United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1995 FEDERAL

REORGANIZATION

Congressional

Proposal to Merge

Education, Labor, and

EEOC

GAO/HEHS-95-140

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-261054 

June 7, 1995

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman, Committee on Economic and

 Educational Opportunities

House of Representatives

The Honorable Steve Gunderson

House of Representatives

Over the years, the Congress has responded to the public’s need for

educational and employment assistance and services by creating federal

programs and authorizing executive branch departments and agencies,

such as the Departments of Education and Labor, to administer these

programs. Because of the spiraling federal deficit, the Congress has

become concerned over the federal role in funding and managing these

programs. Currently, the Congress and the administration are considering

ways to improve the federal role to achieve cost savings without losing

necessary education and employment assistance and services.

As part of the congressional deliberations, you jointly proposed on

February 15, 1995, to merge the current Departments of Education and

Labor. The proposal also would merge the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), the federal entity enforcing laws prohibiting

employment discrimination, with the two departments. This merger

proposal had two major components: (1) the consolidation, elimination,

and reduction of existing management functions and programs from

Education, Labor, EEOC, and other federal agencies into a new

cabinet-level organizational structure and (2) the achievement of

administrative cost savings resulting from this new structure.

Although your proposal identified the specific organizational structure for

the new Department of Education and Employment, deliberations

concerning which programs would be affected were ongoing when you

asked for our assistance. Consequently, we were asked to concentrate on

the administrative cost savings component of the merger proposal, which,

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

on the basis of your draft proposal, would be about $1.65 billion over 5

years.1

More specifically, you asked us to provide the following information

related to your proposal:

• What funds and staff would each new Department of Education and

Employment office have, and, on the basis of prior GAO work, what

additional issues should be addressed when creating these offices?

• What is the likely impact of proposed administrative cost savings on

staffing levels in the Department of Education and Employment?

• What additional opportunities may exist to further consolidate programs

within the Department of Education and Employment?

To answer these questions, we analyzed your February 1995 draft proposal

and subsequent changes made to the proposal through April 26, 1995. We

used fiscal year 1995 budget data to determine the funding and staffing

impact of estimated cost savings. However, we did not include any

proposed fiscal year 1995 program funding rescissions for Education,

Labor, EEOC, and other federal agencies. We worked closely with officials

in the federal agencies affected by the proposed merger to obtain needed

budget data. As agreed with your offices, we did not independently verify

the budget information obtained nor did we compare it with similar data

presented in the President’s budget. In addition, we reviewed past GAO

work to identify further opportunities for program consolidation within

the new offices.2

Our report does not critique the validity of the merger proposal nor

identify alternative methods to streamline Education, Labor, and EEOC

operations. In addition, this report does not discuss ongoing efforts within

these agencies to streamline and downsize their respective agency

operations.

Education, Labor, and EEOC provided comments on a copy of our draft

report. (See apps. IV through VI.) Although the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) was asked to provide comments because, under the

1

As we reported in Budget Issues: Assessing Executive Order 12837 on Reducing Administrative

Expenses (GAO/AIMD-94-15, Nov. 16. 1994), no common definition exists for administrative expenses

at the federal level. Definitions and reporting of administrative expenses vary signigicantly among

agency credit and grant programs because of differences in programs. We define administrative costs

in this report as compensation, benefits, and other related expenses associated with managing the

proposed Department, administering grant programs, providing safety and health inspections, and

overseeing employee pensions.

2

See appendix VII for a list of related GAO products.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

proposal, several programs it currently manages would be transferred into

the new Department, it did not.

Results in Brief The proposed Department would consolidate many of the programs and

functions within the existing Departments of Education and Labor and

EEOC as well as some programs currently administered by other agencies.

The new Department’s budget would be approximately $71 billion and

support over 25,600 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and about 1,200

field offices.

Under this proposal, the new Department would be organized under three

undersecretary activities: (1) Workforce Preparation and Policy, which

incorporates most education and adult training programs; (2) Civil Rights,

which incorporates all aspects of enforcement of employment

discrimination and civil rights laws; and (3) Workplace Policy, which

incorporates programs focusing on workplace modernization, safety, and

employee benefits. While there are opportunities to be gained in merging

and consolidating these Departments, there are also issues which need to

be addressed to achieve the intended goals of the new Department.

To realize administrative cost savings, the proposal would (1) eliminate

some programs currently administered within and outside of Education

and Labor, (2) eliminate or reduce duplicative departmentwide

management functions, (3) reduce operating budgets for selected

programs, and (4) consolidate education and job training programs.

Administrative cost savings could total about $1.65 billion—$990 million in

compensation and benefits; $530 million in other expenses, such as rents

and utilities; and $140 million from the administrative costs of eliminated

programs. The program savings from consolidations are not discussed in

this report because final decisions on affected programs had not been

made at the time our review was completed.

If the reduction in administrative spending occurred in fiscal year 1996,

about 3,500 positions would need to be eliminated to achieve the

$990 million in 5-year savings from compensation and benefits. However,

about 1,100 additional positions may need to be eliminated to cover the

costs of a reduction in force (RIF) of this size. If the reductions were

phased in over a 3-year period, about 4,200 positions would need to be

eliminated to achieve the same savings.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

Our past work has shown that private-sector firms that downsize through

dramatic staffing reductions in a single year, without adequate planning

for the structure and functions of the organization’s downsizing, frequently

do not succeed. The combination of staff skills becomes imbalanced, and

subsequent rehiring of separated employees or hiring and training of new

employees often occurs. Rather, a phased-in approach could allow for a

more orderly transition and would increase the likelihood of using other

alternatives to reduce staffing.

The proposal also identifies specific categorical programs to be

consolidated. On the basis of our past work, we have identified additional

categorical programs that may be candidates for consolidation. For

example, in addition to Education and Labor, 13 other agencies administer

about 65 federally funded job training programs. Many of these programs

frequently target the same clients, share the same goals, and provide

similar services, but are not included in the proposal. Other similar

program areas with opportunities for program consolidation include

teacher training programs and early childhood programs.

Ultimately, merging the affected agencies is a policy decision that will be

made by the Congress in consultation with the administration. Our work

contributes to this process by (1) providing basic information on the

components of the proposal, (2) identifying staffing implications of

estimated cost savings in the proposal, and (3) highlighting additional

opportunities to consolidate programs based on our work. We emphasize

in our report that an in-depth examination of the proposal and its

components is needed before considering such a merger. Such an

examination is not currently included in the proposal.

Background Currently, the Department of Education manages the federal investment in

education and leads the long-term effort to improve education.

Established in 1980, Education’s mission is to ensure access to education

and to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education.

In fiscal year 1995, Education was appropriated $32.1 billion and

authorized 5,131 FTE positions to administer and carry out its activities.

Education administers about 240 programs with its budget. About

three-fourths of its budget is discretionary and one-fourth is mandatory

funds.

The Department of Labor’s mission is to foster, promote, and develop the

welfare of U.S. wage earners, to improve their working conditions, and to

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

advance their opportunities for profitable employment. In carrying out this

mission, Labor—established as a department in 1913—administers and

enforces a variety of federal labor laws guaranteeing workers’ rights to

safe and healthful working conditions, a minimum hourly wage and

overtime pay, freedom from employment discrimination, unemployment

insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Labor also protects workers’ pension rights; provides for job training

programs; helps workers find jobs; works to strengthen free collective

bargaining; and keeps track of changes in employment, prices, and other

national economic measurements. Although Labor seeks to assist all

Americans who need and want to work, special efforts are made to meet

the unique job market problems of older workers; economically

disadvantaged, dislocated workers, youth, women, individuals with

disabilities, and other groups. In fiscal year 1995, Labor had a budget of

$33.8 billion and was authorized 17,632 FTE positions to administer and

carry out its activities. One important fact to keep in mind is that about

two-thirds of Labor’s budget is composed of mandatory spending on

income maintenance programs.

Established in 1964, EEOC’s mission is to eliminate discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring,

promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all

other terms and conditions of employment. EEOC conducts investigations

of alleged discrimination; makes determinations on the basis of gathered

evidence; attempts conciliation when discrimination has taken place; files

lawsuits; and conducts voluntary assistance programs for employers,

unions, and community organizations. EEOC also has oversight

responsibility for all compliance and enforcement activities relating to

equal employment opportunity among federal employees and applicants,

including discrimination against individuals with disabilities. In fiscal year

1995, EEOC was appropriated $233 million and authorized 3,020 FTE

positions to perform its assigned duties and responsibilities.

According to congressional sponsors, the proposal for the new

Department of Education and Employment is based on the premise that

the nation cannot adequately prepare its youth for the challenges of the

21st century until fundamental changes are made in federal policy on

education and employment issues. The sponsors believe such policy

changes would require merging federal duties and responsibilities into a

single Department.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

A Consolidated

Department Could

Accommodate

Existing Agencies, but

Some Issues Remain

The proposed Department of Education and Employment, as shown in

figure 1, would consolidate the Departments of Education and Labor and

EEOC and several programs from other agencies. On the basis of fiscal year

1995 data, the new Department would have a budget of $70.6 billion and

25,652 authorized FTE positions. The proposed Department would also

have about 1,200 field offices throughout the country. According to the

proposal, the Department’s mission would be to (1) administer federal

education and employment programs and policies that support the

preparation of a skilled U.S. workforce able to compete in a global

economy and (2) ensure the civil rights of students and workers.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

Figure 1: Proposed Department of Education and Employment

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

The Department would be headed by a presidentially appointed Secretary,

with support from a Deputy Secretary and three Undersecretaries. Each of

the three Undersecretaries would be responsible for one of the following

activities: (1) Workforce Preparation and Policy, which incorporates most

elementary, secondary, and higher education and adult training programs;

(2) Civil Rights, which incorporates all aspects of enforcing employment

and educational discrimination laws; and (3) Workplace Policy, which

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

incorporates programs focusing on workplace modernization, safety, and

employee benefits. (See app. I.)

Certain issues relative to the new Department of Education and

Employment offices have been raised in prior GAO reports and should be

considered during merger deliberations. (See app. I.) In addition, efforts

need to be made to ensure that a sound financial management structure

results from the merger of these agencies. At a minimum, compliance with

the structural aspects of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 must be

met.

Education, Labor, and EEOC also raised other issues in their comments on a

draft of this report. These agency concerns will need to be addressed to

alleviate agency reservations about the proposed merger. (See apps. IV

through VI.)

Impact of Estimated

Administrative Cost

Savings on Staffing

Level

As currently drafted, the proposal to merge Education and Labor and the

EEOC could result in a savings of about $1.65 billion in selected

administrative costs through the year 2000—an average reduction of about

20 percent from current administrative costs. The proposal does not call

for any administrative cost reductions in the functions that will carry out

civil rights activities in the proposed Department’s Office of Civil Rights.

The proposal plans to achieve this estimated average administrative

savings by (1) eliminating or reducing duplicative departmentwide

management functions, (2) eliminating some programs currently

administered within and outside of Education and Labor, (3) reducing

operating budgets for selected programs, and (4) consolidating education

and job training programs. For example, the proposal would eliminate the

Secretaries of Education and Labor and replace them with one Secretary

for the new Department.

To illustrate the impact of the estimated administrative cost savings on

staffing levels, we were asked to compare the impact of taking the full

amount needed to achieve the $1.65 billion savings in 1 year with the

impact of spreading administrative cost reductions over 3 years. In each

case, we applied the percentage reduction specified in the proposal to

both compensation and benefit costs and other expenses. The overall

administrative cost reduction averaged 20 percent, although percentages

for individual offices ranged from 4 to 40 percent. The smallest reductions

required by the proposal are in the Office of Employee Benefits and the

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

Bureau of Education and Employment Statistics, a unit included in the

Program Administration function. The largest reductions—40 and

30 percent—are planned for departmentwide management functions, such

as the Secretary, and for the administration of education and job training

programs, respectively. (See app. II.)

If the full reduction in administrative spending occurred in fiscal year

1996, which we refer to as “scenario 1,” about 3,500 FTE positions would

need to be eliminated to achieve the $990 million in 5-year savings from

compensation and benefits that we used for analysis purposes. As

previously mentioned, we determined that an additional $530 million

would be taken from other administrative costs such as rents, utilities,

travel, and equipment and $140 million in administrative cost savings from

eliminated programs.

Our past work has shown that similarly sized government downsizing

efforts have required RIF procedures. In these situations, the costs

associated with RIFs often require additional staffing reductions, usually

about a third more.3

 Thus, the total FTE position reductions likely in a

single year could be about 4,600 (3,500 direct reductions and 1,100

additional reductions to cover RIF expenses).

On the basis of our past work, we found that dramatic staffing reductions

taken in a single year, without adequate planning for the structure and

functions of the new downsized organization, frequently result in skill

imbalances and subsequent rehiring of separated employees or hiring and

training of new employees. Projected savings are often not realized.4

 (See

app. II.)

One approach to minimizing such a disruption, which we refer to as

“scenario 2,” would be to reduce administrative spending over a 3-year

period; the total reduction would be about 4,200 FTEs over 3 years. Such an

approach would allow more time for strategic planning to identify

appropriate functions to be eliminated and to modify or develop new

administrative processes. This approach is typically the one followed by

successful private-sector organizations that downsize. Taking average

reductions in staffing of 9 percent in both the first and second years and

3

Reduction in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than Attrition and Furlough

(GAO/PEMD-85-6, July 24, 1985) and Congressional Oversight: The General Accounting Office

(GAO/T-OCG-95-4, Mar. 30, 1995).

4

Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54,

Mar. 13, 1995).

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

7 percent the third year would allow for the same level of budget savings

as would occur if the reductions were fully implemented in fiscal year

1996.

If attrition and other voluntary separations were insufficient to achieve the

desired reductions, RIFs would still be necessary, increasing the required

staffing reductions—beyond 4,200—because additional employees would

have to be terminated to cover costs associated with RIF procedures.

Figure 2 illustrates the impact of immediate and phased-in administrative

cost reductions on staffing levels. While scenario 1 could result in a deeper

staffing reduction in the first year (about 3,500 FTEs, which do not include

the 1,100 positions that may be required to cover RIF expenses), scenario 2

may actually result in greater overall staffing reductions over the 5-year

period (almost 4,200 FTEs) from current staffing levels. Because the

proposal eliminates selected programs, does not call for administrative

cost reductions in the Office of Civil Rights, and excludes Labor trust

funds, the universe of FTE positions from which staffing reductions could

be taken is only about 18,000 of the proposed Department’s 25,650 FTEs.

(See app. II.)

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

Figure 2: Staffing Implications of

Administrative Cost Reductions Under

Alternative Scenarios

Staffing Level (FTEs)

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

7500

9000

10500

12000

13500

15000

16500

18000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Years

Current Staffing Level

Scenario 1: All Reduction - 1 Year

Scenario 2: Phased-in Reduction - 3 Years

Base staffing is 17,858 FTEs.

Total reduction for scenario 1 is 3,460 FTEs.

Total reduction for scenario 2 is 4,189 FTEs.

These totals do not include the 300 FTEs that would be reduced as a result of eliminated

programs.

Decisions about which specific positions or staff would be affected or how

the staffing reductions would be taken have not been made. As a result, it

is impossible to pinpoint the actual staffing implications or costs of these

reductions. Additionally, because these basic decisions have yet to be

made, we could not incorporate in our analysis any offsetting costs the

proposed Department may incur during a staff reduction, such as buy-out

expenses, severance pay, and other costs associated with eliminating staff.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

While possibilities exist for short-term budgetary savings, positioning the

new Department to absorb the proposed reductions without hurting

service quality and meet future challenges requires extensive planning and

follow through. According to private-sector experts, this type of top

management-led review requires officials to (1) identify new ways of doing

business and the organizational changes needed to achieve them,

(2) earmark outmoded work processes and structures for elimination or

revision, and (3) determine the types and number of employees needed in

the new organization. Such an examination of current agency activities is

not included in the proposal.

Additional

Consolidation

Opportunities Not

Included in Merger

Proposal

Potential opportunities to consolidate programs exist beyond those

identified in the merger proposal. On the basis of our past work, we have

identified additional categorical grant programs that may be candidates for

consolidation. These programs would primarily be administered by the

proposed Offices of Basic Education, Higher Education, and Workforce

Training and Life-Long Learning. However, further review by agency

officials would be needed before these programs could be merged with the

other programs already in the proposal.

Office of Basic Education The existing proposal calls for the Head Start program, now administered

by HHS, to be managed by the Office of Basic Education. However, HHS and

other federal agencies currently administer many other early childhood

programs not included in the proposal. We found in fiscal years 1992 and

1993 that the federal government funded over 90 early childhood programs

in 11 agencies and offices.5

 Of this total, 34 programs are considered to be

key programs that served at least 2 million children and spent $3.66 billion

in fiscal year 1992. (See app. III.)

This office would also manage programs that fund or provide teacher

training services, but at least eight other agencies currently administer

similar programs not included in the proposal. We recently reported that

in fiscal year 1993 at least 86 teacher training programs existed in nine

federal departments and agencies.6

 (See app. III.)

5

Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS,

Oct. 31, 1994).

6

Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services, and Target Groups

(GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb. 22, 1995).

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

We identified other elementary and secondary programs in addition to

those included in the proposal that could be considered for inclusion in or

consolidation under this office’s authority. Currently, at least eight

departments and agencies administer these programs. (See app. III.)

Office of Higher Education According to the proposal, this office would administer about 33 programs

that provide financial aid and scholarships to students preparing to attend

or currently enrolled in postsecondary institutions. The fiscal year 1995

grant amounts for programs to be administered by this proposed office

total $15.2 billion. However, we identified about 35 additional

postsecondary education programs that could be considered for inclusion

in or consolidation under this new office’s authority. These programs also

provide support for students in postsecondary institutions. Many of these

programs are currently administered by HHS and the Department of

Veterans Affairs (VA). (See app. III.)

Office of Workforce

Training and Life-Long

Learning

The number of federally funded executive branch job training funding

streams has grown to 163.7

 Along with several Education and Labor

programs, 64 employment training programs administered by 13 other

agencies could be considered for program consolidation purposes. In

fiscal year 1995, funding for these 64 programs totaled about $3 billion.

Many of these programs frequently target the same clients, share the same

goals, and provide similar services. Merging these programs would provide

an opportunity to place them under the same management authority.8

Additionally, 13 employment training programs administered by Education

and Labor could be considered for program consolidation purposes. (See

app. III.)

Conclusions The proposal to merge the Departments of Education and Labor and EEOC

to create a new Department of Education and Employment envisions

saving administrative costs and creating a streamlined, less duplicative,

and more efficient means to provide needed services. However,

downsizing to the degree specified in the existing proposal must be

carefully planned. If downsizing proceeds too rapidly, expected cost

savings might not be realized due to the added costs of RIF procedures and

7

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce Costs, Streamline the

Bureaucracy, and Improve Results (GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995).

8

We also noted in Addressing the Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year

1996 (GAO/OCG-95-2, Mar. 15, 1995) the possible budgetary savings for consolidating such programs.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

disruption of service delivery. The experience of private-sector

organizations that downsized has been that in-depth examination is

imperative for successful downsizing.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

On May 10, 1995, Education, Labor, and EEOC provided comments on this

draft report. (See apps. IV through VI.) The agencies expressed two major

concerns. First, they were critical of the proposal and questioned whether

it would achieve program efficiencies and management improvements.

Second, they also believed our report should have critiqued the draft

proposal. We understand their concerns about the draft proposal and

anticipate their views will be addressed in subsequent congressional

deliberations. Regarding their comments about our report, we provided

information that will contribute to ongoing and future debates, such as

staffing and funding levels in the new Department, implications of

estimated cost reductions, and additional opportunities for program

consolidation. Additionally, we clearly pointed out the importance of an

in-depth examination prior to making any further decisions on the merger.

Comments on

Congressional Proposal

The Secretary of Education stated that the merger proposal is both unwise

and unworkable. In his view, creating a mega-bureaucracy would not in

any way make government more streamlined, effective, or efficient. He

believes that the merger would de-emphasize the importance of education

at a time when education is more important than ever to America’s future.

In Labor’s comments, the Assistant Secretary for Policy stated that the

merger proposal has profound and far-reaching implications that have not

been adequately analyzed and that require further study. He further stated

that it is both unwise and counterproductive to send the signal that either

Labor or Education is expendable given the nation’s looming deficit in

skills and education. In Labor’s view, the merger could only compromise

service, increase confusion, and decrease productivity.

The EEOC Chairman’s major concern was that, although it is not clear how

EEOC would fit into the new merged agency, EEOC’s structure as a

bipartisan and independent agency would be lost. The existing agency has

been in existence since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 as a five-member, bipartisan independent executive branch agency

charged with enforcing employment antidiscrimination law. The Congress

recognized that this structure would enhance enforcement and insulate

EEOC from direct political pressures. In the Chairman’s view, the proposal

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

will require the Congress to revisit this long-standing approach concerning

the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws.

We appreciate these concerns. Ultimately, however, the Congress will

decide on the merits of the merger proposal after consultation with the

administration. The proposal continues to evolve, and we understand that

congressional hearings will be held in the future. These hearings should

offer an opportunity for the affected agencies to air their concerns about

the proposal.

Comments on GAO Draft

Report

The Secretary of Education was the most critical of our report because he

believed it discussed administrative staffing reductions without any

discussions of the program changes that might make such cuts possible. In

this regard, Education pointed out that proposal sponsors estimated in

February 1995 that more than $20 billion in savings over 5 years would

result from the proposed merger. Among other things, the Secretary

believes our report largely accepted at face value the claims of the

proposed merger. He also believed that perhaps the only value added by

our report is that it answers the question of how many staff positions

would be eliminated to reach $1.65 billion in projected administrative cost

savings over 5 years.

Labor was also critical of the fact that our report addressed only the

$1.65 billion in administrative savings. Labor believes that the more than

$19 billion in savings needed to reach the $21 billion savings over 5 years

claimed by proposal sponsors would have to come from specific

programmatic cuts that were not included in the proposal and our report.

In EEOC’s comments, the Chairman mentioned several concerns relative to

our draft report. EEOC stated that the draft report contains no discussion of

the impact of the new agency on the vigorous enforcement of federal

antidiscrimination laws that would fall within its jurisdiction. The

Chairman also stated that the report did not discuss the implications of a

merger on what EEOC considers to be its most pressing problem—

inadequate resources to adequately accomplish its statutory mission.

Despite the issues raised by the agencies, we believe our work provides a

valuable contribution to the continuing debate about the proposal. First,

the report provides basic information on the proposal that has not been

previously developed. Second, it highlights additional candidates for

program consolidation. Third, it raises issues that must be dealt with

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

before any action is taken to merge the affected agencies into the new

Department.

We used information in the draft proposal as of April 26 to prepare profiles

to describe the new Department’s management functions and six major

offices. This information included funding and staffing levels, field office

locations, as well as other issues that, on the basis of our prior work, the

new Department may have to address. We also identified the staffing

implications of the administrative cost savings in the proposal.

At the time of our review, final decisions about the programs to be

administered by the new Department had not been made. As a result, we

did not address issues associated with program changes. Instead, on the

basis of our past work, we highlighted additional programs that could be

candidates for inclusion in the proposal to assist congressional sponsors

in their efforts to achieve cost savings or increase program efficiencies. It

is important to recognize that overall savings attributable to this merger

cannot be determined until final decisions are made on remaining phases

of this proposal.

Finally, throughout our report we repeatedly cautioned that this merger

effort must be conducted in a careful and thorough manner. Additionally,

we noted that positioning the new Department to absorb staffing

reductions without hurting service quality and to meet further challenges

requires extensive planning and follow through. Even though Education

and Labor criticized our report, both agreed that this issue was central to

any decision that would be made about merging Education, Labor, and

EEOC.

The Departments and EEOC also provided technical comments. These

comments included updated information on the material contained in our

draft report. Changes were made to the final report where appropriate to

address these comments.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
B-261054 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director,

Office of Management and Budget; the Secretaries of Education, Labor,

and HHS; the Chairman of EEOC; and other interested parties. Other GAO

contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VIII. If you or

your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please call me on

(202) 512-7017.

Clarence C. Crawford

Associate Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

The Proposed

Department of

Education and

Employment: Office

Profiles

24

Program Administration 27

Office of Civil Rights 35

Office of Basic Education 43

Programs to Be Administered by the Proposed Office of Basic

Education

45

Elementary and Secondary Education Programs Proposed for

Elimination

46

Office of Higher Education 49

Programs to Be Administered by the Proposed Office of Higher

Education

51

Postsecondary Education Programs Proposed for Elimination 52

Postsecondary Education Programs Proposed for Transfer to

Other Agencies

52

Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning 55

Programs to Be Administered by the Proposed Office of

Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning

57

Education and Training Programs Proposed for Elimination 59

Education and Training Program Proposed for Transfer 60

Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety 67

Office of Employee Benefits 75

Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed

Administrative Cost

Reductions

82

Estimated Administrative Cost Savings in Proposal 83

Potential Impact of Cost Savings Estimates on Proposed

Department’s Staffing

86

Estimated Savings Up to the Year 2002 88

Lessons From Recent Downsizing Experiences 89

Appendix III 

Programs Not

Included in the

Merger Proposal That

May Be Consolidation

Candidates

92

Key Early Childhood Programs Not Included in the Proposal 92

Other Education-Related Programs Not Included in the Proposal 95

Selected Postsecondary Education Programs Not Included in the

Proposal

96

Employment Training Programs Not Included in the Proposal 97

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of

Education

101

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Department of Labor

107

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Equal Employment

Opportunity

Commission

110

Appendix VII 

Selected GAO

Products on

Education, Labor, and

EEOC-Related Issues

115

Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs 115

Bureau of Labor Statistics 115

Civil Rights 115

Departmental Administration-Department of Education 115

Departmental Administration-Department of Labor 116

Dislocated Workers 116

Education Reform 117

Educational Research and Improvement 118

Elementary and Secondary Education 118

Employment Service 119

Employment Standards Administration 120

EEOC 121

Mine Safety and Health Administration 122

Multiple Employment Training Program Consolidation 122

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 122

Office of the American Workplace 124

Pension Insurance and Enforcement Programs 124

Postsecondary Education 125

School-to-Work Transition 128

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 129

Training and Employment Services 129

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Unemployment Insurance 130

Veterans Employment and Training 130

Vocational and Adult Education 130

Other 131

Appendix VIII 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

132

Tables Table I.1: Locations of Activities to Be Included in Program

Administration

28

Table I.2: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for

Program Administration

30

Table I.3: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Civil Rights

36

Table I.4: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Basic Education

44

Table I.5: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Higher Education

50

Table I.6: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning

56

Table I.7: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization,

and Safety

68

Table I.8: Funding, Staffing, and Field Office Information for the

Proposed Office of Employee Benefits

76

Table II.1: Estimated Administrative Cost Savings, Fiscal Years

1996-2000, in the Proposed Department of Education and

Employment

85

Table II.2: Comparison of Staffing Reductions Resulting From

Cost Savings Scenarios

87

Table II.3: Estimated Administrative Savings, Fiscal Years

1996-2002, Under Alternative Scenarios

89

Figures Figure 1: Proposed Department of Education and Employment 7

Figure 2: Staffing Implications of Administrative Cost Reductions

Under Alternative Scenarios

11

Figure I.1: Proposed Program Administration Function 26

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Figure I.2: Regional Organization and Headquarters Cities of the

Departments of Education and Labor

32

Figure I.3: Proposed Office of Civil Rights 34

Figure I.4: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

38

Figure I.5: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Department of

Labor

39

Figure I.6: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education

40

Figure I.7: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office

of Civil Rights

41

Figure I.8: Proposed Office of Basic Education 42

Figure I.9: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Head Start Program, Department of Health and Human Services

47

Figure I.10: Proposed Office of Higher Education 48

Figure I.11: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education

53

Figure I.12: Proposed Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long

Learning

54

Figure I.13: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor

61

Figure I.14: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office of Veterans’ Employment and Training, Department of

Labor

62

Figure I.15: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Rehabilitative Services Administration, Department of Education

63

Figure I.16: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program, Department

of Health and Human Services

64

Figure I.17: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office

of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning

65

Figure I.18: Proposed Office of Workplace Modernization,

Reorganization, and Safety

66

Figure I.19: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of

Labor

69

Figure I.20: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor

70

Figure I.21: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor

71

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Figure I.22: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor

72

Figure I.23: Locations of All Field Offices in the Proposed Office

of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety

73

Figure I.24: Proposed Office of Employee Benefits 74

Figure I.25: Locations of Field Offices for ETA’s Administration

of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor

78

Figure I.26: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor

79

Figure I.27: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of

Labor

80

Figure I.28: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office

of Employee Benefits

81

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Contents

Abbreviations

ADR alternative dispute resolution

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children

BAT Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training

DCR Directorate for Civil Rights

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act

ESA Employment Standards Administration

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ETA Employment and Training Administration

FTE full-time equivalent

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

OCR Office for Civil Rights

OLMS Office of Labor-Management Standards

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OWCP Office of Workers Compensation Programs

PCEPD President’s Committee for the Employment of 

 People With Disabilities

PBGC Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

PWBA Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

RIF reduction in force

UI Unemployment Insurance

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WHD Wage and Hour Division

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

As envisioned by the congressional proposal to merge the Departments of

Education and Labor and EEOC, the new Department of Education and

Employment would have six major offices and a management function

that would oversee these six offices. Program Administration would

consolidate various management, internal oversight, and statistical

activities from the Departments of Education and Labor. (The current

proposal does not include similar EEOC activities.) The six offices, which

would each be under the direction of an Undersecretary, would be the

Office of Civil Rights; the Office of Basic Education; the Office of Higher

Education; the Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning; the

Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety; and the

Office of Employee Benefits.

This appendix profiles the Program Administration function and the six

offices for (1) the program activities from existing agencies that would be

included, (2) the role, and (3) the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing9

levels and field offices that would support each of the proposed offices.10

In each profile we also identify, on the basis of our prior work, issues that

should be considered if these offices are created. Appendix III includes a

list of other programs that could be considered for consolidation and

brought into the new Department.

9

In this report, staffing levels are designated by authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) levels for fiscal

year 1995.

10All field office information is current as of May 1995, except for data provided by two offices within

the Department of Labor. We used August 1994 data to determine the field offices currently supporting

the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and December 1994 data for the Office of Veterans’ Employment

and Training.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.1: Proposed Program Administration Function

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program

Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Current

Agencies

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Program

Administration

As shown in figure I.1, the proposed Department would have an overall

management function called Program Administration. This function would

consolidate various management, internal oversight, and statistical

activities from the Departments of Education and Labor. As the proposal is

currently drafted, comparable activities from EEOC are not merged with

those from Education and Labor.

Reorganization Proposal The proposal states that Program Administration would include various

departmentwide management functions from the Departments of

Education and Labor. These functions include the Offices of the Secretary

and Deputy Secretary; public, congressional, intergovernmental, and

interagency affairs; management and budget; adjudication; general counsel

and solicitor; and the inspector general. In addition, Program

Administration would include the statistical activities currently performed

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Education

Statistics. A list of these activities and their current agency location is

shown in table I.1.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.1: Locations of Activities to Be

Included in Program Administration Current location

Activities

Department of

Education

Department of

Labor

Secretary X X

Deputy Secretary X X

Legislative and Congressional Affairs X

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs X

Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs X

Public Affairs X X

Small Business and Minority Affairs X

Undersecretary X

Office of Management X

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Budget X

Administration and Management X

Chief Financial Officer X X

General Counsel X

Solicitor X

Adjudication X

Office of the Inspector General X X

National Center for Education Statistics X

Bureau of Labor Statistics X

Women’s Bureau (statistics) X

America’s Job Bank X

National and State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committees

X X

Note: The proposal calls for including only the statistics portion of the Women’s Bureau; other

management functions are scheduled to be eliminated.

Source: Congressional proposal.

As envisioned in the proposal, Program Administration would provide the

vision and direction for the development of coordinated federal education

and employment policies. It would focus on the effective and efficient

delivery of education and job training programs, proper resolution and

oversight of internal civil rights complaints, and adequate provision of

proper working conditions, benefits, and pensions. The office would also

collect and disseminate statistical information to be used by Department

officials as well as public and private users.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

The proposal also calls for eliminating at least part of two Department of

Labor activities: the Bureau of International Labor Affairs and selected

management functions of the Women’s Bureau.

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources potentially available for this function,

we identified the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing levels of activities

proposed for inclusion in Program Administration. (See table I.2.) Program

Administration would have about 154 field offices; about 40 percent

(62) would be located outside of headquarters. Almost two-thirds of the

offices (92) would be located in the headquarters cities of the 10 federal

regions (see fig. I.2).

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.2: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for Program

Administration

Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Functions

Fiscal year

1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

Office of the

Secretary $14.2 129 129 0 0

Office of the Deputy

Secretary 2.7 28 28 0 0

Public,

Congressional, and

Intergovernmental

Affairs 21.1 226 141 85 30

Planning,

Management, and

Budgetb 59.8 1,343 952 391 20

Chief Financial

Officer 38.9 385 385 0 0

General Counsel

and Solicitor 80.1 855 526 329 15

Adjudication 37.4 415 311 104 8

Office of the

Inspector General 82.6 855 244 611 63

Bureau of Education

and Employment

Statisticsc 580.9 2,771 1,888 883 18

Total $917.7 7,007 4,604 2,403 154

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bIncludes staffing for the Working Capital Fund, a centralized source of administrative and other

support services in Labor.

cThis function would include the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Women’s Bureau, America’s Job

Bank, and the National Occupational and Information Coordinating Committee from the

Department of Labor. It also includes the National Center for Education Statistics and the National

Occupational and Information Coordinating Committee from the Department of Education. While

the proposal calls for including only the statistics portion of the Women’s Bureau, the entire

function is included here because the Department of Labor could not provide detailed information

for the statistics function alone.

Source: Departments of Education and Labor.

Issues The Program Administration function as proposed focuses on decreasing

the redundancy of administrative and oversight activities in the

Departments of Education and Labor by consolidating similar functions

such as the Office of the Secretary, public and congressional affairs, the

Chief Financial Officer, and the Offices of the Inspector General.

Consolidating these functions into one office could also provide the

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

opportunity to develop unified, efficient systems that not only streamline

processes but support the new Department’s mission and vision. Such

systems could, for example, include a single payroll and personnel system.

However, to achieve the greatest potential savings from reducing

administrative duplication, the consolidation of similar activities—such as

EEOC’s Office of the Inspector General—into Program Administration may

be required. A separate Inspector General for civil rights activities may not

be needed if the EEOC becomes part of the proposed Office of Civil Rights.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.2: Regional Organization and Headquarters Cities of the Departments of Education and Labor

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Atlanta

Dallas

Kansas

City

Denver

Seattle

Chicago

San

Francisco

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.3: Proposed Office of Civil Rights

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Civil Rights As shown in figure I.3, the proposal would establish an Office of Civil

Rights that would be headed by an Undersecretary. This new office would

bring together (1) EEOC, (2) Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs (OFCCP), Directorate for Civil Rights (DCR), and the President’s

Committee for the Employment of People With Disabilities (PCEPD), and

(3) Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Training and Advisory

Services Program (under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act) administered by

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Reorganization Proposal The proposed Office of Civil Rights would have jurisdiction over the

Education and Labor programs affecting the civil rights of minority

populations, disabled persons, and other populations requiring special

considerations. The office would include all functions and responsibilities

related to enforcing equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws currently

administered by EEOC. The office would be charged with developing

alternative methods of carrying out its responsibilities to create

enforcement efficiencies designed to improve workforce and workplace

civil rights protection.

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources available for this proposed office, we

identified the approximate number of staff and funding in the existing

offices, programs, and activities that would be brought into this office. Our

data are based on fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing levels provided by

the Departments of Education and Labor and EEOC (see table I.3). The

locations of the field offices in each of these activities and all that would

support the proposed Office of Civil Rights are illustrated in figures I.4

through I.7

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.3: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Civil Rights

Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Agency/program/

activities

Fiscal year

1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

EEOC $233.0 3,020 725b 2,295b 50

OFCCPc 61.5 855 96 759 64

OCR 58.3 833 166 667 11

Training and Advisory

Services 21.6 3 3 0 0

DCR 4.8 63 54 9 0d

PCEPD 4.4 35 35 0 0

Total $383.6 4,809 1,079 3,730 125

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bThe EEOC could not give us its FTE ceiling broken out by headquarters and field offices.

Therefore, we derived these numbers on the basis of EEOC’s actual FTE data projections for

headquarters and field offices in fiscal year 1995. EEOC based its projections on actual FTE

usage as of March 1995.

cTotals include an allocated amount from management functions in the Department of Labor’s

Employment Standards Administration, where OFCCP is currently located.

dField offices for DCR are included in the Administration and Management function in Program

Administration.

Source: Departments of Education and Labor and EEOC.

Issues Former and current EEOC officials and civil rights experts have suggested

several options that they believe could improve the federal government’s

ability to enforce employment nondiscrimination laws.11 The one

mentioned most often is increased use of alternative dispute resolution

(ADR) approaches, such as mediation. ADR is a group of techniques

designed to resolve conflicts consensually, generally with the help of a

neutral third party. While not much quantifiable data exist on ADR, many

experts believe that ADR holds promise for achieving agreements in a less

adversarial environment than exists in litigation and resolving conflicts in

less time and at lower costs.

In 1994 EEOC reported on a pilot study using mediation to resolve

discrimination complaints.12 A total of 267 cases were mediated in four

district offices, and the pilot showed that the average time to complete

11EEOC’s Expanding Workload: Increases in Age Discrimination and Other Changes Call for New

Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-32, Feb. 9, 1994).

12Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot Program prepared by EEOC’s Office of Program

Operations (Dec. 1994).

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

mediation was much less than for fully investigated cases. While the ADR

pilot resulted in much shorter average processing times than for fully

investigated cases, it should be noted that cases selected for the pilot were

new cases and were referred immediately. About 52 percent of mediated

cases were settled; in the comparable period, about 13 percent of fully

investigated cases were conciliated or settled. Also, 92 percent of

complainants and employers said they believed the mediation process was

fair or very fair.

In April 1995, EEOC announced it will initiate an ADR program using

mediation to handle some of its workplace discrimination complaints.

Starting in fiscal year 1996, EEOC plans to randomly select cases for

mediation and estimates that eventually about 10 percent of new eligible

complaints will be included in the mediation program.

EEOC has also experimented with a screening process (called triage) to

deal with new discrimination charges, resulting in a significant reduction

in average processing time from 598 days in fiscal year 1990 to 204 days in

the first 6 months of fiscal year 1993. Staff during the initial investigation

at intake were expected to obtain from charging parties all evidence that

supported their discrimination claims and assess the weight of evidence

obtained.

EEOC then initiated a task force study related to this issue in November

1994 and in April 1995 announced that sweeping changes will be made in

the way it handles discrimination complaints. EEOC initiated a triage

process by which new discrimination cases will be categorized according

to the early evidence presented that a violation has occurred. At the same

time, EEOC announced that it will repeal its full investigation policy, in

effect since 1983, which required it to investigate fully every complaint.

EEOC also repealed its policy statement on remedies and relief for

individual cases of unlawful discrimination.

If the proposed merger took place and EEOC’s responsibilities were

consolidated into an executive department, a reevaluation of EEOC’s

current five-member Commission structure may be needed since EEOC was

originally established as an independent bipartisan Commission. The new

office would be headed by the Undersecretary for Civil Rights.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.4: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Local Offices – 9

District Offices – 23

Area Offices – 17

Field Offices – 1

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.5: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,

Department of Labor

Regional Offices – 10

District Offices – 44

Area Offices – 10

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.6: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education

San

Francisco

Seattle

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

Kansas

City

Regional Offices – 10

Field Office – 1

Chicago

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.7: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office of Civil Rights

Local Offices – 9

District Offices – 67

Area Offices – 27

Field Offices – 2

Regional Offices – 20

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.8: Proposed Office of Basic Education

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Basic

Education

Reorganization Proposal As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce Preparation

and Policy (see fig. I.8), the Office of Basic Education would join together

about 40 federal programs currently administered by the Departments of

Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National

Endowment for the Arts. (A list of these programs follows.) The Office of

Basic Education would be charged with administering elementary and

secondary education programs, including those related to special

education, bilingual education, and education for Indian youth. It would

also be asked to administer the Head Start program—the federal

government’s best known early childhood program—and selected art

education and library programs.

According to the proposal, this office would be responsible for developing

policies for and administering programs that support the general

education of U.S. youth from preschool through adulthood, including

special populations such as disadvantaged, disabled, limited English

proficient, and Indian children.

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources available to this proposed office, we

determined the staffing and funding of the approximately 40 programs that

would be included in this office. Our data are based on fiscal year 1995

funding for grant programs and authorized staffing levels to administer

those programs (see table I.4). As shown in figure I.9, the proposed Office

of Basic Education would be responsible for managing staff who

administer the Head Start Program in 12 regional offices.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.4: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Basic Education

Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Type of program

Fiscal year

1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

Early childhood

education $3,534.4 232 72b 160 12c

Elementary and

secondary education 9,562.2 206 206 0 0

Special education 3,252.8 145 145 0 0

Bilingual education 245.2 44 44 0 0

Indian education 74.2 32 32 0 0

Otherd 167.2 192 192 0 0

Total $16,836.0 851 691 160 12

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bIncludes staff located at two regional offices in Washington, D.C.

cTwo regional offices are located in Washington, D.C.

dIncludes selected programs currently administered by the National Endowment for the Arts and

Education’s Offices of Postsecondary Education and Education Research and Improvement.

Source: Departments of Education and HHS and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Issues While the proposal calls for the Head Start program to be managed by the

Office of Basic Education, HHS and other federal agencies currently

administer many other early childhood programs not included in the

proposal. We found in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 that the federal

government funded over 90 early childhood programs in 11 agencies and

20 offices.13 Of this total, 34 programs are considered to be key programs,

and these 34 programs served at least 2 million children below the age of 5

and spent $3.66 billion in fiscal year 1992. Key programs not included in

the proposal are identified in appendix III.

This office would also manage Education programs that fund or provide

teacher training services, but at least eight other agencies currently

administer similar programs that are not included in the proposal. We

recently reported that in fiscal year 1993 at least 86 teacher training

programs existed in nine federal departments and agencies.14 Agency

officials identified 42 of these programs that obligated $280 million in

13Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS,

Oct. 31, 1994).

14Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services, and Target Groups

(GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb. 22, 1995).

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

fiscal year 1993 as primarily dedicated to teacher training. The programs

not included in the proposal but that we believe should be considered for

consolidation are identified in appendix III.

We identified other education-related programs in addition to the

elementary and secondary education programs included in the proposal

that could be considered for inclusion in or consolidation under this

office’s authority.15 Currently, at least eight departments and agencies

administer these programs, some of which are also identified in appendix

III.

Programs to Be

Administered by the

Proposed Office of

Basic Education

Department of Education

Programs

Goals 2000

 State Grants

 Parents as Teachers

 Other Goals 2000 programs

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

 Grants to local education agencies (LEA)

 Neglected and Delinquent Children

 State Program Improvement Grants

 Private School Improvement Expenses

 Evaluation

Revised Title VI—Innovative Education Program Strategies

 Innovative Education Program Strategies (Current Title VI)

 Eisenhower Professional Development

 Eisenhower National Activities

 Bilingual Programs

 Research Labs

 Safe and Drug Free Schools

 Education Infrastructure

 Dropout Prevention

 Magnet Schools

 Charter Schools

15Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities and Student Aid

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr. 6, 1995).

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

 Family and Community Endeavor Schools

 Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse

 Telecommunications Demonstration in Math

Impact Aid

Inexpensive Book Distribution

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Technical Assistance

Consolidation

Even Start

Assessment

Javitz Gifted and Talented Program

Indian Education (youth)

Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Minority Teacher Recruitment and Minority Services

Foreign Language Assistance

Special Education16

21st Century Learning Centers

Library Support

 Interlibrary Cooperative

 Library Education and Training

 Library Research and Demonstrations

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Head Start

National Endowment for

the Arts Programs

Art in Education

Elementary and

Secondary Education

Programs Proposed

for Elimination

Instruction in Civics, Government, and Law

Ellender Fellowships (Close-Up)

Education for Native Hawaiians

Training in Early Childhood Education and Violence Training

Women’s Educational Equity

Ready to Learn TV

Star Schools

16Includes grants for states, preschools, and infants and toddlers, and funding for special purposes,

such as children with severe disabilities and serious emotional disturbances.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.9: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Head Start Program, Department of Health and Human

Services

Seattle

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

New York

Boston

Kansas

City

San

Francisco

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.10: Proposed Office of Higher Education

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Higher

Education

Reorganization Proposal As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce Preparation

and Policy (see fig. I.10), the Office of Higher Education would manage

about 33 federal programs currently administered by the Department of

Education. (A list of these programs follows.) The Office of Higher

Education, headed by an Assistant Secretary, would be responsible for

administering programs that provide financial aid and scholarships to U.S.

citizens preparing to attend or currently enrolled in colleges, universities,

and trade and technical schools. It would also be charged with providing

grants to postsecondary institutions such as Howard and Gallaudet

Universities.

On the basis of the proposal, this office would serve as the central unit for

carrying out the federal role in providing access to postsecondary

education by managing student loans, grants, and a scholarship block

grant.

GAO Analysis To understand better the resources available to this proposed office, we

determined the staffing and funding of the approximately 33 programs that

would be included in this office. Our data are based on fiscal year 1995

funding for these grant programs and authorized staffing levels to

administer these programs (see table I.5). As shown in figure I.11, the

proposed Office of Higher Education would be responsible for managing

staff who administer postsecondary education programs in 10 regional

offices.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.5: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Higher Education

Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Type of program

Fiscal year

1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

Grants $7,507.0 422 b b

Loans (direct and

other) 6,494.6 886 b b

Fellowships and

Scholarships 1,120.3 21 b b

Otherc 122.0 152 b b

Total $15,243.9 1,481 835 646 10

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bAll Department of Education headquarters and field offices currently administer one or more

grant, loan, fellowship/scholarship, and other postsecondary programs or functions associated

with one or more of those programs.

cIncludes the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and postsecondary education programs

supporting special populations, such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Gallaudet

University, and Legal Training for the Disadvantaged.

Source: Department of Education.

Issues In light of the continuing financial pressures to minimize federal costs

while helping to ensure that needy students have access to financial aid

for their postsecondary education, we reported in January 1995 that the

Perkins loan program was one program that could be discontinued.17 This

program is a campus-based loan program whereby the federal government

provides funds to schools that match them and make loans to needy

students. The schools service and collect the loans and use funds collected

from these loans to make new student loans. The federal government

could discontinue its capital contributions and allow schools to continue

to operate the programs at their own expense, or with the help of states, if

they choose.

17Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings (GAO/T-HEHS-95-56, Jan. 18, 1995).

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Programs to Be

Administered by the

Proposed Office of

Higher Education

Department of Education

Programs

Pell Grants

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

Work Study

Perkins Loans

State Student Incentive Grants

State Postsecondary Review Program

Federal Family Education Loan Program

International Education

Student Financial Database

TRIO18

Early Intervention

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Strengthening Institutions

Howard University

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

National Technical Institute for the Deaf

Gallaudet University

Direct Student Loans

Christa McAuliffe Fellowships

Desert Storm Benefits

Byrd Honors Scholarship

National Science Scholars

National Academy of Science, Space, and Technology

Douglas Teachers Scholarships

Olympic Scholarships

Teacher Corps

Harris Fellowships

Javitz Fellowships

Graduate Assistance

Faculty Fellowships

School, College, and United Nations Partnerships

Legal Training for the Disadvantaged

18These programs include Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support Services, Educational

Opportunity Centers, and the McNair Postbaccalaureate Program.

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Postsecondary

Education Programs

Proposed for

Elimination

Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development

Eisenhower Leadership Programs

Law School Clinical Experience

Interest Subsidy Grant

Mary McLeod Bethune Fine Arts Center

Cooperative Education

College Housing and Academic Facilities Loan

Postsecondary

Education Programs

Proposed for Transfer

to Other Agencies

Innovative Community Services Projects

(to the National Service Corporation)

Urban Community Service

(to the National Service Corporation)

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.11: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of

Education

Seattle

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

Kansas

City

San

Francisco

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.12: Proposed Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Workforce

Training and Life-Long

Learning

Reorganization Proposal As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce Preparation

and Policy (see fig. I.12), the Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long

Learning would include about 70 federal programs currently administered

by the Departments of Education, Labor, and HHS. (A list of these programs

follows.) The Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning, headed

by an Assistant Secretary, would be responsible for administering

programs and proposed block grants for adult and youth employment and

training, adult education and literacy, and vocational education and

rehabilitation. It would also be charged with administering the Job

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program from HHS.

On the basis of the proposal, the Office of Workforce Training and

Life-Long Learning would create a comprehensive workforce development

strategy by overseeing a consolidated system of federal employment

training and education programs for youth and adults. As envisioned, this

comprehensive strategy would better ensure that American workers are

prepared for jobs in an increasingly competitive global economy. To carry

out the strategy, the office would be asked to encourage states in

partnership with business to fashion programs that emphasize (1) training

people for and placing them in jobs and (2) upgrading the skills of people

who are currently employed. The office would also administer services

through a series of block grants to the states and provide funding to

grantees.

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources available to this proposed office, we

determined the funding and staffing for the approximately 70 programs

that would be included in this office. Our data are based on fiscal year

1995 funding for grant programs and authorized staffing levels to

administer those programs. (See table I.6.) The field offices for the existing

programs, as well as all the field offices that would support this proposed

office, are shown in figures I.13 through I.17.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Table I.6: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Workforce Training and

Life-Long Learning Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Type of program

Fiscal year

1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

Education/Youth/

School-to-Work $125.0 9 9 0 0

Adult Education and

Training 7,463.0 1,644 647 997 276

Adult Literacy 49.1 11 11 0 0

Vocational

Rehabilitation 2,203.4 175 80 95 10

JOBS 1,300.0 91 26 65 10

Total $11,140.5 1,930 773 1,157 296

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

Source: Departments of Education, Labor, and HHS.

Issues Our work suggests that the consolidation of employment training

programs would provide an opportunity to reduce federal administrative

duplication.19 For example, 14 departments and agencies currently provide

some employment training to the economically disadvantaged, and

consolidation could decrease the number of entities providing this service.

Obstacles to program coordination among state and local employment

training officials could also be significantly reduced by eliminating

conflicting planning and reporting cycles. For example, we concluded

from our past work that establishing uniform planning and reporting

cycles within or across programs would make it easier to deliver services

at the local level.20

Moreover, the restructuring that could result from creating new block

grants from programs to be administered by this office could present an

opportunity to hold state and local administrators more accountable for

employment training program results. From our work, we found that

although almost 90 percent of the employment training programs collected

data on the number of people served each year, less than 50 percent of the

programs had knowledge of participants’ obtaining jobs after they

19Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add Unnecessary

Administrative Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-80, Jan. 28, 1994).

20Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper Delivery of Services

(GAO/HEHS-94-78, Jan. 28, 1994).

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

received services.21 From our research on the 1981 block grants, we found

that a lack of reliable outcome—rather than process—data led, in large

measure, to a gradual recategorization of these block grants.22

We identified that 64 additional employment training programs, like those

programs already earmarked under the proposal, could be considered for

inclusion in or consolidation under this office’s authority.23 Currently,

these 64 programs are being administered by 13 departments and agencies

other than Education and Labor and have fiscal year 1995 funding of about

$3 billion. Appendix III lists these programs and 13 Education and Labor

job training programs not included in the proposal.

Programs to Be

Administered by the

Proposed Office of

Workforce Training

and Life-Long

Learning

Department of Education

Programs

High School Equivalency Program

Migrant State Agency

College Assistance for Migrant Education

School-to-Work

Federal Corrections Institute

Vocational Education Basic State Grant

Comprehensive Career Guidance

Blue Ribbon Programs

Regional training—Skilled Trades

Business/Education Labor Partnerships

State Programs and Activities

Single Parents/Displaced Homemakers

Sex Equity

21Multiple Employment Training Programs: Basic Program Data Often Missing (GAO/T-HEHS-94-239,

Sept. 28, 1994) and Multiple Employment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know If

Their Programs Are Working Effectively (GAO/HEHS-94-88, Mar. 2, 1994). Education stated, however,

that it maintains outcome data on vocational rehabilitation programs.

22Block Grants: Characteristics, Experiences, and Lessons Learned (GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb. 9, 1995).

23Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163 Employment Training

Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-85FS, Feb. 14, 1995).

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Criminal Offenders

Cooperative Demonstrations’ Community-Based Organizations

Bilingual Vocational Training

Consumer and Homemaking Education

TechPrep Education

Student Literacy Corps

State Councils

Research

Smith-Hughs Act

Territorial Set Aside

Indian and Hawaiian Natives Set Aside

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions

Vocational Rehabilitation

 Basic State Grants

 Client Assistance

 Training

 Special Demonstrations

 Supported Employment Projects

 Migratory Workers

 Recreational Programs

 Projects With Industry

 Supported Employment State Grants

Adult Education/Literacy

 Demonstration Projects for Vocational/Academic Integration

 National Workplace Literacy

 Literacy for Incarcerated Adults

 State Literacy Resource Centers

 Adult Education Basic Grant Program

 Homeless

 National Programs

 Library Service

 Indian Education

American Printing House for the Blind

(As of April 26, 1995, the proposal did not specifically address the

disposition of the following education programs: National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Independent Living Centers, State

Grants, and Services for Older Blind Individuals; Evaluation; Helen Keller

Center for Deaf Blind Youth and Adults; Assistive Technology; and JTPA

Adult Literacy Training.)

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Department of Labor

Programs

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Program Operations

Veterans’ Employment and Training

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) IIA Adult

JTPA III Dislocated Workers

Defense Conversion Adjustment

Clean Air Employment Transition

Job Corps

Veterans’ Reemployment

Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program

Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program (Veterans’

 Dislocated Workers)

JTPA National Activities

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project

North American Free Trade Agreement—Trade Adjustment Assistance

Employment Service Grants

Native American Training

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers

JTPA IIC Youth

JTPA Summer Youth

Skills Standards

School-to-Work

Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT)

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program

Education and

Training Programs

Proposed for

Elimination

International Education Exchange

Civic Education

National Writing Project

National Diffusion Network

Educational Technology

Library Construction

Youth Fair Chance

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit

Job Corps “Freeze and Fix” Plan

(Proposal sponsors also plan to eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s

Food Stamp Employment and Training program and Appalachian

Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations currently

administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission.)

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Education and

Training Program

Proposed for Transfer

Senior Community Service Employment Program (to the National Service

Corporation)

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.13: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Employment and Training Administration, Department of

Labor

Regional Offices

– ETA - 10

– Job Corps - 10

– BAT - 10

State Offices – 50

Area Offices – 8

Local Offices – 78

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.14: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office of Veterans’ Employment and Training, Department

of Labor

Regional Offices – 10

State Offices – 100

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.15: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Rehabilitative Services Administration, Department of

Education

Kansas

City

Seattle

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

San

Francisco

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.16: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program,

Department of Health and Human Services

Seattle

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

Kansas

City

San

Francisco

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.17: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning

State Offices – 150

Area Offices – 8

Local Offices – 78

Regional Offices – 60

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.18: Proposed Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization, and

Safety

Reorganization Proposal As one of two units within the proposed Office of Workplace Policy, the

Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety would be

under the direction of an Assistant Secretary. (See fig. I.18.) This office

would include four programs from the Department of Labor that would

work with employers and workers to enforce various workplace

standards.

The Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety would

include (1) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

which enforces standards for workplace safety and health; (2) the Mine

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which enforces standards for

mine safety and health; (3) the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) from the

Employment Standards Administration, which enforces standards for

wages and other working conditions; and (4) the Office of

Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), from the Office of the American

Workplace, which works with unions.24

The office would be charged with working with the business community to

create world-class enterprises that use innovative production technologies

and organizational work practices to achieve greater productivity and

competitiveness. At the same time, the office would be responsible for

encouraging greater labor-management cooperation to ensure workers

safe and healthful working conditions. The proposal also calls for

eliminating the Office of Workplace Standards, which is currently located

in the Office of the American Workplace.

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources available to this proposed office, we

determined the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing for the activities that

would be included in this office. (See table I.7.) The locations of field

offices in the activities that would be included in this office, as well as all

24This office would also include the Review Commissions for OSHA and MSHA. These commissions

were not proposed for inclusion until after April 26, 1995, and we did not have the opportunity to

gather relevant budget data.

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

that would support the proposed office, are shown in figures I.19 through

I.23.

Table I.7: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Workplace Modernization,

Reorganization, and Safety Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Agency

Fiscal

year 1995

funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

OSHA $315.4 2,323 413 1,910 107

MSHA 200.6 2,521 244 2,277 129

WHDb 105.6 1,380 172 1,208 280

OLMS 24.0 320 65 255 33

Total $645.6 6,544 894 5,650 549

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bTotals include an allocated amount from management functions in the Employment Standards

Administration.

Source: Department of Labor.

Issues We reported in April 1995 that a consensus is emerging that the federal

government must change the way it ensures worker protections.25 The

creation of a single office to ensure worker protections could result in a

system that places greater responsibility on employers and employees to

create and maintain a safe and healthful workplace. Additionally, a

consolidated office could enhance employer outreach and training to

achieve greater knowledge of and respect for workplace safety from both

employers and workers. We reported in 1992 that employer involvement in

on-site programs that promote worker safety and health were effective in

reducing work-related injuries and illnesses.26

While fostering an environment of greater voluntary compliance, an

effective enforcement presence with employers and workers at

workplaces and mines across the country would still be needed. As a

result, the continued use of field offices may prove essential. Serious

consideration should be given to the mission and function of the new

office to determine the proper amount of field presence required to carry

out that mission effectively.

25Department of Labor: Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker Protection and Workforce Development

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-125, Apr. 4, 1995).

26Occupational Safety and Health: Worksite Safety and Health Programs Show Promise

(GAO/HRD-92-68, May 19, 1992).

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.19: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

Department of Labor

Regional Offices – 10

District Offices – 6

Other – 9

Area Offices – 82

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.20: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of

Labor

District Offices – 16

Field Offices – 108

Other – 5

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.21: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor

Regional Offices – 8

District Offices – 56

Field Offices – 195

Area Offices – 21

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.22: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of

Labor

Regional Offices – 10

District Offices – 18

Other – 5

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.23: Locations of All Field Offices in the Proposed Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety

Regional Offices – 28

District Offices – 96

Field Offices – 303

Area Offices – 103

Other – 19

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.24: Proposed Office of Employee Benefits

Education Labor EEOC HHS Other Agencies

Department of Education and Employment

Program Administration

Undersecretary

for

Civil Rights

Undersecretary

for

Workplace Policy

Undersecretary for

Workforce Preparation

and Policy

Assistant

Secretary

for

Basic

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Higher

Education

Assistant

Secretary

for

Employee

Benefits

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workforce

Training and

Life-Long

Learning

Assistant

Secretary

for

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety

Current

Agencies

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Office of Employee

Benefits

Reorganization Proposal As one of two units within the proposed Office of Workplace Policy, the

Office of Employee Benefits would be under the direction of an Assistant

Secretary. (See fig. I.24.) The office would be responsible for

administering several existing programs from the Department of Labor

that focus on providing benefits and overseeing the proper functioning of

private-sector pensions.27

These programs are (1) the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, which

is administered by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) as

relief to temporarily unemployed individuals; (2) the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP) from the Employment Standards

Administration (ESA), which oversees various benefit programs;28 (3) the

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA), which evaluates and

monitors the operations of private-sector pensions; and (4) the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which insures most private-sector

defined benefit pension plans. The PBGC currently is a wholly owned

government corporation housed in Labor, but which operates

quasi-independently. Although PBGC would be administratively housed in

this office, it would retain its current quasi-independent status.

The Office of Employee Benefits would be charged with administering a

comprehensive array of laws and programs to ensure benefit and pension

protection. The office would administer the UI program, as well as

disability compensation programs that compensate for work-related

injury, disease, or death. Finally, the office would monitor, oversee, and

insure private-sector pensions under Titles I and IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which together account

for over 700,000 private-sector pension plans and 4.5 million private-sector

welfare benefit plans.

27The proposal would also include a Contributions fund from the Department of Education and a Gifts

and Bequests fund from the Department of Labor. The budget data for these funds are not included

here because they are relatively small ($.4 million in fiscal year 1995) and have no FTEs associated

with them.

28The benefit programs that would be monitored by this office are Federal Employees Compensation

Act benefits; Special Workers’ Compensation Benefits; Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation

Benefits; and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

GAO Analysis To better understand the resources available to this proposed office, we

determined the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing levels for the

programs that would be included in this office. (See table I.8.) The

locations of the field offices in the existing activities that would be

included in the office, as well as all the field offices that would support the

new office, are illustrated in figures I.25 through I.28.

Table I.8: Funding, Staffing, and Field

Office Information for the Proposed

Office of Employee Benefits Fiscal year 1995 staffing levela

Dollars in millions

Program

Fiscal year

1995 funding Total Headquarters Field

Number of

field offices

ETA $23,575.5 280 168 112 10b

OWCPc 1,421.8 d 1,442 114 1,328 51

PWBA 69.3 621 219 402 15

PBGC 137.7 e 687 687 0 0

Total $25,066.6 3,030 1,188 1,842 76

aTotal authorized FTE levels.

bThese are the same field offices that administer job training programs and are included in the

proposed Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning.

cTotals include an allocated amount from management functions in the Employment Standards

Administration.

dAll but $110 million of this total are benefit amounts paid to recipients. These benefit programs

are the Federal Employees Compensation Act Benefits, Special Workers’ Compensation Benefits,

Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Benefits, and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

eWhile staffing for PBGC is included with Labor’s staffing totals, PBGC’s budget is included for

illustrative purposes and is not included in Labor’s budget totals.

Source: Department of Labor.

Issues In the past, we have expressed concern over the ability of the federal

pension agencies to adequately enforce and oversee private pensions.29

PBGC has been of particular concern to us because of its inadequate

pension reserves.30 However, legislation was passed in December 1994

that PBGC anticipates will significantly reduce underfunding in the plans it

insures and thereby improve its financial condition. Creating a single

29Pension Plans: Stronger Labor ERISA Enforcement Should Better Protect Plan Participants

(GAO/HEHS-94-157, Aug. 8, 1994); Private Pensions: Protections for Retirees’ Insurance Annuities Can

Be Strengthened (GAO/HRD-93-29, Mar. 31, 1993); and Pension Plans: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its

Enforcement Program (GAO/HRD-91-10, July 2, 1991).

30Financial Audit: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 1993 and 1992 Financial Statements

(GAO/AIMD-94-109, May 4, 1994).

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

office to oversee pension activities could allow for a more cohesive federal

pension policy.

However, it will be important to maintain PBGC’s quasi-independent status.

Under present law, the federal government is not liable for liabilities

incurred by PBGC because PBGC is primarily responsible for guaranteeing

benefits of the plans it insures. Most of PBGC’s funding is raised through

premiums on private pension plans, assets of terminated plans, and

investments of those premiums and assets. It uses these funds to

guarantee employee pensions in cases of insolvency. Additionally, care

would have to be taken to ensure that these funds are not diverted to other

uses and therefore not available for their intended purpose. Furthermore,

it would be important to ensure that the improvements PBGC has made are

not jeopardized. The improvements, together with the December 1994

legislation referred to above, led us to remove PBGC from our list of

high-risk programs.31

Regarding the UI program, currently it and virtually all job training

programs are administered by Labor’s Employment and Training

Administration (ETA). In so doing, ETA has the opportunity to use UI

benefits to facilitate job training for those who need it. As a matter of fact,

some states use UI as the entry point for individuals entering the

employment system.

We have already reported on a number of problems with the UI program’s

operations and its inadequate reserves.32 We believe it is important that UI

remain with ETA’s job training programs for suggested improvements to

take place. In that respect, we believe the UI program, and the current ETA

offices that administer it,33 should be included in the Office of Workforce

Training and Life-Long Learning.

Finally, because this office has several disparate missions, the task of

consolidating field offices may be problematic and savings may be limited.

OWCP administers the benefit programs and has 51 field offices, but it has

little in common with ETA’s 10 field offices that administer the UI program.

31Financial Audit: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 1994 and 1993 Financial Statements

(GAO/AIMD-95-83, Mar. 8, 1995).

32Unemployment Insurance: Program’s Ability to Meet Objectives Jeopardized (GAO/HRD-93-107, Sept.

28, 1993) and Unemployment Insurance: Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate to Meet Recession Needs

(GAO/HRD-90-124, May 21, 1990).

33As noted earlier, the 10 ETA regional offices that administer the UI program are the same 10 offices

that administer job training programs.

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Moreover, these offices have little in common with PWBA, which has 15

field offices to carry out pension oversight.

Figure I.25: Locations of Field Offices for ETA’s Administration of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Atlanta

Dallas

Kansas

City

Denver

Seattle

Chicago

San

Francisco

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.26: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of

Labor

Regional Offices – 10

District Offices – 34

Field Offices – 7

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.27: Locations of Field Offices Currently Supporting the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department

of Labor

Regional Offices – 10

District Offices – 5

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix I 

The Proposed Department of Education and

Employment: Office Profiles

Figure I.28: Locations of All Field Offices for the Proposed Office of Employee Benefits

Regional Offices – 30

District Offices – 39

Field Offices – 7

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

The proposal to merge the Departments of Education and Labor and the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could result in savings

of about $1.65 billion in selected administrative costs through the year

2000. Its sponsors plan to achieve these savings from four major activities:

(1) eliminating or reducing duplicative departmentwide management

functions; (2) eliminating programs currently administered within and

outside of Education and Labor; (3) reducing operating budgets for

selected programs; and (4) consolidating education and job training

programs. As previously mentioned, the proposal does not call for any

reductions in the functions that will be carrying out civil rights activities34

in the proposed Department’s Office of Civil Rights.

As requested, we have developed two scenarios illustrating how proposed

administrative cost savings could be achieved and the staffing implications

of those cost savings.35 We found that achieving cost savings under either

of these scenarios would require significant reductions in current staffing

levels in the existing Departments. The first scenario could require

immediate staffing reductions of almost 3,500 positions, which may

necessitate a reduction in force (RIF) and an additional 1,100 positions to

cover the costs of a RIF. The second scenario would phase in the

reductions and provide additional time for planning for these reductions

and implementing alternative methods for achieving staffing reductions

over a 3-year period. This scenario, however, could require staffing

reductions of almost 4,200 positions.

The effect of these reductions on the new Department’s ability to fulfill its

mission and carry out its responsibilities depends upon the extent of

reengineering that accompanies the merger. If processes and procedures

are executed in the same way they were before any reductions were taken,

the level of services provided to the proposed Department’s internal and

external customers are likely to suffer. If, on the other hand, the

reductions are accompanied by a reexamination of how the new

Department’s responsibilities are to be carried out, then it may be possible

to lessen the negative effect on services and attain the proposal’s goal of

providing more effective services with fewer resources.

34These functions are EEOC; the Directorate of Civil Rights, the President’s Committee for the

Employment of People With Disabilities, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

(from the Department of Labor); and the Offices for Civil Rights and Training and Advisory Services

(from the Department of Education). The budgets for these activities are not included in our analysis

in this appendix.

35We did not determine savings associated with consolidating education and job training programs.

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

We recently studied the experiences of private-sector organizations and

state and foreign governments that faced similar downsizing challenges.

We found that those who successfully downsized first analyzed the

structural changes and other revisions to traditional methods of operating

that were needed before making decisions about workforce reductions.36

Estimated

Administrative Cost

Savings in Proposal

As currently drafted, the proposal would result in a 5-year administrative

cost savings of $1.65 billion between fiscal years 1996 and 2000.37 The total

savings average about a 20-percent reduction from current administrative

costs. Administrative costs here include compensation, benefits, and other

expenses, those associated with managing the proposed department,

administering grant programs, providing safety and health inspections, and

overseeing employee pensions. According to the proposal, the actual

percentage reductions within each of these functional areas vary. For

example, the departmentwide management functions within Program

Administration38 would be subject to a 40-percent reduction from current

levels. The Bureau of Education and Employment Statistics, however, also

in Program Administration, would only be subject to a 5-percent reduction

from current levels.

As you requested, we developed two scenarios for how the administrative

savings could be achieved over the next 5 years. Our scenarios, which are

provided for illustrative purposes only, are based on the following data

and assumptions:

• For administrative costs, we used fiscal year 1995 appropriations data for

(1) compensation and benefits costs and (2) other costs, such as travel,

equipment, rents, and communications.39 These data do not include grants

or activities funded through trust funds, as the proposal stated that the

administrative reductions would not affect these funding sources.40

36Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54,

Mar. 13, 1995).

37As stated elsewhere in this report, the proposal also calls for savings in programs. These savings are

not discussed in this appendix.

38See appendix I for a discussion of the Program Administration function.

39We have raised questions in the past about the consistency of what agencies include as

administrative costs. See, Budget Issues: Assessing Executive Order 12837 on Reducing Administrative

Expenses (GAO/AIMD-94-15, Nov. 17, 1993) and Budget Object Classification: Origins and Recent

Trends (GAO/AIMD-94-147, Sept. 13, 1994).

40For that reason, the data that appear here will correspond to, but not necessarily equal, those used in

the office profiles in appendix I. Also, our budget estimates do not account for inflation.

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

• We assumed that an equal percentage reduction would be taken from both

compensation and benefits and other costs, because it is unlikely that the

new Department would have the flexibility to take all reductions from only

one of these categories.

• We assumed that all reductions would be made at the beginning of the

fiscal year, which would translate into a full year of savings.

Table II.1 shows the fiscal year 1995 administrative costs (compensation

and benefits and other costs) for the programs to be included in the

proposed offices in the new Department, as well as the administrative

costs of the programs that are proposed for elimination. The table also

illustrates the percentage reductions, by office, called for in the proposal

and the savings resulting from that reduction through 2000. Also shown

are the administrative savings derived from programs proposed for

elimination. As shown in the table, these administrative savings would

amount to about $990 million from reductions in compensation and

benefits, $530 million from other cost reductions, and $140 million from

the elimination of programs, for a total of about $1.65 billion.

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

Table II.1: Estimated Administrative Cost Savings, Fiscal Years 1996-2000, in the Proposed Department of Education and

Employment

From remaining

programs

5-year administrative savings

Dollars in millions

Function/office in

the proposed

department

Estimated fiscal year

1995 administrative

costs for included

programs

Proposed

percent

reduction

Estimated fiscal year

1995 administrative

costs for eliminated

programsa Total

From

eliminated

programs

Compensation

and benefits Other

Program

Administration $615.6 22 $10.1 738.9 50.5 467.2 221.2

Departmentwide

management

functions 305.4 40 10.1 661.3 50.5 430.0 180.8

Bureau of

Education and

Employment

Statistics 310.2 5 0 77.6 0 37.2 40.4

Basic Education,

Higher Education,

and Workforce

Training and

Life-Long Learningb 375.7 28 9.7 578.1 48.7 321.5 208.0

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety 567.0 10 7.4 320.5 37.0 190.8 92.8

Employee Benefits 69.3 4 0 13.9 0 7.3 6.6

Total $1,627.6 20c $27.2 1,651.4 136.2 986.8 528.6

Totals may not add due to rounding.

aThe proposal did not specifically address the disposition of several Education programs. Their

estimated administrative costs are included here.

bCosts to administer education and labor programs. The proposal does not break out estimated

savings for specific types of education programs.

cIncludes reductions associated with eliminated programs.

Source: Congressional proposal, Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human

Services.

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

Potential Impact of

Cost Savings

Estimates on

Proposed

Department’s Staffing

We developed two scenarios to demonstrate the impact of these cost

savings estimates on the current staffing levels of the existing

Departments. These two scenarios are provided for illustrative purposes

only. Because we were unable to fully determine the impact of these cost

reductions, we used fiscal year 1995 authorized full-time equivalents (FTE)

for staffing levels; on-board staff levels would have to be used for actual

staffing decisions. Additionally, Education was not able to provide

compensation, benefit, and other expense data by program; as a result, we

derived these costs on the basis of program staffing levels and current

officewide administrative costs.41 If a staffing reduction were to take

place, the agencies would need to identify specific administrative costs.

The offsetting costs that may occur as a result of downsizing, such as

buy-outs, severance pay, or other financial incentives, were not

incorporated into our analysis because at this point no decisions have

been made about what types of staff would be affected. As a result, these

scenarios serve only as demonstrations of possible impacts from achieving

the estimated cost savings. Management of the proposed Department

could opt to achieve these cost reductions in other ways.

The two scenarios we developed would achieve the same 5-year savings

for compensation and benefits and other costs. Scenario 1 calls for taking

the proposed reductions in the selected administrative and program

management functions in 1 year (fiscal year 1996). The savings achieved

through this reduction would then be rolled over each year until 2000. The

cumulative savings would be $1.65 billion by 2000 ($990 million from

compensation and benefits, $530 million from other costs, and about

$140 million from the eliminated programs). We used the fiscal year 1995

average cost per FTE for each office to determine the number of positions

that would have to be eliminated to achieve the compensation and benefits

reduction.

Scenario 2 calls for phasing in the compensation and benefits savings

($990 million) over a 3-year period (fiscal years 1996-1998). This would

mean generally that, compared to scenario 1, a relatively smaller staffing

reduction may be taken in the first year, but larger reductions would have

to be taken in the subsequent years to achieve the total reduction by the

third year. Again, we used the fiscal year 1995 average FTE cost for each

office to determine the number of positions that would have to be

eliminated each year to achieve the savings in the 3-year period. Generally,

the number of FTEs taken in the first two years varied according to the

41In commenting on a draft of this report, Education officials said that this procedure generally

underestimates the full cost of operating these programs.

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

proposed percent reduction for the office—the greater the overall

proposed percentage reduction, the greater the FTE reduction. The number

of FTEs cut in the third year was the residual, that is, the remaining number

of FTEs that were needed to achieve the total compensation and benefits

savings. However, because the proposed percentage reductions for each

office varied dramatically (with a high of 40 percent and a low of

4 percent), the FTE reduction for all the offices averaged 9 percent for the

first 2 years and 7 percent in the third year. Table II.2 illustrates the results

of our analysis.

Table II.2: Comparison of Staffing

Reductions Resulting From Cost

Savings Scenarios

Function/office in the proposed department

FTE

reductionscenario 1

(1-year)

FTE

reductionscenario 2

(3-year)

Program Administration 1,711 2,155

Departmentwide management functions 1,578 2,009

Bureau of Education and Employment Statistics 133 146

Basic Education, Higher Education, and Workforce Training

and Life-Long Learning 1,069 1,241

Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety 655 768

Employee Benefits 25 25

Total 3,460 4,189

These FTEs (300) do not include those associated with eliminated

programs. We did not make yearly estimates for how the other costs

would be reduced because they would not directly affect staffing. We kept

other reductions constant during the 5-year period.

The Staffing Impact of

Scenario 1

As shown in table II.2, if the total proposed cuts are taken in the first

year—fiscal year 1996—without a phase-in period, we estimate that a

reduction in staffing of almost 3,500 positions, measured in FTEs, could be

required to achieve the compensation and benefit reductions. The savings

would amount to almost $200 million in compensation and benefits a year,

which would equal the $990 million in the 5-year period. To the extent that

the staffing reductions would require formal RIF procedures, additional

costs for severance pay and other expenses would be incurred. These

additional costs would likely require additional reductions in staff,

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

perhaps by as much as a third, or 1,100 FTEs. This could increase the total

reduction to about 4,600 FTEs.42

Given the downsizing experiences of other organizations, such a major

reduction in 1 year would likely be extremely disruptive. RIFs have been

found to affect many more staff than the released employees. For

example, the experiences of eight federal agencies who carried out major

RIFs in the early 1980s—including the Department of Labor’s Employment

and Training Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration—showed that over 2,000 people were affected; yet only

557 people were actually released.43

The Staffing Impact of

Scenario 2

The second scenario for achieving the proposed cost savings would phase

in the staffing reductions over 3 years, starting at the beginning of fiscal

year 1996. Under the reduction assumptions we used in this scenario, we

determined that almost 4,200 positions would be eliminated—1,600 the

first year, 1,500 the second year, and 1,100 the third year. Because this

scenario provides a longer period of time to achieve the savings, it allows

for more time to plan for how the merger and budget reductions would

occur. In addition, it would increase the likelihood of using attrition and

retirement incentives, rather than only RIFs, to reduce staff. This could

allow for a more orderly transition. However, if these other options do not

provide enough reductions, RIFs may still be needed, increasing the

number of positions to be reduced to cover RIF costs.

Estimated Savings Up

to the Year 2002

If carried out until 2002, the potential administrative savings could

increase to over $2.3 billion, as is shown in table II.3. Some additional

savings may be achieved under scenario 2 because of the greater reduction

in staffing levels. Even though the savings for the two scenarios converge

in 2000, under scenario 2, the new Department would be operating at a

lower staffing level, achieving additional savings in compensation and

benefits. As the table illustrates, the savings in other costs and from

eliminated programs is the same in either scenario, while differences in

compensation and benefits savings mean that scenario 2 could save about

$2.4 billion, while scenario 1 could save about $2.3 billion.

42Reductions in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than Attrition and Furloughs

(GAO/PEMD-85-6, July 24, 1985) and Congressional Oversight: The General Accounting Office

(GAO/T-OCG-95-4, Mar. 30, 1995).

43Reductions in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than Attrition and Furloughs.

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

Table II.3: Estimated Administrative Savings, Fiscal Years 1996-2002, Under Alternative Scenarios

From remaining programs From remaining programs

Savings under scenario 1 Savings under scenario 2

Dollars in millions

Function/office in

the proposed

department Total

Eliminated

programs

Compensation

and benefits

Other

expenses Total

Eliminated

programs

Compensation

and benefits

Other

expenses

Program

Administration $1,034.6 $70.7 $653.8 $310.1 $1,083.2 $70.7 $702.4 $310.1

Departmentwide

management

functions 926.1 70.7 602.0 253.4 972.8 70.7 648.7 253.4

Bureau of

Education and

Employment

Statistics 108.5 0 51.8 56.7 110.4 0 53.7 56.7

Basic Education,

Higher Education,

and Workforce

Training and

Life-Long Learning 809.1 67.9 450.2 291.0 829.3 67.9 470.4 291.0

Workplace

Modernization,

Reorganization,

and Safety 449.4 51.8 267.4 130.2 462.3 51.8 280.3 130.2

Employee Benefits 19.6 0 10.5 9.1 19.6 0 10.5 9.1

Total $2,312.7 $190.4 $1,381.9 $740.4 $2,394.4 $190.4 $1,463.6 $740.4

Source: Congressional proposal, Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human

Services.

Lessons From Recent

Downsizing

Experiences

We recently studied the downsizing experiences of private-sector

organizations and state and foreign governments.44 In general, we found

that decisions to downsize in the private sector were the result of

corporate restructuring designed to make work processes more efficient

or eliminate unnecessary functions. Reducing employment was seldom the

initial objective. Rather, it was the consequence of eliminating

unnecessary work. Officials stressed the importance of identifying needed

structural changes and other revisions to traditional methods of operating

before deciding whether and where workforce cuts may be appropriate.

Once the decision to downsize had been made, 15 of the 25 organizations

we studied said that they found it important to plan how the reductions

44Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected Organizations.

Page 89 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

would be carried out to retain a viable workforce when the reductions

were completed. Those organizations that said that they did not properly

plan their downsizing acknowledged that they cut needed employees,

suffered skills imbalances, and were often forced to rehire or replace

employees who had been separated. Further, the organizations said that

they generally found that attrition and hiring freezes were not always

effective in significantly reducing the workforce in the short term. Most

used monetary incentives to encourage employees to resign or retire.

For those organizations that planned extensively for downsizing, officials

said that strategic planning—a disciplined effort to produce fundamental

decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it

does, and why it does it—is an essential first step to be taken before any

decisions on the appropriate size and composition of the workforce are

made. Most of the organizations found that workforce planning, with care

taken to retain employees with skills and training needed to accomplish

the organization’s work, was an important component of successful

downsizing. Officials from one company noted that reducing head-counts

without changing the work can produce speedy, visible, measurable, and

demonstrable results. However, they cautioned that such reductions are

also costly, indiscriminate, and inconsistent with a continuing productive

work flow involving fewer staff. Eventually, they said, organizations have

to address their work processes.

Of the 25 organizations that we studied, at least 18 provided incentives to

encourage employees to leave voluntarily. Incentives included early

retirement, lump-sum payments, continuation of health and/or life

insurance, tuition payments, and business start-up assistance. Often these

incentives were offered in some combination. Eighteen organizations

downsized several times (32 times in the case of one company), and the

features of their incentive programs varied with each downsizing.

Seventeen of the organizations offered early retirement programs that

allowed employees to retire before their normal retirement age. At least 10

of these organizations offered a variety of incentives to encourage

employees to retire early. Generally, the incentive programs gave

employees credit for a specified number of years of service and/or years

added to their age toward retirement eligibility and calculation of benefit

amounts.

Fourteen incentive programs provided for employees to separate

voluntarily and receive lump-sum payments. The amount of the payment

Page 90 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix II 

Impacts of Proposed Administrative Cost

Reductions

was usually based on the organization’s severance pay formula—generally

1 or 2 weeks’ pay for each year of service, with a maximum of a year’s

salary. These lump-sum payments were available to employees electing

early retirement, regular retirement, or resignation.

At least four incentive programs continued the health and/or life insurance

benefits for specified periods for employees who voluntarily separated. In

four downsizing programs, companies paid separating employees’ tuition

for up to 2 years for college or training programs to enhance their skills

and help make them marketable for employment elsewhere. Finally, one

company sponsored workshops to teach separating employees how to

start their own business.

Page 91 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

In addition to the administrative and management functions already

earmarked for consolidation by the congressional sponsors of the

proposed Department of Education and Employment, we have identified a

number of education- and job training-related programs that also could be

considered for consolidation. We found, on the basis of our past work, that

many of these programs have purposes similar to those programs included

in the proposal and serve similar types of people. The lists that follow

illustrate the wide range of programs in several categories that the federal

government currently manages. Sponsors of the merger proposal have

selected for elimination or transfer some of the programs included in our

previous work.

Before consolidation decisions are made, these programs, along with

those included in the proposal, would need to be systematically reviewed

to determine whether they are consistent with the mission of the proposed

Department and the offices that will administer them. Officials may also

want to examine characteristics of these types of programs such as their

(1) congressional intent/mission, (2) target populations, (3) eligibility

criteria, (4) services provided, (5) funding levels and methods,

(6) administrative and budgetary impact on state and local governments,

and (7) effectiveness.

Key Early Childhood

Programs Not

Included in the

Proposal

As part of our ongoing review of early childhood education, we identified

34 key programs of this type in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.45 For these

programs, education or child care was key to their missions. Sixteen of the

34 programs are not included in the proposal. We found that some of these

key programs provided similar services, served only a portion of their

target populations, and varied in the comprehensiveness of the services

they provided.

Family Resource and Support46

Child Abuse and Neglect State Prevention Grants

Emergency Protection Grants—Substance Abuse (see footnote 46)

Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants

At-Risk Child Care

Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) Transitional Child Care

AFDC/JOBS Child Care

Title XX

45Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups.

46In fiscal year 1995, funding for some or all of this program was redirected to the Community-based

Family Resource program by authority of the Human Services Amendments of 1994, P.L. 103-252.

Page 92 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Appalachian Child Development

Native Hawaiian Family Based Education Centers

Abandoned Infants

Family and Child Education

Comprehensive Residential Drug Treatment Projects

Follow Through47

Temporary Child Care and Crisis Nurseries

Child Care and Development Block Grant

Teacher Training Programs

Not Included in the

Proposal

For our report on multiple federal teacher training programs, we compiled

information on 86 programs whose primary focus was teacher training.48

These programs generally funded conferences, trainer salaries, travel, and

materials. The proposal does not include 35 of these programs.

Department of Agriculture

Programs

Nutrition Education and Training Program

Department of Education

Programs

Educational Partnerships

Follow Through (see footnote 46)

Higher Education—Cooperative Education (Cooperative Education

 Program) (proposed for elimination)

Law-Related Education (proposed for elimination)

Leadership in Educational Administration Development

National Diffusion Network (proposed for elimination)

National Writing Project (proposed for elimination)

Star Schools Program (proposed for elimination)

Supplementary State Grants for Facilities, Equipment, and Other

 Program Improvement Activities

Territories—Freely Associated States Education Grant

Training Programs for Educators—Alcohol Abuse

Training in Early Childhood Education and Violence Counseling

 (proposed for elimination)

Department of Energy

Programs

Minority Undergraduate Training for Energy Related Careers

Summer Teacher Institute Program

Teacher Research Associates Program

47Not funded in fiscal year 1995.

48Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services, and Target Groups.

Page 93 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Environmental Protection

Agency Programs

Environmental Education and Training Program

Environmental Education Grants

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Child Development Associate Scholarships49

Cooperative Agreements to Support School Health Education to Prevent

 the Spread of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Minority High School Student Research Apprentice Program

National Institute of Health Science Education Partnership Award

Science Enhancement Award Program

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Programs

Aerospace Education Services Program

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Educational Workshop

 for Elementary Teachers

Teacher Training Pre-Service Program

National Endowment for

the Arts

Challenge Grants

Promotion of the Humanities—Elementary and Secondary Education in

 the Humanities

Promotion of the Humanities—Higher Education in the Humanities

Promotion of the Humanities—Summer Seminar for School Teachers

Promotion for the Humanities—National Endowment for the Humanities/

 Reader’s Digest Teacher-Scholar Program

Promotion of the Humanities—Foreign Lingual Education

Science and Humanities

State Programs

National Science

Foundation Programs

Education and Human Resources

Department of

Transportation Programs

Aviation Education

49In the President’s proposed fiscal year 1996 budget, this program is proposed for consolidation into

the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

Page 94 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Other

Education-Related

Programs Not

Included in the

Proposal

The following programs are just a few of those that we identified as

overlapping federal education-related programs at a recent hearing on

opportunities for cost savings at the Department of Education.50

Department of Commerce

Programs

Cooperative Science and Education Program

Meteorologic and Hydrologic Modernization Development

Office of Administration Special Programs

Department of Defense

Programs

Basic and Applied Scientific Research

Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science

Mathematical Sciences Grants Program

Department of Energy

Programs

Basic Energy Sciences

Regional Biomass Energy Programs

Minority Energy Information Clearinghouse

Minority Educational Institution Research Travel Fund

Academic Partnerships

Used Energy-Related Laboratory Equipment

Environmental Protection

Agency Programs

Environmental Education and Training Program

Environmental Education Grants

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Family Resource Centers (See footnote 46)

Family Support Center and Gateway Demonstration Program

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Programs

Public and Indian Housing Family Investment Centers

Community Development Work-Study Program

Department of Interior

Programs

Grants for Mining and Mineral Resources and Research

50Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities and Student Aid.

Page 95 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

National Science

Foundation Programs

Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation

Engineering Grants

Computer and Information Science and Engineering

Biological Sciences

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

Education and Human Resources

Department of

Transportation Programs

Aviation Education

Aviation Research Grants

Federal Transit Grants for University Research and Training

University Transportation Centers Program

Selected

Postsecondary

Education Programs

Not Included in the

Proposal

In preparation for the hearing concerning opportunities for cost savings at

the Department of Education, we compiled a list of programs from the

Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance that included ones supporting

students at the postsecondary level.

Department of Veterans

Affairs Programs

Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance

All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance

Department of Energy

Programs

Science and Engineering Research Semester

Minority Undergraduate Training for Energy-Related Careers

Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance 

Financial Assistance Program—Science Education

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Minority International Research Training Grant

Health Education Assistance Loans

Grants for Preventive Medicine and Dental Health

Health Professionals Pregraduate Scholarship Program

Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships

Financial Assistance for Disadvantaged Health

Programs of Excellence in Health Professions Education

Indian Health Service Educational Loan Repayment Program

Grants for State Loan Repayment

Page 96 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Nursing Education Opportunities for Individuals From Disadvantaged

 Backgrounds

Special Project Grants to Schools of Public Health

Allied Health Project Grants

Matching Grants for Health Professions Scholarships

Loan Repayment Program for Individuals From Disadvantaged

 Backgrounds

Health Professions Student Loans—Including Primary Care/Loans for

 Disadvantaged Students

Nursing Student Loans

Minority Biomedical Research Support

Scholarships for Students of Exceptional Financial Need

Health Careers Opportunity Program

Rural Health Medical Education Demonstration Projects

Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program for Registered Nurses

Scholarships for Health Professions Students

Demonstration Grants to States for Community Scholarships

Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship Program

Health Professions Scholarship Program

Employment Training

Programs Not

Included in the

Proposal

We reported early this year that the federal government administered 163

employment training programs in fiscal year 1995.51 These programs

provided employment training assisitance to (1) help the unemployed find

jobs, (2) create job opportunities, and (3) enhance the skill levels of adults

and out-of-school youths not enrolled in advanced-degree programs. The

following 77 employment training programs described in our previous

report are not included in the proposal.

Department of Education

Programs

Women’s Equity (proposed for elimination)

Vocational Education—Comprehensive Career Guidance and Counseling

Tribal Economic Development

Workplace Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders

Native Hawaiian Education Community-Based Education Learning

 Centers

Community School Partnerships

Vocational Education—Demonstration Centers for the Training

 of Dislocated Workers

Comprehensive Services for Independent Living

51Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163 Employment Training

Programs.

Page 97 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

National Center for Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults

Department of Labor

Programs

Federal Bonding Program

Senior Community Service Employment Program (proposed for

 transfer

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (proposed for elimination)

Youth Fair Chance (proposed for elimination)

Department of Agriculture

Programs

Food Stamp Employment and Training (proposed for elimination)

Appalachian Regional

Commission Programs

Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations

 (proposed for elimination)

Department of Commerce

Programs

Minority Business Development Centers

American Indian Program

Economic Development—Grants for Public Works and Development

 Facilities

Economic Development—Public Works Impact Program

Economic Development—Support for Planning Organizations

Economic Development—Technical Assistance

Economic Development—State and Local Economic Development

 Planning

Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program

 —Sudden and Severe Economic Dislocation and Long-Term Economic

 Deterioration

Community Economic Adjustment

Corporation for National

Service Programs

Literacy Corps

Foster Grandparent Program

Senior Companion Program

Department of Defense

Programs

Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning Assistance

Transition Assistance Program

Department of Health and

Human Services Programs

Community Services Block Grant

Community Services Block Grant—Discretionary Award

Page 98 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards—

 Demonstration Partnership

Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Discretionary Grants

Refugee and Entrant Assistance—State Administered Programs

Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Voluntary Agency Programs

Family Support Centers and Gateway Demonstration Program

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants

Transitional Living for Runaway and Homeless Youth

Independent Living

Scholarships for Health Professions—Students from Disadvantaged

 Backgrounds

Health Careers Opportunity Program

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Programs

Emergency Shelter Grants Program

Supportive Housing Program

Youthbuild

Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Service Coordinators

Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program

Department of the Interior

Programs

Indian Employment Assistance

Indian Grants—Economic Development

Department of Justice

Programs

Ounce of Prevention Grant Program

Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program

Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth

Police Recruitment

Local Partnership Act

National Community Economic Partnership

Substance Abuse Treatment in Federal Prisons

Office of Personnel

Management Programs

Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth—Summer

Small Business

Administration Programs

Management and Technical Assistance for Socially and

 Economically Disadvantaged Businesses

Small Business Development Center

Women’s Business Ownership Assistance

Page 99 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix III 

Programs Not Included in the Merger

Proposal That May Be Consolidation

Candidates

Veteran Entrepreneurial Training and Counseling

Service Corps of Retired Executives Association

Business Development Assistance to Small Business

Procurement Assistance to Small Business

Minority Business Development

Department of

Transportation Programs

Transit Planning and Research Program

Department of Veterans

Affairs Programs

All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance

Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program

Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance

Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance

Vocational Training for Certain Veterans Receiving

 VA Pensions

Vocational and Educational Counseling for Servicemembers

 and Veterans

Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training

Health Care for Homeless Veterans

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans

Housing and Urban Development/Veterans Affairs—Supported

 Housing

Page 100 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 101 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 102 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 103 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 104 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 105 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 106 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 107 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 108 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 109 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 110 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 111 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 112 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 113 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Page 114 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education, Labor,

and EEOC-Related Issues

Bilingual Education

and Minority

Languages Affairs

Immigrant Education: Federal Funding Has Not Kept Pace With Student

Increases (GAO/T-HEHS-94-146, Apr. 14, 1994).

Hispanic Dropouts and Federal Programs (GAO/PEMD-94-18R, Apr. 6, 1994).

Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly Educational Challenge

Facing Many School Districts (GAO/HEHS-94-38, Jan. 28, 1994).

Immigrant Education: Information on the Emergency Immigrant

Education Act Program (GAO/HRD-91-50, Mar. 15, 1991).

Bureau of Labor

Statistics

Trade and Economic Data: Many Federal Agencies Collect and

Disseminate Information (GAO/NSIAD-91-173, May 1, 1991).

Civil Rights Within-School Discrimination: Inadequate Title VI Enforcement by the

Office for Civil Rights (GAO/HRD-91-85, July 22, 1991).

Departmental

AdministrationDepartment of

Education

Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities

and Student Aid (GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr. 6, 1995).

Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-56, Jan. 18, 1995).

Buyouts at the Department of Education (GAO/GGD-94-197R, Aug. 17, 1994).

Department of Education: Long-Standing Management Problems Hamper

Reforms (GAO/HRD-93-47, May 28, 1993).

Transition Series: Education Issues (GAO/OCG-93-18TR, Dec. 1992).

Department of Education: Management Commitment Needed to Improve

Information Resources Management (GAO/IMTEC-92-17, Apr. 20, 1992).

Education Grants Management: Actions Initiated to Correct Material

Weaknesses (GAO/HRD-91-72, June 26, 1991).

Education Regulations: Reasons for Delays in Issuance (GAO/HRD-91-4BR,

Nov. 15, 1990).

Page 115 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Departmental

AdministrationDepartment of Labor

Department of Labor: Opportunities to Realize Savings (GAO/T-HEHS-95-55,

Jan. 18, 1995).

Security Protection: Costs of Services Provided for Selected Cabinet

Officials (GAO/GGD-95-50, Dec. 30, 1994).

Political Appointees: Turnover Rates in Executive Schedule Positions

Requiring Senate Confirmation (GAO/GGD-94-115FS, Apr. 21, 1994).

Department of Labor: Noncompetitive. Discretionary Grants (GAO/HEHS-94-9,

Feb. 22, 1994).

Women-Owned Businesses (GAO/RCED-93-159R, June 7, 1993).

TQM Implementation at Labor (GAO/GGD-93-27R, Apr. 2, 1993).

Labor Issues (GAO/OCG-93-19TR, Dec. 1992).

Commuter Security: Agencies Reported Having Implemented Most System

Security Controls (GAO/IMTEC-92-45, Apr. 30, 1992).

Program Fraud: Implementation of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act

of 1986 (GAO/AFMD-91-73, Sept. 13, 1991).

Dislocated Workers Dislocated Workers: An Early Look at the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment

Assistance Program (GAO/HEHS-95-31, Nov. 28, 1994).

Military Downsizing: Persons Returning to Civilian Life Need More Help

From DOD (GAO/HEHS-94-39, Jan. 21, 1994).

Dislocated Workers: Proposed Re-employment Assistance Program

(GAO/HRD-94-61, Nov. 12, 1993).

Dislocated Workers: Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

Not Meeting Its Goals (GAO/HRD-93-18, Feb. 23, 1993).

Dislocated Workers: Improvements Needed in Trade Adjustment

Assistance Certification Process (GAO/HRD-93-36, Oct. 19, 1992).

Dislocated Workers: Comparison of Assistance Programs (GAO/HRD-92-153BR,

Sept. 10, 1992).

Page 116 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Dislocated Workers: Labor-Management Committees Enhance

Reemployment Assistance (GAO/HRD-90-3, Nov. 21, 1989).

Education Reform Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services,

and Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb. 22, 1995).

Schools Facilities: Condition of American Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1,

1995).

Charter Schools: New Model for Public Schools Provides Opportunities

and Challenges (GAO/HEHS-95-42, Jan. 18, 1995).

Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in

Instruction and Budgeting (GAO/HEHS-94-135, Aug. 23, 1994).

Regulatory Flexibility in Schools: What Happens When Schools Are

Allowed to Change the Rules? (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr. 29, 1994).

Regulatory Flexibility Programs (GAO/HRD-94-51R, Nov. 3, 1993).

Transition From School to Work: States Are Developing New Strategies to

Prepare Students for Jobs (GAO/HRD-93-139, Sept. 7, 1993).

Educational Achievement Standards: NAGB’s Approach Yields Misleading

Interpretations (GAO/PEMD-93-12, June 23, 1993).

Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could Facilitate

District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993).

Educational Testing: The Canadian Experience With Standards,

Examinations, and Assessments (GAO/PEMD-93-11, Apr. 28, 1993).

Planning for Education Standards (GAO/PEMD-93-21R, Apr. 12, 1993).

Student Testing: Current Extent and Expenditures, With Cost Estimates

for a National Examination (GAO/PEMD-93-8, Jan. 13, 1993).

Transition From School to Work: Linking Education and Worksite Training

(GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug. 2, 1991).

Page 117 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in the

U.S. and Foreign Countries (GAO/HRD-90-88, May 11, 1990).

Educational Research

and Improvement

National Assessment Technical Quality (GAO/PEMD-92-22R, Mar. 11, 1992).

Education’s Library: Actions Needed to Improve Its Usefulness

(GAO/HRD-91-61, Apr. 11, 1991).

Elementary and

Secondary Education

School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1,

1995).

Hispanics’ Schooling: Risk Factors for Dropping Out and Barriers to

Resuming Education (GAO/PEMD-94-24, July 27, 1994).

Women’s Educational Equity Act: A Review of Program Goals and

Strategies Needed (GAO/PEMD-95-6, Dec. 27, 1994).

Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target

Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994).

Homelessness: McKinney Act Programs and Funding Through Fiscal Year

1993 (GAO/RCED-94-107, June 29, 1994).

Homelessness: McKinney Act Programs Provide Assistance but Are Not

Designed to Be the Solution (GAO/RCED-94-37, May 31, 1994).

School-Age Children: Poverty and Diversity Challenge Schools Nationwide

(GAO/HEHS-94-132, Apr. 29, 1994).

GAO Work Related to ESEA of 1965 (GAO/HEHS-94-156R, Apr. 26, 1994).

Immigrant Education: Federal Funding Has Not Kept Pace With Student

Increases (GAO/T-HEHS-94-146, Apr. 14, 1994).

Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming

Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb. 4, 1994).

School-Linked Human Services: A Comprehensive Strategy for Aiding

Students (GAO/HRD-94-21, Dec. 30, 1993).

Page 118 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

School Age Demographics: Recent Trends Pose New Educational

Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug. 5, 1993).

Exiting Program Improvement (GAO/HRD-93-2R, Mar. 30, 1993).

Chapter 1 Accountability: Greater Focus on Program Goals Needed

(GAO/HRD-93-69, Mar. 29, 1993).

Compensatory Education: Difficulties in Measuring Comparability of

Resources Within School Districts (GAO/HRD-93-37, Mar. 11, 1993).

Compensatory Education: Additional Funds Help More Private School

Students Receive Chapter 1 Services (GAO/HRD-93-65, Feb. 26, 1993).

Department of Education: The Eisenhower Math and Science State Grant

Program (GAO/HRD-93-25, Nov. 10, 1992).

Remedial Education: Modifying Chapter 1 Formula Would Target More

Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992).

Drug Education: Rural Programs Have Many Components and Most Rely

Heavily on Federal Funds (GAO/HRD-92-34, Jan. 31, 1992).

Homelessness: Access to McKinney Act Programs Improved but Better

Oversight Needed (GAO/RCED-91-29, Dec. 28, 1990).

Drug Education: School-Based Programs Seen as Useful but Impact

Unknown (GAO/HRD-91-27, Nov. 28, 1990).

Impact Aid: Most School Construction Requests Are Unfunded and

Outdated (GAO/HRD-90-90, July 12, 1990).

Homelessness: McKinney Act Reports Could Improve Federal Assistance

Efforts (GAO/RCED-90-121, June 4, 1990).

Employment Service Employment Service: Improved Leadership Needed for Better

Performance (GAO/HRD-91-88, Aug. 6, 1991).

Employment Service: Variations in Local Office Performance

(GAO/HRD-89-116BR, Aug. 3, 1989).

Page 119 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Employment

Standards

Administration

Garment Industry: Efforts to Address the Prevalence and Conditions of

Sweatshops (GAO/HEHS-95-29, Nov. 2, 1994).

Equal Employment Opportunity: Displacement Rates, Unemployment

Spells, and Reinvolvement Wages by Race (GAO/HEHS-94-229FS, Sept. 16,

1994).

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act: No Evidence That Labor’s

Physician Selection Processes Biased Claims Decisions (GAO/GGD-94-67,

Feb. 11, 1994).

Davis-Bacon Act (GAO/HEHS-94-95R, Feb. 7, 1994).

Family and Medical Leave Act Cost Estimate (GAO/HRD-93-14R, Feb. 1, 1993).

Minimum Wages and Overtime Pay: Change in Statute of Limitations

Would Better Protect Employees (GAO/HRD-92-144, Sept. 22, 1992).

Foreign Farm Workers in U.S.: Department of Labor Action Needed to

Protect Florida Sugar Cane Workers (GAO/HRD-92-95, June 30, 1992).

Child Labor: Information on Federal Enforcement Efforts (GAO/HRD-92-127FS,

June 15, 1992).

Summary Information on Farmworkers (GAO/HRD-92-30R, Apr. 10, 1992).

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act: Need to Increase Rehabilitation

and Reemployment of Injured Workers (GAO/GGD-92-30, Feb. 28, 1992).

Hired Farmworkers: Health and Well-Being at Risk (GAO/HRD-92-46, Feb. 14,

1990).

Child Labor: Characteristics of Working Children (GAO/HRD-91-83BR, June 14,

1991).

U.S.-Mexico Trade: Information on Wages, Fringe Benefits, and Workers’

Rights (GAO/NSIAD-91-220, May 10, 1991).

Workers at Risk: Increased Numbers in Contingent Employment Lack

Insurance, Other Benefits (GAO/HRD-91-56, Mar. 8, 1991).

Page 120 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Employee Benefits: Improvements Needed in Enforcing Health Insurance

Continuation Requirements (GAO/HRD-91-37, Dec. 18, 1990).

Child Labor: Increases in Detected Child Labor Violations Throughout the

United States (GAO/HRD-90-116, Apr. 30, 1990).

Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions and the Question of

Discrimination (GAO/GGD-90-62, Mar. 29, 1990).

Black Lung Program: Further Improvements Can Be Made in Claims

Adjudication (GAO/HRD-90-75, Mar. 21, 1990).

Workers’ Compensation: The Impact of 1984 Amendments on the

Longshore Program (GAO/HRD-90-76BR, Mar. 8, 1990).

Immigration Reform: Major Changes Likely Under S. 358 (GAO/PEMD-90-5,

Nov. 9, 1989).

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity: Displacement Rates, Unemployment

Spells, and Reemployment Wages by Race (GAO/HEHS-94-229FS, Sept. 16,

1994).

Federal Affirmative Employment: Better Guidance Needed for Small

Agencies (GAO/GGD-94-71, July 7, 1994).

Sex Discrimination: Agencies’ Handling of Sexual Harassment and Related

Complaints (GAO/T-OSI-94-22, Mar. 8, 1994).

EEOC’s Expanding Workload: Increases in Age Discrimination and Other

Changes Call for New Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-32, Feb. 9, 1994).

Federal Personnel: The EEO Implications of Reductions-in-Force

(GAO/T-GGD-94-87, Feb. 1, 1994).

EEOC: An Overview (GAO/T-HRD-93-30, July 27, 1993).

Age Employment Discrimination: EEOC’s Investigation of Charges Under

1967 Law (GAO/HRD-92-82, Sept. 4, 1992).

Federal Workforce: Agencies’ Estimated Costs for Counseling and

Processing Discrimination Complaints (GAO/GGD-92-64FS, Mar. 26, 1992).

Page 121 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Federal Workforce: Continuing Need for Federal Affirmative Employment

(GAO/GGD-92-27BR, Nov. 27, 1991). Testimony on same topic (10/23/91,

GAO/T-GGD-92-2).

Equal Employment Opportunity: EEOC and State Agencies Did Not Fully

Investigate Discrimination Charges (GAO/HRD-89-11, Oct. 11, 1988).

Mine Safety and

Health Administration

Mine Safety and Health: Tampering Scandal Led to Improved Sampling

Devices (GAO/HRD-93-63, Feb. 25, 1993).

Multiple Employment

Training Program

Consolidation

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163

Employment Training Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-85FS, Feb. 14, 1995).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises

Questions About Efficiency (GAO/HEHS-94-l93, July 11, 1994).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not

Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively (GAO/HEHS-94-88, Mar. 2,

1994).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add

Unnecessary Administrative Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-80, Jan. 28, 1994).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements

Hamper Delivery of Services (GAO/HEHS-94-78, Jan. 28, 1994).

Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/HRD-93-26R, June 15, 1993).

Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/HRD-92-39R, July 24, 1992).

Occupational Safety

and Health

Administration

Department of Labor: Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker Protection

and Workforce Development (GAO/T-HEHS-95-125, Apr. 4, 1995).

Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined

Federal-State Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-10, Feb. 28, 1994).

Health and Safety: DOE’s Implementation of a Comprehensive Health

Surveillance Program Is Slow (GAO/RCED-94-47, Dec. 16, 1993).

Page 122 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Occupational Safety and Health: Differences Between Programs in the

United States and Canada (GAO/HRD-94-15FS, Dec. 6, 1993).

U.S.-Mexico Trade: The Work Environment at Eight U.S.-Owned

Maquiladora Auto Parts Plants (GAO/GGD-94-22, Nov. l, 1993).

Air Force Depot Maintenance: Status of Safety Initiatives (GAO/NSIAD-94-37,

Oct. 28, 1993).

Paperwork Reduction: Agency Responses to Recent Court Decisions

(GAO/PEMD-93-5, Feb. 3, 1993).

Asbestos in Federal Buildings: Federal Efforts to Protect Employees From

Potential Exposure (GAO/RCED-93-9, Oct. 6, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Uneven Protections Provided to

Congressional Employees (GAO/HRD-93-1, Oct. 2, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Improvements Needed in OSHA’s

Monitoring of Federal Agencies’ Programs (GAO/HRD-92-97, Aug. 28, 1992).

Risk-Risk Analysis: OMB’s Review of a Proposed OSHA Rule (GAO/PEMD-92-33,

July 2, 1992).

Hazardous Waste: A North Carolina Incinerator’s Noncompliance With

EPA and OSHA Requirements (GAO/RCED-92-78, June 30, 1992).

Response to Incinerator Report (GAO/RCED-92-216R, June 29, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Worksite Safety and Health Programs

Show Promise (GAO/HRD-92-68, May 19, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Options to Improve Hazard-Abatement

Procedures in the Workplace (GAO/HRD-92-105, May 12, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Employers’ Experiences in Complying

With the Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-63BR, May 8, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: Penalties for Violations Are Well Below

Maximum Allowable Penalties (GAO/HRD-92-48, Apr. 6, 1992).

Page 123 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Toxic Substances: Information on Costs and Financial Aid to Schools to

Control Asbestos (GAO/RCED-92-57FS, Jan. 15, 1992).

Occupational Safety and Health: OSHA Action Needed to Improve

Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26,

1991).

Indoor Air Pollution: Federal Efforts Are Not Effectively Addressing a

Growing Problem (GAO/RCED-92-8, Oct. 15, 1991).

Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants: Regulatory Actions Provide

Uncertain Protection (GAO/PEMD-92-3, Oct. 2, 1991).

Air Force Depot Maintenance: More Efforts Are Needed to Improve Safety

and Training (GAO/NSIAD-91-89, May 23, 1991).

Occupational Safety and Health: OSHA Policy Changes Needed to Confirm

That Employers Abate Serious Hazards (GAO/HRD-91-35, May 8, 1991).

Nuclear Health and Safety: More Attention to Health and Safety Needed at

Pantex (GAO/RCED-91-103, Apr. 15, 1991).

Occupational Safety and Health: Inspectors’ Opinions on Improving OSHA

Effectiveness (GAO/HRD-91-9FS, Nov. 14, 1990).

Occupational Safety and Health: Options for Improving Safety and Health

in the Workplace (GAO/HRD-90-66BR, Aug. 24, 1990).

Office of the

American Workplace

Workplace Regulation: Information on Selected Employer and Union

Experiences (GAO/HEHS-94-138, June 30, 1994).

Pension Insurance

and Enforcement

Programs

Private Pensions: Funding Rule Change Needed to Reduce PBGC’s

Multibillion Dollar Exposure (GAO/HEHS-95-5, Oct. 5, 1994).

Pension Plans: Stronger Labor ERISA Enforcement Should Better Protect

Plan Participants (GAO/HEHS-94-157, Aug. 8, 1994).

Financial Audit: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 1993 and 1992

Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-94-109, May 4, 1994).

Page 124 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

ERISA Targeting (GAO/HRD-93-34R, Sept. 30, 1993).

Private Pensions: Protections for Retirees’ Insurance Annuities Can Be

Strengthened (GAO/HRD-93-29, Mar. 31, 1993).

Pension Plans: Labor Should Not Ignore Some Small Plans That Report

Violations (GAO/HRD-93-45, Mar. 26, 1993).

Pension Restoration Act (GAO/HRD-93-7R, Dec. 18, 1992).

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (GAO/HRD-93-5, Dec. 1992).

Pension Plans: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Needs to Improve

Premium Collections (GAO/HRD-92-103, Aug. 11, 1992).

Employee Benefits: Improved Plan Reporting and CPA Audits Can

Increase Protection Under ERISA (GAO/AFMD-92-14, Apr. 9, 1992).

Employee Benefits: States Need Labor’s Help Regulating Multiple

Employer Welfare Arrangements (GAO/HRD-92-40, Mar. 10, 1992).

Pension Plans: Fiduciary Violations in Terminated Underfunded Plans

(GAO/HRD-91-87, May 13, 1991).

Private Pensions: Millions of Workers Lose Federal Benefit Protection at

Retirement (GAO/HRD-91-79, Apr. 25, 1991).

Government Financial Vulnerability: 14 Areas Needing Special Review

(GAO/OCG-90-1, Jan. 23, 1990).

Postsecondary

Education

Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities

and Student Aid (GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr. 6, 1995).

Pell Grant Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-215R, Sept. 28, 1994).

Pell Grants for Prison Inmates (GAO/HEHS-94-224R, Aug. 5, 1994).

Financial Audit: Federal Family Education Loan Program’s Financial

Statements for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1992 (GAO/AIMD-94-131, June 30, 1994).

Default Rates at HBCUs (GAO/HEHS-94-97R, Mar. 9, 1994).

Page 125 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

GAO High-Risk Program (GAO/AIMD-94-72R, Jan. 27, 1994).

Student Loans: Millions Loaned Inappropriately to U.S. Nationals at

Foreign Medical Schools (GAO/HEHS-94-28, Jan. 21, 1994).

Higher Education: Information on Minority-Targeted Scholarships

(GAO/HEHS-94-77, Jan. 14, 1994).

Student Financial Aid Programs: Pell Grant Program Abuse (GAO/T-0SI-94-8,

Oct. 27, 1993).

Financial Management: Education’s Student Loan Program Controls Over

Lenders Need Improvement (GAO/AIMD-93-33; Sept. 9, 1993).

Student Loans: Default Rates at Historically Black Colleges and

Universities (GAO/HRD-93-117FS, Aug. 19, 1993).

Direct Student Loan Savings (GAO/HRD-93-25R, July 15, 1993).

Financial Audit: Federal Family Education Loan Program’s Financial

Statements for Fiscal Year 1992 (GAO/AIMD-93-4, June 30, 1993).

HEAF 1992 Financial Condition (GAO/HRD-93-21R, June 18, 1993).

Direct Student Loans: The Department of Education’s Implementation of

Direct Lending (GAO/T-HRD-93-26, June 10, 1993).

Financial Audit: Guaranteed Student Loan Program’s Internal Controls and

Structure Need Improvement (GAO/AFMD-93-20, Mar. 16, 1993).

Direct Loan Debate (GAO/HRD-93-15R, Feb. 8, 1993).

Federal Data Collection: Agencies’ Use of Consistent Race and Ethnic

Definitions (GAO/GGD-93-25, Dec. 15, 1992).

High-Risk Series: Guaranteed Student Loans (GAO/HRD-93-2, Dec. 1992).

Student Loans: Direct Loans Could Save Billions in First 5 Years With

Proper Implementation (GAO/HRD-93-27, Nov. 25, 1992).

Page 126 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Guaranty Agency Solvency: Can the Government Recover HEAF’s

First-Year Liquidation Cost of $212 Million? (GAO/HRD-93-12BR, Nov. 13,

1992).

Parent and Supplemental Student Loans: Volume and Default Trends for

Fiscal Years 1989 to 1991 (GAO/HRD-92-138FS, Sept. 22, 1992).

Stafford Student Loans: Prompt Payment of Origination Fees Could

Reduce Costs (GAO/HRD-92-61, July 24, 1992).

Guaranteed Student Loans: Eliminating Interest Rate Floors Could

Generate Substantial Savings (GAO/HRD-92-113, July 21, 1992).

Stafford Student Loan Program: Correspondence Schools’ Loan Volume

Declines Sharply (GAO/HRD-92-62FS, Mar. 13, 1992).

Student Financial Aid: Characteristics of Jobs Provided Through the

College Work-Study Program (GAO/HRD-92-72BR, Feb. 21, 1992).

Student Financial Aid: Most Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

Are Awarded to Needy Students (GAO/HRD-92-47, Jan. 31, 1992).

Stafford Student Loans: Lower Subsidy Payments Could Achieve Savings

Without Affecting Access (GAO/HRD-92-7, Jan. 6, 1992).

Perkins Student Loans: Options That Could Make the Program More

Financially Independent (GAO/HRD-92-6, Dec. 9, 1991).

Medical Residents: Options Exist to Make Student Loan Payments

Manageable (GAO/HRD-92-2l, Nov. 11, 1991).

Student Loans: Direct Loans Could Save Money and Simplify Program

Administration (GAO/HRD-91-144BR, Sept. 27, 1991).

Student Financial Aid: Education Can Do More to Screen Schools Before

Students Receive Aid (GAO/HRD-91-145, Sept. 27, 1991).

Student Loans: Characteristics of Defaulted Borrowers in the Stafford

Student Loan Program (GAO/HRD-91-82BR, Apr. 26, 1991).

Perkins Student Loans: Need for Better Controls Over Loans Recovered

From Closed Schools (GAO/HRD-91-70, Mar. 27, 1991).

Page 127 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Stafford Student Loans: Millions of Dollars in Loans Awarded to Ineligible

Borrowers (GAO/IMTEC-91-7, Dec. 12, 1990).

Guaranteed Student Loans: Profits of Secondary Market Lenders Vary

Widely (GAO/HRD-90-130B, Sept. 28, 1990).

Student Loan Lenders: Information on the Activities of the First

Independent Trust Company (GAO/HRD-90-183FS, Sept. 25, 1990).

Defaulted Student Loans: Analysis of Defaulted Borrowers at Schools

Accredited by Seven Agencies (GAO/HRD-90-178FS, Sept. 12, 1990).

School Accreditation: Activities of Seven Agencies That Accredit

Proprietary Schools (GAO/HRD-90-179BR, Sept. 12, 1990).

Supplemental Student Loans: Legislative Changes Have Sharply Reduced

Loan Volume (GAO/HRD-90-149FS, Aug. 3, 1990).

Consolidated Student Loans: Borrowers Benefit but Costs to Them and the

Government Grow (GAO/HRD-90-8, June 15, 1990).

Supplemental Student Loans: Who Are the Largest Lenders?

(GAO/HRD-90-72FS, Feb. 21, 1990).

Pell Grants: How the Department of Education Estimates Program Costs

(GAO/HRD-90-73BR, Feb. 21, 1990).

School-to-Work

Transition

Transition from School to Work: States Are Developing New Strategies to

Prepare Students for Jobs (GAO/HRD-93-139, Sept. 7, 1993).

Vocational Education: Status in 2-Year Colleges in 1990-91 and Early Signs

of Change (GAO/HRD-93-89, Aug. 16, 1993).

Vocational Education: Status in School Year 1990-91 and Early Signs of

Change at Secondary Level (GAO/HRD-93-71, July 13, 1993).

Skill Standards: Experience in Certification Systems Shows Industry

Involvement to Be Key (GAO/HRD-93-90, May 18, 1993).

Apprenticeship Training: Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity

(GAO/HRD-92-43, Mar. 4, 1992).

Page 128 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Transition From School to Work: Linking Education and Worksite Training

(GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug. 2, 1991).

Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in the

U.S. and Foreign Countries (GAO/HRD-90-88, May 11, 1990).

Special Education and

Rehabilitative

Services

Special Education Reform: Districts Grapple With Inclusion Programs

(GAO/T-HEHS-94-160, Apr. 28, 1994).

Deaf Education: Improved Oversight Needed for National Technical

Institute for the Deaf (GAO/HRD-94-23, Dec. 16, 1993).

Vocational Rehabilitation: Evidence for Federal Program’s Effectiveness Is

Mixed (GAO/PEMD-93-19, Aug. 27, 1993).

Vocational Rehabilitation: Clearer Guidance Could Help Focus Services on

Those With Severe Disabilities (GAO/HRD-92-12, Nov. 26, 1991).

Department of Education: Monitoring of State-Formula Grants by Office of

Special Education Programs (GAO/HRD-91-91FS, Apr. 15, 1991).

Special Education: Estimates of Handicapped Indian Preschoolers and

Sufficiency of Services (GAO/HRD-90-61BR, Mar. 5, 1990).

Training and

Employment Services

JOBS and JTPA: Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program Performance

(GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994).

Job Training Partnership Act: Labor Title IV Initiatives Could Improve

Relations With Native Americans (GAO/HEHS-94-67, Mar. 4, 1994).

Job Corps Costs and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-93-16R, Feb. 19, 1993).

Job Training Partnership Act: Actions Needed to Improve Participant

Support Services (GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992).

Comments on JTPA Bills (GAO/HRD-92-35R, May 20, 1992).

Job Training Partnership Act: Racial and Gender Disparities in Services

(GAO/HRD-91-148, Sept. 20, 1991).

Page 129 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Job Training Partnership Act: Inadequate Oversight Leaves Program

Vulnerable to Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement (GAO/HRD-91-97, July 30,

1991).

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit: Employer Actions to Recruit, Hire, and Retain

Eligible Workers Vary (GAO/HRD-91-33, Feb. 20, 1991).

Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteristics, Services,

and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan. 24, 1990).

Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants With

Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989)

Unemployment

Insurance

Unemployment Insurance: Program’s Ability to Meet Objectives

Jeopardized (GAO/HRD-93-107, Sept. 28, 1993).

Unemployment Insurance: Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate to Meet

Recession Needs (GAO/HRD-90-124, May 31, 1990).

Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate (GAO/HRD-88-5,

Sept. 26, 1988).

Veterans Employment

and Training

Federal Contractor Hiring: Effect of Veteran Hiring Legislation Is

Unknown (GAO/GGD-94-6, Oct. 18, 1993).

Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Needs to Emphasize Serving Veterans

(GAO/HRD-92-133, Sept. 28, 1992).

Vocational Rehabilitation: Better VA Management Needed to Help Disabled

Veterans Find Jobs (GAO/HRD-92-100, Sept. 4, 1992).

Vocational and Adult

Education

Vocational Education: Status in 2-Year Colleges in 1990-91 and Early Signs

of Change (GAO/HRD-93-89, Aug. 16, 1993).

Vocational Education: Status in School Year 1990-91 and Early Signs of

Change at Secondary Level (GAO/HRD-93-71, July 13, 1993).

Transition From School to Work: Linking Education and Worksite Training

(GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug. 2, 1991).

Page 130 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VII 

Selected GAO Products on Education,

Labor, and EEOC-Related Issues

Other Labor’s Regional Structure and Trust Funds (GAO/HEHS-95-82R, Feb. 10,

1995).

Block Grants: Characteristics, Experiences, and Lessons Learned

(GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb. 9, 1995).

Implementation: The Missing Link in Planning Reorganizations

(GAO/GGD-81-57, Mar. 20, 1981).

Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected

Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54, Mar. 13, 1995).

Page 131 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Appendix VIII 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Fred E. Yohey, Jr., Assistant Director, (202) 512-7218

Karen A. Whiten, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7291

Lori Rectanus, Senior Evaluator, (202) 512-9847

Staff

Acknowledgments

Lawrence J. Horinko, Assistant Director

Nancy K. Kawahara, Senior Evaluator

Tamara A. Lumpkin, Senior Evaluator

Ann P. McDermott, Graphics Advisor

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director

(104816) Page 132 GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/HEHS-95-140 Proposed Federal Reorganization