# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Higher Education: Employment Discrimination Case Referrals Between Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Could Be Improved What GAO FoundThe proportions of Black or African American (Black) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) college faculty increased from fiscal years 2003 through 2021. Yet, there were lower proportions of Black and Hispanic college faculty compared to Black and Hispanic workers with advanced degrees (e.g., master's and doctorate) and professional workers (e.g., lawyers and engineers), according to GAO's analysis of Department of Education and Census Bureau data. Black and Hispanic individuals were also less represented among college faculty than among students, according to GAO's analysis of Education data. For example, in fiscal year 2021, 8 percent of faculty were Black compared to 12 percent of students, and 7 percent of faculty were Hispanic compared to 19 percent of students.College Faculty and Students by Race and Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 2021Notes: Black refers to Black or African American. Hispanic refers to Hispanic or Latino. An individual who self-identifies as Hispanic only, or both Hispanic and any race category, would be classified as Hispanic. The Other category includes individuals such as those that identified as Native American, Pacific Islander, multiple races, or unknown race.GAO's literature search identified strategies used by colleges to recruit and retain a diverse faculty, given the potential benefits to their students. Colleges have enhanced their job search processes, developed mentoring programs, and improved campus climate to recruit and retain a diverse faculty.Education refers certain employment discrimination complaints against colleges to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for investigation consideration but has been consistently late in doing so. In fiscal year 2022, Education processed and referred to EEOC 99 complaints alleging employment discrimination at colleges based on race, color, national origin, or sex. GAO found that Education referred the complaints in 71 days on average, although Education policy calls for doing so in 30 days. However, Education does not track the timing of these referrals. Without doing so, Education could miss an opportunity to learn from offices that are more timely than others and apply those lessons agency-wide to reduce delays. Individuals with delayed complaints may experience adverse effects, such as continued discrimination or less pay. In fiscal year 2021, EEOC processed 1,342 complaints alleging employment discrimination at colleges based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, some of which were referred by Education. However, EEOC does not have a protocol to consistently track and account for the complaint referrals. Recently, one such referral was not initially received by EEOC until the individual who filed the complaint followed up. Without a protocol to ensure that EEOC receives and processes all Education complaint referrals, some may be missed or resolution may be delayed.Why GAO Did This StudyWhile the U.S. population has become increasingly diverse, college faculty may not reflect those same levels of diversity. Little is known at the national level about the relationship between faculty diversity and student outcomes. Separately, faculty have reported experiencing discrimination at colleges.GAO was asked to review faculty diversity and employment discrimination at colleges. This report examines (1) selected aspects of diversity among faculty, (2) efforts by colleges to recruit and retain a diverse faculty, and (3) how Education and EEOC process employment discrimination complaints at colleges. GAO analyzed Education data on faculty and students from fiscal years 2003–2021, national workforce data from the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics ranging from calendar years 2014–2021, Education complaint data from fiscal years 2011–2022, and EEOC complaint data from fiscal years 2011–2021 (each set was the most recent available). GAO also conducted literature reviews; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies; and interviewed agency officials and selected higher education experts.
- Bureau of Indian Education: Improved Oversight of Schools' COVID-19 Spending is Needed What GAO FoundThe Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and its schools used federal COVID-19 relief funds mainly to support distance learning and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in schools. For example, BIE spent nearly $60 million of its COVID funds on IT and broadband supports for schools, including student laptops and Wi-Fi equipment for distance learning. Similarly, nearly all of the 70 BIE schools that responded to GAO's survey reported prioritizing their COVID funds for laptops and tablets and for personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, and COVID tests. Schools generally reported that BIE offered regular guidance and support for spending COVID funds.BIE uses several processes to monitor schools' COVID spending, including reviewing schools' single audit reports, overseeing schools at high risk of financial mismanagement, and monitoring schools' purchase card use for fraud and misuse. However, GAO found that due to insufficient controls, BIE staff did not consistently follow these processes, which limited accountability for use of COVID funds. For example, a little over a quarter of required fiscal year 2021 single audit reports for schools and Tribes that received BIE grant funds were late or not submitted as of November 2023. But BIE did not follow agency standard procedures for applying or increasing financial conditions for 19 of the 28 grantees that failed to submit a timely single audit report that year. Without timely single audit reports, BIE lacks vital information for overseeing schools' financial management. Further, BIE did not conduct sufficient oversight of high-risk schools' COVID spending and lacked the staff capacity to complete all required monitoring. Such oversight is critical for helping schools correct errors and avoid them in the future. Finally, GAO found that for BIE-operated schools, nearly half of COVID fund spending with purchase cards between March 2020 and August 2022 involved elevated risk transactions according to agency data (see figure). Examples of elevated risk transactions include the purchase of gift cards or multiple purchases at the same merchant within a certain number of days that total more than the single purchase limit. However, BIE did not provide evidence that it had investigated these transactions for fraud or misuse.Bureau of Indian Education Schools' COVID Fund Spending with Purchase Cards, March 2020 to August 2022In addition, GAO found that BIE staff did not consistently use the required tool or procedures for tracking and investigating suspicious transactions. Without addressing these gaps in its oversight of schools' COVID spending, BIE cannot ensure that schools will use remaining COVID funds appropriately to provide students the support they need.Why GAO Did This StudyMany of BIE's 183 schools are located in remote tribal lands that faced extraordinary challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to experience ongoing effects. Congress appropriated about $1.5 billion to help BIE and its schools respond to the pandemic. GAO reviewed the use of COVID-19 relief funds by schools and BIE as part of GAO's responsibilities under the CARES Act.This report examines how BIE and schools spent their COVID funds and BIE's guidance to schools on fund use, and the extent to which BIE oversees schools' fund use. GAO surveyed a generalizable sample of 85 BIE schools, with 70 schools responding, to collect information on their use of COVID funds and the extent to which BIE provided them guidance on spending. GAO also analyzed agency data on BIE schools' purchase card activity; reviewed relevant federal statutes, regulations, and agency policies and procedures for overseeing school COVID spending; and interviewed BIE and school officials.
- Educación Superior: Las Instituciones de Servicio a Hispanos informaron de grandes necesidades de instalaciones e infraestructura digital This is the Spanish language highlights associated with GAO-24-106162.Lo que encontró la GAOLas Instituciones de Servicio a Hispanos (HSI, por sus siglas en inglés), es decir, universidades con una matrícula de estudiantes universitarios de al menos el 25 por ciento de hispanos, tienen grandes necesidades de instalaciones, según la encuesta generalizable de la GAO sobre las HSI. Según la encuesta de la GAO, se estima que, en promedio, el 43 por ciento del espacio edificable de las HSI (es decir, los pies cuadrados) necesita reparaciones o reemplazo. Los atrasos en mantenimiento diferido, los daños ocasionados por desastres naturales o climáticos severos y los esfuerzos de modernización de las instalaciones impulsan las necesidades de instalaciones de las HSI. Por ejemplo, las HSI tienen un retraso en promedio en mantenimiento diferido de casi $100 millones, según la encuesta de la GAO. Además, se estima que el 77 por ciento de las HSI tienen al menos un proyecto de mantenimiento diferido que aborda una cuestión de salud o seguridad. Más aun, se estima que el 65 por ciento de las HSI han experimentado al menos un desastre natural o un evento climatológico severo en los últimos 5 años que ha dado como resultado la necesidad de reparar o reemplazar algunas instalaciones.Las HSI también informaron sobre necesidades de infraestructura digital insatisfechas relacionadas con el acceso y conectividad a Internet, la ciberseguridad, y los esfuerzos de aprendizaje híbrido, según la encuesta de la GAO. Por ejemplo, la GAO estima que, en aproximadamente un tercio de las HSI, más del 10 por ciento de los estudiantes no pueden conectarse de manera confiable a Internet fuera del campus, ya sea porque no pueden costear una conexión a Internet o porque ellos no tienen un dispositivo adecuado. La mayoría de las HSI (aproximadamente el 74 por ciento) también ha experimentado un ciberataque en los últimos 5 años. Las HSI realizaron inversiones recientes en aprendizaje híbrido como resultado de la pandemia de la COVID-19 y la financiación federal relacionada. Sin embargo, la GAO estima que el 90 por ciento de las HSI que ofrecen cursos híbridos enfrentan algún desafío para continuar impartiéndolos, según los resultados de la encuesta.Ejemplos de instalaciones e infraestructura digital en las HSILas HSI dependieron de múltiples fuentes para financiar sus necesidades de proyectos de capital durante los últimos 5 años. Estas fuentes frecuentemente incluían subvenciones o consignaciones de capital estatal para las HSI públicas y matrículas y cuotas para las HSI privadas, según la encuesta de la GAO. La GAO estima que el 43 por ciento de las HSI estaban satisfechas con su acceso general a financiación. Sin embargo, las HSI informaron que enfrentaban desafíos&nbsp;comunes para conseguir financiación para proyectos de capital. Por ejemplo, según la encuesta de la GAO, se estima que el 74 por ciento de las HSI públicas consideran que la financiación estatal insuficiente es un desafío para abordar las necesidades de proyectos de capital. Además, alrededor de tres cuartas partes de las HSI privadas enfrentan desafíos debido a la diminución de los ingresos por matrículas y cuotas. El Departamento de Educación cuenta con tres programas de subvenciones para HSI eligibles. Aunque las HSI pueden utilizar estos fondos para apoyar proyectos de capital, en cambio, generalmente utilizan estos fondos de subvención para otras necesidades, como servicios estudiantiles, según los funcionarios del Departamento de Educación.Por qué llevó a cabo este estudio la GAOLas HSI desempeñan un papel destacado en el sistema de educación superior del país. Por ejemplo, 574 de las HSI inscribieron más de 2 millones de estudiantes hispanos en el año escolar de 2021 a 2022, lo que representa el 60 por ciento de todos los estudiantes hispanos que cursan estudios universitarios. Como la mayoría de las universidades, las HSI deben seguir invirtiendo en sus instalaciones e infraestructura digital para poder atender a sus estudiantes con seguridad y eficacia.Un informe de 2021 de la Cámara de Representantes incluye una disposición para que la GAO examine las necesidades de infraestructura, tanto física como digital, en las HSI. Este informe describe (1) las necesidades de instalaciones, (2) las necesidades de infraestructura digital y (3) las fuentes de financiación para los proyectos de capital de las HSI.Para realizar este trabajo, la GAO encuestó una muestra representativa de las HSI en los EE. UU. (incluido Puerto Rico) y recibió respuestas generalizables de 169 universidades. Las estimaciones de la encuesta tienen un margen de error no mayor que más o menos 8 puntos porcentuales con un nivel de confianza del 95 por ciento. La GAO también analizó los datos más recientes de las HSI sobre características institucionales y de los estudiantes universitarios (2021 a 2022), finanzas (2020 a 2021), programas de subvenciones para las HSI (2017 a 2022) y fondos de ayuda de COVID-19 (2021). La GAO también visitó 10 HSI que fueron&nbsp;seleccionadas para representar diferentes tamaños, sectores (público o privado sin fines de lucro) y regiones geográficas, y entrevistó a funcionarios del Departamento de Educación y organizaciones de las HSI. Además, la GAO revisó las leyes, los reglamentos, y los directrices federales relevantes.Para más información, contactar a Melissa Emrey-Arras al (617) 788-0534 o emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- Higher Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions Reported Extensive Facility and Digital Infrastructure Needs Para la versión de esta página en español, ver a GAO-24-107052.What GAO FoundHispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI)—colleges with an undergraduate student enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic—have extensive facility needs, according to GAO's generalizable survey of HSIs. Based on GAO's survey, an estimated 43 percent of HSIs' building space (i.e., square footage) needs repairs or replacement, on average. Deferred maintenance backlogs, damage from natural disasters or severe weather, and facility modernization efforts drive HSIs' facility needs. For example, HSIs have an average deferred maintenance backlog of almost $100 million, based on GAO's survey. Further, an estimated 77 percent of HSIs have at least one deferred maintenance project that addresses a health or safety issue. In addition, an estimated 65 percent of HSIs have experienced at least one natural disaster or severe weather event in the past 5 years that has resulted in the need to repair or replace some facilities.HSIs also reported unmet digital infrastructure needs related to internet access and connectivity, cybersecurity, and hybrid learning efforts, according to GAO's survey. For example, GAO estimates that at roughly a third of HSIs, more than 10 percent of students cannot reliably connect to the internet off-campus either because they cannot afford an internet connection or they lack an appropriate device. Most HSIs (an estimated 74 percent) have also experienced a cyberattack within the previous 5 years. HSIs made recent investments in hybrid learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related federal funding. However, GAO estimates 90 percent of HSIs that offer hybrid courses face some challenge continuing to deliver them, based on survey results.Examples of Facility and Digital Infrastructure at Hispanic-Serving Institutions HSIs relied on multiple sources to fund their capital project needs over the last 5 years. These sources frequently included state capital grants or appropriations for public HSIs and tuition and fees for private HSIs, according to GAO's survey. GAO estimates 43 percent of HSIs were satisfied with their overall access to funding. However, HSIs reported common challenges securing funding for capital projects. For example, an estimated 74 percent of public HSIs consider insufficient state funding to be a challenge towards addressing capital project needs, based on GAO's survey. Additionally, about three quarters of private HSIs face challenges due to declining tuition and fees revenue. The Department of Education has three grant programs for eligible HSIs. Although HSIs can use this funding to support capital projects, instead, they generally use these grant funds for other needs, such as student services, according to Education officials.Why GAO Did This StudyHSIs play a prominent role in the nation's higher education system.&nbsp;For example, 574 HSIs enrolled over 2 million Hispanic students in the 2021–2022 school year, representing 60 percent of all Hispanic students in college. Like most colleges, HSIs must continue to invest in their facilities and digital infrastructure to serve their students safely and effectively.A 2021 House report includes a provision for GAO to examine the infrastructure needs—both physical and digital—at HSIs. This report describes HSIs' (1) facility needs, (2) digital infrastructure needs, and (3) funding sources for capital projects.To conduct this work, GAO surveyed a representative sample of HSIs in the U.S. (including Puerto Rico) and received generalizable responses from 169 colleges. Survey estimates have a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 8 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. GAO also analyzed the most recent HSI data on college student and institutional characteristics (2021–2022), finances (2020–2021), HSI grant programs (2017–2022), and COVID relief funds (2021). GAO also visited 10 HSIs—selected to capture different sizes, sectors (public or private nonprofit), and geographic regions—and interviewed Education officials and HSI organizations. In addition, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- Federal Student Loans: Education Should Enhance Reporting on Direct Loan Performance and Risk What GAO FoundThe Department of Education is designing and testing a new model to estimate future costs of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program, which provides financial assistance to students and their parents for postsecondary education. Education aims to begin using the model with the President's fiscal year 2028 budget. Education officials said the new model is being designed to better reflect the complexity of both borrower behavior and the Direct Loan program. Decisions about data, analytical design, technology, and staffing will influence the model's long-term operation and the quality of future cost estimates.Education is required to develop cost estimates for the President's budget in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). FCRA reflects Education's borrowing from the Department of the Treasury to finance lending. GAO compared FCRA with three federal and private sector alternative approaches that could be used to develop cost estimates. These approaches were the Congressional Budget Office fair value (federal), Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Current Expected Credit Losses (private sector), and FASB fair value (private sector).These four approaches do not affect the eventual budgetary costs over time but do result in different initial cost estimates. Estimated initial costs under the non-FCRA approaches will generally be higher than what is initially estimated under FCRA due to a variety of factors, such as the addition of market risk and other risks. Regardless of the approach used, how well an agency is able to predict future cash flows is fundamental to calculating reliable cost estimates.Illustration of Overall Budgetary Cost Estimates for a Group of Direct Loans Converging over Time as Costs are UpdatedNote: The graphic assumes that actual cash flows will equal estimated cash flows over time.Education publishes information about the Direct Loan program's performance and risks that is generally consistent with guidance, but there are areas where the department could enhance its reporting by expanding the sensitivity analysis to cover a wider range of economic circumstances. Such information is particularly important given the size and complexity of the Direct Loan program.Why GAO Did This StudyOver the last 3 decades, the Direct Loan program has grown in size and complexity, with over $1.3 trillion in outstanding loans as of September 2023. This program provides financial assistance to help students and their parents pay for postsecondary education. GAO was asked to review issues related to Education's Direct Loan program cost estimates.This report examines (1) the status of Education's planned model for estimating Direct Loan costs; (2) how certain federal and private sector estimation approaches would affect Direct Loan budgetary costs over time; and (3) the extent to which Education provides key information about the performance and risks of the Direct Loan program.GAO reviewed documentation on Education's current student loan model and plans for its new model. GAO analyzed the potential budgetary impact over time of four approaches for estimating the cost of a selected group of loans. GAO identified relevant reports, reviewed reporting guidance for federal loan programs, and interviewed officials from Education, other agency officials, and stakeholders with relevant expertise.
- International Military Students: DOD and State Should Assess Vetting Implementation and Strengthen Information Sharing What GAO FoundStarting in fiscal year 2020, DOD developed and phased in procedures to vet international military students attending training at Department of Defense (DOD) installations and facilities in the U.S. With few exceptions, DOD vets these students prior to travel to the U.S. for training and periodically during the students' stay. According to training management system data, from October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2023, DOD vetted over 29,000 cases, including students and any accompanying family members. DOD identified findings in 103 cases: four were classified as “high” risk, 18 were “moderate”, and 81 were “low.” DOD denied access to nine students for various security-related reasons.International Military Student Cases by Risk Level and Adjudication Result for October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2023			Risk level									Cases									Approved for training									Denied									Pending									Adjudication not performeda								High risk									4									0									4									0									0								Moderate risk									18									7									3									4									4								Low risk									81									47									2									14									18								No findings									29,202									29,202									0									0									0								Total									29,305									29,256									9									18									22					Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. | GAO-24-106421Note: Vetting of international military students began with basic screening in December 2019 and DOD continued to phase in initial security vetting through March 2022.aDepartment of Defense (DOD) officials stated they did not adjudicate 22 of the moderate and low risk cases for reasons such as training cancellation or the student completed training during the establishment of vetting procedures and has since departed the U.S.DOD has taken some steps to improve implementation of vetting procedures for international military students. However, DOD has not assessed implementation to identify opportunities for improvement. For example, stakeholders told GAO of factors in vetting implementation that could be improved, such as limitations with in-country data collection and a time-consuming process for sharing information between stakeholders. DOD circulated a draft progress report on program metrics, such as the number of students who underwent vetting for fiscal year 2022. However, DOD has not finalized the report, and it is unclear if it will include an assessment of any opportunities for improvement in the vetting procedures. Without an assessment, DOD will not have a full understanding of factors that hinder vetting implementation. DOD also cannot determine whether or how it should take action to improve vetting implementation.The Department of State and DOD share information to support international military student vetting in a variety of ways, such as sharing database access and confirming vetting. However, State and DOD have not ensured that roles and responsibilities are fully clarified in guidance or written agreements. If DOD and State take actions to clarify roles and responsibilities for sharing information on issues related to international military students, the agencies can better coordinate on program management, including communicating relevant policy updates and sharing additional data and analysis regarding vetting.Why GAO Did This StudyDOD provides education and training to foreign military personnel at DOD sites. On December 6, 2019, an international military student killed three U.S. service members and injured eight others while attending training at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida. The attack raised questions about personnel safety at DOD sites hosting students for training.The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes a provision for GAO to review DOD's implementation of security vetting for international military students and accompanying family members. GAO's report assesses the extent to which (1) DOD has developed vetting procedures for international military students and addressed any implementation challenges; and (2) State and DOD have shared information related to students' training at DOD sites in the U.S.GAO reviewed documentation; analyzed vetting result data for October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2023; and interviewed DOD and State officials and stakeholders from six unified combatant commands and three U.S. embassies.
- Head Start: Opportunities Exist to Better Align Resources with Child Poverty What GAO FoundAdministered by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Head Start (OHS), Head Start aims to promote school readiness for young children in poverty. However, Head Start availability varies widely across states and counties and does not closely align with child poverty. GAO found that the number of Head Start seats for every 100 young children in poverty ranged from nine in Nevada to 53 in Oregon in 2022. This high degree of variability persisted even when accounting for state and county child poverty rates. Further, the Head Start statutory formula, by which annual funding is provided to grant recipients, is not responsive to changes in child poverty. As a result, grant recipients in states with rising child poverty can generally serve a lower proportion of income-eligible children.Head Start Seats Available for Every 100 Young Children in Poverty, Fall 2022Current statutory provisions do not support the alignment of Head Start resources with need. These provisions include the annual funding formula and those governing the distribution of expansion funding, which Congress periodically provides to expand Head Start's reach. GAO found that provisions intended to target additional expansion funding to states with relatively low access to Head Start services, if applied today, would result in nearly all states qualifying to receive this funding. Federal grants may be designed in a variety of ways, depending on the purpose Congress wishes to achieve. Congress has an opportunity to review these provisions to ensure Head Start resources are directed toward its highest priorities.Within the existing statutory provisions, OHS has authority to consider the distribution of Head Start services when competitive grant funding is available to award. However, OHS rarely uses this authority. Doing so—and leveraging agency data to inform its grantmaking decisions—would help OHS better achieve its goal of targeting services to places most in need.Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2021–2022, Head Start served nearly 790,000 young children, primarily from low-income families. However, HHS estimates that far more children are eligible than can be served due to limited resources, heightening the importance of targeting services effectively.House Report 117-96 includes a provision for GAO to review the nationwide distribution of Head Start resources and what could help better align funding with need.This report examines the extent to which (1) Head Start resources align geographically with child poverty; (2) statutory provisions support aligning resources with need; and (3) OHS uses its grantmaking authority to align resources with need.GAO analyzed Head Start enrollment data from 2022 and Head Start funding and Census child poverty data from 2006 and 2021 (most recent available comparable data), interviewed OHS officials and stakeholder organizations, such as the National Head Start Association; and reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents.
- K-12 Education: DOD Has Taken Steps to Support Students Affected by Problematic Sexual Behaviors, but Challenges Remain What GAO FoundThe Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), which educates over 66,000 military-connected pre-K through grade 12 students worldwide, collects detailed information about reported incidents of unwanted sexual behavior among students. These behaviors include those that are normative (but inappropriate), like unwanted touching in younger grades. It also includes behaviors that are severe and problematic at any age, like sexual assault. Since 2019, unwanted sexual behavior reports at DODEA schools have increased substantially due to enhanced reporting requirements. However, DODEA has not sought feedback on its updated reporting requirements from school leaders, who raised concerns about significant administrative burden with formally reporting normative behaviors, and stigma for students involved in them.DODEA School Incident Reports and Key Efforts to Enhance ReportingNote: DODEA school closures during the pandemic may also have contributed to fewer reports of unwanted sexual behaviors during school years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.DODEA students who are harmed by or exhibit problematic sexual behaviors face challenges accessing appropriate support services. DOD policy directs the Military Community Advocacy Directorate's Family Advocacy Program (FAP) to implement a consistent response strategy. However, GAO identified various weaknesses hindering these efforts. Specifically, the Military Community Advocacy Directorate:has not monitored how consistently FAP includes DODEA in multidisciplinary teams, which are installation-wide response efforts, despite known issues;	has not monitored its efforts to close the gap in the number of FAP clinicians with expertise needed to treat children with problematic behaviors;	has not assessed the effectiveness of its efforts to address low participation in FAP clinical support services among eligible military families; and	chose to exclude the nearly one in five DODEA students who are children of civilian defense workers from accessing most FAP services and has not assessed whether this policy meets the needs of military communities.Without addressing these weaknesses, DOD risks ongoing challenges in ensuring that students who are harmed by or exhibit problematic sexual behavior receive the support needed to assure the safety of the DODEA community.Why GAO Did This StudyDODEA is required to protect students from discrimination based on sex, which can include sexual harassment.Senate Report 117-130 and House Report 117-397 include a provision for GAO to examine DODEA's response to unwanted sexual behaviors. This report examines (1) the information DODEA collects to identify unwanted sexual behavior and (2) the availability of support services to students that are harmed by or exhibit such behavior.GAO analyzed the most recent available DODEA data on reported incidents of unwanted sexual behavior among students in school years 2019–2020 through 2022–2023. GAO also conducted site visits to 11 DODEA schools and the FAP agencies serving five military communities in the U.S. and Europe, selected for geographic, grade level, and service branch variation. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and agency policies and interviewed agency officials from DODEA, Child and Youth Advocacy, and FAP.
- K-12 Education: Education Could Enhance Oversight of School Improvement Activities What GAO FoundRoughly 2.5 million students attend a K-12 public school that their state has identified for comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). GAO found that CSI schools are among the lowest-performing schools in the nation. GAO also found that compared to other public schools, CSI schools are much more likely to serve predominantly Black and low-income students and those who are not proficient in reading or math. CSI schools also have higher student-teacher ratios than other schools.In its review of a nationally generalizable sample of CSI school improvement plans, GAO estimated that less than half (42 percent) appeared to address all three required elements it reviewed, which include that the plan: (1) be based on a needs assessment, (2) identify resource inequities, and (3) include evidence-based interventions. Further, GAO identified wide variation among the CSI plans it reviewed. For instance, when identifying resource inequities, some plans focused on the types of inequities students faced in their own lives (e.g., poverty or homelessness). Other plans focused on how equitably educational resources (e.g., funding or teachers) were distributed across the district or within the school.Estimated Percent of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans Available as of June 2022 that Appeared to Address Three Selected Required Elements Note: GAO did not independently assess legal compliance with its three selected Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 requirements.Education monitors state compliance with ESEA school improvement requirements (e.g., to approve CSI plans and monitor their implementation) and has identified and addressed compliance issues through its efforts. For example, Education found that five of the nine states it monitored from February 2020 through July 2023 failed to enforce ESEA requirements that CSI plans include all of the three elements GAO assessed. Education required the states to take corrective action to address these issues. However, Education's ability to identify these and other compliance issues may be limited by a weakness GAO identified in Education's monitoring approach. Specifically, Education does not select the CSI plans it reviews. Instead, it relies on monitored states and districts to do so. Ensuring that Education staff independently select these documents could help Education better assure that it is identifying and responding to compliance risks through this key part of its monitoring strategy.Why GAO Did This StudyESEA Title I, Part A purposes include providing all children the opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education. To help achieve that goal, states must identify schools in need of support and improvement. States oversee improvement efforts; Education monitors states' oversight.Senate Report 115-289 includes a provision for GAO to review school improvement activities.This report examines (1) CSI school characteristics; (2) how CSI plans address selected ESEA requirements; and (3) Education monitoring.GAO compared the characteristics of CSI and other schools using 2019-20 Education data (the most recent available). GAO also analyzed a generalizable sample of CSI plans (the most recent available as of June 2022) to assess how they addressed three ESEA-required elements for plan content for which Education has issued guidance. GAO interviewed officials from three CSI schools selected for varied locale and other factors and held two discussion groups with officials from six districts with CSI schools across six states. GAO also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant federal laws and monitoring documents.
- DOD Education Activity: Civilian Payroll Remediation Continues What GAO FoundThe Department of Defense's (DOD) Education Activity operates schools around the world, providing educational services for the dependents of military service members and civilian employees. Since fiscal year 2018, independent public accounting firms auditing DOD's annual financial statements have reported more than 100 notices of findings and recommendations across the department related to the civilian payroll system. Many of these notices remain open and affect the pay of all DOD employees, including overseas civilian employees.DOD Civilian Payroll Notices of Findings and Recommendations, as of March 2023			Total									Closed									No longer applicable									Open								147 									92									8									47					Source: GAO analysis of DOD data on notices auditors issued since fiscal year 2018. | GAO-24-105679Closed notices addressed issues such as approving and maintaining time cards, gross pay reconciliation, and unsupported payroll allowances for some components of DOD. Some common issues identified in the open notices are (1) inconsistent documentation supporting employees' payrolls and (2) payroll amounts not agreeing with calculations based on supporting documentation. These open issues are similar to instances GAO observed, as discussed below. DOD has developed corrective action plans and roadmaps to remediate these open notices, but they will take time to effectively implement and address the issues that other auditors and GAO found.DOD Education Activity uses the Civilian Human Resources Agency and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to perform human resources and payroll processing. DOD bases payroll computations on various requirements and must support payments with one or more source documents.GAO reviewed payroll records for 10 overseas DOD Education Activity employees. GAO found that the records for regular pay and incentives were accurate and contained adequate supporting documentation. GAO also found that of the five employees receiving allowances—such as for their living quarters—the amounts paid to three were inconsistent with the supporting documentation. In addition, GAO found that for eight of these 10 employees, at least one payroll deduction was not adequately supported.GAO also reviewed payroll records for 24 employees and found that 21 had adjustments that were not all processed timely or communicated adequately. The department processed 57 adjustments for the 21 employees' pay, 23 of which were retroactive, paid in a lump sum, and without many details provided on the employees' earnings and leave statements. The amount of time it took to process the adjustments ranged from a low of one biweekly pay period to a high of 34 biweekly pay periods. According to Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials, these delays are attributable to retroactive pay adjustments, corrective actions initiated by human resources offices or timekeepers, or employee-generated changes that were not sent timely for processing.Why GAO Did This StudyA committee report accompanying a national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review DOD's payroll system for overseas DOD Education Activity employees. This report (1) describes the status of DOD's efforts to address auditors' prior recommendations to improve its civilian payroll system, which includes overseas DOD Education Activity employees, and (2) examines the process DOD used to calculate overseas DOD Education Activity employees' pay, including base pay, differentials, additional allowances, and deductions, as well as how the department communicated payroll changes to employees.GAO reviewed an extract from a database containing all civilian payroll notices of findings and recommendations as of March 2023 to report on the status of prior recommendations. GAO also examined fiscal year 2021 payroll records (the most recent available at the time of GAO's analysis) and interviewed DOD representatives to gain an understanding of the payroll process. GAO traced payroll records for 10 employees to supporting documentation and verified the calculations using applicable criteria. GAO also reviewed payroll adjustments for 24 employees that were the result of either normal adjustments or payroll errors. Since DOD was not able to provide sufficient supporting documentation timely, the number of DOD Education Activity employees that GAO was able to review was too small to support generalizable conclusions.For more information, contact Asif A. Khan at (202) 512-9869 or khana@gao.gov.
- Higher Education: VA Should Provide Additional Information to Its Staff and Schools on the Rogers STEM Scholarship What GAO FoundMore than 7,000 veterans have used the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship since the program began in August 2019. The scholarship provides financial assistance to eligible veterans pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The vast majority of veterans (99 percent) used the scholarship towards an undergraduate STEM degree, and about 2,000 veterans graduated while using the scholarship.GAO found that the Department of Veterans Affairs has tools—such as staff training and guidance—to help ensure consistent Rogers STEM scholarship application processing, and more information for its staff and schools would bolster these efforts. Some STEM majors are easy to identify (e.g., engineering or mathematics). VA staff judgement becomes part of the application award process in the small number of applications where a veteran's major is not easily identifiable as STEM.Using VA data, GAO identified more than 100 instances where VA potentially made erroneous scholarship award decisions because the major approved for the scholarship did not appear to be STEM. VA confirmed that in 56 instances it appeared the agency approved scholarships for veterans pursuing ineligible majors, such as applied management and construction management. These 56 instances reflect VA's approval of up to $1.7 million in scholarship funds for veterans to use toward majors not in STEM fields.Through data analysis, review of VA documents, and interviews with VA staff, GAO identified two areas where VA could provide additional information to help ensure consistent scholarship award decisions. Specifically:Information for VA staff.  VA does not have a complete list of eligible majors for its staff to use when processing applications and deciding whether to award the scholarship. VA also does not have formal procedures to ensure its staff raise questions or further examine applications with majors that appear to be non-STEM.	Information for schools. School officials provide key information during the application process, however, the resources that VA provides to schools do not fully describe the school's role. As a result, schools do not always provide the information needed and VA may deny the scholarship to an otherwise eligible veteran, according to VA staff.Providing this additional information to VA staff and schools can help ensure consistent scholarship award decisions.Why GAO Did This StudyVeterans who received technical training in the military may be well suited to pursue degrees in STEM. The Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship provides up to $30,000 to assist veterans with continuing qualifying STEM programs after they exhaust their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.The Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 includes a provision for GAO to provide an interim and final assessment of the Rogers STEM scholarship program. This final assessment (1) reports the number of veterans that pursued and obtained STEM degrees using the Rogers STEM scholarship, and (2) evaluates how consistently VA processes Rogers STEM scholarship applications. GAO analyzed VA administrative data from August 2019 to June 2023, the most recently available data at the time of GAO's analysis. GAO also held four discussion groups with VA staff who process scholarship applications and reviewed relevant VA documents.
- Bureau of Indian Education: Information on Efforts to Count Students for an Educational Services Program What GAO FoundThe Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) has estimated that 578,070 students are potentially eligible for the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) Program. The program provides supplemental education services to meet the specialized and unique needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. BIE published this estimate, as required by the Johnson-O'Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program Modernization Act (JOM Modernization Act or the act), in July 2023, more than 3 years after the deadline required by the act. BIE officials told GAO that disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in the agency's understanding of requirements in the act contributed to delays in its publication.According to BIE officials, the purpose of this estimate about potential student demand for the JOM program is to assist Congress in determining future appropriations. BIE reviewed several data sources and ultimately decided to use data from Census's American Community Survey for its estimate of potentially eligible students. While evaluating data sources and determining the estimate, BIE consulted with and obtained feedback from a variety of tribal and other JOM program stakeholders, including existing contractors who provide educational services (e.g., tribal organizations or public school districts). BIE has delayed plans to determine the total number of students currently served by the JOM program until the end of fiscal year 2024. Contractors are required to count the students they serve in school year 2023–24 and submit their annual reports by September 2024.BIE plans to distribute funding to all contractors based on updated student counts starting in fiscal year 2025. For fiscal year 2024, BIE will continue to use the 1995 base student counts for determining funding allocations, except contractors that reported higher updated counts in fiscal year 2023 will receive a corresponding funding increase. BIE officials told GAO they will implement the act's requirement to withhold funds from any contractors for failure to report student counts starting in fiscal year 2025.Why GAO Did This StudyThe JOM program provides academic and cultural supports to meet the unique and specialized educational needs of eligible American Indian and Alaska Native students in public schools and select tribal schools. BIE contracts with Tribes, tribal organizations, states, public school districts and others who provide JOM services to eligible students. These services can include Native cultural and language enrichment, academic support, dropout prevention, and the purchase of school supplies. Since 1995, BIE has relied on the same count of eligible students to determine its budget allocation for the program. Congress passed the JOM Modernization Act in 2018 to update and modernize the program, including provisions for BIE to estimate the number of students potentially eligible for JOM services and annually count the number of students receiving services. In addition, the act includes a provision for GAO to conduct a review of BIE's process for updating the student count.This report includes information on the steps BIE took, or plans to take, to estimate the number of students potentially eligible for JOM services, count students currently receiving services, and distribute JOM funds to contractors based on the number of students they serve. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and BIE documents on the JOM program. GAO also examined prior public comments submitted by Tribes and interviewed agency officials and members of the National Johnson O'Malley Association. GAO also conferred with the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, who provided comments on the data sources BIE considered for its estimate of potentially eligible students.For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- K-12 Education: Updated Federal Guidance Would Assist Title I Schools in Meeting Parent and Family Engagement Requirements What GAO FoundGAO estimates that, nationwide, the information Title I schools most commonly posted online regarding parent and family engagement involved policies and resources for building engagement capacity (see figure). These schools, which generally have high percentages of students from low-income families, are required to conduct certain parent and family engagement activities under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.Extent Title I Schools Posted Parent and Family Engagement Information on Their WebsitesaFindings for parent and family engagement policies include both district and school level policies.Note: The percentages have a margin of error within plus or minus 7 percentage points at a 95 percent level of confidence. Title I requires these policies be made available to the local community. While it does not explicitly require that the policies be posted online, websites are important venues for engaging and informing the public, including families of children attending school.GAO found little difference in the ways that parents from Title I and non-Title I schools participate in and receive information from their schools and their overall satisfaction with those schools, according to Education's data. For example, parents from both types of schools reported similar attendance at general school meetings and events, such as open houses and sporting events.To help with implementation of Title I's parent and family engagement requirements, states, schools, and districts can refer to Education's guidance, which was issued in 2004. GAO's review of the decades-old guidance found outdated information about the law as well as missing information about current requirements. For example, the guidance does not specify that districts must prioritize high-need schools when distributing funds for parent and family engagement activities, as required by law. Further, Education's monitoring efforts in 2022 cited Nebraska for not ensuring its districts did this. Education officials acknowledged some misalignment between the guidance and the current law, but said they had no plans to update it and that most of it still applies to current law. State officials GAO interviewed in monitored states said that the guidance's outdated references are confusing. Absent updated guidance, states, districts, and schools may continue to rely on obsolete information to guide their parent and family engagement efforts.Why GAO Did This StudyStudents do better and stay longer in school when families are engaged, according to research.GAO was asked to study parent and family engagement in Title I schools. This report examines (1) the extent to which Title I schools made required parent and family engagement information available on their websites, (2) how parent and family engagement compares between Title I and non-Title I schools, and (3) the extent to which Education's guidance addresses Title I requirements for parent and family engagement.GAO reviewed school and district websites for a nationally generalizable sample of Title I schools; analyzed Education's most recent data on parents' views of family engagement (school year 2018–19); and reviewed relevant federal laws and documents on Title I oversight. GAO interviewed Education officials and state and local officials from Nebraska, Nevada, and Tennessee. GAO selected schools and districts in these states for a mix of Title I program type, school type, and locale.
- National Guard Youth Challenge Program: Actions Needed to Enhance Oversight and Assess Performance What GAO FoundThe National Guard Youth Challenge Program is a voluntary, quasi-military program that aims to imbue at-risk youth aged 15.5 to 18 with the values, life skills, education and self-discipline needed to succeed as productive citizens. GAO found that selected program sites generally implemented non-academic core program components through activities prescribed by National Guard Bureau (NGB) guidance. For example, all 13 sites GAO surveyed reported implementing the life coping skills component by teaching participants (cadets) how to prepare a personal budget. In contrast, sites' implementation of the academic excellence component varied, with instruction and testing shaped by key differences in academic credentials, accreditations, and partnerships.National Guard Youth Challenge Program: Idaho Youth Challenge AcademyThe Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and NGB oversee program sites using several processes, including triennial program inspections and audits of cooperative agreements between NGB and the states. However, systemic issues identified by NGB—such as low staff-to-cadet ratios—persist across sites, and National Guard personnel have not consistently performed required cooperative agreement audits. By addressing the root causes of systemic issues, NGB can better ensure cadet health and safety and improve program performance. Further, by establishing a process to ensure completion of required audits of cooperative agreements, NGB can address longstanding delays and help ensure that sites adhere to agreements.Although OSD and NGB collect some performance information, including site-level operational and financial data, they cannot fully assess program performance because they have not established program-wide strategic goals, performance goals, and performance measures. By establishing such goals and measures, OSD and NGB will be better positioned to determine program-wide performance and how to best allocate resources to achieve established goals.Why GAO Did This StudySince its inception in 1993, the National Guard Youth Challenge Program has produced over 200,000 graduates across dozens of sites located in the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Currently, the program operates 39 sites.House Report 117-88, accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2022, included a provision for GAO to review the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, including its implementation and oversight. This report describes (1) how selected sites implemented core program components, and examines the extent to which OSD and NGB have (2) conducted oversight of the Challenge Program and (3) assessed its performance, among other objectives.GAO reviewed program policies, inspections, and audits; surveyed program officials at a non-generalizable sample of 13 sites; and interviewed OSD, NGB, and site officials.
- Student Loans: Education Should Proactively Manage Fraud Risks in Any Future Debt Relief Efforts What GAO FoundThe Department of Education approved borrowers for its student loan debt relief program without implementing key procedures for preventing fraud. The program would have provided up to $20,000 of debt relief to borrowers who met certain income thresholds if they received a Pell Grant in college, and up to $10,000 if they did not. However, Education ceased work in response to court orders and did not relieve any debt. Education designed its approval processes to prevent ineligible borrowers from receiving relief. However, underlying Education's efforts was its assessment that the program was at relatively low risk for fraud. Education officials said they prioritized approving eligible borrowers, but Education did not apply key processes to detect and prevent fraud. However, given the large scale of the program—an estimated $430 billion of relief for potentially over 31 million borrowers—leading practices indicate that Education should have proactively addressed risks through effective fraud risk management.In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the debt relief program was not authorized under the HEROES Act of 2003. As a result, Education was not able to implement the program. Education subsequently announced that the department will pursue a new effort to provide borrowers debt relief.Before ceasing work on the original program, Education developed two processes to assess borrower eligibility, but each process had shortcomings at detecting and preventing fraud. The first process, which affected the majority of borrowers, relied on an application process. The second was an automatic process Education developed for borrowers who had recently reported income information to the department.Application process. At the time it ceased work on the program, Education had approved an estimated 12 million-plus borrower applicants without evaluating the accuracy and outcomes of its application process. To assess applicants' incomes, Education used data associated with post-enrollment earnings and aggregate income data to estimate the likelihood that applicants exceeded the income thresholds. Certain applicants were approved, and others were selected for additional review and would have been required to submit tax documentation to verify their income. However, Education had not evaluated the outcomes of its application process for either the applicants it had selected for review or that it had approved. For example, Education had not collected or reviewed any income documentation from selected applicants at the time it ceased work on the program.In addition, Education did not have procedures in place to evaluate the borrowers it had approved, including whether its approach for approving borrowers was an effective tool for preventing fraud. Education's documentation recognized the risk of potential errors, and federal internal control standards dictate that agencies should conduct evaluations to determine the effectiveness of their controls. Without evaluative checks in any future efforts, Education will be unable to ensure that its systems are effectively preventing ineligible borrowers from receiving relief.Automatic Approvals. Education planned to automatically approve over 2 million borrowers for relief based solely on their self-reported income drawn from recent financial aid applications and enrollments in loan repayment plans. Education and GAO have both previously identified problems with people underreporting their income on these forms, but the department did not take any steps to verify incomes for these borrowers before automatically approving them for relief. Federal internal control standards state that managers should take steps to mitigate fraud risks, but Education did not deploy any tools to verify these borrowers' incomes or ensure they were eligible for relief.Why GAO Did This StudyFraud poses a significant threat to the integrity of federal programs and erodes public trust in government. Proactively managing fraud risks can help ensure that taxpayer dollars serve their intended purposes.Education announced its original student loan debt relief program in August 2022, but little was known about how the department planned to prevent fraud. This report examines the extent to which Education's policies and procedures mitigated fraud risk in the relief program at the time Education ceased work on it. GAO analyzed documentation of Education's fraud risk assessments, assumptions, and procedures for verifying borrower income eligibility. GAO also interviewed Education officials with knowledge of the debt relief program and fraud risk management. GAO assessed the department's efforts against federal internal control standards related to fraud risk management, as well as leading practices in A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs.
- China: With Nearly All U.S. Confucius Institutes Closed, Some Schools Sought Alternative Language Support What GAO FoundThe number of Confucius Institutes at U.S. universities and colleges declined since 2019, from about 100 to fewer than five. Schools most commonly cited the potential loss of federal funding and external pressures as contributing to their decision to close their Confucius Institute. More than 60 percent of the 74 respondents to GAO's survey stated that the potential loss of or ineligibility for federal funding, such as Department of Defense funding subject to limitations in the FY 2019 and FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Acts, contributed to “a great extent” to the institution's decision to close the Confucius Institute. Schools also cited pressure from U.S. government, congressional, or state representatives among other factors that contributed to their decision.Contributing Factors Schools Reported for Decision to Close Confucius InstituteMost survey respondents from both closed and open Confucius Institutes reported implementing a variety of practices to address potential concerns associated with hosting a Confucius Institute. Eleven respondents reported that, following the closure of their Confucius Institute, they continued to apply these practices to other foreign partnerships that fund Chinese language or academic programming. The two most commonly cited practices were (1) ensuring Confucius Institute foreign national staff had no decision-making authority on campus (97 percent) and (2) making the U.S. director of the Confucius Institute accountable to senior officials at the school (96 percent).Some schools that closed Confucius Institutes reported using alternate sources of support to provide Chinese language and cultural programming. Many survey respondents stated that the closure of their Confucius Institute reduced opportunities for Chinese language learning and China-related cultural and academic programming, among others. Schools that closed their Confucius Institutes reported various other sources of support for Chinese language at their institutions, including the schools' academic departments (43 respondents) and U.S. government-sponsored language programs (16). Others reported receiving support, such as scholarships or joint degree programs, from Taiwanese entities (12) and the Chinese partner institution associated with the former Confucius Institute (9).Why GAO Did This StudyConfucius Institutes, educational partnerships between entities in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and schools in the U.S. and other countries, offer Chinese language instruction, cultural programming, and funding for China-related research. Some officials have raised questions about Confucius Institutes, including their relationship to the PRC government, their sources of funding, and the potential for undue PRC influence or risks to national security.GAO was asked to review the status of Confucius Institutes at U.S. schools. This report examines (1) factors schools cited for closing their Confucius Institutes; (2) steps schools reported taking to address potential concerns associated with Confucius Institutes or similar programs supported by foreign partnerships; and (3) how, if at all, schools that closed Confucius Institutes responded to any effects of the closure on resources and programming.In January 2023, GAO conducted two surveys of almost 100 schools (1) with open Confucius Institutes and (2) that have closed their Confucius Institutes since 2019. GAO's survey covered topics such as the impact of the Confucius Institutes' closure, practices implemented to address risks and concerns, and other foreign partnerships. GAO reviewed guidance documents and written agreements. GAO also interviewed officials at the Departments of Defense, Education, Justice, and State; researchers; representatives from higher education associations; and 12 officials at schools with open or recently closed Confucius Institutes.For more information, contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.
- Higher Education: Options That May Help Survivors of Sexual Violence Continue Their Education and Manage Federal Student Loans What GAO FoundAll four colleges GAO selected offered a mix of policies and practices to help address mental health, safety, and academic needs for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking (see figure). Stakeholders GAO interviewed from the four colleges and eight organizations representing survivors, student loan borrowers, and colleges generally said these policies and practices can help survivors continue their college education.Mental health needs.  All four colleges offered mental health services on campus or referrals to services off campus. Several stakeholders cited the importance of addressing survivors' mental health needs.	Safety needs.  All four colleges offered protective measures, such as no-contact orders and housing changes, to help survivors manage their interactions. Most stakeholders identified safety needs as a priority.	Academic needs.  All four colleges   offered   adjustments to courses, leaves of absence or withdrawals, and flexible transfer policies, which most stakeholders said can help survivors continue their education.Examples of Policies and Practices to Help Survivors Continue Their College EducationThe Department of Education has several loan postponement and repayment options that can help survivors—and borrowers generally—manage their federal student loans. Eligible survivors can postpone making payments on their loans during the 6-month grace period after leaving college or dropping below half time, as well as during authorized deferment and forbearance periods. Borrowers may be able to reduce their monthly payments by enrolling in an Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan, which bases monthly payments on income and family size. Most stakeholders said that survivors could benefit from existing loan postponement and repayment options. GAO found each of the four loan servicers had procedures for guiding borrowers through them. Education and loan servicers said they prioritize IDR plans as a long-term solution for borrowers struggling to make payments. Payments on IDR plans may be as low as $0 and count toward potential loan forgiveness at the end of the repayment period.Why GAO Did This StudyAccording to research, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking can have significant consequences on survivors. Survivors who were enrolled in college when the trauma occurred may experience both academic and financial consequences. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to the impact of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking on survivors' ability to continue their education and repay their federal student loans.This report describes (1) policies and practices selected colleges have to help survivors continue their education and (2) repayment options that can help eligible survivors manage their federal student loans.GAO reviewed documentation from Education and its loan servicers. GAO selected four colleges based on size (small, mid-size, and large), sector (public, private not-for-profit, private for-profit), program length (2-year and 4-year), and other factors. GAO also interviewed Education officials and 12 stakeholders, including administrators from the four colleges and representatives from eight organizations representing survivors, student loan borrowers, and colleges. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- K–12 Education: Better Planning Could Help DOD Schools Implement Changes to Standardized Testing What GAO FoundThe Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) operates a school system that primarily serves military-connected families. DODEA, like traditional public school districts, uses standardized tests—tests administered and scored in a preset, standard manner—to assess academic progress of students over time.Federal testing requirements for traditional public school districts that receive funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, do not apply to DODEA. However, DODEA developed a Comprehensive Assessment System to align agency testing with its curriculum standards. Standardized tests under this system are administered DODEA-wide. DODEA's Comprehensive Assessment System testing requirements differ from other federal testing requirements in terms of subjects covered, frequency of tests, and how testing information is used.In addition to standardized tests required through the Comprehensive Assessment System, seven of the eight DODEA districts chose to administer additional standardized tests in school year 2022–23. Because this additional standardized testing varied across districts, the amount of time that DODEA students spent taking standardized tests also varied across districts.According to GAO's analysis, DODEA students spent more time on standardized tests throughout a student's K¬–12 education, compared to students in nine selected public school districts. Specifically, DODEA students averaged about 24 school days while students in the nine districts averaged about 16 school days across grades K–12.In 2021, DODEA convened a working group made up of agency leadership, school principals, teachers, and other instructional staff to review and recommend changes to the testing policies and procedures under the Comprehensive Assessment System. DODEA has begun implementing some of the recommendations from the working group, and has developed a draft implementation plan. However, the plan does not follow several leading project management practices, such as how progress will be tracked and reviewed, or explain how stakeholders would be involved in decision-making and execution. Incorporating such practices into the implementation plan would help DODEA monitor progress towards improving its testing system and would provide an important opportunity to increase accountability, transparency, and communication about its efforts for working group stakeholders.Why GAO Did This StudySenate Report No. 117-130 accompanying the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review standardized testing in DODEA schools. GAO's review examined standardized test requirements and the amount of time DODEA students spend on standardized tests, and how this compares to selected public schools.To do this work, GAO used a questionnaire to collect information about testing requirements and time spent on testing from DODEA headquarters, all eight DODEA districts, and from a non-generalizable sample of nine public school districts. These nine districts were located near large military installations and, in some cases, near DODEA schools. GAO reviewed agency documents on testing policies and procedures, and interviewed agency officials in charge of testing policy in all three DODEA regions, and seven of the eight districts.
- Special Education: Additional Data Could Help Early Intervention Programs Reach More Eligible Infants and Toddlers What GAO FoundStates and territories (states) use different definitions of “developmental delay” and different program eligibility criteria for their early intervention programs, which serve infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2. This reflects flexibilities provided to states under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which assists states in operating a statewide program of early intervention services. GAO surveyed 56 Part C programs, and 54 responded. When asked to name their top challenges serving eligible families, 48 states identified a lack of qualified service providers, and 23 cited staffing challenges at the state level.According to GAO's survey, 53 percent of children referred for Part C services ultimately enrolled (see figure). To better understand the characteristics of children moving through each stage of the process, GAO analyzed demographic data for the 16 states able to report this information on GAO's survey. GAO found notable variation at different points in the enrollment process. For example, the percentage of children referred who received an evaluation ranged from 59 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children to 86 percent of Asian children (a 27 point spread); whereas, the percentage of children deemed eligible who enrolled ranged from 91 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children to 95 percent of Asian and White children (a 4 point spread).Percentage of Children Reaching Each Stage of Part C Enrollment Process, Out of Children Referred, July 2021 to June 2022Note: GAO conducted a survey of Part C programs. Fifty-four states and territories responded to our survey overall, and 41 provided responses included in this figure. Our survey requested data for the 12-month period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, however, three respondents provided data for a different, recent, 12-month period, in accordance with our survey instructions.Education does not collect, or require states to collect, demographic data on children prior to enrollment in Part C. Officials said that IDEA does not provide them the authority to do so. If Education had statutory authority to collect such data throughout the enrollment process, it could focus its assistance on maximizing access to early intervention services for all infants and toddlers who need it—a key goal of IDEA. Many states, however, collect such data already, and some use it to identify ways to improve Part C access. Encouraging all states to improve their Child Find efforts by using the data they already collect would help them better identify and serve those infants and toddlers who need support.Why GAO Did This StudyIDEA Part C programs served more than 770,000 children in 2021. Early intervention services, such as speech or physical therapy, can improve a child's outcomes. Research suggests that access to services varies by characteristics such as race and income.GAO was asked to review barriers states may face in carrying out IDEA Part C requirements, and any inequities in access to early intervention services. This report examines (1) how states' Part C programs differ and challenges states face in serving eligible families; (2) available data on characteristics of children referred to, evaluated for, determined eligible for, and enrolled in Part C programs; and (3) how Education and states use available data to identify opportunities to increase children's access to services. To do so, GAO conducted a survey of 56 Part C programs: 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. GAO also analyzed data from Education, and spoke with Education officials and stakeholders, and other experts.
- K-12 Education: DOD Should Assess Whether Troops-to-Teachers is Meeting Program Goals What GAO FoundParticipation in Troops-to-Teachers—a Department of Defense (DOD) program that makes grants to states to help military personnel become teachers—generally declined from fiscal years 2014 through 2020. Reported program hires also dropped from 7,718 to 1,450 during this time (see figure). The program had higher representation of groups typically underrepresented in the K-12 teacher workforce: 72 percent of participants were men and 42 percent were non-White.Troops-to-Teachers Program Participants and Hires, Fiscal Years 2014-20DOD established a program goal of reducing critical teacher shortages in areas with high-need schools (e.g., those enrolling a higher percentage of low-income students) and in key subjects such as math, science, and special education. However, DOD does not have complete data on the schools and subjects program participants teach because it lost access to the data when it canceled the program in 2020 and shut down its data management system in 2021. However, the program's prior annual reports show, for example, in fiscal year 2017, at least 273 participants taught in a high-need school. In addition, for fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2020, a total of at least 155 participants taught science, math, special education, or foreign language in a high-need school.DOD has collected standardized performance data from grantees through their required annual performance reports since 2019, but has not evaluated the program's effectiveness in the past 5 years. In the absence of a mechanism to report data that will help assess the program's overall performance across grantees, DOD will be limited in its ability to determine if the program is fully achieving its stated goals. Although a statutorily required memorandum of agreement (MOA) states that DOD should meet with and provide program information to the Department of Education (Education), DOD does not currently do either. DOD officials said that reestablishing this relationship would be helpful. Doing so would better position DOD to identify opportunities to enhance the program's potential.Why GAO Did This StudyOriginally authorized in 1992, the Troops-to-Teachers program was transferred from Education to DOD in 2013. In 2020, DOD canceled the program due to the realignment of agency resources. In December 2021 federal law directed DOD to reinstate the program, with a sunset date of July 1, 2025. Senate Report 117-39 included a provision for GAO to assess the program.This report examines (1) the numbers and characteristics of program participants, (2) what is known about participant employment, and (3) how DOD assesses the program's effectiveness and implements its MOA with Education.GAO analyzed data on program participants for fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2020. GAO interviewed officials from DOD and Education. GAO also interviewed officials from three state grantees with active grant agreements and relatively high numbers of veterans, program participants, and reported hires, and school districts within them having relatively high numbers of high-need schools, among other factors. GAO also reviewed relevant agency documentation and federal laws.
- 403(b) Retirement Plans: Department of Labor Should Update Educational Materials to Better Inform Plan Sponsors and Participants What GAO FoundMillions of teachers and employees of tax-exempt organizations invest in 403(b) retirement plans. The Department of Labor (DOL), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) take steps to oversee some 403(b) plans or their investment options, or both. Specifically, DOL oversees 403(b) plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and uses a range of strategies to identify plans to investigate for compliance with the law. For example, DOL has investigated instances of self-dealing—when a plan fiduciary uses plan assets for the fiduciary's own interest or own account. The SEC's oversight focuses on compliance with securities laws and regulations, while the IRS's oversight focuses on compliance with the Internal Revenue Code. DOL, SEC, and IRS also conduct outreach and provide educational materials to 403(b) plan sponsors and participants. However, DOL's website does not contain targeted educational materials that could help participants understand 403(b) plan fees. Updated DOL information on 403(b) plans could help participants make more informed decisions.GAO reviewed how five selected states worked to improve outcomes—including in some cases reducing fees participants pay—in 403(b) plans that are not subject to ERISA requirements. Officials in three of the states said they had consolidated the number of service providers offering investment options, which strengthened oversight by reducing the number of service providers they had to oversee. Officials in Connecticut told GAO consolidating service providers also resulted in lower annual fees for participants (see figure). Officials in four of the selected states said they enhanced transparency by providing participants with additional information on plans' investment options and fees or by making it available elsewhere.Connecticut: Average Investment Fees Pre- and Post-2004 Consolidation Stakeholders and experts identified actions they said could improve 403(b) participant outcomes. For example, they suggested establishing fiduciary duties for non-ERISA plans in some states that are not subject to such protections can help protect participants' interests. Also, they said requiring distribution of standardized information on investment options' returns and fees for participants in non-ERISA plans would promote transparency. Multiple experts also suggested that allowing 403(b) plans to use certain other investment vehicles could reduce fees.Why GAO Did This StudyLike 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans are account-based defined contribution plans sponsored by employers. Many 403(b) plans are subject to ERISA requirements and are intended to protect the interests of plan participants. However, some 403(b) plans are not covered by ERISA.GAO was asked to review (1) the extent of federal agencies' 403(b) plan oversight, (2) actions by selected states that could improve 403(b) participant outcomes, and (3) options stakeholders and experts have identified that could improve outcomes for 403(b) participants.GAO analyzed DOL, SEC, and IRS data and documentation; reviewed documentation from five selected states identified as taking actions to improve participant outcomes; interviewed federal and state agency officials and experts; and conducted and analyzed results from surveys of plan sponsors and service providers about options to improve participant outcomes. The analysis of state actions and survey results offer a range of perspectives on improving participant outcomes but are not generalizable.
- School Meals: USDA Should Address Challenges in Its “Foods in Schools” Program What GAO FoundLocal school food authorities primarily used the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foods in Schools program to obtain beef, poultry, and fresh produce, according to GAO's analysis of the most recent Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) data available. From school years 2014-15 through 2020-21, beef and poultry accounted for nearly 40 percent of all USDA Foods in Schools purchases, an average of more than $625 million per year. Over that same period, fresh produce purchases through the program nearly tripled. Selected states and school food authorities GAO interviewed described several factors that affected which foods school food authorities obtained through the program, including cost, convenience, and the staff resources available to manage inventory.States reported major challenges in operating the USDA Foods in Schools program in school year 2021-22, according to GAO's survey. For example, 28 states reported major challenges with delivery issues, including cancelations, delays, and receiving less than their full order. States reported that this challenge generally existed prior to the pandemic, but worsened during it. Officials from school food authorities GAO interviewed said they had to adjust quickly to address delivery issues, such as by making last-minute menu substitutions or serving the same meal multiple days in a row. Though USDA has begun to identify and address some operational challenges on an ad hoc basis, it does not do so routinely or systematically. Without a mechanism to identify and address challenges, USDA may miss opportunities to respond to risks and achieve the program's main objective—providing domestic foods for nutritious meals.Challenges States Reported in Operating the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foods in Schools Program, School Year 2021-22Note: For more details, see figure 7 in GAO-23-105697.More than half of states reported satisfaction with FNS's assistance on the USDA Foods in Schools program, according to GAO's survey. However, 21 states identified opportunities for additional assistance, including more timely communication. Specifically, nine states reported delayed or lacking communication from FNS, especially regarding USDA Foods orders. FNS staff said they do not have guidelines for communication with states, but respond as soon as possible. By establishing such guidelines, FNS could track its efforts to provide timely responses and better assist states in operating the program.Why GAO Did This StudyThe USDA Foods in Schools program is an important source of nutritious, domestic food for school meals. Through the program, school food authorities select from over 200 products that USDA offers to purchase on their behalf—an annual value of about $1.6 billion. The program relies on a network of public and private stakeholders to operate effectively.GAO was asked to review implementation of the USDA Foods in Schools program. This report examines (1) spending for the program in recent years and (2) any challenges states and school food authorities faced in operating the program, as well as USDA's assistance in addressing challenges.GAO analyzed data on USDA Foods in Schools purchases from school years 2014-15 through 2020-21. GAO surveyed all states that operate the program, and interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of four states and eight school food authorities. GAO selected states based on use of USDA Foods in Schools entitlement, geographic diversity, and other reasons. GAO selected school food authorities for a range of locales. GAO also interviewed USDA officials and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documents.
- Department of Education: Federal Student Aid System Modernization Project Should Better Estimate Cost and Schedule What GAO FoundIn 2021, the Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) initiated the Award Eligibility Determination (AED) project to, among other things, modernize and replace an over 30-year-old system used to process federal student aid applications. FSA has completed selected project planning and development activities. For example, in March 2022, FSA awarded a system development contract for approximately $122 million. In October 2022, FSA completed development of the infrastructure foundation for the system. Future planned activities include conducting user acceptance and system integration testing. FSA plans to deploy the system by December 2023 (see figure).Key Completed and Future Implementation Activities for the Award Eligibility Determination (AED) Project*The cloud refers to network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort.The AED project implemented four of five selected planning best practices that are intended to increase the likelihood that a project meets its objectives. For example, the project developed management plans and identified the skills needed to perform the work.However, critical gaps exist in the fifth practice related to cost and schedule. Specifically, contrary to best practices, the project did not develop a life cycle cost estimate to inform the budget. Instead, officials roughly estimated that the office would need approximately $336 million to develop, deploy, and support AED. However, this estimate was incomplete since it did not include government labor costs.With regard to the schedule, GAO found that project officials developed a schedule for AED and kept it updated. However, the officials did not document the assumptions, such as resource availability, that informed the schedule. In addition, the schedule did not provide rationales for constraints that limit the movement of activities. For example, the AED schedule did not identify the rationales for why 43 activities could not start any earlier than a specific date. These gaps limit the reliability of the schedule.Developing a life cycle cost estimate to inform the budget and establishing a reliable schedule are critical steps to ensuring the project does not overrun costs or delay the schedule. Until project officials take these steps, the project is at risk of cost increases and schedule delays.Why GAO Did This StudyFSA is the largest provider of student financial aid in the nation. In fiscal year 2022, the office processed approximately 17 million student aid applications and delivered over $100 billion in aid to more than 10 million postsecondary students and their families. Most applications are submitted electronically through FSA's legacy Central Processing System. In 2019, GAO reported that this system was among the 10 most critical federal systems in need of modernization.The House report accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2021 includes a provision for GAO to examine FSA's efforts to replace the Central Processing System. GAO's report (1) describes the status of FSA's AED project and (2) examines the extent to which FSA implemented selected planning best practices to oversee the AED project.GAO reviewed relevant agency documentation to describe completed and planned development activities. GAO also assessed AED planning documentation against selected Information Systems Audit and Control Association Capability Maturity Model Integration planning best practices and interviewed appropriate officials.
- Veterans Employment: GI Bill Benefits Can Help Lead to Outdoor Recreation Careers What GAO FoundEligible veterans can use the GI Bill and other education benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pursue certificate or college degree programs related to outdoor recreation. This is a $159 billion industry involving outdoor physical activities, such as skiing or fishing, according to a 2021 federal estimate. GAO identified 34 GI Bill-approved certificate programs and about 1,400 college degree programs related to outdoor recreation. However, veterans may face challenges pursuing outdoor recreation education, such as the seasonality or specific locations of some programs. For example, some courses in avalanche rescue are available only in mountainous regions during the winter.  Examples of Veterans' Potential Education Pathways to Outdoor Recreation Careers Using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) BenefitsIn 2021 federal agencies employed about 4,900 veterans in a number of outdoor recreation positions. These veterans comprised 11 percent of the more than 44,000 federal outdoor recreation employees, according to GAO's analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data. GAO identified 11 federal outdoor recreation positions at the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Officials at these agencies told GAO that they attract veterans to outdoor recreation positions through career fairs, internships, and other programs or initiatives. More than one-third of these employees hold seasonal or part-time jobs. This can deter veterans seeking full-time, year-round employment from pursuing these careers. Further, federal officials told GAO that some outdoor recreation jobs are entry level and low paying, and thus may not be a good fit for veterans who are transitioning to civilian employment mid-career.Most Common Federal Outdoor Recreation Positions for Veterans, as of 2021			Outdoor recreation position category 									Number of veterans employed 								Forestry technician									1,710								General natural resources management and biological sciences									967								Maintenance mechanic (e.g., trail worker)									959								Park ranger									732					Source: GAO analysis of September 2021 Office of Personnel Management data for selected agencies.Note: For more details, see Table 1 in GAO-23-106149.Why GAO Did This StudySome veterans leave military service with wilderness survival and other skills related to outdoor recreation. VA also provides eligible veterans with benefits to pursue additional education and training. However, little is known about the educational or employment pathways for veterans into the outdoor recreation sector.The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, includes provisions for GAO to review veterans' use of educational benefits and pursuit of careers in outdoor recreation. This report describes the opportunities and challenges for veterans to (1) use the GI Bill and other VA benefits toward outdoor recreation education and (2) pursue federal employment in outdoor recreation.GAO identified GI Bill-approved outdoor recreation education programs as of 2022 using VA and Department of Education data. GAO also analyzed 2021 OPM data—the most recent available—on federal employment at four agencies with missions connected to the outdoors: the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, NOAA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. GAO also interviewed officials at these four agencies and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.In addition, GAO interviewed officials at VA and outdoor recreation certificate programs selected based on veteran enrollment and approval for VA educational benefits. GAO also interviewed representatives of an outdoor recreation industry association and veteran advocacy groups.For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- K-12 Education: Additional Guidance Could Improve the Equitable Services Process for School Districts and Private Schools What GAO FoundSince 2015, federal law has required states to designate an ombuds to monitor school districts' provision of services to eligible private school children and teachers. Most states implemented this requirement by assigning the role to someone already employed by the state educational agency, according to GAO's survey of all state ombuds. Selected stakeholders generally reported ombuds were helpful, but some raised concerns about ombuds' workload and real or perceived challenges to independence and impartiality. The Department of Education's guidance advises states to consider these issues but provides little information on how to help ensure ombuds have capacity to do their jobs or examples of ways to mitigate impartiality concerns. Further, about 40 percent of ombuds reported in GAO's survey that a lack of training, guidance, or other supports were among the greatest challenges they faced, with several noting they lacked knowledge of their role. Absent more robust guidance and training from Education, private schools and school districts may not fully benefit from ombuds as a resource.Most Common Topics on Which Ombuds Reported More Guidance or Training Would Be HelpfulOmbuds reported receiving a total of 38 formal equitable service complaints from private schools and private school associations since 2015 about issues including private school students and staff not receiving equitable services. Thirteen of these complaints were appealed to Education. By law, Education has 90 days to investigate and issue a decision in such appeals, but since 2015, it has never met that timeframe. GAO found that Education took a median of 258 days to issue decisions, with the longest taking over 500 days. Without timely decisions from Education, eligible private school students and teachers may not receive all equitable services to which they are entitled.Many of the more than 30 selected private school leaders and school district officials GAO spoke with described challenges managing equitable services, such as that they are complex and time consuming. Most ombuds agreed, with 35 reporting that administrative burden is the most common reason that private school leaders may choose not to participate in equitable services. Further, all stakeholders cited challenges identifying and counting eligible children and working with multiple school districts or with private schools across school district boundaries. In addition, nearly all of the private school leaders GAO spoke with said private schools faced challenges receiving equitable services, such as the amount or quality of services.Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2019-20, over 4.6 million students attended private school. Many are eligible for equitable services—such as tutoring—under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). These federally funded services provided by school districts offer critical learning supports at private schools that opt to have their students receive them. ESEA requires states designate an ombuds to monitor and enforce equitable services requirements.GAO was asked to review state implementation of the ombuds requirement and equitable services more broadly. This report examines (1) states' implementation of the equitable services ombuds and challenges in doing so, (2) how states and Education address equitable services disputes, and (3) challenges that selected private schools and school districts face related to equitable services.GAO surveyed ombuds in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories (52 of 56 responded). GAO also interviewed ombuds, state and school district officials, and private school leaders in five states, selected primarily because they have a large number of private schools. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and Education documents, and interviewed Education officials.
- Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Education What GAO FoundIn June 2022, GAO identified five priority recommendations for the Department of Education. Since then, Education implemented two recommendations by: (1) taking steps to ensure states provide accurate information on changes in special education rights when parents are considering moving their child from public to private school; and (2) clarifying guidance to servicers of federal student loans in the Direct Loan Program to provide more consistent services to borrowers.In May 2023, GAO identified three additional priority recommendations for Education, bringing the total number to six. These recommendations involve the following areas:protecting the investment in higher education, and	ensuring the well-being and education of the nation's school-age children.Education's attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.Why GAO Did This StudyPriority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations.For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.
- Midwives: Information on Births, Workforce, and Midwifery Education What GAO FoundAmong other services, midwives attend births and provide care during pregnancy and the postpartum period. According to a National Partnership for Women and Families report, midwives can help improve the quality of maternal care and improve outcomes associated with pregnancy and birth. There are three types of midwives with certification in the U.S. Among other differences, certified nurse-midwives and certified midwives primarily attend births in hospitals, while certified professional midwives primarily attend births in birth centers and homes.Number of Midwives and Midwifery Students by Type of Midwife in 2021Data show that in 2021, 12 percent of all births were attended by a midwife, and the number of births attended by midwives and the number of practicing midwives have increased in recent years. However, stakeholders GAO interviewed and research reports GAO reviewed identified various challenges to obtaining and providing midwifery care. For example:Pregnant people may face challenges obtaining midwifery care, such as insurance policies that do not cover midwives or do not list midwives in their provider directories.	Midwives may face challenges providing care, including variations by state in limitations on their scope of practice, such as whether their work needs to be supervised by physicians.Data from accrediting organizations show the number of students enrolled in midwifery education programs generally increased in recent years. According to stakeholders GAO interviewed, students may face challenges accessing midwifery education, including educational costs and limited availability of clinical training placements. Agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services have scholarship and loan repayment programs for nurse-midwifery students and certified nurse-midwives, but these students and midwives make up a small percentage of those supported by these programs.According to researchers and agency officials GAO interviewed, challenges to measuring the quality of maternal care include the difficulty attributing the quality of care to a specific provider because care is provided in teams and occurs over the course of pregnancy and delivery.Why GAO Did This StudyEach year in the U.S., hundreds of individuals die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth, and tens of thousands experience unexpected outcomes such as heart failure. In 2022, GAO reported that research showed more than half of rural counties lacked hospital-based services for pregnant people. GAO also reported on persistent racial and ethnic disparities in maternal death and severe maternal morbidity. Maternal health care providers, such as midwives, can play a critical role in improving maternal health outcomes. GAO was asked to examine midwifery education and access to midwifery care.This report describes information on midwife-attended births, the midwifery workforce, and any challenges to obtaining midwifery care; information on students of midwifery education programs, any midwifery educational challenges, and available federal financial support; and any challenges to measuring the quality of maternal health care, including midwifery care.GAO analyzed data from federal agencies and midwifery education and provider organizations, and reviewed research on midwifery care and education. GAO also interviewed a non-generalizable selection of 15 stakeholders knowledgeable about midwifery care and education, and eight researchers and officials from federal agencies about maternal care quality measures.The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.For more information, contact Jessica Farb at (202) 512-7114 or farbj@gao.gov.
- School Meal Programs: USDA Could Enhance Implementation of the Buy American Provision What GAO FoundSchool food authorities primarily used exceptions from the Buy American provision to purchase fruits they could not obtain domestically in sufficient quantities. An estimated 94 percent of school food authorities that used exceptions from the Buy American provision did so to purchase fruit, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) survey from school year 2017-18—the most recent nationally representative data available. FNS's survey found that school food authorities used exceptions less frequently to purchase other foods, like grains or meats. Officials from seven of the eight school food authorities GAO interviewed said they used Buy American exceptions each school year primarily to buy fruits, such as bananas, pineapples, and mandarin oranges.Non-domestic Foods Purchased Using a Buy American Provision Exception by School Food Authorities That Used Exceptions in School Year 2017-18Notes: The thin lines display the 95 percent confidence interval for each estimate. Percentages do not add to 100 percent because school food authorities may use multiple exceptions from the Buy American provision in a given school year.aMeat and meat alternates included a variety of foods including beef, poultry, seafood, and nuts.bOther products included yeast, oils, and spices.FNS has provided some tools and assistance to states and school food authorities to implement the Buy American provision, but has not done so with regard to documenting exceptions. For example, FNS provides standard Buy American provision language for solicitations and contracts that school food authorities can use at their discretion. GAO found that some states are providing forms for school authorities to use to document their reasons for using exceptions to the Buy American provision. However, states do not consistently do this, and the forms they provide contain varying levels of guidance and collect different information. Officials from half of the school food authorities that GAO interviewed said having standardized exception forms would be helpful. Without providing a standard Buy American exception form that school food authorities could use, FNS may be missing an opportunity to help school food authorities fully understand their responsibilities to implement the provision.Why GAO Did This StudyFNS administers the school meal programs that provide nutritious, low-cost meals to about 30 million children each day, according to USDA fiscal year 2019 data. School food authorities participating in the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program must comply with the Buy American provision, which requires them to buy domestic foods and food products to the maximum extent practicable.GAO was asked to review implementation of the Buy American provision in school meal programs. This report examines how school food authorities used exceptions from the Buy American provision and the extent to which USDA supported states and school food authorities in implementing the Buy American provision.GAO reviewed FNS documents; FNS's school year 2017-18 nationally representative survey of school food authorities; and relevant federal laws and regulations. GAO also interviewed officials from FNS and a non-generalizable sample of four states and eight school food authorities. GAO selected states for diversity of program size and geography and randomly selected school food authorities. GAO also reviewed five state exception forms identified through interviews with states and FNS staff.
- Department of Education: Employment Information for Key Grant Programs that Foster Expertise in World Languages and Cultures What GAO FoundThe Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship and National Resource Center (NRC) grant programs fund education in the languages and cultures of world areas (e.g. Africa, East Asia) in different ways. While the FLAS program provides universities with grants that they then use to fund fellowships for individual students, the NRC program supports the operation of academic centers at the university level. NRCs fund activities such as curriculum development, language instruction, and outreach to community partners (e.g., government agencies or K-12 schools). GAO reviewed descriptions in applications from 27 grantee universities about how their NRC and/or FLAS grants would encourage employment in areas of need and identified the following activities as the most common:Helping students develop skills in languages (23 of 27), such as Arabic or Chinese, that are needed in the federal government or other sectors.	Offering career services (21 of 27), such as hosting workshops about job-seeking skills (e.g., resume writing) and publicizing relevant internships.	Helping students develop knowledge about world areas (21 of 27), such as equipping them with cultural competencies to navigate the global economy.	Collaborating with community partners (20 of 27), such as helping to develop a Global Workforce Skills Certificate for community colleges.Because FLAS awards fellowships to individuals, Education periodically surveys program graduates about their employment. GAO analyzed responses from the most recent survey (1,991 respondents who graduated between 2010 and 2018 out of 4,728 survey recipients). Of the 1,260 respondents who reported their employment sector, more reported that they worked in the private or non-profit sectors than in government (see figure below). About 46 percent of 1,881 survey question respondents reported that they had consulted or volunteered in one of a variety of employment sectors, most commonly for a domestic (about 10 percent) or international (about 8 percent) non-profit organization.Employment Sectors Reported by FLAS Graduates Who Responded to 2019 SurveyNote: The percentages are approximate and add up to more than 100 due to rounding. Of the 1,991 respondents, 1,260 answered the survey question about employment sectors.aEducation did not define the “other” category in its FLAS survey.Why GAO Did This StudyIn today's interconnected world, many career fields—such as diplomacy, national security, and business—need individuals with knowledge about world languages and cultures. To address these areas of needed expertise—both at the federal level as well as in the education, business, and nonprofit sectors—the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, authorizes the FLAS and NRC grant programs. GAO was asked to review how these programs support employment in areas of need.Among other issues, this report addresses how selected grantee universities describe encouraging employment in areas of need in their grant applications, and what Education's most recent survey of FLAS graduates shows about respondents' employment outcomes.GAO reviewed relevant application narratives from a non-generalizable sample of 27 NRC grantee universities (25 of which were also FLAS grantees) and grouped employment activities described by grantees into nine categories. These grantees comprised about 23 percent of all fiscal year 2022 NRC and FLAS grantee universities. GAO also analyzed the results from Education's 2019 survey of FLAS graduates, the most recent available. Due to the differences in the structure of the FLAS and NRC programs, Education does not administer a similar survey to NRC grantees. In addition, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and program documents, and interviewed officials from Education.For more information, contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
- K-12 Education: New Charter Schools Receiving Grants to Open Grew Faster Than Peers What GAO FoundThe Department of Education Charter Schools Program (CSP) provides grants to open or expand charter schools. Charter schools are publicly funded, semi-autonomous schools of choice. GAO found that charter schools that received CSP grants generally had higher enrollment growth compared to similar charter schools that did not receive grants (see figure). Specifically, GAO's analysis found about 1.3 to 1.6 times higher enrollment growth, on average, for CSP grant-recipient charter schools within 12 years after receiving the grant. Enrollment growth was higher among middle schools, urban schools, and schools with higher proportions of non-White or low-income students.Student Enrollment Growth 12 Years after Receiving Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants Compared to Similar Non-Recipient Charter SchoolsNote: GAO examined data for selected charter schools that received a CSP grant to open or expand in 2006–2020 and matched them to similar, non-CSP charter schools. Over this 14-year period, the maximum period of time GAO could assess enrollment growth was 12 years. Error bars display the 95 percent confidence interval for estimates.GAO's analysis found that, compared to traditional public schools, charter schools—whether they received CSP funding or not—enrolled smaller percentages of students with disabilities designated as receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Researchers have identified potential factors that may contribute to enrollment patterns. For example, students with disabilities and parents may already be connected to programs in traditional public schools. According to researchers, charter schools may use practices that discourage students with disabilities from applying.Why GAO Did This StudyEnrollment in charter schools that received CSP grants grew from 213,576 to 1,380,530 students from school years 2006-07 to 2020-21. Education awarded CSP grants to help open new and expand existing charter schools. As with other public schools, charter schools are monitored and regulated at the state or local level.House Report 116-450 includes a provision for GAO to report on student enrollment trends in CSP grant-recipient charter schools. This report examines (1) enrollment growth at new charter schools that received CSP grants compared to those that did not for 2006–2020 (the most recent available), and (2) enrollment differences in student subpopulations for charter schools receiving such grants compared to other charter and traditional public schools for 2011–2015 (the most recent available that could be matched). GAO reviewed the three main CSP grants intended to open or expand charter schools: CSP State Educational Agencies/State Entities, CSP Charter Management Organizations, and CSP Non-State Educational Agencies/Developers.GAO conducted a multivariate statistical analysis to match CSP-grant recipient charter schools with similar non-CSP charter schools to compare enrollment growth. GAO conducted another statistical analysis to compare student subpopulation enrollment differences among CSP grant-recipient schools, non-CSP charter schools, and traditional public schools. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documents and interviewed federal officials. GAO incorporated technical comments from Education as appropriate.For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.