Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality Programs
Published: 2011-04-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses the findings from our recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federally funded programs that support teacher quality. We recently issued a report addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federal programs that outlined opportunities to reduce potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs, including teacher quality programs. Our recent work on teacher quality programs builds on a long history of work where we identified a number of education programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. This work may help inform congressional deliberations over how to prioritize spending given the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our nation's government. In recent years, the Department of Education (Education) has faced expanded responsibilities that have challenged the department to strategically allocate resources to balance new duties with ongoing ones. For example, we reported the number of grants Education awarded increased from about 14,000 in 2000 to about 21,000 just 2 years later and has since remained around 18,000, even as the number of full-time equivalent staff decreased by 13 percent from fiscal years 2000 to 2009. New programs often increase Education's workload, requiring staff to develop new guidance and provide technical assistance to program participants. Our work examining fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication can help inform decisions on how to prioritize spending, which could also help Education address these challenges and better allocate scarce resources. In particular, our recent work identified 82 programs supporting teacher quality, which are characterized by fragmentation and overlap. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national need but are administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues. This testimony draws upon the results of our recently issued report and our past work and addresses (1) what is known about fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among teacher quality programs; and (2) what are additional ways that Congress could minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: We identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher quality administered across 10 federal agencies, many of which share similar goals. However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these programs. The fragmentation and overlap of teacher quality programs can frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost effective, and ultimately increase program costs. In addition, our larger body of work on federal education programs has also found a wide array of programs with similar objectives, target populations, and services across multiple federal agencies. In past work, GAO and Education's Inspector General have concluded that improved planning and coordination could help Education better leverage expertise and limited resources; however, given the large number of teacher quality programs and the extent of overlap, it is unlikely that improved coordination alone can fully mitigate the effects of the fragmented and overlapping federal effort. Sustained congressional oversight can also play a key role in addressing these issues. Congress could address these issues through legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and Education has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization and fiscal year 2012 budget proposals. Further, actions taken by Congress in the past demonstrate ways this Subcommittee can address these issues. However, effective oversight may be challenging as many of the programs we identified, especially smaller programs, have not been evaluated.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the findings from our  recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in  federally funded programs that support teacher quality. As you know, we  recently issued a report addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication in federal programs that outlined opportunities to reduce  potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs, including  teacher quality programs. Our recent work on teacher quality programs  builds on a long history of work where we identified a number of  education programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable  activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. This work  may help inform your deliberations over how to prioritize spending given  the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our nation’s government.
In recent years, the Department of Education (Education) has faced  expanded responsibilities that have challenged the department to  strategically allocate resources to balance new duties with ongoing ones.  For example, we reported the number of grants Education awarded  increased from about 14,000 in 2000 to about 21,000 just 2 years later and  has since remained around 18,000, even as the number of full-time  equivalent staff decreased by 13 percent from fiscal years 2000 to 2009.  New programs often increase Education’s workload, requiring staff to  develop new guidance and provide technical assistance to program  participants. Our work examining fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication can help inform decisions on how to prioritize spending, which  could also help Education address these challenges and better allocate  scarce resources. In particular, our recent work identified 82 programs  supporting teacher quality, which are characterized by fragmentation and  overlap. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the  same broad area of national need but are administered across different  federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies  or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies t o  achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation  among government programs or activities can be harbingers of  unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with  fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful  actions will be needed to address these issues.
My testimony today draws upon the results of our recently issued report  and our past work and addresses (1) what is known about fragmentation,  overlap, and potential duplication among teacher quality programs; and (2)  what are additional ways that Congress could minimize fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication among these programs?
The key points I will make today include the following:    We identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher  quality administered across 10 federal agencies, many of which share  similar goals. However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize  fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these programs.  The fragmentation and overlap of teacher quality programs can frustrate  agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive manner, limit  the ability to determine which programs are most cost effective, and  ultimately increase program costs. In addition, our larger body of work on  federal education programs has also found a wide array of programs with  similar objectives, target populations, and services across multiple federal  agencies. In past work, GAO and Education’s Inspector General have  concluded that improved planning and coordination could help Education  better leverage expertise and limited resources; however, given the large  number of teacher quality programs and the extent of overlap, it is unlikely  that improved coordination alone can fully mitigate the effects of the  fragmented and overlapping federal effort.
Sustained congressional oversight can also play a key role in addressing  these issues. Congress could address these issues through legislation,  particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and Education has already  proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization  and fiscal year 2012 budget proposals. Further, actions taken by Congress  in the past demonstrate ways this Subcommittee can address these issues.
However, effective oversight may be challenging as many of the programs  we identified, especially smaller programs, have not been evaluated.
In preparing this statement, we relied on our previous work in these areas  (please see the Related GAO Products list at the end of this statement).  These products contain detailed overviews of the scope and methodology  we used. The work on which this statement is based was performed in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Proliferation of Programs That Support Teacher Quality Complicates Federal Efforts to Invest Dollars Effectively
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent over $4 billion  specifically to improve the quality of our nation’s 3 million teachers  through numerous programs across the government. Teacher quality can  be enhanced through a variety of activities, including training, recruitment,  and curriculum and assessment tools. In turn, these activities can  influence student learning and ultimately improve the global  competitiveness of the American workforce in a knowledge-based  economy.
Federal efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the creation and  expansion of a variety of programs across the federal government.  However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize fragmentation,  overlap, or potential duplication among these programs. Specifically, GAO  identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher quality,  either as a primary purpose or as an allowable activity, administered  across 10 federal agencies. Many of these programs share similar goals.  For example, 9 of the 82 programs support improving the quality of  teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM  subjects) and these programs alone are administered across the  Departments of Education, Defense, and Energy; the National Aeronautics  and Space Administration; and the National Science Foundation. Further,  in fiscal year 2010, the majority (53) of the programs GAO identified  supporting teacher quality improvements received $50 million or less in  funding and many have their own separate administrative processes.
The proliferation of programs has resulted in fragmentation that can  frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive  manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost  effective, and ultimately increase program costs. For example, eight  different Education offices administer over 60 of the federal programs  supporting teacher quality improvements, primarily in the form of  competitive grants. Education officials believe that federal programs have  failed to make significant progress in helping states close achievement  gaps between schools serving students from different socioeconomic  backgrounds, because, in part, federal programs that focus on teaching  and learning of specific subjects are too fragmented to help state and  district officials strengthen instruction and increase student achievement  in a comprehensive manner. While Education officials noted, and GAO  concurs, that a mixture of programs can target services to underserved  populations and yield strategic innovations, the current programs are not  structured in a way that enables educators and policymakers to identify  the most effective practices to replicate. According to Education officials,  it is typically not cost-effective to allocate the funds necessary to conduct  rigorous evaluations of small programs; therefore, small programs are  unlikely to be evaluated. Finally, it is more costly to administer multiple  separate federal programs because each program has its own policies,  applications, award competitions, reporting requirements, and, in some  cases, federal evaluations.
While all of the 82 federal programs GAO identified support teacher quality  improvement efforts, several overlap in that they share more than one key  program characteristic. For example, teacher quality programs may  overlap if they share similar objectives, serve similar target groups, or fund  similar activities. GAO previously reported that 23 of the programs  administered by Education in fiscal year 2009 had improving teacher  quality as a specific focus, which suggested that there may be overlap  among these and other programs that have teacher quality improvements  as an allowable activity. When looking across a broader set of criteria,  GAO found that 14 of the programs administered by Education overlapped  with another program with regard to allowable activities as well as shared  objectives and target groups (see fig. 1). For example, the Transition to  Teaching program and Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program can  both be used to fund similar teacher preparation activities through  institutions of higher education for the purpose of helping individuals from  nonteaching fields become qualified to teach.
Although there is overlap among these programs, several factors make it  difficult to determine whether there is unnecessary duplication. First,  when similar teacher quality activities are funded through different  programs and delivered by different entities, some overlap can occur  unintentionally, but is not necessarily wasteful. For example, a local  school district could use funds from the Foreign Language Assistance  program to pay for professional development for a teacher who will be  implementing a new foreign language course, and this teacher could also  attend a summer seminar on best practices for teaching the foreign  language at a Language Resource Center. Second, by design, individual  teachers may benefit from federally funded training or financial support at  different points in their careers. Specifically, the teacher from this  example could also receive teacher certification through a program funded  by the Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow program. Further, both  broad and narrowly targeted programs exist simultaneously, meaning that  the same teacher who receives professional development funded from any  one or more of the above three programs might also receive professional  development that is funded through Title I, Part A of ESEA. The actual  content of these professional development activities may differ though,  since the primary goal of each program is different. In this example, it  would be difficult to know whether the absence of any one of these  programs would make a difference in terms of the teacher’s ability to  teach the new language effectively.
In addition, our larger body of work on federal education programs has  also found a wide array of programs with similar objectives, target  populations, and services across multiple federal agencies. This includes a  number of efforts to catalogue and determine how much is spent on a  wide variety of federally funded education programs. For example:  In 2010, we reported that the federal government provided an  estimated $166.9 billion over the 3-year period during fiscal years 2006  to 2008 to administer 151 different federal K-12 and early childhood  education programs.
In 2005, we identified 207 federal education programs that support  science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)  administered by 13 federal civilian agencies.
In past work, GAO and Education’s Inspector General have concluded that  improved planning and coordination could help Education better leverage  expertise and limited resources, and to anticipate and develop options for  addressing potential problems among the multitude of programs it  administers. Generally, GAO has reported that uncoordinated program  efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers,  and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. GAO identified key  practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal  agencies which include    establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the  outcome;  identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources;    agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities;    establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to  operate across agency boundaries;    developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results  of collaborative efforts;  reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through  agency plans and reports; and  reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts through  agency performance management systems.
In 2009, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Education work with  other agencies as appropriate to develop a coordinated approach for  routinely and systematically sharing information that can assist federal  programs, states, and local providers in achieving efficient service  delivery. Education has established working groups to help develop more  effective collaboration across Education offices, and has reached out to  other agencies to develop a framework for sharing information on some  teacher quality activities, but it has noted that coordination efforts do not  always prove useful and cannot fully eliminate barriers to program  alignment, such as programs with differing definitions for similar  populations of grantees, which create an impediment to coordination.  However, given the large number of teacher quality programs and the  extent of overlap, it is unlikely that improved coordination alone can fully  mitigate the effects of the fragmented and overlapping federal effort. In  our work we have identified multiple barriers to collaboration, including  the conflicting missions of agencies; challenges reaching consensus on  priorities; and incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer  systems.
section_title: Options for Congress to Consider as It Addresses Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication
paragraphs: As this Subcommittee considers its annual spending priorities, it may be  an opportune time to consider options for addressing fragmentation and  overlap among federal teacher quality programs and what is known about  how well these programs are achieving their objectives. As you consider  options for how to address fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication, I would like to highlight three approaches for you to consider:  1.  enhancing program evaluations and performance information;  2.  fostering coordination and strategic planning for program areas  that span multiple federal agencies; and  3.  consolidating existing programs.
subsections: section_title: Enhancing Program Evaluations and Performance Information
paragraphs: Information about the effectiveness of programs can help guide  policymakers and program managers in making tough decisions about  how to prioritize the use of scarce resources and improve the efficiency of  existing programs. However, there can be many challenges to obtaining  this information. For example, it may not be cost-effective to allocate the  funds necessary to conduct rigorous evaluations of the many small  programs and, as a result, these programs are unlikely to be evaluated. As  we have reported, many programs, especially smaller programs, have not  been evaluated, which can limit the ability of Congress to make informed  decisions about which programs to continue, expand, modify, consolidate,  or eliminate. For example:  In 2009, we also reported that while evaluations have been conducted,  or are under way, for about two-fifths of the 23 teacher quality  programs we identified, little is known about the extent to which most  programs are achieving their desired results.
In 2010, GAO reported that there were 151 different federal K-12 and  early childhood education programs but that more than half of these  programs have not been evaluated, including 8 of the 20 largest  programs, which together account for about 90 percent of total funding  for these programs.
Recognizing the importance of program evaluations, as part of its high  priority performance goals in its 2011 budget and performance plan,  Education has proposed implementation of a comprehensive approach to  inform its policies and major initiatives. Specifically, it has proposed to 1)  increase by two-thirds the number of its discretionary programs that use  evaluation, performance measures, and other program data, 2) implement  rigorous evaluations of its highest priority programs and initiatives, and 3)  ensure that newly authorized discretionary programs include a rigorous  evaluation component. However, Education has noted that linking  performance of specific outcomes to federal education programs is  complicated. For example, federal education funds often support state or  local efforts, making it difficult to assess the federal contribution to  performance of specific outcomes, and it can be difficult to isolate the  effect of a single program given the multitude of programs that could  potentially affect outcomes.
There are also governmentwide strategies that may play an important role.  Specifically, in January 2011, the President signed the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), updating the almost two-decades- old Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Implementing  provisions of the new act—such as its emphasis on establishing outcome- oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas— could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes and addressing  program performance spanning multiple organizations. Specifically,  GPRAMA requires (1) disclosure of information about the accuracy and  reliability of performance data, (2) identification of crosscutting  management challenges, and (3) quarterly reporting on priority goals on a  publicly available Web site. Additionally, GPRAMA significantly enhances  requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when establishing or  adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. The Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) and agencies are to consult with relevant committees,  obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals at least once  every 2 years. This information can inform deliberations on spending  priorities and help re-examine the fundamental structure, operation,  funding, and performance of a number of federal education programs.  However, to be successful, it will be important for agencies to build the  analytical capacity to both use the performance information, and to ensure  its quality—both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability  of research and evaluation resources.
section_title: Fostering Coordination and Strategic Planning for Program Areas That Span Multiple Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Where programs cross federal agencies, Congress can establish  requirements to ensure federal agencies are working together on common  goals. For example, Congress mandated—through the America  COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2007—that the Office of Science and  Technology Policy develop and maintain an inventory of STEM education  programs including documentation of the effectiveness of these programs,  assess the potential overlap and duplication of these programs, determine  the extent of evaluations, and develop a 5-year strategic plan for STEM  education, among other things. In establishing these requirements,  Congress put in place a set of requirements to provide information to  inform its decisions about strategic priorities.
section_title: Consolidating Existing Programs
paragraphs: Consolidating existing programs is another option for Congress to address  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. In the education area, Congress  consolidated several bilingual education programs into the English  Language Acquisition State Grant Program as part of the 2001 ESEA  reauthorization. As we reported prior to the consolidation, existing  bilingual programs shared the same goals, targeted the same types of  children, and provided similar services. In consolidating these programs,  Congress gave state and local educational agencies greater flexibility in  the design and administration of language instructional programs.  Congress has another opportunity to address these issues through the  pending reauthorization of the ESEA. Specifically, to minimize any  wasteful fragmentation and overlap among teacher quality programs,  Congress may choose either to eliminate programs that are too small to  evaluate cost effectively or to combine programs serving similar target  groups into a larger program. Education has already proposed combining  38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal, which could  allow the agency to dedicate a higher portion of its administrative  resources to monitoring programs for results and providing technical  assistance. Congress might also include legislative provisions to help  Education reduce fragmentation, such as by giving broader discretion to  the agency to move resources away from certain programs. Congress  could provide Education guidelines for selecting these programs. For  example, Congress could allow Education discretion to consolidate  programs with administrative costs exceeding a certain threshold or  programs that fail to meet performance goals, into larger or more  successful programs. Finally, to the extent that overlapping programs  continue to be authorized, they could be better aligned with each other in  a way that allows for comparison and evaluation to ensure they are  complementary rather than duplicative.
In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication, overlap,  and fragmentation among federal teacher quality programs is clearly  challenging. These are difficult issues to address because they may require  agencies and Congress to re-examine within and across various mission  areas the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a  number of long-standing federal programs or activities. Implementing  provisions of GPRAMA—such as its emphasis on establishing priority  outcome-oriented goals, including those covering crosscutting policy  areas—could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes,  addressing program performance spanning multiple agencies, and  facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation. Further, by ensuring that Education conducts rigorous  evaluations of key programs Congress could obtain additional information  on program performance to better inform its decisions on spending  priorities. Sustained attention and oversight by Congress will also be  critical.
Thank you, Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Members  of the Subcommittee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to answer any questions you may have.
For further information on this testimony please contact George A. Scott,  Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, who may be  reached at (202) 512-7215, or ScottG@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found  on the last page of this statement. This statement will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
section_title: Appendix I: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential  Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training  Programs. GAO-11-509T. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2011.
List of Selected Federal Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping  Objectives, Provide Similar Services, or Are Fragmented Across  Government Missions. GAO-11-474R. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-441T.  Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP.  Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.
Department of Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help  Education Better Respond to Evolving Priorities. GAO-11-194.  Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2011.
Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early Childhood  Education Programs. GAO-10-51. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010.
English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to  Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More  Coordination. GAO-09-575. Washington: D.C.: July 29, 2009.
Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices Support  Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and  English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide  Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance. GAO-09-573. Washington,  D.C.: July 20, 2009.
Teacher Quality: Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education  Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality.  GAO-09-593. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009.
Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key  Federal Efforts. GAO-07-861T. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007.
Higher Education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics  Trends and the Role of Federal Programs. GAO-06-702T. Washington: May  3, 2006.
Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and  Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. GAO-06-114. Washington,  D.C.: October 12, 2005.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination  Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher  Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0- 5. GAO-02-394. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2002.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of  Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29,  2002.
Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be  Consolidated. GAO-01-657. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2001.
Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess  Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28,  2000.
Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low- Income Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington: D.C.: November 15,  1999.
Federal Education Funding: Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise  Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns. GAO/T-HEHS-98-46. Washington,  D.C.: November 6, 1997.
Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services,  and Target Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-71FS. Washington, D.C.: February 22,  1995.
Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target  Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-4FS. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 1994.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.