U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–632 PDF 2015

IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THROUGH 

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE TRAINING 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–66 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Megan O’Reilly, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Loebsack, Iowa, 

Ranking Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 10, 2014 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher, Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Loebsack, Hon. Dave, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education ............................................................................. 7 

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

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training ......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Nowicki, Jacqueline, Acting Director, Education, Workforce and Income 

Security Issues, U.S. Accountability Office, Boston, MA, Inc. .................. 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Tighe, Hon. Kathleen, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Miller: 

National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and 

Youth ...................................................................................................... 69 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado: 

Article from the Denver Post .................................................................... 48 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Chairwoman Foxx ..................................................................................... 72 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York .................................................................................. 73 

Response to questions submitted: 

Ms. Nowicki ............................................................................................... 76-80 

Inspector General Tighe ........................................................................... 75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THROUGH 

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training, 

joint with the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training] presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Higher Education and the 

Workforce: Representatives Foxx, Petri, Guthrie, Brooks, Hinojosa, 

Bonamici, Takano, and McCarthy. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, 

Foxx, Roe, Brooks, Loebsack, Scott, McCarthy, Polis, and Sablan. 

Staff present: Kathlyn Ehl, Legislative Assistant; James Forester, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel 

Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications 

Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren Reddington, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Emily Slack, Professional Staff Member; 

Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; 

Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Eamonn Collins, Minority 

Education Policy Advisor; Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; and Rich Williams, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor. 

Chairwoman FOXX. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education and Workforce Training and the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education will come to order. 

Good morning. I welcome our guests and thank our colleagues on 

the K–12 Subcommittee for joining us. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

I want also to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. 

Independent oversight is a central tool to ensure the federal government spends taxpayer dollars wisely and administers programs 

and policies in the most efficient and effective way. When you consider the challenges facing our schools and workplaces as well as 

the tsunami of red ink confronting taxpayers, the need for responsible administration of the federal government has never been 

more important. 

The Government Accountability Office and each agency’s Office 

of Inspector General play vital roles in the oversight effort. The 

hardworking staff of these nonpartisan entities are the taxpayers’ 

first line of defense against fraud, waste, and abuse of tax dollars. 

They also help identify areas where programs and policies can be 

improved to ensure the American people receive the best services 

possible. 

Like all federal agencies, the Department of Education has a responsibility to take the concerns and recommendations offered by 

these independent investigators seriously. There is certainly no 

shortage of improvements needed at the department. 

In recent years the GAO has issued numerous reports highlighting areas where programs and policies should be strengthened, 

including reports entitled: ‘‘Use of New Data Could Help Improve 

Oversight of Distance Education;’’ ‘‘Foreign Medical Schools: Education Should Improve Monitoring of Schools that Participate in 

the Federal Student Loan Program;’’ ‘‘Better Oversight Could Improve Defaulted Loan Rehabilitation;’’ and ‘‘Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for College.’’ 

These reports are in addition to those routinely released by the 

Inspector General’s office. The examples I just cited are especially 

noteworthy because they include recommendations not yet implemented by the department. 

Agencies may not agree with every recommendation in every report. In fact, this committee may question various recommendations from time to time. However, each independent report represents an opportunity for a federal agency to consider changes and 

improve. 

Whether it is the solutions outlined by the GAO and I.G. offices 

or a set of changes proposed internally by an agency, action must 

be taken. The American people deserve no less. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the important 

work they do. We have a special event starting at 11 o’clock that 

many members are interested in attending, so I hope we can conduct this hearing expeditiously. 

Toward that end, I will conclude by recognizing Chairman 

Rokita, of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and 

Secondary Education, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Foxx, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training 

Good morning. I welcome our guests and thank our colleagues on the K–12 subcommittee for joining us. I want also to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses 

for participating in today’s hearing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

Independent oversight is a central tool to ensure the federal government spends 

taxpayer dollars wisely and administers programs and policies in the most efficient 

and effective way. When you consider the challenges facing our schools and workplaces, as well as the tsunami of red ink confronting taxpayers, the need for responsible administration of the federal government has never been more important. 

The Government Accountability Office and each agency’s Office of Inspector General play vital roles in the oversight effort. The hard-working staff of these nonpartisan entities are the taxpayers first line of defense against waste, fraud and 

abuse of tax dollars. They also help identify areas where programs and policies can 

be improved to ensure the American people receive the best services possible. 

Like all federal agencies, the Department of Education has a responsibility to take 

the concerns and recommendations offered by these independent investigators seriously. There is certainly no shortage of improvements needed at the department. In 

recent years, the GAO has issued numerous reports highlighting areas where programs and policies should be strengthened, including reports entitled: 

* ‘‘Use of New Data Could Help Improve Oversight of Distance Education’’; 

* ‘‘Foreign Medical Schools: Education Should Improve Monitoring of Schools That 

Participate in the Federal Student Loan Program’’; 

* ‘‘Better Oversight Could Improve Defaulted Loan Rehabilitation’’; and 

* ‘‘Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for College.’’ 

These reports are in addition to those routinely released by the Inspector General’s office. The examples I just cited are especially noteworthy, because they include recommendations not yet implemented by the department. Agencies may not 

agree with every recommendation in every report. In fact, this committee may question various recommendations from time to time. 

However, each independent report represents an opportunity for a federal agency 

to consider changes and improve. Whether it’s the solutions outlined by the GAO 

and IG offices, or a set of changes proposed internally by an agency, action must 

be taken. The American people deserve no less. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the important work they do. 

We have a special event starting at 11:00 o’clock that many members are interested 

in attending, so I hope that we can conduct this hearing expeditiously. Toward that 

end, I will conclude by recognizing the senior Democrat of the higher education subcommittee, Congressman David Loebsack, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. ROKITA. Well thank you, Chairman. 

And good morning, everyone. I also want to thank our panel of 

witnesses for joining us this morning, and I extend my appreciation 

to Chairwoman Foxx for leading today’s hearing. 

You know, a free and democratic society requires government 

transparency and accountability. We all want the federal government to serve the best interests of every American—those directly 

affected by federal programs and those whose tax dollars fund 

those programs. Now, to get there we need to know what is working and what isn’t, and we need to know the steps an agency 

should take to turn things around. 

The Department of Education alone administers roughly 80 programs tied to K–12 schools—80 programs just at the elementary 

and secondary education level. That alone requires a massive bureaucracy to administer so many programs, and the greater the bureaucracy the greater the opportunities for mismanagement, frankly. And that is just not an offhand statement; that comes from a 

guy who used to manage five bureaucracies. 

That is why the House has taken action that would begin 

streamlining these programs, because a more efficient Department 

of Education can do a better job supporting our nation’s schools. 

However, even the leanest federal agency can still be susceptible 

to waste, fraud, and abuse. We must remain vigilant in our oversight, both in Congress and the offices of our independent partners. 

The Government Accountability Office and inspectors general are 

at the forefront of this important effort. Their knowledge and invesCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

tigative authority are vital tools in the fight against government 

corruption and mismanagement. 

Chairwoman Foxx noted several reports by GAO affecting higher 

education policies with recommendations that remain open. Now 

here are just a few examples affecting K–12 education policies: 

‘‘Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools with Applying for Discretionary Grants,’’ number one. Number two: ‘‘Students 

with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School.’’ Number three: ‘‘Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal Requirements as Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits.’’ 

Four: ‘‘Education Research: Further Improvements Needed to Ensure Relevance and Assess Dissemination Efforts.’’ 

Each report embodies a new opportunity, frankly, to serve the 

American people more effectively and spend taxpayer dollars more 

wisely. President Reagan once noted, ‘‘Government is the people’s 

business, and every man, woman, and child becomes a shareholder 

with the first penny of tax paid.’’ 

I am fighting for all those people so that they can build better 

lives for themselves and for their families. It is our responsibility 

to protect their tax dollars and ensure the American people receive 

the highest level of government service they expect. 

Thank you again, Chairwoman, for hosting today’s hearing, and 

I look forward to a good discussion this morning. 

[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Chairman Rokita, Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning. I also want to thank our panel of witnesses for joining us this 

morning and extend my appreciation to Chairwoman Foxx for leading today’s hearing. 

A free and democratic society requires government transparency and accountability. We all want the federal government to serve the best interests of every 

American – those directly affected by federal programs and those whose tax dollars 

fund federal programs. To get there, we need to know what’s working and what 

isn’t. And we need to know the steps an agency should take to turn things around. 

The Department of Education administers roughly 80 programs tied to K–12 

schools; 80 programs just at the elementary and secondary education level. It requires a massive bureaucracy to administer so many programs, and the greater the 

bureaucracy the greater the opportunities for mismanagement. That is why the 

House has taken action that would begin streamlining these programs, because a 

more efficient Department of Education can do a better job supporting our nation’s 

schools. 

However, even the leanest federal agency can still be susceptible to waste, fraud, 

and abuse. We must remain vigilant in our oversight, both in Congress and the offices of our independent partners. The Government Accountability Office and inspectors general are at the forefront of this important effort. Their knowledge and investigative authority are vital tools in the fight against government corruption and mismanagement. 

Chairwoman Foxx noted several reports by GAO affecting higher education policies with recommendations that remain open. Here are just a few examples affecting 

K–12 education policies: 

* ‘‘Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools with Applying for Discretionary Grants’’; 

* ‘‘Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School’’; 

* ‘‘Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal Requirements as 

Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits’’; and 

* ‘‘Education Research: Further Improvements Needed to Ensure Relevance and 

Assess Dissemination Efforts.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

Each report embodies a new opportunity to serve the American people more effectively and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. President Reagan once noted, ‘‘Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman, and child becomes a 

shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.’’ I am fighting for all those people so 

that they can build better lives for themselves and their families. It is our responsibility to protect their tax dollars and ensure the American people receive the highest 

level of government service they expect. Thank you again, Chairwoman Foxx, for 

hosting today’s hearing and I look forward to our discussion this morning. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Rokita. 

Next I recognize the senior Democrat of the Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Workforce Training, Congressman Rube ́n Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

Today’s joint committee hearing will examine the Government 

Accountability Office, to which I will refer as GAO, and the Inspector General’s, which I will refer to in my remarks as OIG—their 

recommendations made to the U.S. Department of Education to improve quality and oversight. 

To begin, I must underscore that independent oversight is a critical tool in helping the U.S. Department of Education achieve its 

goals. The GAO and the inspector general play a vitally important 

role in improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the department’s programs. 

With regard to implementation, the Department of Education 

has made substantial progress in responding to GAO and OIG’s 

recommendations over the past decade. Since 2004 the department 

has implemented 218 of the 268 recommendations made by GAO. 

While the government-wide average for the implementation of 

GAO recommendations is 80 percent, the Department of Education 

has surpassed that average with an implementation of 93 percent 

of GAO’s recommendations from 2004 through 2014. And that is remarkable. 

According to the GAO, the implementation of these recommendations has resulted in significant benefits, generating more than 

$2.1 billion in financial benefits and making programmatic and administrative improvements. 

Since the most recent 2012 audit, the OIG has noted that the Department of Education has placed significantly more organizational 

priority in remedying outstanding audits which have improved the 

timeliness of audit resolution and the follow up. I understand that 

the department has action teams in place to resolve the audits in 

as little time as 3 months. 

In the area of higher education, the department has been responsive on growing concerns regarding fraud rings and campus debit 

cards. Since 2011 the OIG has issued a series of reports showing 

an increase in fraud rings, particularly for distance education 

courses. Between the years 2009 and 2012 the OIG estimated that 

there was an 82 percent increase of students participating in fraud 

rings, impacting $187 million in federal student aid. 

In light of the OIG’s findings, Ranking Member Miller and I 

urged the Department of Education to take proactive steps to address that important issue. Thus far, I understand the department 

has made progress in mitigating fraud rings, including increasing 

verification requirements and better tracking systems that can 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

identify when a person attempts to receive awards at multiple college campuses. 

Similarly, GAO and the OIG have released reports to Congress 

concluding that student and taxpayer funds are at risk when banks 

create deals with colleges to steer students into expensive debit 

cards that can quickly erode their financial aid money. In a report 

issued in February of 2014, GAO found that 40 percent of students 

attend colleges with debit card arrangements, potentially exposing 

students to an array of troubling and expensive fees, lack of free 

access to financial aid, and marketing that unfairly steers the students into potentially expensive accounts. 

The OIG had similar findings, noting many agreements provided 

multimillion dollar kickbacks to schools and colleges. So as a result, the OIG recommended that the department consider implementing a series of reforms, including the banning of revenue sharing when colleges partner with banks to offer credit cards. 

Along the same lines, GAO recommended that Congress consider 

requiring banks to submit their contracts and their fee structures 

to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which we call the 

CFPB, for annual analysis and publication, just like they are required to do with the credit cards. 

Since these reports were issued, several bank regulators and consumer groups have echoed the same recommendations. 

In closing, I want to say that House Democrats have also introduced H.R. 4714, entitled ‘‘The Campus Debit Cards Act,’’ which 

would, among other things, implement the GAO and OIG recommendations for transparency and disclosure of these arrangements. However, we have seen no action from our Republican 

friends and colleagues, to protect students from these abusive financial products or to act on the recommendations of the GAO. 

As ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce 

Training Committee, I look forward to hearing from our panel of 

witnesses on how we can continue to enhance oversight and improve the quality and effectiveness of our federal programs in the 

Department of Education. 

And with that, I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

Today’s joint committee hearing will examine the Government Accounting Office 

(GAO) and the Inspector General’s (OIG)’s recommendations made to the U.S. Department of Education to improve quality and oversight. 

To begin, I must underscore that independent oversight is a critical tool in helping 

the U.S. Department of Education achieve its goals. The GAO and Inspector General 

play a vitally important role in improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of the Department’s programs. With regard to implementation, the Department of 

Education has made substantial progress in responding to GAO and OIG recommendations over the past decade. Since 2004, the department has implemented 

218 of the 268 recommendations made by GAO. 

While the government-wide average for implementation of GAO recommendations 

is 80 percent, the Department of Education has surpassed that average with an implementation 93 percent of GAO recommendations from 2004–2014. 

According to the GAO, the implementation of these recommendations has resulted 

in significant benefits, generating more than $2.1 billion in financial benefits and 

making programmatic and administrative improvements. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

Since the most recent 2012 audit, the OIG has noted that the department of education has placed significantly more organizational priority in remedying outstanding audits which have improved the timeliness of audit resolution and follow 

up. I understand that the department has action teams in place to resolve audits 

in as little as three months. 

In the area of higher education, the Department has been responsive on growing 

concerns regarding fraud rings and campus debit cards. 

Since 2011, the OIG has issued a series of reports showing an increase in fraud 

rings, particularly for distance education courses. Between 2009 and 2012, the OIG 

estimated that there was an 82 percent increase of students participating in fraud 

rings, impacting $187 million in federal student aid. 

In light of the OIG’s findings, Ranking member Miller and I urged the U.S. Department of Education to take proactive steps to address this issue. Thus far, I understand the department has made progress in mitigating fraud rings, including increasing verification requirements and better tracking systems that can identify 

when a person attempts to receive awards at multiple campuses. 

Similarly, GAO and the OIG have released reports to Congress concluding that 

student and taxpayer funds are at risk when banks create deals with colleges to 

steer students into expensive debit cards that can quickly erode their financial aid 

money. 

In a report issued in February of 2014, GAO found that 40% of students attend 

colleges with debit card arrangements, potentially exposing students to an array of 

troubling and expensive fees, lack of free fee access to financial aid, and marketing 

that unfairly steers students into potentially expensive accounts. 

The OIG had similar findings—noting many agreements provided multi-million 

dollar kickbacks to schools. As a result, the OIG recommended that the Department 

consider implementing a series of reforms, including banning revenue sharing when 

colleges partner with banks to offer debit cards. 

Along the same lines, GAO recommended that Congress consider requiring banks 

to submit their contracts and fee structures to the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau (CFPB) for annual analysis and publication, just like they are required to 

do with credit cards. 

Since these reports were issued, several bank regulators and consumer groups 

have echoed these recommendations. 

House Democrats have also introduced H.R. 4714, ‘‘The Campus DEBIT Cards 

Act’’ which would, among other things, implement the GAO and OIG recommendations for transparency and disclosure of these arrangements. However, we have seen 

no action from our Republican colleagues to protect students from these abusive financial products, or to act of the recommendations of the GAO. 

As Ranking Member for Higher Education and Workforce Training, I look forward 

to hearing from our panel of witnesses on how we can continue to enhance oversight, and improve the quality and effectiveness of our federal programs in the department of education. 

Thank You! 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I now recognize the senior Democrat of the Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Congressman Dave Loebsack, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I want to start by thanking Chairwoman Foxx for 

calling this joint subcommittee hearing today. 

I also want to thank Ranking Member Hinojosa for sharing the 

dais with me, and Chairman Rokita, as well. 

And I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us today, 

as well. 

We are here today to examine oversight of the Department of 

Education. Specifically, we will look at the Government Accountability Office, GAO; and the Department of Education Office of Inspector General, OIG; and the recommendations they made to the 

Department of Education to improve program quality and management. 

My friends in the majority will want to highlight the department’s challenges in responding to OIG and GAO audit findings— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

challenges the department is actively working to overcome. Yet in 

recent years the department has made meaningful progress not 

only in implementing GAO and OIG recommendations, but also in 

implementing them in a more timely manner. 

In that time, E.D. has made strategic staffing decisions to more 

effectively put OIG recommendations into place, and it has also established an internal governance panel to address key challenges 

in the audit process and ways to improve response time. And I 

won’t repeat the statistics that Ranking Member Hinojosa just 

mentioned, but those are impressive statistics, as well. 

Recently the department has also placed greater priority on resolving OIG audit reports and ensuring that appropriate action 

takes place. Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, OIG is authorized to carry out various audits or reviews to, quote—‘‘promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of and 

prevent and detect fraud and abuse in the department’s programs 

and operations.’’ 

During the Obama administration, E.D. has eliminated backlog— 

its backlog of overdue OIG audits and has begun preparing corrective action plans in response to audits more quickly. As of today, 

Department of Education only has one unresolved audit more than 

6 months old, and the GAO and the OIG are vital to the Department of Education’s efforts to monitor, review, and enhance its administration and its programs. 

In addition to making recommendations to the Department of 

Education, both the GAO and the department’s OIG often uncover 

problems that can best be addressed by congressional action. These 

critical issues fall within our committees’ jurisdiction; that is why 

we are here today. 

But sadly, we have seen in the past, as was mentioned, the majority has refused to act on many of these, and I am concerned in 

particular that the majority appears indifferent to problems within 

the purview of the subcommittee on which I am the ranking member, although I am confident that Chairman Rokita and I can work 

together on these issues going forward. 

In recent years, for example, the GAO has identified gaping holes 

in state laws that leave children and students vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse both in school and out of school, and Democrats on this committee have sent at least five letters to Chairman 

Kline requesting committee action on these gaps in child abuse prevention. But four of our formal requests have gone unanswered, 

and none have resulted in hearings or markups on legislation to 

address the troubling findings of GAO’s investigative work. 

And while committee Democrats have introduced legislation that 

protects students and families, we cannot enact such common-sense 

regulations without the help of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

And GAO has produced troubling findings on a number of issues 

on which our committee is still awaiting action, including curbing 

abusive seclusion and restraint in schools, sex abuse of children 

and athletics programs, and aligning the definition of ‘‘homelessness’’ across federal agencies to better serve homeless students. 

And that is just to name a few. 

We all know that oversight is one of this body’s most important 

functions. Again, that is why we are here today. And Congress and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

Congress alone has the authority to put many of the reforms recommended by OIG and the GAO into action. 

And as the committee under whose jurisdiction education laws 

and regulations fall, it is our duty to give those recommendations 

serious consideration. Agency oversight is important, but we must 

not lose sight of what we are here to do, and that is first and foremost to protect children and families and to help set them up for 

success in school and in life. 

And I do look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and 

in the future, working with my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle to make sure that we implement the GAO and OIG’s most 

pressing proposals. 

And thank you, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Loebsack follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Loebsack, Subcommittee Early 

Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

I want to start by thanking Chairwoman Foxx for calling this joint subcommittee 

hearing. I also want to thank Ranking Member Hinojosa for sharing the dais with 

me. 

And I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us. 

We are here today to examine oversight of the Department of Education (the Department or ED). Specifically, we will look at the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and the Department of Education Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the 

recommendations they’ve made to the Department of Education to improve program 

quality and management. 

My friends in the majority may want to highlight the Department’s challenges in 

responding to OIG and GAO audit findings, challenges the Department is actively 

working to overcome. Yet, in recent years, the Department has made meaningful 

progress not only in implementing GAO and OIG recommendations, but also in implementing them in a timelier manner. 

In that time, ED has made strategic staffing decisions to more effectively put OIG 

recommendations into place. It has also established an internal governance panel 

to address key challenges in the audit process and ways to improve response time. 

Since 2004, ED has made more than 90 percent of the changes that GAO has advised—far exceeding the government-wide average for implementing GAO recommendations. According to GAO, taking up these recommendations has resulted 

in 2.1 billion in financial benefits and a slew of other programmatic and administrative improvements for the Department. 

Recently, the Department has also placed a greater priority on resolving OIG 

audit reports and ensuring that appropriate action takes place. Under the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, OIG is authorized to carry out various audits or reviews to 

‘‘promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and ... prevent and detect fraud and abuse in ... [the Department’s] programs and operations.’’ 

During the Obama Administration, ED has eliminated its backlog of overdue OIG 

audits and has begun preparing corrective action plans in response to audits more 

quickly. As of today, ED only has one unresolved audit more than six months old. 

The GAO and OIG are vital to the Department of Education’s efforts to monitor, 

review and enhance its administration and its programs. In addition to making recommendations to ED, both the GAO and ED–OIG often uncover problems that can 

best be addressed by Congressional action. These critical issues fall within our committee’s jurisdiction, but, sadly, committee Republicans refuse to act on many on 

them 

This Republican majority seems to be particularly indifferent to problems within 

the purview of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee. In recent years, for example, GAO has identified gaping holes in state 

laws that leave children and students vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse, both 

in school and out of school. 

Democrats on this committee have sent at least five letters to Chairman Kline requesting committee action on these gaps in child abuse prevention—but four of our 

formal requests have gone unanswered, and none have resulted in hearings or 

markups on legislation to address the troubling findings of GAO’s investigative 

work. While Committee Democrats have introduced legislation to protect students 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

and families, we cannot enact such commonsense regulations without the help of 

our Republican colleagues. 

GAO has produced troubling findings on a number of issues, on which our committee is still awaiting action: 

* Curbing abusive seclusion and restraint in schools; 

* Sex abuse of children in athletics programs; and 

* Aligning the definition of homelessness across federal agencies to better serve 

homeless students 

That is just to name a few. 

We must not forget that oversight is one of this esteemed body’s most essential 

functions. Congress and Congress alone has the authority to put many of the reforms recommended by OIG and the GAO into action. And as the committee under 

whose jurisdiction education laws and regulations fall, it is our duty to give those 

recommendations serious consideration. Agency oversight is important, but we must 

not lose sight of what we’re here to do: protect children and families and set them 

up for success in school and in life. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and, in the future, to working 

with my Republican colleagues to implement the GAO and OIG’s most pressing proposals. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all 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 such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses. 

The Honorable Kathleen S. Tighe has served as the inspector 

general for the U.S. Department of Education here in Washington, 

D.C. since 2010. Ms. Tighe has a long career in government accountability. Notably, she was appointed to chair the Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board and has served on the Government Accountability and Transparency Board. 

Prior to her work with the Department of Education, Ms. Tighe 

was the deputy inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and also served as counsel to the inspector general at the 

General Services Administration. 

Ms. Jacqueline Nowicki is the acting director of education, workforce, and income security issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Nowicki directs GAO’s 

K–12 education work. 

Previously, she was assistant director for budget issues at GAO, 

along with having worked in private sector consulting, leading 

projects on education, job training, and social policy issues. 

Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras is the director of education, workforce, 

and income security issues for the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office in Boston, Massachusetts. In this capacity, she oversees the 

agency’s K–12 and higher education work, including national studies on education issues ranging from student loans to veterans’ 

education benefits. 

Ms. Emrey-Arras is available for questions. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to present your 

testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will turn 

green; when 1 minute is left the light will turn yellow; when your 

time is expired the light will turn red. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

At that point I ask that you wrap up your remarks as best as 

you are able. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

I now would recognize Kathleen Tighe for 5 minutes, thank you 

very much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MS. KATHLEEN TIGHE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. TIGHE. Thank you. 

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for inviting me here today 

to discuss audit resolution and the timeliness of actions by the U.S. 

Department of Education to address recommendations made by the 

Office of Inspector General. I want to thank the two subcommittees 

for holding this hearing and highlighting an issue that is such a 

vital part of good government. 

The goal of the Office of Inspector General’s audit and related 

work is not simply to identify and tally problems, but to recommend improvements and promote corrective action based on 

those recommendations. That is what audit resolution and follow 

up are all about. 

They are important mechanisms to help the department improve 

the management and performance of its programs and operations, 

and since 2002 my office has issued six reports on the department’s 

audit resolution and follow-up processes, most recently in 2012. 

Each report noted problems with ineffective internal controls, lack 

of staff and training to conduct resolution activity, a lack of organizational priority placed on audit resolution activities, and an overall lack of accountability. 

After our 2012 review, the department proposed a series of actions that addressed many of the specific recommendations in the 

report. As discussed in my written testimony, we have seen some 

progress as a result of those actions. Specifically, the department 

has made progress in its efforts to more timely resolve recommendations made in internal audit reports, which are those OIG 

reports where the department is directly responsible for implementing corrective action. 

For internal reports issued in 2010, only 63 percent of OIG audit 

recommendations were resolved timely, but in each calendar year 

since then, 93 percent or more of OIG recommendations have been 

resolved timely. While this progress in noteworthy, challenges remain, particularly in the area of repeat findings, which are too 

common in our information technology security and financial statement audit work. 

Regarding OIG external audits, where our recommendations are 

aimed at nonfederal entities such as state and local education 

agencies, participants in the student financial aid programs, and 

other grantees or contractors, the department has also made some 

progress. However, timeliness still remains a challenge. 

For example, 10 of 49 external audit reports issued between 2010 

and 2013 remain unresolved. Of those 39 resolved audits, only 13 

have been fully implemented. 

Ninety-five percent of the audits resolved had not been resolved 

within OMB’s 6-month deadline. These audits were overdue for resolution by an average of about 439 days. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

In each calendar year between 2010 and 2014, 80 to 100 percent 

of OIG external audit reports issued were not resolved timely. 

This is an area of particular concern as the untimely resolution 

of external audits impacts the potential recovery of funds and creates delays in the development and implementation of corrective 

actions by auditees that are intended to correct noted weaknesses 

in program management. Delays also send the wrong message to 

program participants about the department’s tolerance for noncompliance and misuse of program funds. 

This is why we periodically review the department’s audit resolution and follow-up processes. As previously stated, we have conducted six reviews since 2002 and we have a seventh audit presently underway. 

We are currently evaluating the effectiveness of the department’s 

processes to ensure that external auditees are taking corrective actions to address weaknesses identified in OIG reports. We expect 

to issue the results of our findings later this year. 

Audit recommendations can serve as a tool for department management in its daily operations, long-term planning, and overall 

risk management. Our work, however, is effective only if the department implements corrective actions in a timely manner to address identified deficiencies or weaknesses. 

We see that the department is taking positive steps in this area. 

However, work still remains. We will continue to closely monitor 

and report on the department’s progress. 

This concludes my statement. I once again want to thank you for 

highlighting this issue and making it a priority for the department. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Tighe follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 89632.025
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 89632.026
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 89632.027
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 89632.028
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 89632.029
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 89632.030
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 89632.031
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 89632.032
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 89632.033
22 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Nowicki, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JACQUELINE NOWICKI, ACTING DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY 

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; ACCOMPANIED BY MS. MELISSA 

EMREY–ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND 

INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. NOWICKI. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Chairman 

Rokita, Ranking Members Hinojosa, Ranking Member Loebsack, 

and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity 

to be here today to discuss the status of GAO’s prior recommendations to the Department of Education. 

GAO’s recommendations create tangible benefits for the American people by improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of government. Government-wide, approximately 80 percent 

of our recommendations are implemented within 4 years, yielding 

significant results. At the end of fiscal year 2013, for example, over 

1,400 recommendations we made in fiscal year 2009 had been implemented, resulting in over $50 billion in financial benefits for the 

federal government, a return of about $100 for every dollar appropriated to GAO. 

However, these benefits may only be achieved when federal agencies implement our recommendations. 

My remarks today will focus on two key areas. First, I will discuss Education’s progress in implementing GAO’s recommendations 

and the benefits stemming from them. Second, I will discuss characteristics of recommendations Education has not yet implemented. 

In regards to my first point, the department has implemented 

218 of the 286 recommendations we have made to Education since 

fiscal year 2004. These recommendations span more than 100 separately issued reports and address a wide range of programs. 

They have resulted in more than 2.1 billion in documented financial benefits and 145 documented nonfinancial benefits, such as improved accuracy in calculating students’ need for financial aid, new 

guidance that ensures students with disabilities have equal opportunities to participate in athletics, and a streamlined and less burdensome grant application process for school districts. 

In tracking the progress agencies make in implementing our recommendations, we actively track each recommendation for 4 years. 

If a recommendation has not been implemented within 4 years, our 

experience has shown that it is not likely to be implemented. So, 

for example, recommendations we made in fiscal year 2009 are 

tracked through fiscal year 2013. 

We are pleased to report that during the last 5 years, by working 

closely with the department, we were able to close on average 

about 93 percent of our recommendations to Education as implemented, compared to a government-wide average of about 80 percent. 

With regard to my second point, Education has not implemented 

68 of the 286 recommendations we have made since 2004. These 

include 10 recommendations we closed after 4 years after deterCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

mining that Education was unlikely to implement them, and 58 

open recommendations that we are still actively monitoring. These 

58 open recommendations, the majority of which Education agreed 

with when they were made, span four of Education’s strategic 

goals, though more than one-third of our open recommendations relate to Education’s goal of strengthening elementary and secondary 

education programs. 

These 58 open recommendations also address various weaknesses 

that crosscut many education programs and strategic goals. These 

include strengthening external oversight and monitoring of grantees and contractors, coordination and collaboration with other 

agencies, and departmental internal management. 

Fully implementing these recommendations could yield significant improvements in Education’s operations. For example, they 

would improve equity in K–12 education for racial and ethnic minorities and strengthen postsecondary education oversight by addressing potential inconsistencies in how schools are treated. 

In conclusion, we are proud of the many important improvements 

made in both elementary and postsecondary education as a result 

of GAO’s work. However, the full benefit of our work can only be 

achieved when federal agencies timely implement our recommendations. 

We appreciate Education’s sustained efforts to work with us in 

implementing recommendations that have improved outcomes for 

kids, reduced administrative burden on states and schools, and 

strengthened accountability for federal funds. We will continue to 

closely monitor and report on the department’s progress in implementing our recommendations and pay particular attention to the 

20 recommendations that have been open for 2 or more years. 

This completes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The joint statement of Ms. Nowicki and Ms. Emrey-Arras follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 89632.034
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 89632.035
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 89632.036
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 89632.037
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 89632.038
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 89632.039
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 89632.040
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 89632.041
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 89632.042
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 89632.043
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 89632.044
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 89632.045
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 89632.046
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 89632.047
38 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

What great witnesses you are—stay within time. 

I now recognize Chairman Rokita for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Yes, I have to agree. We have a lot of witnesses sit in those 

chairs and we can tell that you are with the GAO and OIG. 

[Laughter.] 

Starting with you, Ms. Nowicki, thank you—and again, thank all 

the witnesses for the testimony, but thank you, Ms. Nowicki, as 

well, for talking about the 58 of the 68 recommendations that are 

still open, the 68 being that are older than 4 years. Describe for 

me in greater detail, if you would for the committee, what makes 

you decide to keep certain ones open longer than 4 years and close 

other ones out. What criteria do you use? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Well, typically when recommendations are open 

longer than—longer in that window, or sometimes longer than 4 

years, as you have said, we typically do that when we believe that 

there is some reason that those recommendations will be implemented. So, for example, there were I believe two recommendations 

that we still have open right now from 2006. We have recently 

learned that there is – that those recommendations were related to 

managerial cost accounting practices at the department, but we 

have recently learned that it is unlikely that the department would 

close those older recommendations so we will probably close them 

on our end as unimplemented. 

Mr. ROKITA. Now it is true, though, that all 68 were agreed to 

by the Department of Education. They thought the 68 recommendations were a good idea. Yes or no? 

Ms. NOWICKI. They generally agreed with almost all of the recommendations that we made at the time they were made. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. And so the 58 still open, you are not driving 

whether something is still open or closed; the department is. They 

say, ‘‘Now we don’t want to—this is older than 4 years. We are still 

not giving up on it. We still want to try to pursue it.’’ You have 

some evidence to that effect so you keep it open. Is that accurate? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Then with the ones that are still open, do you 

still follow up with them annually, or what is the criteria for— 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes. So our policies and procedures require that for 

all open recommendations we follow up at least annually and check 

in with the department on their status and the progress of them 

implementing our recommendation. 

Mr. ROKITA. And from the introduction that Chairwoman Foxx 

elaborated on, you worked in the private sector and you have been 

doing this kind of work for how long? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Seventeen years. 

Mr. ROKITA. What is your biggest frustration, given your experience—or your top three? 

Ms. NOWICKI. I think, you know, for us, recommendations that 

remain open for longer periods of time represent a missed opportunity to improve outcomes on the ground for students and to, you 

know, improve efficiency in the working of federal government. 

Mr. ROKITA. Per your testimony, do you believe in federal government? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

Ms. NOWICKI. Do I believe in the federal government? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. How big should it be? Is it too big now? 

Ms. NOWICKI. I— 

Mr. ROKITA. No comment? 

Ms. NOWICKI. No comment. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you for your testimony, as well, Ms. Tighe? 

Ms. TIGHE. Tighe. 

Mr. ROKITA.—Tighe. Thank you. 

You indicated that—let’s see—let me just ask you what formal 

reporting and oversight mechanisms exist for the OIG to monitor 

department programs and services? 

Ms. TIGHE. Oh, I think the primary means we monitor the department is actually through our audit work. I mean, that is our— 

by annually deciding what areas we want to look at for the department through our annual work plan, and then conducting those audits and inspections and other type of work is how we do our job. 

It is certainly then up to the department to provide specific monitoring of the department’s programs. 

Mr. ROKITA. In your testimony you mentioned ‘‘lack of staff,’’ for 

doing the—reacting to your audits or doing their own internal audits. Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by ‘‘lack of 

staff?’’ And are you suggesting that the bureaucracy get bigger? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I do think the department has a lot of responsibilities, and I think that— 

Mr. ROKITA. You find people overworked there? And I am not 

being flippant. Seriously, I mean— 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, you know, we haven’t done audit work specifically. I would say my impression, yes, a lot of people carry a lot 

of responsibility and are, in fact, working very hard. 

The department has a lot of programs. It is not a really large department when you look at across the federal government. And I 

do think in the area of audit resolution that we have been talking 

about, I don’t know if we have specifically sort of looked at—I know 

there is staff in every program office that does handle audit resolution; there is an audit liaison and people who deal with audit resolution. 

You know, sometimes they may carry other responsibilities, so I 

think that part of what we looked at like in our 2012 audit was, 

okay, you have staff here. You know, if you don’t have enough we 

at least need—part of what our issue was, you need to train them. 

You also need to make sure that they understand their obligations, 

that they understand what OMB A–50, you know, the OMB circular that is—governs this area, you know, what that means to the 

department to the responsibilities, and I think that is an important 

part of the issue. 

Mr. ROKITA. My time is expired. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Just a couple quick questions. 

Ms. Emrey-Arras, if I could ask you, I think that we got a little 

bit in terms of numbers how Education compares with other federal agencies in implementing the GAO’s recommendations. Can 

you elaborate on that a little bit? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Overall, looking between 2004 and 2009, 93 percent of recommendations made by the GAO were implemented by the Department of Education within a 4-year window, and that was higher 

than the government-wide average of about 80 percent. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Do we have any idea why that is the case, or is 

that not something for you folks to sort of investigate as to why 

that is the case? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. That was not within the scope of our work, 

though I do like to think that we work hard to collaborate with the 

department to close those recommendations. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Any thoughts on the part of others on that, why 

that is the case with the Department of Education, why they do a 

good job? 

Ms. TIGHE. On closing audit recommendations? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, how does they accomplish 93 percent—was 

that the number? And government-wide it is 80 percent. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well, I think the department has taken steps in the 

last couple years to—do what we, you know, put in our 2012, 

which—audit report, which was a failing at that time, which is: 

You need to make it an organizational priority; you need to say this 

is important to the Department of Education to resolve these audits. 

And I think it has, which is why it has been somewhat successful 

in the area of internal audits. I mean, their timeline is—numbers 

are good now, and it has not been as successful in the external audits but I think you have to do that. Accountability is another thing 

that needs to happen, too. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. Ms. Nowicki, in May of 2009 GAO testified 

before this committee on the issue of restraint and seclusion in our 

nation’s schools. The testimony looked at individual case studies of 

serious student injury and sometimes death resulting from misuse 

of these harmful practices. Additionally, GAO examined the patchwork of state laws regulating use of restraint and seclusion. 

Can you speak about the findings and the factors contributing to 

student death and injury? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Hi. This is Melissa. I will— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS.—respond on Ms. Nowicki’s behalf. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Sure. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We have done a body of work from around 

2007 to 2009 on just those issues—the seclusion and restraint, and 

services for children in residential treatments centers or boot 

camps or wilderness camps. We did find serious concerns regarding 

reported deaths at facilities. For example, in our study of residential treatment centers we did a survey and found that at least 28 

states reported one death in residential facilities in 2006. We also 

found data that showed that over 1,500 incidents of abuse or neglect of youth had occurred in those facilities. We also found, in 

terms of seclusion and restraint, multiple cases where children had 

died as a result of those techniques being used in schools. 

We have made recommendations in the past to address these 

issues. For example, in our work on residential treatment centers 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

we did make a recommendation to multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Education, to enhance its oversight of 

state activities—for example, by including these facilities in their 

reviews when they went out to states. However, Education did not 

implement this recommendation and it is currently closed as not 

implemented. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Is part of the issue that this is dealt differently 

in different states? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. There is definitely a patchwork of state requirements, and we show in our report how certain centers are exempt from state licensing requirements. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. So really what you are saying is Department of Education probably has to get more involved in this in 

terms of looking at the different states and what is happening in 

the different states. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. That was the basis for our recommendation; 

and unfortunately, the department did not act and it was closed 

unimplemented. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

Well thanks to all of you, and I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kline, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank to the witnesses for your work and for being here with us 

today, your testimony and answering questions. Just a couple of 

questions. 

Ms. Nowicki or Emrey-Arras, I am not sure who is going to answer here, but looking at the Government Accountability Office, 

you have reported saving the government and taxpayers billions of 

dollars—that sounds pretty good sitting here—including—you specifically mention $2.1 billion in financial benefits to Department of 

Education since 2004. 

What does that mean? How are those realized? Is that cash that 

piles up on a desk? Is it fewer dollars appropriated? What does 

that mean? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. I can answer that one. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. In the area of education it relates mostly to 

the delivery of federal student aid funds. And in this case, the bulk 

of the 2.1 billion resulted from decreased Pell Grant expenditures. 

Basically, we came up with a recommendation to improve the accuracy of the financial aid calculations, which resulted in a decreased 

need for Pell Grant expenditures for those students. 

Mr. KLINE. So fewer dollars were spent. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Correct. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. 

To Inspector General Tighe: You, in response to Chairman 

Rokita’s questions—he asked about staffing and was there enough 

staffing and you said that people are really busy. And so there are 

several ways that you can approach that problem, right? You could 

spend more money and get more staff, you could train the existing 

staff to perform more efficiently, or you could perhaps have fewer 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

programs so you don’t have to have all that audit compliance and 

all that sort of thing for each of the programs. 

And we know in this committee, because we have been looking 

at legislation in workforce training and in K–12 and a number of 

places, there are just a lot of programs. I think there are over 80 

programs—federal programs in K–12 education. If you had, say, 

half that number then presumably you would need less staff. 

Do you look at that, or do you just say a program is a program 

and we are only going to be concerned about whether or not we got 

enough staff to deal with it? 

Ms. TIGHE. Well no, and I—you know, I don’t know if we always 

necessarily look at whether there is level of staffing sufficient for 

programs in a lot of our audits. I mean, I think we try to, in targeting our audit work, look and make sure programs are being efficient. We have looked a little bit at whether there is potential duplication among programs, and I am happy to give you further information on that to follow up with this testimony. 

So it is an issue we care about. I think it is a good government 

issue. We should always be looking at government’s programs to 

makes sure they are needed, to make sure they are running efficiently and effectively. I think that is an important part of what 

the OIG should be doing and I hope we are doing. 

So it isn’t just about, wow, we need more people to do more programs. I think it is really about, you know, once you all decide you 

want a program, right, that let’s make sure that it is staffed appropriately both in terms of oversight and monitoring as well as execution of the program, which I think are important parts of the puzzle. 

Mr. KLINE. Well let me—and thank you very much for that response, but let me ask you to provide what you just offered. If you 

looked at this and are there programs where you see some redundancy or duplication? I know the GAO has done a number of studies for us, and in the workforce training and education field, for example, we were looking at that as we moved the SKILLS Act, 

which became WIOA, as we did the WIA reauthorization, and part 

of that was driven by the GAO study that showed how many of 

these programs there were, and we know there are a lot of programs in the Department of Education that somebody needs to be 

looking at for duplication. 

So since you have offered, I would accept the offer. We would 

love— 

Ms. TIGHE. All right. 

Mr. KLINE. And I yield back. 

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

And I now recognize Mrs. McCarthy for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairwoman. And I appreciate having this. 

I just want to follow back on some confusion that I have on my 

part. 

Ms. Arras, when you talked about, you know, with the residential programs selected case of death, abuse, and deception marketing, do those programs get federal money? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Some do and some do not. And so the Department of Education would only have purview over those that do receive public funds. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. All right. So some of the cases that are open, 

are any of them getting federal money? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. The cases that have been left open after 4 years 

because you couldn’t implement them because some of these state 

laws, but are they getting federal money? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. The recommendation that we had that was 

closed as unimplemented related to facilities that did receive federal funds, and we recommended specifically that the Department 

of Education include in its oversight reviews those facilities. So we 

were not recommending that they look at facilities that were not 

receiving federal funds. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And just one more question on the area of the 

children. I guess it is a two-part question. On some of the restraints, have you also noticed that there were paddling involved 

in some of these young children? And what are we doing to see 

about sexual abuse or any kind of abuse for those children that are 

in nursing homes or into secluded homes for them? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. That is a good question. I don’t have the details of the case studies at my fingertips at this moment, but I do 

know that there were concerns about sexual abuse as well as other 

forms of physical abuse against these youth both in the boot camps 

and the residential treatment centers. 

We also have done work related to concerns about sexual abuse 

of children in schools by school personnel. We found, for example, 

that the prevalence of abuse is not known; people are not tracking 

how many schoolchildren are being abused by staff. We also found 

that states were not aware of services that were available at the 

federal government to help them provide prevention information to 

their staff. 

And we did make recommendations to the Department of Education to assist in tracking the prevalence of this abuse and to provide more information to states to help them provide prevention 

training to prevent this from occurring. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. One of my concerns is especially with children 

with disabilities that—especially those that might be nonverbal— 

children with autism or things along those lines—how do they verbalize, and who is watching these children if they can’t speak for 

themselves? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. That is a good point. Part of the way that 

people try to prevent issues like this from occurring is to increase 

awareness of staff so that they can be aware of situations so it is 

not all on the children to do the reporting, so that the staff can 

help identify issues when they are occurring. And that is something 

that we addressed in our recommendation to help provide states information to assist in this training effort. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And to follow up with another question, with— 

saying that our workers, you know, are—have a very large case 

portfolio, I was just curious, is the turnover in these departments 

high where they have to be constantly retrained, or maybe a case 

has been started or maybe they have been working on something 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

and then someone new comes in and it is—speaking from experience, you start from scratch again. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Right. I don’t believe that the turnover was 

a part of our study looking at the sex abuse of children in schools. 

However, we have done other bodies of work on child welfare and 

foster care issues and we would be happy to follow up with you on 

that if that would be helpful for you. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And if you could get me the statistics on paddling in some of these cases I would appreciate it. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We can certainly look into that. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

With that I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx. And 

thank you for holding this hearing today. 

And thank you to the witnesses for testifying. There is certainly 

no doubt that the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General play a critical 

oversight role, and I know that everyone on this committee is 

grateful for your work. 

Some of you were here at a spring hearing about the student 

loan rehabilitation process, and I appreciate your previous work on 

identifying problems with the debt management and collection system at Federal Student Aid, FSA. I thank you for identifying the 

need for improvements for at-risk borrowers. 

I know that there is a lot of work to be done in getting more information to borrowers about income-based payment options, for 

example. I think that getting that information to students is harder 

when private collection agencies are used to do collection. 

I have to say that back at the hearing in March I asked the chief 

operating officer at Federal Student Aid if the private collection 

agencies that the Department of Education contracts with to collect 

student loans in default were obligated to comply with the federal 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and he said he didn’t know but 

he assumed that the collection agencies had to follow the law. 

And after about 2 months after that hearing was when the Justice Department and the FDIC reached a record settlement with 

Sallie Mae that was $60 million plus an additional civil penalty 

over its mishandling of servicemembers’ loans. They were not complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

I continue to question whether federal student aid is adequately 

monitoring its contractors to ensure that they are following the 

law, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

In fact, Inspector General Tighe, in July 2014 your audit report 

says—and just on page one—‘‘We found that the FSA did not effectively ensure that the private collection agencies are abiding by the 

federal debt collection laws and the related terms of their contractual agreements with FSA.’’ Also found ‘‘FSA did not effectively 

monitor borrowers’ complaints against private collection agencies 

and ensure that corrective actions were taken.’’ 

So I want to ask you, Inspector General Tighe, can you talk 

about the FSA’s ability to oversee those collection agencies? Are 

there barriers that prevent them from guaranteeing—the FSA from 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

guaranteeing that its contractors obey the law? And I want to allow 

time for another question if you may. Thank you. 

Ms. TIGHE. It is clear from our audit work at the report issued 

in July that we took issue with a number of factors related to 

FSA’s current oversight process over the PCAs and how they handle borrower complaints. I mean, we found that there was no consistent, you know, definition used; we found they didn’t ensure that 

the complaints are timely provided by the PCAs to FSA; and we 

didn’t—they don’t ensure that corrective action is taken. 

So we did make a number of recommendations to FSA to try to 

improve that process, and I believe, you know, that it is still too 

recent an audit to, you know, to expect—I don’t know if it has been 

resolved yet. But I do know that we will—we are going to keep an 

eye on what we are doing on that area. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I appreciate that because the audit 

report also showed that the FSA was not using service quality indicators in calculating—there is a score, the competitive performance 

and continuous surveillance score, that it assigns to the private collection agencies. Obviously there are some private collection agencies that are doing a better job than others, and the system is designed—this scoring system is designed to help FSA decide which 

collection agencies to use, but if they are not using the scoring system that is problematic. 

So given that customer satisfaction is going to factor into the performance structure for servicers, it seems that borrowers’ complaints would be a very important oversight function for the FSA. 

Were there recommendations made that FSA can change to ensure 

that the collection agencies are reporting complaints and responding to them? 

Ms. TIGHE. We did make recommendations, I believe, to look at 

that scoring and how they factor in, you know, customer feedback 

or customer complaints into the—how PCAs get paid. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Well, we have a lot of work to do in making sure that higher education is affordable and accessible, and income-based repayment is an important component that I firmly believe that is—students are not getting enough information about 

their options, and that is made harder with the private collection 

agencies. 

And just in my remaining few seconds, I want to align myself 

with the comments made by my colleagues about the importance 

of making sure that students in schools stay safe not only from 

abuse but also concussions, and a lot of great work has been done 

at the state level. We can bring some of that good legislation here, 

and there are a lot of things we can be doing to make sure our students stay safe. And I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle on that issue. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

Mr. Sablan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for holding today’s hearing. 

And good morning, everyone. I apologize for coming in a little 

late. 

I have two questions, and one for Ms. Tighe, if I may. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

And as you know, Congress and the Department of Education 

has established expectations that colleges act in the best interest 

of their students when administering Title IV programs. And your 

report on campus credit cards helps shed light that some colleges 

are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not—if—hundreds 

of thousands if not millions in payouts to endorse certain types of 

checking accounts from banks. 

And while banks have said these accounts are good for students, 

I am concerned that colleges may be more motivated by the money 

than the merit of the product to their students. So with 70 percent 

of students relying on student aid to pay for college, my concerns 

go deeper than this—that these products may be driving up the 

cost of college. They are not selected because they provide the best 

deal for students. 

So do you believe financial incentives paid to colleges by banks 

when endorsing a financial product pose a potential for a conflict 

of interest, one? And two, can you discuss your findings on this 

point, please? 

Ms. TIGHE. Yes. Our report that we issued this—6 months ago, 

I think, on debit cards did have a finding related to conflict of interests. Our work in looking at the four schools we did, did see that 

financial incentives did exist, and we believe that if they are unmitigated can hold the potential for conflicts of interest. 

I think one of the schools we looked at, Portland, its contract 

with Higher One gave them additional incentive payments—gave 

the school additional incentive payments based on the number of 

debit cards that were issued under Higher One’s name, and also 

the amount of money in the accounts. And I think that can lead 

to perverse, you know, sort of incentives. 

We saw similar issues in the FFEL Program on lender inducements, and one way that was developed to mitigate those potential 

conflicts was to require that the schools report to FSA on how those 

arrangements still serve the students’ best interests. And it is perhaps something to think about, about whether we want to have 

some similar requirement. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

And, Ms. Arras, if I may, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has recommended that Congress consider extending 

the same transparency and disclosure requirements to debit cards 

as banks must follow when marketing credit cards. And I believe 

students and their families should be able to scrutinize the agreements between banks and schools that give students access to their 

aid money, their aid dollars. So if these arrangements aren’t working in the students’ interests, we all have a right to know. 

Could you describe how transparency and disclosure on debit 

card arrangements may help students better understand the incentives for colleges and banks under these arrangements or change 

bank and college behavior, one? And number two also, how has 

similar transparency provisions helped students when required for 

credit cards? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Thank you for the question. 

We do believe that transparency and disclosure could help students know if there are potential conflicts of interest in those arrangements. They may not be aware that their school is receiving 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

payments or other financial benefits from the debit card company 

and it would be helpful for them to be aware of that when making 

that decision about how to receive their federal student aid. 

And we also think that this disclosure could have positive benefits for the students. We have found that since the CARD Act went 

into effect, which did put certain requirements on credit cards that 

have the school’s name on them, that there has been a decrease in 

payments between card issuers and colleges, and credit card marketing that is specifically targeted to college students has declined. 

Mr. SABLAN. Because, you know, and I come from a very small 

community, and actually it wasn’t until we started working on the 

Affordable Care Act when I discovered the relationships between 

doctors and pharmacies. I mean, I was amazed at that, you know, 

the incentives there. 

And so we need to follow this, too. 

And I have one question, and any one of you may feel free to answer, if I may. Actually, the number of resolutions of some of your 

findings within the Department of Education and some of the numbers of closed findings—is that normal within the federal government or is that—is it a much better, you know, is it much better 

within the Department of Education than across the federal government? You know what I am saying? Closed unsolved, and closed 

resolved. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Sablan, since we are under a really tight 

time schedule I am going to ask the witnesses to submit their response to you in writing. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. My time is up. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Polis, you are recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I appreciate the time. 

I wanted to talk about a couple things. First I wanted to follow 

up on Mrs. McCarthy’s question regarding abusive practices of restraint and seclusion. I would like to see if any of you would like 

to talk about the state laws on parental notification. Do all states 

require that schools notify parents whenever a child is abused? 

Ms. Emrey-Arras? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We can follow up with you on that, as well, 

along with the other information. 

Mr. POLIS. Very good. 

A recent Denver Post article—without objection, I would like to 

submit to the record, Madam Chair— 

[The information follows:] 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Polis follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 89632.003
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 89632.004
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 89632.005
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 89632.006
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 89632.007
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 89632.008
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 89632.009
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 89632.010
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 89632.011
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 89632.012
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 89632.013
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 89632.014
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 89632.015
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 89632.016
62 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

Mr. POLIS.—cited that the Colorado Department of Education 

statistic found the number of homeless children in Colorado has tripled in a decade. And before I was in Congress I had the opportunity to form two charter school networks in Colorado and New 

Mexico, one of which serves many homeless youth, and I got to 

work firsthand and understand the unique circumstances facing 

homeless kids. 

Now according to a recent GAO report, many students designated as homeless by the Department of Education are denied 

housing benefits because HUD uses a different definition of ‘‘homeless.’’ 

I would like to address to Ms. Nowicki if she can speak about the 

definitional barrier GAO found and how its implementation might 

leave these vulnerable students without the necessary support to 

live a stable life and excel at school just because one government 

agency says they are homeless and another says they are not. 

Ms. NOWICKI. If you don’t mind, Ms. Emrey-Arras will cover that. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We did find just that, that there are differing 

definitions regarding homelessness and that situation is a barrier 

to providing services to individuals. And we have an open existing 

recommendation that has not been implemented to come up with 

a common definition regarding homelessness to resolve that issue. 

Mr. POLIS. And is that across HUD and Education or are there 

other agencies involved with that definition? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. It is at least across HUD and Education; 

there may also be other agencies, and we can circle back with you 

on that front as well. 

Mr. POLIS. Great. 

I also wanted to address GAO’s recognition that certain vulnerable groups, including LGBT students, are not protected from discrimination under federal civil rights law. And while I am the lead 

sponsor of the Student Non-Discrimination Act and all of our committee Democrats are sponsors of it, we have yet to act on that 

piece of legislation and I would like you to expand upon the GAO’s 

recommendation related to preventing discrimination against 

LGBT students. 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We will include that information in our follow 

up. 

Mr. POLIS. Very good. 

I wanted to also address a question to Ms. Nowicki with regard 

to the 2012 GAO report that found that charter schools enrolled a 

lower percentage of students with disabilities than traditional 

schools. In my home state charter schools have recognized this 

issue and are working to improve and coordinate services, and I 

was proud to work with Ranking Member Miller and Chairman 

Kline to improve the Federal Charter School Program, which we 

passed in the House and awaits action in the Senate. 

I would like to ask Ms. Nowicki if she can expand upon her findings and recommendations for what the Department of Education 

needs to do or can do to address the issue of equity in charter 

schools with regards to students with disabilities. 

Ms. NOWICKI. Sure. I would be happy to. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

So as you said, we did find that charter schools enroll a slightly 

lower percentage of students with disabilities than public schools 

do. In our report from 2012 we noted some reasons that might be, 

but those are anecdotal. So our recommendations to Education 

were to take steps to help charter schools recognize practices that 

may in fact—may affect enrollment of children with disabilities, 

and also to perform more research at the Department of Education 

to identify those factors. So those recommendations do remain 

open— 

Mr. POLIS. I would also encourage you to look one step deeper 

at the economic relationship, or namely the charter, between the 

charter schools and the district. In some cases the charter schools 

are, if you will, paying their fair share of special education costs, 

paying the district average, it is just that kids are enrolled and 

being served elsewhere, much as in a particular neighborhood 

school they might not—they might have a significantly lower percentage of kids with disabilities because better accommodations are 

at a different school in the district. And so it is a relatively common phenomena but it depends on the actual charters and might 

be considered a best practice that the charter school simply pays 

into a district average fund, and it might be perfectly reasonable, 

given that it is a small school or a specialized curriculum, that they 

might have a lower percentage of special education students enrolled in that particular campus of the district at that charter 

school. 

Be happy to yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Polis. 

I am going to now ask my questions, and then I will recognize 

the remaining members who are here. 

I don’t think I heard you say what percentage of the recommendations that are made by both of your entities are not 

agreed to by the department. Did you mention that? If you did, I 

apologize for missing it. 

Ms. TIGHE. Well in our case, we would—you should distinguish 

between external and internal audits. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Right. Okay. 

Ms. TIGHE. Currently, for internal we have resolution, which 

means they have agreed with our recommendations and have proposed corrective actions on all audits issued I think from 2010 

through the end of 2013 except for one recommendation that relates to DMCOs too. For the external audits, you know, the track 

record is a little different, and then I think we have achieved resolution of about—of the audit reports issued on—we have 10 audit 

reports out of 49 issued during that tenure that we have not agreed 

to at all. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. 

Ms. Nowicki? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes. Thank you for the question. For the 58 open 

recommendations that we are still tracking, there are five of them 

with which Education disagreed at the time that they were made. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. 

The reason I wanted to sort of pin that down is because it seems 

as though the department is very—and I am very proud to hear 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

them say that they have implemented 93 percent. That is a great 

record and they should be complimented for that. 

But what I am concerned about is it—do they simply agree to the 

recommendations and then stonewall you all and not implement 

some? And do we have any way of knowing, of the ones that are 

not implemented, value—I mean, do—there is no weight put to 

the—or is there any weight put to the recommendations in terms 

of what would be the value both short-term and long-term? Because they might just say, ‘‘Okay, we agree,’’ and then just never 

implement them. 

Ms. TIGHE. Well yes, I am concerned that at least in some cases 

that implementation still seems to take a while. And I think there 

is a cost. I think it is not a, you know, put money in the bank kind 

of cost, but I do think—let’s take the example of some of the external audits, which really do take a long time. You know, let’s assume you are not going to get the money back from, say, a particular school district you do an audit of, but what about the recommendations related to internal controls? Don’t those—if those 

aren’t implemented, you know, don’t you miss—you know, it affects 

future expenditures, right? And so it really just keeps the problem 

festering. 

Chairwoman FOXX.—because it seems to me that ought to be 

built into the evaluation of employees. We read all these things 

about how most federal employees get top ratings for their performances, and you mentioned—both of you, I think, mentioned the 

issue—the word ‘‘accountability.’’ 

Okay. How do we hold individual employees accountable and see 

that is part of the evaluation made of them relative to pay, promotion, and other things? Because it is my feeling that until we are 

able to hold individual employees accountable, we will not see the 

changes in performance that we need to see. 

Ms. TIGHE. Oh, I agree. I mean, I think the best way to achieve 

accountability in this regard, particularly on an area where people—a lot of different people within the department touch this 

process—so it is not one person and it is not one office; it goes 

across—it is through accountability in individual performance evaluations. I mean, I think that should be happening. I use that in 

my own office to drive performance, and I think it is an important 

government tool for achieving performance and accountability. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Ms. Nowicki? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Thank you. 

I think on the GAO side in terms of agreeing or disagreeing, 

there is also a category of recommendations with which Education 

neither agreed nor disagreed. I can get you the exact number; it 

is somewhere in the 30s, I believe, of our open set. 

But we do follow up with them at least once a year and work 

with them to understand any barriers that may—you know, unanticipated barriers that they may be encountering. We collaborate 

with them to help them understand what types of documentation 

and steps we are looking for so that we can close recommendations 

as implemented. So it is a fairly collaborative process. We try and 

make it be so because we believe it is in the best interests of taxpayers and of our American schoolchildren to close those recommendations as implemented. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As you noted in your—I am not sure which person I am directing 

this to, but as you noted in your testimony, in 2011 you recommended that the Department of Education address potential inconsistencies in its treatment of schools receiving federal student 

aid by revising and applying its guidance for determining fines for 

schools that violate the ban on paying incentive compensation to 

individuals based on success in enrolling students and securing 

their financial aid. 

I am sure you know that incentive compensation is a practice 

commonly used by for-profit schools, and I find this practice very 

disturbing. Do you have any guesses or surmises as to why the department has yet to address this recommendation? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. We are not sure ourselves. We think that this 

is something that could be easily accomplished by the department 

to provide very specific guidance to its staff to make sure that the 

penalties that are assigned to schools are consistent and that there 

isn’t that potential sort of unlevel playing field when schools are 

penalized for violations. 

Mr. TAKANO. In your estimation, it is a rule that could ensure 

that we reduce the number of bad actors in this particular sector? 

Ms. EMERY-ARRAS. Our guidance is really focused at making sure 

that the department is consistent in its treatment of schools so that 

you—if you have a certain set of circumstances in terms of a violation, that you come out with the same penalty each time. And in 

that report we put out some examples where you could receive very 

different penalties depending on how things were interpreted, and 

we thought that wiggle room was not good for students and not 

good for schools in terms of equal treatment by the department. 

Mr. TAKANO. Ms. Tighe, you have something to add to this? 

Ms. TIGHE. Yes. I just would point out that we actually have ongoing work and I think a draft report that is being looked at related to FSA’s enforcement of the incentive compensation ban, so 

we will be happy to provide that to you once it is— 

Mr. TAKANO. I would appreciate that. Thank you much. 

I have a follow-up question to Mr. Polis’ question about the difference in charter enrollments of students with disabilities. Didn’t 

you find, for example, that students with intellectual disabilities 

are enrolled in non-charters at twice the rate as they are in charter 

schools? 

Ms. NOWICKI. I don’t have those specific details at my fingertips, 

but we did find that there were differences in the types of disabilities that some children had and the rates at which they were enrolled in different charter schools versus traditional public K–12 

schools. I can follow up with— 

Mr. TAKANO. If you would, I would sure like to know just how 

this is all sort of panning out in terms of the distribution of students, and are we indeed seeing an undue burden on the existing 

public schools with having to serve—I wouldn’t call it a burden, but 

there is a definite issue of equity. 

Thank you so much. 

I would yield back my time. I yield back my time, Madam Chair. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Takano. 

Dr. Roe, you are recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I want to start by saying that just briefly to both GAO and 

to the I.G., I had no idea until I got to Congress about the oversight responsibility that Congress has and the role you all play in 

bringing this information forward to us. Mr. Takano and I just 

spent way too many hours on the V.A. Committee in the last few 

months, and much of the work we were able to uncover was due 

to the—what your shop does, both the GAO and I.G. And I guess— 

so I want to thank you all for that because without that information we can’t really effectively do our jobs. 

I guess in doing that, how do you all determine what to audit? 

Is it a whistleblower? Is it a request from Congress? You know, out 

of all the things you could pick, how do you do that? 

Ms. TIGHE. It is a process. I mean, we do an annual work plan, 

so we sit down, you know, once a year we sort of go through a process where we sort of decide what it is we want to start auditing 

that next year. Part of it is complaints that come into us through 

whistleblowers and through our hotline generally. Some of it we 

also solicit you all for work plan suggestions every year. We solicit 

the department for work plan suggestions. 

And we also, just ourselves, based on our experience, based on 

prior audit work, based on—we have some risk modeling we are 

able to do; we have some data analysis tools we have developed 

that allows us to do sort of risk assessments. All of that feeds into 

how we decide and who we decide to audit. 

Mr. ROE. Well I think the chairman brought this up just a 

minute ago, and I found it to be frustrating to me is that when you 

implement these things or ask that these be—and I think, as—I 

agree with her, 90-whatever percent is pretty good. But there 

doesn’t seem to be any accountability if it doesn’t happen. What are 

the penalties if you make these recommendations and then never 

carry it out? 

That is the thing that I have noticed and I have watched. If you 

stick around long enough—if you have only been here a term you 

don’t see that, but after three or four terms you begin to see, ‘‘Hey, 

wait a minute. We talked about that 4 years ago and nothing has 

happened,’’ and no one takes any responsibility. 

Ms. TIGHE. I think that is the hard part, because I think that 

resolution is really just the first step—that is when you agree to 

something, and it is really just the first step in a very long process. 

Or maybe our audit report issuance is the first step and then you 

have resolution. 

But until those recommendations are implemented you really 

have nothing. It is like, you know, you have the recipe but you 

don’t have the cake at the end of it. I mean, you really need to get 

to that point. 

And I think the department is doing a pretty good job on moving 

forward on resolution, but I think that implementation that is real 

and that really gets the job done I think is still something that 

they have not achieved accountability on. 

Mr. ROE.—let me ask my final question and I will yield back. We 

have an 11 o’clock event we need to get to, but the last question 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

is, would there be some recommendations from you all for mechanisms to hold people accountable—some real teeth in what we do 

so that you know that it is going to be done or there are going to 

be consequences to that? 

Ms. NOWICKI. I think that, you know, from GAO’s perspective, 

Congress has been a—often been a very effective tool in helping get 

GAO recommendations implemented. There are a number of times 

where, for example, in 2011 we reported on the school improvement 

grant process and that it did not allow some districts enough time 

to plan and implement reforms, and we recommended that the department issue guidance to help school districts issue grant awards 

earlier in the school year. And Congress itself cited our findings 

and urged the department in that direction and they did actually 

implement new guidance. So Congress has been a very effective 

tool itself in helping draw attention to particularly potent GAO recommendations that it takes an interest in. 

Mr. ROE. Well, thank you all for your hard work. 

And I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Roe. 

Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Inspector General Tighe, I know that before I returned that one 

of the members asked a question about the campus debit cards, 

and I am pleased that you have answered that because I have two 

daughters in college and they are always calling that they need 

money. 

Ms. TIGHE. Mine do, too. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. They don’t necessarily want to talk to me, just get 

me the message that they need money, so that was very important. 

The second thing that is of great importance to me also, amongst 

many, is the financial literacy. I serve as the co-chair of financial 

literacy, together with co-chair Congressman Stivers from Ohio, 

and we are working to try to raise the level of awareness of the 

importance of financial literacy. So we do that because it is crucial 

in helping students understand the complex financial products and 

obligations that are being offered to them to solve some of their 

problems. 

So when colleges partner with banks, do the schools or the banks 

help the students understand how much they would likely pay in 

average costs on those accounts? 

Ms. TIGHE. Our report on debit cards did note, you know, although we did not talk about financial literacy as such, we did note 

the problem that students aren’t getting, you know, good information from the schools, and the schools really do have a role to play, 

either on their own or in partnership with the servicers, on making 

sure that the students do have knowledge of the average cost of 

fees in a manner that is meaningful to them. You know, a schedule 

buried on a Web site somewhere maybe isn’t that meaningful, and 

how can they avoid fees. 

I mean, some of the cards—debit cards we looked at, if you handled it a certain way during a transaction you would avoid the fee. 

How many students really knew to do that? And, you know, I think 

that, you know, our report touched on those issues. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I know that we need to get to an event so I am 

going to not use up my 5 minutes, but I want to thank each and 

every one of you for coming to be witnesses and to share with us 

information that is vital for us to make decisions. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I want to thank, again, our witnesses for taking the time to testify before the subcommittees today. It is very, very useful, very enlightening, and I appreciate the time that you have given us. 

I know, Mr. Hinojosa, you yielded back your time. I just want to 

see if you have any other closing remarks before I close the hearing. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes. I would like to make a closing statement. 

I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I can say 

that this discussion has also been very informative to me. Moving 

forward, I will continue to work with my colleagues on this committee on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we have strong 

oversight of our federal agencies and programs, and I am pleased 

that the Department of Education is working to enhance the quality and effectiveness of our federal education programs. 

And I thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I find, again, the comments that you have made very important. 

The term ‘‘accountability,’’ again, the word ‘‘accountability’’ came 

up. That is a word I use a lot. And I do think that it is very important that all of us be sensitive to the issue of accountability. 

We are asking hardworking Americans to give us some of their 

money through their taxes, through their fees, and I think about 

the people who really do work very hard out there—people that I 

know in dangerous jobs, working under stressful conditions. I think 

about those people when I think about accountability, and I think, 

you know, most people in this country pay their taxes willingly and 

it is our responsibility to see that money is well spent. 

I hold my staff accountable. The staff members hold me accountable. And I think it is important that we spread that message 

throughout the federal government just because it is the only fair 

thing to do for those people who are giving us their money. 

So, there being no further business, the subcommittees stand adjourned. 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 89632.001
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 89632.002
71 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 89632.017
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 89632.023
74 

[Responses to questions submitted for the record follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 89632.024
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 89632.020
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 89632.021
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 89632.022
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 89632.018
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 89632.019
81 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER