United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1995 ADULT EDUCATION

Measuring Program

Results Has Been

Challenging

GAO/HEHS-95-153

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-259608 

September 8, 1995

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman

The Honorable William L. Clay

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Economic and

 Educational Opportunities

House of Representatives

The Honorable Randy (Duke) Cunningham

Chairman

The Honorable Dale E. Kildee

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Early Childhood,

 Youth and Families

Committee on Economic and

 Educational Opportunities

House of Representatives

The Adult Education Act (AEA) represents the primary federal effort to improve the literacy

skills of educationally disadvantaged adults. Programs funded under the AEA are also important

in providing the basic skills needed by many clients of federal employment training programs.

This report responds to a request from the former House Committee on Education and Labor

and its Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education that we review

several issues in anticipation of the AEA’s reauthorization. In subsequent discussions with your

staff, we agreed to provide information on the AEA’s largest program (the State Grant Program),

its coordination with federal employment training programs, and the extent to which it ensures

accountability for results.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human

Services, and Labor, as well as interested congressional committees. Copies will be made

available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. If

you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-7014.

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose Nearly 90 million adults in the United States have deficient literacy skills,

according to a recent national survey. These adults may not be able to

write a letter explaining an error on a credit card bill, use a bus schedule

to determine which bus to take, or calculate the difference between the

regular and sale price of an item. Deficient literacy skills, however, are not

just an individual concern. Adult literacy problems also threaten the

nation’s economy, which depends on increasingly high levels of workplace

skills to remain competitive in a global market.

The Congress passed the Adult Education Act (AEA) to, among other

things, help states fund programs for adults to acquire the basic skills

needed for literate functioning, benefit from job training, and continue

their education through at least high school. The AEA was last reauthorized

in 1991. In anticipation of its next reauthorization, the former House

Committee on Education and Labor and its Subcommittee on Elementary,

Secondary, and Vocational Education requested that GAO provide

information on (1) the AEA’s largest program—the State Grant

Program—and its coordination with federal employment training

programs and (2) the extent to which the program ensures accountability

for program quality and results. GAO relied on national data in conducting

its review and performed more detailed work in three states—California,

Connecticut, and Iowa.

Background Programs funded under the AEA are administered by the Department of

Education. For the State Grant Program, the Department makes grants to

states on the basis of the number of people in each state who are at least

16 years old, not required to be in school, and lack a high school degree.

Local adult education providers apply to the states for funds. The

Department of Education reported that, in fiscal year 1995, about 4 million

adults were enrolled in classes funded by the State Grant Program; federal

funding was $252 million, and state and local sources provided an

additional $890 million. Although total current state and local

contributions far exceed federal expenditures, federal dollars still total

more than half the adult education funds in almost half of the states.

Programs funded under the AEA are important in providing the basic

literacy skills needed by clients of federal employment training programs

administered by the Departments of Education, Health and Human

Services, and Labor. Thus, the AEA and employment training legislation

require coordination among these programs to avoid duplication and

enhance service delivery.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Executive Summary

The federal role in administering programs funded under the AEA may soon

change. The 104th Congress is considering legislation that would

consolidate adult education and other programs and provide one or more

block grants to states. The Senate bill would repeal most existing federal

employment training programs, as well as the State Grant Program, and

replace them with a single block grant. The House bill would also repeal

most employment training programs but would replace them with four

block grants, including a separate grant for adult education and literacy

programs.

Results in Brief The goals of the AEA, which encompasses the State Grant Program, are

broad to enable people with diverse needs to receive varying types of

instruction. The most common types of instruction funded under the State

Grant Program are basic education (for adults functioning below the

eighth grade level), secondary education, and English as a Second

Language. Because many clients of federal employment training programs

need instruction provided by the State Grant Program, coordination

among these programs is essential.

Although the State Grant Program funds programs that address the

educational needs of millions of adults, it has had difficulty ensuring

accountability for results because of a lack of clearly defined program

objectives, questionable validity of adult student assessments, and poor

student data. Amendments to the AEA required the Department of

Education to improve accountability by developing model indicators of

program quality that states could adopt and use to evaluate local

programs. However, experts disagree about whether developing indicators

would help states to define measurable program objectives or evaluate

local programs and collect more accurate data. Other federal efforts may

help states achieve better accountability systems, but it is too soon to

evaluate their effectiveness.

Principal Findings

Largest Program Strives to

Meet Many Goals and

Needs

The AEA’s and the State Grant Program’s goals include assisting adults who

lack the basic literacy skills needed for effective citizenship, productive

employment, and high school completion. Many clients of federal

employment training programs need the basic skills taught in adult

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Executive Summary

education classes. For example, almost 30 percent of the participants in

the Department of Labor’s Job Training Partnership Act Program are

school dropouts; as many as 50 percent may lack basic skills.

In accordance with their federally approved plans, states fund local

organizations to provide varying services to a wide range of adults. For

example, in one community we visited, a 19-year-old mother with a tenth

grade education was taking basic skills classes so that she could complete

high school and become a cosmetologist, a 28-year-old stock clerk was

taking high school equivalency classes with the hope of going to college

and becoming a police officer, and a 62-year-old immigrant who had been

an accountant in Russia was enrolled in English classes so that she could

become a U.S. citizen.

In further keeping with state plans, which call for coordinating adult

education with employment training programs, a variety of coordination

activities were taking place in the states and communities we visited.

These activities included pooling funds, establishing one-stop centers, and

developing uniform assessment systems. For example, one state pooled

funds from many sources for coordinated grants that, among having other

advantages, enabled service providers to respond to a single request for

proposal.

Ensuring Program

Accountability Has Proven

Difficult

Evaluating program results depends on having clearly defined objectives,

valid assessment instruments, and accurate program data. Some program

officials and experts have raised concerns that, because the State Grant

Program lacks clearly defined objectives, the types of skills and

knowledge adults need to be considered literate are not clear and, thus,

states do not have sufficient direction for measuring results. In addition,

some research has questioned the validity and appropriateness of the

student assessments used in adult education programs and, therefore, the

usefulness of the data generated from these assessments. In the states we

visited, local program officials had mixed views of the assessment

instruments the states required them to use. Finally, missing and

inaccurate data may compromise any attempt to improve program

accountability. Federal and state officials acknowledged serious problems

with the data that states report to the Department of Education. Recent

studies have attributed difficulties in obtaining accurate data to the

sporadic attendance patterns of adult students and the limited time and

expertise of local adult education program staff.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Executive Summary

Federal efforts to improve accountability have focused on developing

indicators of program quality, providing technical assistance to states, and

requiring states to set aside funds for demonstration projects and training.

The Department of Education has developed model indicators in eight

areas, including student outcomes, and provided examples of measures

that could be used to quantify performance in these areas. And, as

required, states have adopted the indicators or developed their own to use

to evaluate local programs. Experts and some program officials, however,

have had mixed views about whether the indicators would help states

evaluate local programs or collect better quality data. Because the 1993-94

program year was the first year the indicators were required to be used for

evaluation, it is too soon to tell whether the indicators will lead to

improvements. It is also too early to assess whether the Department’s

technical assistance efforts or the state set-asides for demonstration

projects and training will help states develop better accountability

systems.

Recommendations GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of

this report. The Department recognized that GAO identified the three areas

that are critically important to improving accountability in adult

education: clear purpose and expectations, good assessment instruments,

and high-quality data. The Department also stated its commitment to

improving program accountability through several current initiatives, such

as developing an individualized student record keeping system and

training programs for adult education staff in collecting, analyzing, and

reporting student program data. (See app. II for the Department’s letter.)

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

8

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 11

Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program

Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

14

Goals Are Broad 14

Adult Education Students Are Diverse 14

Many Employment Training Clients Need Adult Education

Services

16

Wide Range of Adult Education Providers Use a Variety of

Approaches

17

Within Confines of AEA, States Have Flexibility in Funding

Instruction

18

States and Communities Coordinate With Employment Training

Programs in a Variety of Ways

19

Chapter 3 

Measuring Program

Results Has Proven

Difficult

23

Difficulties in Establishing Program Objectives 23

Concerns Raised About Adult Student Assessments 24

Adult Student Data Missing or Inaccurate 26

Efforts to Improve Program Quality and Accountability 27

Chapter 4 

Conclusions and

Agency Comments

33

Conclusions 33

Agency Comments 33

Appendixes Appendix I: State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment Data 34

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Education 41

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables Table 2.1: State Grant Program Enrollment, July 1, 1992, to

June 30, 1993

19

Table 3.1: Model Indicators of Program Quality for Adult

Education Programs

29

Table I.1: AEA Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1995 34

Table I.2: State Grant Program Enrollment and Funding History,

Fiscal Years 1966-1995

34

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Contents

Table I.3: State Grant Program Enrollment by Instructional Area,

Fiscal Years 1970-1995

36

Table I.4: State Grant Program, State Expenditure and

Enrollment Data, Fiscal Year 1991

37

Table I.5: State Grant Program Enrollment by Instructional Area,

Fiscal Year 1993

39

Figures Figure 1.1: Comparison of Federal Expenditures With State and

Local Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1966-1995

9

Figure 2.1: Adult Education Providers, Fiscal Year 1992 17

Abbreviations

ABE Adult Basic Education

AEA Adult Education Act

ASE Adult Secondary Education

CASAS Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System

ESL English as a Second Language

GED General Educational Development

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

VOC ED Perkins Vocational Education

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The National Adult Literacy Survey1 estimated that approximately

90 million American adults have deficient literacy skills. Of those, between

40 and 44 million adults—about 22 percent of the country’s adult

population—have severe problems with literacy, defined as the ability to

read, write, and speak English and compute and solve problems

proficiently. An additional 50 million adults are likely to encounter some

problems functioning in society and need improved literacy skills.

The Adult Education Act2

 (AEA) is administered by the Department of

Education. The act represents the primary federal effort to alleviate

problems in adult literacy and provides the basic legislative authority and

largest source of federal funds for programs that benefit educationally

disadvantaged adults.3

 The act’s largest program is the Adult Education

State-Administered Basic Grant Program (State Grant Program). In fiscal

year 1995, federal funding for this program was $252 million, while state

and local sources provided $890 million, or 78 percent of the program’s

total budget. For the first 15 years of the State Grant Program (1966 to

1980), federal expenditures exceeded total state and local contributions;

however, total state and local contributions have since surpassed federal

expenditures. (See table I.2 in app. I for total annual expenditures.) Figure

1.1 compares federal expenditures with state and local expenditures since

the AEA’s passage in 1966.

1

This 1992 survey profiled the literacy of U.S. adults on the basis of their performance in a wide array

of tasks that reflect the types of materials and demands they encounter in their daily lives. The

Department of Education contracted with the Educational Testing Service to conduct this survey.

2

The AEA was originally passed as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of

1966 (P.L. 89-750) and was rewritten as part of the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary

and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297).

3

These are adults who demonstrate basic skills equivalent to or below that of students at the fifth

grade level.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Comparison of Federal Expenditures With State and Local Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1966-1995

66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Fiscal Year

Dollars (in millions)

Federal Appropriations

State/Local Expenditures

Note: This figure reflects federal appropriations data because federal expenditure data were not

readily available. According to Department of Education officials, appropriations and expenditure

data for the program tend to be virtually the same. For fiscal years 1992 to 1995, state and local

expenditures were estimated.

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Although total state and local contributions currently far exceed federal

expenditures, federal dollars still total more than half the funds for adult

education in almost half of the states. The contribution of each state

relative to the federal contribution varies widely, depending on each

state’s commitment to providing adult education services. For example, in

fiscal year 1991,4

 state and local contributions ranged from a low of

4

According to the Department of Education, this is the most recent year for which expenditure data

are available (obligation authority was from July 1, 1991, to June/Sept. 30, 1993).

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

21 percent to a high of 96 percent; conversely, federal expenditures ranged

from 4 to 79 percent. Since 1992, the AEA has restricted the federal share of

each state’s expenditure to no more than 75 percent. (See table I.4 in app. I

for further information on expenditures by state.)

The AEA makes grants to states and requires that they be used in

accordance with federally approved state plans. In developing their plans,

states must assess the needs of adults, including educationally

disadvantaged adults, and the capability of programs and institutions to

meet those needs. The Department of Education annually makes its grants

to states5

 on the basis of the number of individuals in each state who are at

least 16 years old, not enrolled in school, and lack a high school degree or

General Educational Development (GED) credential.6

 Local adult education

providers then apply to the states for funds.

Following are the three most common types of instruction offered under

the State Grant Program:

• Adult Basic Education (ABE), which is instruction designed for adults

functioning below the eighth grade level;

• Adult Secondary Education (ASE), which is instruction designed for adults

functioning at the secondary level that may culminate in a high school

diploma or may serve as preparation for the GED7

 examination; and

• English as a Second Language (ESL), which is instruction designed to teach

English to non-English speakers.

(See table I.3 in app. I for further information on enrollment by

instructional area.)

Programs funded under the AEA are important in providing basic literacy

skills needed by clients of federal employment training programs such as

Perkins Vocational Education (VOC ED), administered by the Department of

Education; Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS), administered by the

Department of Health and Human Services; and the Job Training

Partnership Act (JTPA), administered by the Department of Labor.

Consequently, the AEA and employment training legislation require

5

Each state receives $250,000 before the formula is applied.

6

More than 44 million people were in this category, according to the 1990 Census.

7

The GED is equivalent to a high school diploma and is awarded upon successful completion of a

battery of nationally normed and scored tests.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

coordination among these programs to avoid duplication and enhance

service delivery.

The National Literacy Act of 19918

 amended the AEA and authorized several

new programs. Major provisions included the creation of the National

Institute for Literacy, the establishment of state and regional literacy

resource centers, and a requirement for the Department of Education to

develop model indicators of program quality to guide states in developing

their own indicators for improved program evaluation.

The 104th Congress is considering legislation that would consolidate adult

education and other programs and provide one or more block grants to

states. The Senate bill9

 would repeal most existing federal employment

training programs, including the State Grant Program, and replace them

with a single block grant. The House bill10 would also repeal most

employment training programs but replace them with four block grants,

including a separate grant for adult education and literacy programs.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the

former House Committee on Education and Labor and the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member of the former Subcommittee on Elementary,

Secondary, and Vocational Education, we reviewed several issues related

to the AEA. Specifically, we examined

• the goals of the AEA and its largest program (the State Grant Program), the

population served by the program, program services, and its coordination

with federal employment training programs and

• the extent to which the State Grant Program ensures accountability for

program quality and results, including how states have implemented

quality indicators.

We focused our review primarily on the State Grant Program because it is

the largest of the AEA’s funded programs. In fiscal year 1995, 83 percent of

AEA funds were allocated to this program.

8

Public Law 102-73.

9

The Job Training Consolidation Act of 1995 (S. 143, 104th Cong.) was introduced on January 4, 1995.

10The Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act or

CAREERS Act (H.R. 1617, 104th Cong.) was introduced on May 11, 1995.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

To obtain nationwide information on the State Grant Program, we

interviewed federal officials from the Department of Education. We also

reviewed Department of Education data and recent national studies,

including the National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs and the

National Adult Literacy Survey.

We selected three states for closer review: California, Connecticut, and

Iowa. We selected these states because they provided some geographic

dispersion and represented a range of (1) state and local financial

commitments (as demonstrated by the percentage of matching funds each

state contributes), (2) program size (as demonstrated by dollars and

enrollment), and (3) ESL enrollment levels. Within each state, we visited at

least two communities that we selected with the help of state adult

education officials. We selected communities that represented different

types of locales (urban, suburban, rural) and were involved in a variety of

local coordination activities.

To identify the goals of the AEA, including the State Grant Program, we

reviewed federal legislation. To determine the populations served and

services provided by the program, we reviewed Department of Education

data and national studies. We also interviewed local adult education

providers.

To provide information on the coordination of AEA programs with

employment training programs, we interviewed federal officials at the

Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, and

held discussions with national experts, including representatives of the

National Institute for Literacy. We also reviewed studies on coordination.

In the states we visited, we met with state officials from adult education

and JOBS, JTPA, and VOC ED programs. In Iowa and parts of California, where

the community college system is the major adult education provider, we

also met with state community college representatives. At local levels in

the three states, we met with adult education providers as well as

representatives of local employment training programs.

To provide information on program accountability and quality, we

interviewed Department of Education officials and held discussions with

national adult education experts. We also reviewed the Department’s

model indicators of program quality and studies on program accountability

and quality issues. In addition, we interviewed state and local officials in

California, Connecticut, and Iowa and reviewed program documents,

including the quality indicators developed by these states.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 1 

Introduction

We conducted our work between November 1994 and August 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

The AEA is a broad and flexible act and its largest program, the State Grant

Program, reflects this. The State Grant Program, the federal government’s

primary adult education program, has many goals and enables people with

a wide range of needs to receive instruction from a variety of service

providers. Many clients of employment training programs are among those

needing the basic skills taught by adult education. Although the program

has some restrictions, it allows states considerable flexibility in the types

of instruction they fund with their federal grants as long as they fund

programs in accordance with federally approved state plans. In keeping

with their state plans, which call for coordinating adult education with

employment training programs, a variety of coordination activities were

taking place in the states and communities we visited.

Goals Are Broad Recognizing the wide range of adult literacy needs in this country, the

Congress passed the AEA with broadly stated goals. Although adult

education programs are commonly viewed as the means to obtain a high

school diploma or its equivalent, the AEA established goals that are far

broader and include citizenship and employment as well as the overall

improvement of the adult education system. Specifically, the purpose of

the AEA is to

• improve educational opportunities for adults who lack literacy skills

necessary for effective citizenship and productive employment;

• expand and improve the current adult education delivery system; and

• encourage the establishment of adult education programs for adults to

(1) acquire basic skills needed for literate functioning, (2) acquire basic

education needed to benefit from job training and obtain and keep

productive employment, and (3) continue their education to at least the

secondary school level.

Adult Education

Students Are Diverse

Adult education students have diverse needs, circumstances, and personal

characteristics. A student might be a high school dropout, a client in a job

training program, an immigrant or refugee, a displaced worker or

homemaker, an adult in the workplace, a welfare recipient, or a retiree.

Students who enroll in adult education classes vary in age, race and

ethnicity, and employment status.

In one program we visited in a rural California town, a 23-year-old refugee

was enrolled in an Adult Secondary Education (ASE) class. He was a

machine operator with an eleventh grade education who planned to earn

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

his GED and become a bilingual teacher. A 45-year-old unemployed mother

of four with a third grade education was enrolled in an English as a

Second Language (ESL) class. Having done seasonal work in the past, her

goal was to obtain a GED and find work in the nursing field.

In an urban Connecticut program, a 19-year-old mother on welfare wanted

to complete high school and become a cosmetologist. Although she had a

tenth grade education, she needed the basic skills taught in an Adult Basic

Education (ABE) class. In the same program, a 62-year-old immigrant who

had been an accountant in Russia was attending ESL classes. Her goal was

to become a U.S. citizen. In a suburban program in Connecticut, a

28-year-old part-time stock clerk was enrolled in an ASE class. He had a

ninth grade education and lived with his parents. He hoped to earn his GED,

attend college, and become a police officer.

In a rural town in Iowa, a 48-year-old father of four from Laos spoke no

English and was enrolled in a beginning ESL class. He worked part-time as

an upholstery worker but hoped to learn English well enough to get a

full-time job. In a city in Iowa, a married, 35-year-old mother of three was

enrolled in an ABE class. A former welfare recipient, she had a job as a

child care aide that was contingent upon her earning a GED. Her goal was

to earn the GED and keep her job.

National statistics also suggest that adult education students are fairly

diverse. Nationwide, 38 percent of students enrolled in adult education

classes in 1993 were between the ages of 16 and 24, 46 percent were

between the ages of 25 and 44, and the remaining students were 45 years

old or older, according to the Department of Education. Also, 36 percent

of the students were white, 31 percent Hispanic, 18 percent black,

14 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1 percent American Indian or

Alaskan Native.

The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs11 conducted a

survey of students who entered the adult education system between

April 1991 and April 1992. It found that 42 percent of these students were

employed, and 58 percent were either unemployed or not in the workforce

when they enrolled. During the year before enrollment, 43 percent of ABE

students, 31 percent of ASE students, and 14 percent of ESL students

received public assistance or welfare payments.

11National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs, Second Interim Report: Profiles of Client

Characteristics, Development Associates, Inc. (Arlington, Va.: 1993).

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

Many Employment

Training Clients Need

Adult Education

Services

Many clients of federal employment training programs rely on the State

Grant Program for the basic skills they lack. According to the Department

of Labor, unless an attempt is made to upgrade the literacy skills of clients

in federal employment training programs, clients’ success may be limited

and access to the job market may be denied. Nationwide, almost

30 percent of JTPA clients are school dropouts,12 and as many as half may

lack basic skills.13 One-fourth of JOBS clients in fiscal year 1992 were

enrolled in a high school completion program.14

Adult education enrollment has risen almost every year since 1966, and the

Congress is considering welfare reform proposals that may place even

greater demands on adult education providers. These proposals may also

make the coordination among adult education, welfare, and employment

training programs even more critical. Some states are already

implementing their own welfare reform efforts that require certain welfare

clients to obtain adult education or employment training services to

receive assistance. For example, California’s JOBS program requires that

welfare recipients have opportunities to remedy basic skill deficiencies

and earn a high school diploma or GED credential. The state is currently

required to provide adult education to its JOBS clients with low assessment

scores and to continue to provide education until clients attain a specified

level of proficiency.

Connecticut has piloted a welfare reform program that targets certain

welfare recipients. Individuals in the pilot can receive needed remedial

services, such as adult education or vocational training, for 2 years before

being required to find jobs. According to a state official, the pilot was

limited to two communities because of concerns about the state’s ability

to provide remedial services to all needy individuals, particularly adult

education services. If a client has only 2 years to seek remedial services

and faces a waiting list for adult education services, both the client and the

entire program are at risk, explained the official.

Similarly, Iowa’s JOBS program has a goal of moving people off welfare

within 2 years by providing remedial education and employment training.

This welfare reform effort has increased the percentage of welfare

12Workplace Literacy and the Nation’s Unemployed Workers, U.S. Department of Labor (Washington,

D.C.: 1993).

13I. Kirch, A. Jungeblut, and A. Campbell, Beyond the School Doors: The Literacy Needs of Job Seekers

Served by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor (Washington, D.C.: 1992).

14Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1994 Green Book, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives (Washington, D.C.: 1994).

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

recipients required to participate in the JOBS program from 24 to

88 percent. This increase is achieved, in part, by exempting fewer welfare

recipients from participating in the JOBS program. For example, only

parents with children under 6 months of age are exempt; previously,

parents with children under the age of 3 were exempt.

Wide Range of Adult

Education Providers

Use a Variety of

Approaches

Under the State Grant Program, states may fund local educational

agencies15 and a variety of public or private nonprofit agencies,16

organizations, and institutions to provide adult education classes. Most

programs are administered by local educational agencies. Figure 2.1 shows

the extent to which different organizations provide adult education.

Figure 2.1: Adult Education Providers,

Fiscal Year 1992

59% • Local Educational Agencies

15%•

Community Colleges

•14%

Community-Based Organizations

•12%

Other Entities

Note: Other entities include public/private nonprofit organizations and correctional institutions.

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

15In most cases, the local education agency is a school district.

16For-profit agencies may be included under certain circumstances.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

Many adult education providers use flexible and, in some cases, less

traditional approaches to education that may better suit the

responsibilities and needs of adult students. For example, to make classes

more accessible to adults, providers may offer both day and night classes.

Unemployed adults may prefer daytime classes; adults who work or have

child care responsibilities may only be able to attend night classes. We

also found that some programs offer on-site child care, which can make it

easier for parents to attend adult education classes.

The flexible “open-entry/open-exit” feature of most adult education

providers may also better suit their students’ lives than the traditional

September-to-June school year. The National Evaluation of Adult

Education Programs found that 66 percent of adult education programs

allowed students to enroll and begin instruction at any time.17

Service providers use a variety of instructional methods to meet students’

needs. For example, the principal of an adult school in a rural California

town explained that her program provides “individualized instruction,”

which means that teachers assess the individual goals and abilities of the

students and take these into consideration in planning classroom

instruction. Several methods or a combination of methods may then be

employed: large group lectures or presentations; small-group instruction,

including role play or practice in conversation or writing skills; or

one-on-one tutoring if the ratio of aides to students permits it.

Some programs encourage adults who need both basic skills and

employment training to enroll in both concurrently; others recommend

basic skills training first so that students have the necessary foundation

for employment training. Concurrent enrollment, some state and local

officials argue, may enhance learning and move adults into the workforce

faster.

Within Confines of

AEA, States Have

Flexibility in Funding

Instruction

The AEA limits states’ flexibility in determining how to spend their State

Grant Program funds by specifying how a significant portion of the funds

are to be spent. However, with the remaining unrestricted funds, the

combinations and types of instruction states fund vary greatly.

The AEA specifies that states must spend at least 15 percent of their grants

on teacher training and program innovation and at least 10 percent on

17M.B. Young, M. Morgan, N. Fitzgerald, and H. Fleischman, National Evaluation of Adult Education

Programs: Draft Final Report, Development Associates, Inc. (Arlington, Va.: 1994).

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

programs serving incarcerated or institutionalized adults. No more than

20 percent can be spent on programs for certificates of high school

equivalency, and no more than 5 percent can be spent on state

administration.

States can decide on the types and combinations of instruction they wish

to fund as long as they meet the AEA’s set-asides and fund programs in

accordance with their state plans. Most providers offer the three most

common types of instruction—ABE, ASE, and ESL. Enrollment in each varies

greatly by state and community. Table 2.1 shows how enrollment levels

vary by instructional area nationally as well as in the three states we

visited.

Table 2.1: State Grant Program

Enrollment, July 1, 1992, to June 30,

1993 State

ABE

(percent)

ASE

(percent)

ESL

(percent)

U.S. (all states) 34 26 40

California 10 6 84

Connecticut 21 42 37

Iowa 62 27 11

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

States and

Communities

Coordinate With

Employment Training

Programs in a Variety

of Ways

In keeping with state plans, which call for coordinating adult education

with employment training programs, a variety of coordination activities

were taking place in the states and communities we visited. These

activities, however, were not easy to establish. They took time to develop

and often depended on the perseverance of agency staff and local service

providers. State and local coordination efforts included pooling funds,

establishing one-stop centers, and developing uniform assessment

systems.

Pooling Funds Connecticut has pooled funds from many19 sources for Coordinated

Education and Training Opportunities grants. When a service provider

receives a grant, it may contain funds from one or more funding sources.

These coordinated grants are implemented through regional workforce

development boards responsible for a range of tasks, including identifying

local needs, evaluating grant proposals, and overseeing operations. These

19These sources are the State Grant Program; JTPA’s title IIA and IIC State Education programs;

Perkins Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers, and Single Pregnant Women programs; and a state

match of federal JOBS funds.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

grants have the advantage of allowing service providers to deal with a

single planning process and a single request for proposal. However,

according to officials of one regional workforce development board,

although these grants may make things “seamless” for the client, the

service provider still must meet all the federal reporting requirements of

their many funding sources.

In Iowa, the community colleges coordinate funds from the State Grant,

JTPA, and VOC ED programs. Each of the state’s 15 community colleges

administers the State Grant Program and offers adult education classes. In

addition, half of the colleges administer JTPA programs. Services from

these many programs are often administered by staff who are both located

at the college and operate within the same department. This arrangement

facilitates coordinated program planning, service delivery, and referral of

clients to multiple programs. At one college, administrators from the adult

education, JTPA, and VOC ED programs told us that their close proximity

enabled them to review a client’s total needs and provide the maximum

allowable services. For example, a welfare recipient might receive adult

education instruction from the State Grant Program, a clothing allowance

from the JTPA program, and a transportation subsidy from the JOBS

program.

Some of the coordination between California’s JOBS program and State

Grant Program takes the form of financial support from many agencies.

Adult education programs that serve the state’s JOBS clients receive adult

education and JOBS funds and may also draw funds from an 8-percent

set-aside of JTPA funds for education programs that are matched by the

state. In some counties, the state’s JOBS program pays for adult education

programs to meet JOBS’ data collection and reporting requirements, which

include administering the same competency-based assessment to all state

JOBS clients. Adult education does not cover these costs. One adult

education principal told us that, if not for the JOBS program’s covering

these costs, program staff would not be able to do as much record keeping

or assessment as they do.

Establishing One-Stop

Centers

All three states we visited had begun efforts to establish one-stop centers.

These centers are intended to help clients who need services from many

programs find all of the services they need in one location or go to a single

location to access information about the services they need. Officials in

one community spoke of the administrative burden imposed by the

multiple federal program requirements of establishing a one-stop center.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

All three states recently received grants from the Department of Labor to

pilot one-stop centers, which are being established around the country

even in places that have not received Department of Labor grants. The

one-stop center we visited in California was established without a grant

from Labor. The Department of Labor’s one-stop grants support voluntary

state coordination. All three states considered adult education important

and, thus, included adult education officials in planning their efforts.

With the help of the Department of Labor’s one-stop grant, Iowa recently

opened its first one-stop center to provide services to clients of

employment training programs. Adult education staff were on site to

perform client intake and assessment. Adult education instruction has

been offered on site since February 1995.

Connecticut was using its Department of Labor grant to develop one-stop

centers, where client intake and evaluation would take place and where

clients could be referred to multiple agencies for services they need. Local

officials in one community said their goal was to develop three centers

and install computers in libraries, bus terminals, and shopping malls so the

public could access information on local services, such as adult education

classes.

One community we visited in California set up a one-stop center without a

Department of Labor grant. To prevent unnecessary duplication of

services and facilitate successful completion of training and the transition

to employment, this center established linkages to more than 100 agencies

and businesses. Features of the center included a central information line,

career library, computerized career assessment, and on-site employment

interviews.

Developing Uniform

Assessment Systems

A single assessment system used across state agencies can facilitate

coordination and make access to services easier for clients. Using one

system allows clients to move easily among education and training

programs, provides a common assessment vocabulary so that all agencies

can determine initial client proficiency levels as well as ongoing progress,

and minimizes duplicative or unnecessary testing of clients. However, not

all adult education and employment training officials agree that a single

assessment system can appropriately measure adults’ skills.

To varying degrees, Connecticut and California were using common

assessments. Connecticut required that adult education, JTPA, and JOBS

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 2 

Largest AEA Program Strives to Meet Many

Goals and Needs

programs all use the same assessment system. California’s JOBS program

uses the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) for

assessing its clients, but the state’s adult education program uses CASAS

only on a sample of programs. Iowa was piloting CASAS but only for use by

adult education providers.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Measuring results in the State Grant Program has proven difficult because

program objectives have not been clearly defined and questions exist

about the validity and appropriateness of student assessments and the

usefulness of nationally reported data on results. Although the Department

of Education has focused on developing model program indicators that

states could use to evaluate local programs, experts and program officials

disagree about whether the indicators alone will enhance accountability.

Efforts to enhance the evaluation capabilities of state agency staff and

improve data collection continue, but it is too early to assess their impact.

Difficulties in

Establishing Program

Objectives

Evaluating program results depends on clear program objectives as well as

criteria for measuring the achievement of those objectives. The broad

objectives of the State Grant Program give the states the flexibility to set

their own priorities but, some argue, they do not provide states with

sufficient direction for measuring results. Moreover, reaching a consensus

on measurable objectives for adult education is difficult.

Because the State Grant Program’s objectives are so broadly defined, state

officials have developed a variety of views on measuring program results.

For example, some officials told us that they might measure program

success by whether adults gained the skill to read to their children and,

thus, contribute to their children’s literacy. Others might focus on whether

adults can read street signs or the newspaper. And, in one state we visited,

an official contended that completing high school and finding productive

work should be the objectives of the states’ adult education programs

because completing a basic skills program and becoming a citizen are no

longer sufficient to succeed in society.

Several experts and program officials told us that the State Grant Program

lacks a coherent vision of the skills and knowledge adults need to be

considered literate. Similarly, some state officials said that they would like

the federal government to further specify the types of results expected

from state adult education programs.

Reaching consensus on measurable objectives, however, may be difficult

since research findings are often inconclusive about the long-term benefits

to adults of achieving various program results. For example, many adult

education programs focus on preparing adults to take the GED examination

as a means of high school completion. Yet research findings are mixed

about whether GED attainment reflects increased literacy skills and

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

whether GED recipients are economically better off than high school

dropouts.19

Concerns Raised

About Adult Student

Assessments

Ensuring accountability has also been hampered by limitations in the

assessment instruments used to measure student outcomes in adult

education programs. The research literature raises questions about the

validity of standardized tests used to measure adult literacy, and local

program staff have questioned the appropriateness of using these

assessments to measure program results.

The AEA requires states to gather and analyze standardized test data as one

way of evaluating local programs.20 These assessments tend to focus on

either academic skills or functional literacy. Academic tests, such as the

Tests of Adult Basic Education (known as “TABE”), focus on measuring

such basic skills as reading comprehension, vocabulary, language

expression, and mathematical proficiency. Functional literacy or

competency-based tests, such as the Comprehensive Adult Student

Assessment System (CASAS), focus on the ability to perform literacy-related

tasks in situations faced by adults in everyday life at home, at work, or in

the community.

Experts have questioned the validity of both the academic and functional

literacy tests used in adult education programs. For example, two recent

reviews point to a lack of normative data for the age ranges of participants

in most adult education programs.21 Functional literacy tests may lack

validity because they are not derived from theoretical models of ability but

from everyday literacy tasks. According to a recent review, without further

analyses, the instructional implications of test performance are unclear.22

19See, for example, J. Baldwin, NALS, SALS, and GED: Related Studies and Their Implications,

presentation at the Annual Conference, State Directors of Adult Education (Louisville, Ky.: July 1994);

H. Beder, What Has Happened to Iowa’s GED Graduates? Iowa State Department of Education (Des

Moines, Ia.: 1992); S. Cameron and J. Heckman, The Nonequivalence of High School Equivalents,

National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, Mass.: 1991); D. Kaplan and R. Venezky, What

Can Employers Assume About the Literacy Skills of GED Graduates? National Center on Adult

Literacy (Philadelphia: 1993).

20The act does not specify which tests must be used or how states must gather test data from local

programs.

21D. Wagner and R. Venezky, “Adult Literacy: The Next Generation,” NCAL Connections, National

Center on Adult Literacy (Philadelphia: 1995); W. Merz and J. Kruckenberg, Quality Standards and

Performance Measures: Preliminary Feasibility Study on the Uses of Basic Skills Assessment Tests,

Adult Education Institute for Research and Planning (Sacramento, Cal.: Dec. 1991).

22R. Venezky, Matching Literacy Testing With Social Policy: What Are the Alternatives? National Center

on Adult Literacy (Philadelphia: 1992).

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Thus, these assessments may not provide useful information about the

skills and needs of adult students.

A more serious problem affecting the validity of assessments is the lack of

research examining the long-term retention of learning gains in adult

education programs. According to one researcher, a comprehensive

search did not uncover a single published study on the effectiveness of

adult education programs in helping adults retain the skills they may have

acquired during instruction.23 This being the case, improved test scores

may not necessarily mean that adults will be better equipped for highskilled jobs, function better as parents, or participate more fully as

citizens.

However, officials in the three states we visited felt that

competency-based assessment systems could be useful in measuring

progress in local adult education programs and, thus, strongly advocated

these systems. California had developed CASAS and required its use in a

sample of one-third of its adult education programs. Connecticut had

designed its own competency-based testing system (adapted from CASAS)

and required its use in all adult education programs. Iowa had recently

decided to move toward a competency-based system and was piloting

CASAS in 9 of its 15 community college districts.

Local adult education and employment training staff had mixed views

about their states’ competency-based assessments. Some local program

staff saw the CASAS assessment system as a valuable and flexible tool.

However, some English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers were

dissatisfied with the CASAS test as a measure of how well adult education

students learned to communicate in English. And some employment

training staff said that the CASAS test did not give them sufficiently specific

information about their clients or focused too much on life skills.

Finally, several local staff questioned the appropriateness of CASAS as the

sole assessment tool and, therefore, used CASAS in conjunction with other

tests. Administrators and experts also told us that they thought no single

test could measure all relevant aspects of student performance.

23D. Wagner, Use It or Lose It? The Problem of Adult Literacy Skill Retention, National Center on Adult

Literacy (Philadelphia: 1994).

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Adult Student Data

Missing or Inaccurate

The poor quality of the data on adult education students collected at state

and local levels also hampers accountability. Federal and state officials as

well as recent studies have cited problems with these data. The studies

have attributed difficulties in obtaining accurate data to the sporadic

attendance patterns of adult students and the limited time and expertise of

local adult education program staff.

State officials are required to submit to the Department of Education

annual statistical performance reports that include information on

students served by local programs. State-submitted reports include (1) the

number of students served and their demographic characteristics, (2) the

skill levels of students when they start adult education programs,

(3) student progress over the program year, (4) eight types of student

achievements,24 and (5) the number of students who do not complete their

objectives and their reasons for separation. The reports also include

information on program staff and the types of instructional settings in

which students are served.

Department of Education officials acknowledged serious problems with

the quality of the statistical reports, some of which are based on double

counting or undercounting of students in adult education programs.

Another Department official charged that many of the data are

questionable and that very few local programs have record systems that

allow them to report the data the Department requires.

Comments of officials in one state confirmed these data problems. They

said that they did not have all the information the Department requires for

their statistical reports because too many resources are required to collect

the data. As a result, they simply do not report some of the data elements

and provide estimates of the other information. They noted that the data

they submit need not be certified and that the Department has never

audited their statistical reports. Furthermore, they asserted that these data

have nothing to do with receiving federal funds. The only thing that really

counts, they said, is the number of adults in the state who do not have

diplomas because that is what drives the funding formula.

Also, some local staff failed to see the utility in collecting the data that

states require for reporting to the federal government. Some said they

24The categories in the federal reporting forms are (1) obtained an adult high school diploma,

(2) passed the GED test, (3) entered other education or training program, (4) received U.S. citizenship,

(5) registered to vote or voted for the first time, (6) gained employment, (7) secured employment

retention or obtained job advancement, and (8) removed from public assistance.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

thought that the information they are required to report does not

accurately reflect the accomplishments of their adult education students.

Difficulties in obtaining accurate data can also be attributed to attendance

patterns of adult students and the limited capacity and expertise of local

program staff. The open-entry/open-exit feature of many programs adds to

the difficulty of tracking adult students. Because students may not stay in

the program long or may attend on a sporadic basis, program staff do not

always have sufficient information to report on student progress or

results. Because local programs have difficulty following up on students,

program officials may rely on information reported by teachers or the

students themselves.

In addition, many local programs lack sufficient staff to handle data

collection and reporting responsibilities, according to a survey of adult

education programs in nine states.25 Programs are typically staffed by

part-time personnel, and these responsibilities become an extra burden.

Also, local program staff may lack expertise in collecting assessment data

that can help track program effectiveness. For example, when the National

Evaluation of Adult Education Programs asked local adult education

program staff to provide certain assessment data, it found that about

one-third of the information was invalid because (1) the wrong test forms

were used, (2) data were inaccurately recorded, or (3) tests were

administered at the wrong times.26 Similarly, as Connecticut began to

implement a new assessment system statewide, administrators discovered

that they needed to clarify program guidance because some local

programs were mistakenly measuring literacy gains using a test designed

solely for student placement.

Efforts to Improve

Program Quality and

Accountability

Federal efforts to improve quality and accountability have focused on

(1) developing model indicators; (2) providing technical assistance to

states and local programs on data collection, assessment, and developing

performance standards and measures; and (3) requiring states to set aside

funds for training and demonstration projects.

25L. Condelli, Implementing the Enhanced Evaluation Model: Lessons Learned from the Field Test,

Pelavin Associates, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: 1994).

26M.B. Young, N. Fitzgerald, and M. Morgan, National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs:

Executive Summary, Development Associates, Inc. (Arlington, Va.: 1994). One component of the

evaluation was a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of local programs that

provided information on the characteristics of a national sample of 22,000 adults who enrolled in local

programs between April 1991 and April 1992.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Federal and State Program

Quality Indicators

Provisions of the National Literacy Act focus on improving quality in adult

education programs by requiring the Secretary of Education to develop

indicators of program quality. The indicators were to be used as models

for judging state and local programs receiving federal funding. States were

also required to develop and implement their own indicators, which might

or might not correspond to the federal model, and use them to evaluate

state and local programs.

The Department of Education developed model indicators by

(1) reviewing adult education indicators already being developed by

various states and indicators used by other federal programs, (2) meeting

with experts and adult educators, (3) commissioning background papers

by experts in the field, and (4) conducting workshops for state directors

who would be responsible for developing and implementing the state

indicators. The resulting eight model indicators of program quality are

listed in table 3.1. The indicators cover student outcomes, that is, learner

progress toward attainment of basic skills and competencies and learner

advancement in the program. They also focus on recruiting and retaining

adult education students and other indicators of program

quality—planning, curriculum and instruction, staff development, and

provision of support services.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Table 3.1: Model Indicators of Program

Quality for Adult Education Programs Topic Indicator

Educational gains 1.Learners demonstrate progress toward

attainment of basic skills and

competencies that support their

educational needs.

2.Learners advance in the instructional

program or complete program

educational requirements that allow them

to continue their education or training.

Program planning 3.Program has a planning process that is

ongoing and participatory, guided by

evaluation, and based on a written plan

that considers community

demographics, needs, resources, and

economic and technological trends, and

is implemented to the fullest extent.

Curriculum and instruction 4.Program has curriculum and

instruction geared to individual student

learning styles and levels of student

needs.

Staff development 5.Program has an ongoing staff

development process that considers the

specific needs of its staff, offers training

in the skills necessary to provide quality

instruction, and includes opportunities

for practice and systematic follow-up.

Support services 6.Program identifies students’ needs for

support services available to students

directly or through referral to other

educational and service agencies with

which the program coordinates.

Recruitment 7.Program successfully recruits the

population in the community identified in

the AEA as needing literacy services.

Retention 8.Students remain in the program long

enough to meet their educational needs.

Source: Model Indicators of Program Quality for Adult Education Programs, Office of Vocational

and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: July 1992).

The Department did not attempt to set performance standards for adult

education programs but limited its work to developing indicators and

providing some sample measures for each indicator. The Department

defined an indicator as a variable that reflects effective and efficient

program performance. It is to be distinguished from a specific measure

used to determine the quantitative level of performance for the indicator.

For example, to measure learner progress, states could use standardized

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

test score gains, teacher reports of gains in communication competencies,

or alternative assessment methods (such as portfolio assessments, student

reports of attainment, or improvements in specific employability or life

skills). An indicator is also to be distinguished from a performance

standard, which defines acceptable performance in terms of a specific

numeric criterion.

The National Literacy Act also required states to adopt indicators by July

1993 and use them to evaluate local programs. States were required to

adopt, at a minimum, indicators for recruitment, retention, and student

learning outcomes. However, decisions about whether to adopt the

Department’s model indicators, what measures to use, and whether to

develop performance standards were left to the states. A review of

amendments to state adult education plans submitted in July 1993 showed

that for the most part states had adopted indicators similar to the

Department’s model, especially in the areas of student outcomes,

recruitment, and retention.27 However, states were less consistent in how

they measured indicators. The review found that states were using

different standardized tests to measure learner progress and had defined

learner advancement in different ways. A 1995 survey of state adult

education directors showed that 16 states had implemented standards and

8 states had developed but not yet implemented standards.28

Each of the three states we visited had developed standards for student

outcomes, but not all of these standards were readily quantifiable.

California had developed standards for seven levels of language

proficiency for ESL students (the majority of adult education students in

the state) but had not yet quantified performance on specific assessment

measures. Standards for other kinds of adult education students in

California had not yet been completed. Connecticut had set standards for

educational gains expected over a specific time period and measured their

achievement using test scores and the number of course credits or

competencies attained. Iowa had set standards for grade level increases on

standardized tests and for the performance of GED graduates on the GED

exam. Since Iowa had not yet determined a specific strategy for

competency-based education, the state had not yet established standards

for competency-based tests.

27B.G. Elliott and B.J. Hayward, Adult Education Performance Data: Improving Federal Management

and Program Performance, Research Triangle Institute (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: 1994).

28Status of Development of Measures and Standards for the Quality Indicators for the Adult Education

Program, U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: May 1995).

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

Experts as well as federal and state officials with whom we spoke

disagreed about whether developing indicators would improve

accountability and program quality. Some were concerned that the

indicators do not move the field forward because they do not specify the

types of results the federal government expects from state and local

programs. One federal official doubted whether the indicators alone would

help state and local programs collect higher quality data. However, other

experts told us that they thought the indicators were a good first step. Still

others said that the federal government should not be setting standards for

states because states’ literacy problems and clientele differ.

Too Soon to Assess Efforts

to Enhance Accountability

and Program Quality

It is too soon to tell whether state-developed indicators, measures, and

performance standards will result in the collection of more useful data or

help states evaluate local programs since the 1993-94 program year was

the first year in which indicators were to be used for evaluation. One state

we visited planned to use information collected during the 1993-94

program year as baseline data and begin to hold local programs

accountable for performance on the state’s indicators in subsequent years.

Other federal efforts have been initiated to help states develop better

accountability systems. Two of these efforts are designed to help build the

capacity and expertise of state adult education staff to evaluate local

programs. In 1993, the Department hired a contractor for a 3-year

technical assistance effort designed to assist state education agencies with

assessment, evaluation, and the development of performance standards

and measures. And, in 1993, the National Institute for Literacy awarded

grants to five states to develop performance measurement systems for

literacy, with a specific focus on integrating systems used by different

agencies that provide literacy services.

Department officials also told us that they were acting to improve the

quality of data collected on adult education programs. In concert with

state adult education directors, the Department has been examining

whether to modify the existing federal reporting requirements. They have

held several meetings but have not yet issued any recommendations. In

addition, the Department has developed and tested an automated

management information system that would allow programs to collect

data on individual students and a computer program that would help

states more easily convert data they collected to the statistical reports

required by the Department. A field test of the management information

system in selected local programs in five states revealed that local staff

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 3 

Measuring Program Results Has Proven

Difficult

appreciated the system’s report-writing capabilities but remained highly

resistant to performing data collection and entry.

In addition to these efforts, the requirement that states set aside a portion

of their federal funds for demonstration projects and training may also

help states move toward better accountability systems.29 Although the

Department has not completed an ongoing national evaluation of the use

of these funds, state officials asserted that the set-aside was critical to

their efforts to improve program quality. All three states had used these

federal funds, in part, to develop competency-based instruction and

assessment systems; they had also used the funds to address state-specific

issues. California had developed a training institute for ESL teachers,

Connecticut had used some of the funds to help implement a new

statewide management information system, and Iowa had held a state

literacy conference to examine how to better measure adult student

progress through qualitative assessments.

29The 1988 AEA amendments required that at least 10 percent of the state grant be used for special

demonstration projects and for training adult education teachers and other staff. The National Literacy

Act raised the requirement to 15 percent and specified that at least two-thirds of this set-aside

(10 percent of the total grant) be used for training.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Chapter 4 

Conclusions and Agency Comments

Conclusions The broad goals and flexibility of the AEA and its State Grant Program have

resulted in a federal program that is serving many different populations,

yet has difficulty determining its target populations, objectives, or a means

to measure program results. Although the broad goals and corresponding

flexibility give state and local officials the latitude to design programs and

quality indicators tailored to their particular needs and priorities, some

state officials and experts have voiced concerns that the federal

government has not provided sufficient vision and guidance. This poses a

challenge for developing accountability measures.

The program has had difficulty ensuring accountability for results—that is,

being able to clearly or accurately say what program funds have

accomplished. Although the Department of Education relies on federal

reporting requirements and program quality indicators to provide this

information, the data the Department receives are of questionable value.

Because state and local client data are missing or inaccurate, attempts to

make the program accountable may be compromised. Until further

guidance is developed on measurable objectives and ensuring the quality

of client data, state-developed indicators and standards are unlikely to

improve accountability.

Agency Comments In its written comments on a draft of the report, the Department of

Education recognized that we identified the three areas that are critically

important to improving accountability in adult education: clear purpose

and expectations, good assessment instruments, and high-quality data.

The Department also stated its commitment to improving program

accountability through several current initiatives. These initiatives include

developing an individualized student record keeping system; moving

toward an outcomes-based national data collection system; conducting

evaluations of delivery systems, effective practice, assessment, and

performance measurement; providing technical assistance in designing

and using performance measures and standards; and developing training

programs for adult education staff in collecting, analyzing, and reporting

student and program data. (The Department’s letter appears in app. II.)

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

Table I.1: AEA Appropriations, Fiscal

Year 1995 Dollars in millions

Programs Appropriations

Funded

State Grant Program $252.3

National Demonstration Workplace Literacy Partnership Program 18.7

Literacy Training for Homeless Adults Program 9.5

State Literacy Resource Centers Program 7.8

Functional Literacy for State and Local Prisoners Program and Life Skills for

State and Local Prisoners Program 5.1

Adult Education, National Programs: Evaluation/Technical Assistance 3.9

Adult Education, National Programs: National Institute for Literacy 4.9

Total $302.2

Unfunded

Adult Literacy Volunteer Training

Adult Migrant Farmworker/Immigrant Education

Education Programs for Commercial Drivers

English Literacy Grants

National Workforce Literacy Strategies Program

State-Administered Workplace Literacy Programs

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Table I.2: State Grant Program

Enrollment and Funding History, Fiscal

Years 1966-1995

Expenditures

Year Enrollmenta Federalb State and local

Federal, state,

and local

1966 377,600 $19,879,912 $9,919,000 $29,798,912

1967 388,900 26,280,000 8,334,000 34,614,000

1968 455,700 30,590,000 9,574,000 40,164,000

1969 484,600 36,000,000 11,686,000 47,686,000

1970 535,600 40,000,000 12,461,000 52,461,000

1971 620,900 44,866,102 15,322,000 60,188,102

1972 820,500 51,134,000 17,371,000 68,505,000

1973 822,500 74,834,000 20,127,000 94,961,000

1974 965,100 53,286,000 27,296,000 80,582,000

1975 1,221,200 67,500,000 43,230,000 110,730,000

1976 1,651,100 67,500,000 41,125,000 108,625,000

1977 1,686,300 71,500,000 41,992,000 113,492,000

1978 1,811,100 80,500,000 51,477,000 131,977,000

1979 1,806,300 90,750,000 63,064,000 153,814,000

(continued)

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

Expenditures

Year Enrollmenta Federalb State and local

Federal, state,

and local

1980 2,058,000 100,000,000 74,288,475 174,288,475

1981 2,261,300 100,000,000 104,212,622 204,212,622

1982 2,176,900 100,000,000 128,654,773 228,654,773

1983 2,576,300 86,400,000 172,691,213 259,091,213

1984 2,596,500 100,000,000 196,691,149 296,691,149

1985 2,879,100 101,963,000 240,410,289 342,373,289

1986 2,797,500 97,579,000 319,942,176 417,521,176

1987 2,945,600 105,981,000 400,383,790 506,364,790

1988 3,039,400 115,367,000 491,329,659 606,696,659

1989 3,257,000 136,344,000 566,656,213 703,000,213

1990 3,567,200 157,811,000 622,069,755 779,880,755

1991 3,722,600 201,032,000 809,540,972 1,010,572,972

1992 3,838,000 235,750,000 832,208,120d 1,067,958,120

1993 3,880,400 254,624,000 855,509,950d 1,110,133,950

1994 3,978,000c 254,624,000 872,620,150d 1,127,244,150

1995 4,078,000c 252,345,000 890,072,550d 1,142,417,550

aEnrollment is the number of participants who complete 12 or more program hours, with each

participant reported only once, regardless of the number of classes or programs attended during

the program year reported.

bThis column reflects federal appropriations data because federal expenditure data were not

readily available. According to Department of Education officials, appropriations and expenditure

data for the program tend to be virtually the same.

cProjected.

dEstimated.

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

Table I.3: State Grant Program

Enrollment by Instructional Area,

Fiscal Years 1970-1995 Enrollmenta

Enrollment in thousands

Fiscal

year

Adult Basic

Education

Adult Secondary

Education

English as a

Second Language Total

1970 536 b b 536

1971 621 b b 621

1972 599 222 c 821

1973 633 189 c 822

1974 772 193 c 965

1975 c c c 1,221

1976 1,073 578 c 1,651

1977 822 658 206d 1,686

1978 831 583 397d 1,811

1979 830 587 389d 1,806

1980 938 543 577d 2,058

1981 1,607 654 c 2,261

1982 1,607 570 c 2,177

1983 1,569 600 407d 2,576

1984 1,939 657 c 2,596

1985 1,295 733 851e 2,879

1986 923 1,009 866 2,798

1987 1,006 1,028 912 2,946

1988 1,066 1,067 906 3,039

1989 1,139 997 1,122 3,258

1990 1,273 1,102 1,193 3,568

1991 1,358 1,182 1,183 3,723

1992 1,410 1,248 1,180 3,838

1993 1,321 1,005 1,554 3,880

1994 c c c 3,978f

1995 c c c 4,078f

(Table notes on next page)

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

aEnrollment is the number of participants who complete 12 or more program hours, with each

participant reported only once, regardless of the number of classes or programs attended during

the program year reported.

bAll enrollments were in the Adult Basic Education category.

cData not available.

dAccording to Department of Education officials, these data are incomplete for fiscal years

1977-1984 and represent only a portion of ESL enrollment. No federal requirement for states to

report enrollment data existed during this time.

eFiscal year 1985 was the first year ESL was reported as a separate instructional category.

f

Projected.

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Table I.4: State Grant Program, State Expenditure and Enrollment Data, Fiscal Year 1991

Expenditures

Dollars in thousands

State Federal State and locala

Federal, state,

and local

State match

(percent)b

Enrollment

(program year

1991/92)

Alabama $4,107 $3,026 $7,133 42 49,510

Alaska 446 1,761 2,207 80 6,046

Arizona 2,138 3,040 5,178 59 33,805

Arkansas 2,589 12,337 14,926 83 38,135

California 16,631 282,767 299,398 95 1,023,899

Colorado 1,919 812 2,731 30 15,890

Connecticut 2,568 16,689 19,257 87 54,588

Delaware 704 239 943 25 3,126

District of Columbia 791 4,221 5,012 84 20,732

Florida 8,463 58,079 66,542 87 436,870

Georgia 5,658 2,601 8,259 31 85,794

Hawaii 854 1,934 2,788 69 56,873

Idaho 858 234 1,092 21 9,611

Illinois 9,470 7,046 16,516 43 88,815

Indiana 4,638 23,726 28,364 84 51,134

Iowa 2,293 3,741 6,034 62 40,371

Kansas 1,836 500 2,336 21 12,936

Kentucky 4,122 2,537 6,659 38 34,255

Louisiana 4,201 6,918 11,119 62 45,857

Maine 1,112 4,999 6,111 82 17,339

Maryland 3,621 3,977 7,598 52 33,829

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

Expenditures

Dollars in thousands

State Federal State and locala

Federal, state,

and local

State match

(percent)b

Enrollment

(program year

1991/92)

Massachusetts 4,260 9,622 13,882 69 21,085

Michigan 7,364 183,605 190,969 96 219,306

Minnesota 2,960 14,694 17,654 83 45,348

Mississippi 2,773 845 3,618 23 21,244

Missouri 4,533 2,535 7,068 36 38,742

Montana 759 616 1,375 45 6,333

Nebraska 1,279 345 1,624 21 7,314

Nevada 772 474 1,246 38 19,230

New Hampshire 886 717 1,603 45 6,949

New Jersey 5,790 20,701 26,491 78 61,364

New Mexico 1,221 1,577 2,798 56 30,514

New York 14,703 31,143 45,846 68 197,865

North Carolina 6,309 21,112 27,421 77 126,698

North Dakota 745 425 1,170 36 3,642

Ohio 8,817 6,987 15,804 44 120,529

Oklahoma 2,595 702 3,297 21 30,501

Oregon 1,935 11,756 13,691 86 38,409

Pennsylvania 9,673 9,283 18,956 49 50,797

Rhode Island 1,122 1,568 2,690 58 8,926

South Carolina 3,457 10,354 13,811 75 103,041

South Dakota 769 291 1,060 27 3,849

Tennessee 4,893 1,369 6,262 22 58,896

Texas 12,744 8,653 21,397 40 224,037

Utah 972 4,110 5,082 81 26,609

Vermont 607 2,495 3,102 80 5,977

Virginia 5,049 5,018 10,067 50 31,397

Washington 2,738 7,646 10,384 74 37,331

West Virginia 2,207 1,292 3,499 37 26,113

Wisconsin 3,705 7,089 10,794 66 80,455

Wyoming 516 308 824 37 4,203

Note: According to the Department of Education, this is the most recent year for which complete

expenditure data are available.

aObligation authority was from July 1, 1991, to June/September 30, 1993.

bState match reflects state and local expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures.

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

Table I.5: State Grant Program

Enrollment by Instructional Area,

Fiscal Year 1993

State Enrollment

Adult Basic

Education

(percent)

Adult

Secondary

Education

(percent)

English as a

Second

Language

(percent)

Alabama 52,132 72 24 4

Alaska 5,822 57 3 40

Arizona 44,828 31 26 43

Arkansas 45,045 58 39 3

California 1,126,731 10 6 84

Colorado 12,732 36 31 33

Connecticut 49,334 21 42 37

Delaware 3,323 62 12 26

District of Columbia 16,505 39 26 35

Florida 425,852 33 40 27

Georgia 84,516 55 28 17

Hawaii 59,034 33 35 32

Idaho 9,566 62 23 15

Illinois 83,153 27 20 53

Indiana 51,884 54 39 7

Iowa 38,072 62 27 11

Kansas 14,910 63 20 17

Kentucky 33,485 65 26 9

Louisiana 39,485 51 44 5

Maine 18,468 39 54 7

Maryland 33,004 26 60 14

Massachusetts 22,718 39 26 35

Michigan 193,027 25 65 10

Minnesota 42,232 46 25 29

Mississippi 21,752 79 17 4

Missouri 38,845 72 16 12

Montana 6,453 60 37 3

Nebraska 7,178 67 10 24

Nevada 16,853 5 79 16

New Hampshire 7,144 41 41 18

New Jersey 62,132 28 32 40

New Mexico 30,273 42 36 22

New York 191,349 44 20 36

North Carolina 128,147 54 35 11

North Dakota 3,582 52 31 17

Ohio 116,627 73 16 11

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix I 

State Grant Program Budget and Enrollment

Data

State Enrollment

Adult Basic

Education

(percent)

Adult

Secondary

Education

(percent)

English as a

Second

Language

(percent)

Oklahoma 30,072 65 22 13

Oregon 39,365 29 39 32

Pennsylvania 52,963 53 25 22

Rhode Island 7,089 47 24 29

South Carolina 104,009 38 60 2

South Dakota 4,263 65 26 9

Tennessee 57,310 67 26 7

Texas 209,871 36 27 37

Utah 27,770 16 72 12

Vermont 5,095 90 5 5

Virginia 32,106 41 28 31

Washington 39,409 43 16 41

West Virginia 25,866 68 30 2

Wisconsin 75,542 63 26 11

Wyoming 3,742 46 39 15

Source: U.S. Department of Education.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Clarence C. Crawford, Associate Director, (202) 512-7017

Lori A. Weiss, Evaluator-in-Charge, (213) 346-8066

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Gary P. Galazin, Senior Evaluator;

Tom Jessor, Senior Evaluator; Nancy Kawahara, Senior Evaluator; David

K. Porter, Evaluator; Revae E. Steinman, Senior Evaluator; and Yelena K.

Thompson, Evaluator.

(104801) Page 44 GAO/HEHS-95-153 Adult Education Act
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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

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-95-153 Adult Education Act