Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training Programs
Published: 2011-04-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses GAO's recent report entitled "Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue." This report delineates dozens of areas across government where fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication merit the attention of Congress and the Administration spanning a range of government missions: agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and social services. The report also describes other opportunities for federal departments, agencies or Congress to consider taking action on that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. Taking actions on these opportunities and reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services. With regard to issues of specific interest to this Committee, GAO found fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in the areas of federal programs to improve teacher quality and employment and training. Each of these areas is characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. 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 will address what is known about fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among federal teacher quality and employment and training programs. It also addresses options for Congress to help minimize fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication and how it can use recent legislative tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 1) 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 many 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. Congress could address these issues through legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Department of Education (Education) has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal. (2) We found that 44 of the 47 employment and training programs we identified overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts. As part of its proposed changes to the Workforce Investment Act, the Administration proposes consolidating nine programs into three. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS. (3) Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing these issues. Specifically, this Committee can look for opportunities to enhance program evaluations and performance information, foster coordination and strategic planning for program areas that span multiple federal agencies, and consolidate existing programs or coordinate service delivery.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to discuss GAO’s recent report entitled  Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. This report  delineates dozens of areas across government where fragmentation,  overlap, and potential duplication merit the attention of Congress and the  Administration spanning a range of government missions: agriculture,  defense, economic development, energy, general government, health,  homeland security, international affairs, and social services. The report  also describes other opportunities for federal departments, agencies or  Congress to consider taking action on that could either reduce the cost of  government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.  Taking actions on these opportunities and reducing or eliminating  duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could save billions of tax dollars  annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services.
With regard to issues of specific interest to this Committee, GAO found  fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in the areas of federal  programs to improve teacher quality and employment and training. Each  of these areas is characterized by a large number of programs with similar  goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by  multiple federal agencies. 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.
My testimony today draws upon the results of our recently issued report  and will address what is known about fragmentation, overlap, and  potential duplication among federal teacher quality and employment and  training programs. I will also address options for Congress to help  minimize fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication and how it can  use recent legislative tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of  federal programs.
The key points I will make today are:    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 many  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. Congress could address  these issues through legislation, particularly through the pending  reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,  and the Department of Education (Education) has already proposed  combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal.
We found that 44 of the 47 employment and training programs we  identified overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at  least one similar service to a similar population. To facilitate further  progress by states and localities in increasing administrative efficiencies,  we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human  Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information that  could inform such efforts. As part of its proposed changes to the  Workforce Investment Act, the Administration proposes consolidating  nine programs into three. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer  the Senior Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS.
Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing these issues.
Specifically, this Committee can look for opportunities to enhance  program evaluations and performance information, foster coordination  and strategic planning for program areas that span multiple federal  agencies, and consolidate existing programs or coordinate service  delivery.
In preparing this statement in March 2011, we relied on our previous work  in these areas (please see the related GAO products Appendix 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. 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. Prior GAO reports have noted that sustained coordination  among key federal education programs could enhance state efforts to  improve teacher quality.
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 many 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 figure 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  non-teaching 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 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. 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 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. Coordination is essential to ensure that programs do not work at  cross-purposes, do not repeat mistakes, and do not engage in wasteful  duplication of services. 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.
Congress could help eliminate some of these barriers through legislation,  particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other key education bills.  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 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 failing 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.
section_title: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies Across Multiple Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Federally funded employment and training programs play an important  role in helping job seekers obtain employment. In fiscal year 2009, 47  programs spent about $18 billion to provide services, such as job search  and job counseling, to program participants. Most of these programs are  administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, and HHS.
GAO has previously issued reports on the number of programs that  provide employment and training services and overlap among them. In the  1990s, GAO issued a series of reports that identified program overlap and  possible areas of resulting inefficiencies. In 2000 and 2003, GAO identified  programs for which a key program goal was providing employment and  training assistance and tracked the increasing number of programs. GAO  recently updated information on these programs, found overlap among  them, and examined potential duplication among three selected large  programs—HHS’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and  the Department of Labor’s Employment Service and Workforce Investment  Act (WIA) Adult programs.
Forty-four of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO  identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose  block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide  at least one similar service to a similar population. Some of these  overlapping programs serve multiple population groups. Others target  specific populations, most commonly Native Americans, veterans, and  youth. Even when programs overlap, they may have meaningful  differences in their eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may provide  similar types of services in different ways.
GAO examined the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs  for potential duplication and found they provide some of the same services  to the same population through separate administrative structures.  Although the extent to which individuals receive the same services from  these programs is unknown due to limited data, GAO found these  programs maintain parallel administrative structures to provide some of  the same services such as job search assistance to low-income individuals  (see figure 2). It should be noted that employment is only one aspect of the  TANF program, which also provides a wide range of other services,  including cash assistance. At the state level, the TANF program is typically  administered by the state human services or welfare agency, while the  Employment Service and WIA Adult programs are typically administered  by the state workforce agency and provided through one-stop centers.  Agency officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved  in delivering services through these programs but said factors such as the  number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stop centers’  proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having  multiple entities provide the same services.
Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may  increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be  challenging. Some states have colocated TANF employment and training  services in one-stop centers where Employment Service and WIA Adult  services are provided. Three states—Florida, Texas, and Utah—have gone  a step further by consolidating the agencies that administer these  programs, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved  services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. States  and localities may face challenges to colocating services, such as limited  office space. In addition, consolidating administrative structures may be  time consuming and any cost savings may not be immediately realized.
An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative  efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and  results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives  that states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether  additional incentives are needed.
To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing  administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we  recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work  together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such  efforts. This should include information about state initiatives to  consolidate program administrative structures and state and local efforts  to colocate new partners, such as TANF, at one-stop centers. Information  on these topics could address challenges faced, strategies employed,  results achieved, and remaining issues. As part of this effort, Labor and  HHS should examine the incentives for states and localities to undertake  such initiatives, and, as warranted, identify options for increasing such  incentives. Labor and HHS agreed they should develop and disseminate  this information. HHS noted that it lacks legal authority to mandate  increased TANF-WIA coordination or create incentives for such efforts.
To the extent that colocating services and consolidating administrative  structures reduce administrative costs, funds could potentially be  available to serve more clients or for other purposes. For the TANF  program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160 million to  administer employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. According  to a Department of Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA  Adult program were at least $56 million in program year 2009. Officials  told GAO they do not collect data on the administrative costs associated  with the Employment Service program, as they are not a separately  identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the  agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult participant who receives  training services. In periods of budgetary constraints, it is all the more  important that resources are used effectively. Depending on the reduction  in administrative costs associated with colocation and consolidation, these  funds could be used to train potentially hundreds or thousands of  additional individuals.
section_title: Options for Congress to Consider as it Addresses Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication
paragraphs: This Committee has authority over a wide range of programs intended to  help many of our neediest and most vulnerable citizens. With pending  reauthorizations, it is an opportune time to consider options for  addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among these  programs. In the past, Congress has taken a range of actions to address  these issues that may help you as you seek approaches on how to proceed.  Today, I would like to highlight 3 of these approaches:  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 or coordinating service delivery.
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 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,    We found that of 47 employment and training programs we identified, 23  have not had a performance study of any kind completed since 2004, and  only 5 have had an impact study completed since 2004.
We recommended that Labor comply with the requirement in the  Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to conduct an impact evaluation of  WIA services to better understand what services are most effective for  improving outcomes. However, Labor has been slow to implement this  requirement, and does not expect to complete the study until June 2015.
In 2009, GAO reported that while evaluations have been done, or are under  way, for about two-fifths of 23 programs we identified as being focused on  teacher quality, 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  education programs, but that more than half of these programs have not  been evaluated, including 8 of the 20 largest programs which together  accounted for about 90 percent of total funding for these programs.
There are also other 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 agencies to (1) disclose  information about the accuracy and reliability of performance information  (2) identify crosscutting management challenges, and (3) report quarterly  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. 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 2010—that the Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP), develop and maintain an inventory of STEM  education programs, including documentation of the effectiveness of these  programs, assess the potential overlap and potential duplication of these  programs, 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 it can use to inform decisions  about strategic priorities.
section_title: Consolidating Existing Programs or Coordinating Service Delivery
paragraphs: Consolidating existing programs or coordinating service delivery are other  options 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 Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965. 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. In the employment and training area, Congress took steps  to better coordinate service delivery for many employment and training  programs when it enacted the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).  Specifically, WIA established one-stop centers in all states and mandated  that numerous programs provide their services through the centers. In  doing so, WIA sought to unify a fragmented employment and training  system and create a single, universal system—a one-stop system that  could serve the needs of all job seekers and employers.
In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication, overlap,  and fragmentation among federal teacher quality and employment and  training 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 organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce  unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Sustained attention  and oversight by Congress will be critical also. As the nation rises to meet  its current fiscal challenges, GAO will continue to assist Congress and  federal agencies in identifying actions needed to address these issues.  Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the areas we have  already identified.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the  Committee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  answer any questions you may have.
section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony please contact Barbara  Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security,  who may be reached at (202) 512-7215, or BovbjergB@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be  found on the last page of this statement.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: Education Programs
paragraphs: 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,  D.C.: 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.
Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities  and Student Aid. GAO/T-HEHS-95-130. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 1995.
Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services,  and Target Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-71FS. Washington, D.C.: February 22,  1995.
Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings.  GAO/T-HEHS-95-56. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 1995.
Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target  Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-4FS. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 1994.
section_title: Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information  on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures  Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13,  2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and  Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington,  D.C.: April 18, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs  Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71.  Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.
Department of Labor: Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker Protection  and Workforce Development. GAO/T-HEHS-95-125. Washington, D.C.: April  4, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on  163 Employment and Training Programs. GAO/HEHS-95-85FS.  Washington, D.C.: February 14, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to  Create a More Efficient, Customer-Driven System. GAO/T-HEHS-95-70.  Washington, D.C.: February 6, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to  Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results.  GAO/T-HEHS-95-53. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Basic Program Data Often  Missing. GAO/HEHS-94-239. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: How Legislative Proposals  Address Concerns. GAO/T-HEHS-94-221. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs  Raises Questions About Efficiency. GAO/HEHS-94-193. Washington, D.C.:  July 11, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed.  GAO/T-HEHS-94-109. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Underscore Need for Change. GAO/T-HEHS-94-120. Washington, D.C.:  March 2, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not  Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively. GAO/HEHS-94-88.  Washington, D.C.: March 2, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can  Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. GAO/HEHS-94-80. Washington,  D.C.: January 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Hamper Delivery of Services. GAO/HEHS-94-78. Washington, D.C.:  January 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment Training  Strategy Needed. GAO/T-HRD-93-27. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1993.
Multiple Employment Programs. GAO/HRD-93-26R. Washington, D.C.:  June 15, 1993.
Multiple Employment Programs. GAO/HRD-92-39R. Washington, D.C.:  July 24, 1992.
section_title: Both Employment and Training Programs and Education Programs
paragraphs: 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.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated  Federal Effort. GAO/T-HEHS-98-38. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1997.
At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise  Efficiency Questions. GAO/HEHS-96-34. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 1996.
Federal Reorganization: Proposed Merger’s Impact on Existing  Department of Education Activities. T-HEHS-95-188. Washington, D.C.:  June 29, 1995.
Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge Education,  Labor, and EEOC. GAO/HEHS-95-140. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1995.
Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal  Missions and Approaches. GAO/T-AIMD-95-161. Washington, D.C.: June 7,  1995.
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.