 

under the pilot, the department would extend and expand this pilot in 

2006-2007. 

Table 5: State and District Opinion on the Ordering of School Choice and SES 

In percent 

Order of school choice and SES States District

SES should precede school choice 48 62

Both school choice and SES should be offered at the same time 27 15

School choice should precede SES 15 23

Source: GAO.

Note: 10 percent of states did not respond or were not sure. In addition, district percentages are 

estimates. 

Page 21 GAO-06-1121T 
Our August report recommended that Education clarify guidance and 

provide additional assistance to states and districts to help them comply 

with the federal requirements for parental notification letters and ensure

that letters are easy for parents to understand, collect and disseminate 

information on promising practices used by districts to attract providers 

for certain areas and groups, and collaborate with school officials to 

coordinate local SES implementation. In addition, we recommended that

Education consider expanding its current SES pilot program allowing 

selected districts in need of improvement to serve as providers and clarify 

state authority to set parameters around service design and costs. Finally,

we also recommended that Education require states to collect and submit 

information on the amount spent by districts to provide SES and the 

percentage of districts’ Title I funds that this amount represents and 

provide states with technical assistance and additional guidance on how to 

evaluate the effect of SES on student academic achievement.

Education expressed appreciation for our recommendations and cited 

actions the department had taken or planned to take to address them. 

Specifically, Education outlined several projects under development that 

may provide more assistance to states related to parental notification, 

attracting providers for certain areas and groups, and involving schools in 

SES implementation. Further, after commenting on our report, Education

expanded the pilot allowing districts in need of improvement to apply to

become SES providers. The department also stated that it will consider 

further clarifying state authority to set program parameters in the next 

update of the SES guidance. Regarding federal and state monitoring of 

SES, Education said it will propose that districts report their SES 

expenditures to the department and provide more SES evaluation 

assistance to states through an updated issue brief as well as technical 

assistance provided by the Comprehensive Center on Innovation and 

Improvement and at a conference this fall. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Lacinda Ayers and Rachel Frisk. 

Prior 

Recommendations 

GAO Contacts 

Page 22 GAO-06-1121T 
Page 23 GAO-06-1121T 

Related GAO Products 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Needed to Improve Local 

Implementation and State Evaluation of Supplemental Educational 

Services. GAO-06-758. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States 

Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency. 

GAO-06-815. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic 

Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address. GAO-06-661. 

Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2006. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated 

in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. 

GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional 

Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School 

Choice Provision. GAO-05-7. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process 

for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 

Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004. 

Disadvantaged Students: Fiscal Oversight of Title I Could Be Improved. 

GAO-03-377. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003.

Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child 

Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002. 

(130611) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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 “Subscribe to 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, D.C. 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 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 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