English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More Coordination
Published: 2009-07-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Millions of adults in the U.S. report that they speak limited English, and English language ability appears linked to multiple dimensions of adult life, such as civic participation and workforce participation and mobility. GAO examined (1) the trends in the need for and enrollment in federally funded adult English language programs, (2) the nature of federal support for adult English language learning, (3) ways in which states and local public providers have supported English language programs for adults, and (4) federal agencies' plans for research to identify effective approaches to adult English language learning. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed Census and enrollment data and conducted interviews with federal officials within the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL); semistructured telephone interviews with state adult education officials in 12 states; site visits to 4 states; and reviews of relevant laws and literature.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The number of adults who speak English less than very well grew by 21.8 percent between 2000 and 2007, to roughly 22 million. The Adult Education State Grant Program, the key federal program for adult English language instruction, reported enrollment of about 1.1 million English language learners in 2007--which had remained relatively stable since 2000. However, most state adult education grantees we contacted reported increased demand. Also, there are many federal programs that allow for adult English language instruction for which national enrollment data are not collected. Federal support is dispersed across diverse programs in Education, HHS, and Labor that allow for English language learning in pursuit of other goals and do not collect data on participation in English language learning or the amount of federal funding that supports it. The agencies have undertaken initiatives and provided technical assistance. However, while there has been some collaboration among federal offices on behalf of English language learning, there is no ongoing mechanism to share information on resources or strategies to expand and capitalize on the agencies' individual efforts. States GAO contacted generally did not distinguish funding for English language learning from the other components of adult education, but they did vary greatly in the state matching funds contributed to their programs. GAO found states and local providers collaborating with other federal- and state-funded programs that serve populations likely to need this help. Yet such ef-forts to coordinate were not universal, and some local providers said they did not know how to access additional instructional or financial resources. States and local providers also supported English language learning in various ways. Education had one research study under way to test the effectiveness of an approach to adult English language learning, and Education and Labor had some ongoing work related to adult English language learners. Education officials said that there had been little research on what approaches are effective for adult English language learning, and noted that federal funds for rigorous research are limited. However, while agencies cited efforts to collaborate, they had not coordinated research planning across agencies to leverage research resources for adult English language learning.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Millions of adults in the United States report that they speak English less  than very well—that is, they are limited in their English proficiency.  English language ability appears to be linked to multiple dimensions of  adult life in the United States, including civic participation; workforce  participation and mobility; and fulfilling parental responsibilities, such as  reading to children and communicating with their schools and teachers.  Consistent with these relationships, the top reasons that adults have cited  for seeking English language classes include improving the way they feel  about themselves, making it easier to do things on a day-to-day basis,  attending school, getting a raise or promotion, obtaining a new job,  obtaining U.S. citizenship, and helping children with their schoolwork.  Regarding workforce participation, the Department of Labor’s (Labor)  Bureau of Labor Statistics analyses show that foreign-born persons—who  are much more likely than native-born persons to lack English  proficiency—accounted for about 16 percent of the U.S. civilian labor  force in 2007. Moreover, as baby boomers retire and U.S. birth rates have  declined, foreign-born persons are expected to account for a still larger  share of the future workforce, suggesting that the need for adult English  instruction is not likely to abate.
To better understand the nature of support for adult English language  learning, we examined (1) trends in the need for and enrollment in  federally funded adult English language programs, (2) the nature of federal  support for adult English language learning, (3) ways in which states and  local public providers have supported English language programs for  adults, and (4) federal agencies’ plans for research to identify effective  approaches to adult English language learning.
To obtain information to address our research objectives, we reviewed  available data; identified relevant programs and research; and interviewed  a range of federal, state, and local officials. (See app. I for detailed  information on our scope and methodology.) Briefly, to determine what is  known about trends in need and enrollment, we reviewed and analyzed  Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data on English language  speaking ability for 2000 to 2007, and reviewed reports of the Department  of Education’s (Education) National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)  and National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES). We also  reviewed data on enrollment in the Adult Education State Grant  Program—a federal program that funds adult education, including English  language instruction—which states report to the Adult Education National  Reporting System (NRS). We assessed the reliability of these data and  determined that both the Census and NRS data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of our report. To examine the nature of federal support  for adult English language learning, we examined programs’  authorizations to support adult English language learning, actions that  federal agencies and programs had taken to support adult English  language learning, as well as the available data on spending and  effectiveness regarding adult English language learning. We selected three  key federal agencies—Education, the Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS), and Labor—for review of related programs. We selected  these agencies on the basis of their missions to administer education- and  workforce-related programs. We also selected these agencies because of  their mandate to collaborate with the National Institute for Literacy  (NIFL), which is tasked with serving as a resource to support literacy—the  development of reading and writing skills—across all age groups. While  we used several means to identify programs within these agencies that  supported English language learning as a primary purpose or allowable  use of federal funds, the possibility exists that the programs we identified  may not capture all of the programs authorized to support adult English  language learning within the three agencies. To examine state and local  activities, we selected the 6 states that had the largest adult limited  English proficient populations in the nation in 2007 (California, Florida,  Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) and the 6 states that had the  highest growth rates in their adult limited English proficient populations  from 2000 to 2007 (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Nevada, and  Tennessee). We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with  officials responsible for administering the Adult Education State Grant  Programs in each of these states. The 12 states accounted for 75 percent of  the national adult limited English proficient population and 75 percent of  the Adult Education State Grant Program’s national enrollment in English  language programs for 2007. We also conducted site visits to California,  Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington State to interview officials of related  state agencies and local programs. We selected these states for visits to get  a mix of states with large (California and Illinois) and high-growth  (Minnesota and Washington) limited English proficient populations, as  well as diversity in administrative structures and practices under way  regarding adult English language learning. To determine what federal  research is planned in this area, we interviewed federal officials from  Education, HHS, and Labor for the programs included in this review, as  well as officials from NIFL and Education’s Institute of Education  Sciences (IES) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),  and reviewed related documents. We also identified and reviewed other  published research in the field of English language learning. In addition,  we consulted with researchers, academics, industry associations, union  representatives, and nonprofit organizations.
We conducted our review from May 2008 through July 2009 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit 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  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Characteristics of Adults with Limited English Proficiency
paragraphs: The adult limited English proficient population in the United States is  diverse regarding immigration status, country of origin, educational  background, literacy in native language, age, and family status. Generally,  adults with limited English proficiency have immigrated to the United  States and include legal permanent residents, naturalized citizens,  refugees, and undocumented individuals, but some of these adults are  native born. The largest numbers of foreign-born persons living in the  United States are from Mexico, China, and the Philippines. According to  ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2007, about two-thirds of the  adults who reported limited English speaking ability were Spanish  speaking. In terms of educational attainment, in 2007, 27 percent of  foreign-born adults had at least a bachelor’s degree, similar to the native- born population. However, native-born persons are significantly more  likely than foreign-born persons in the United States to have graduated  from high school (88 percent versus 68 percent).
Limited English proficiency, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator of  demand for instructional services. For various reasons, at any given time,  some adults with limited English proficiency are not actively seeking  English language instruction. One source of information, the 1995 NHES,  estimated that about one-half (44 percent) of the adults who read English  less than well were either participating in English language classes or  interested in doing so, while the remainder were not. The survey did not  inquire about why some adults were not interested, but potential reasons  for not actively seeking instruction include the belief that participation is  impractical in the midst of competing work or family responsibilities, lack  of need for additional English to perform daily activities, or lack of  success in past efforts. In addition, persons who are interested in English  language classes may not participate because they face barriers. In the  1995 NHES, 30.5 percent of adults with limited English proficiency had not  taken an English language class in the last 12 months, even though they  expressed interest in doing so. These adult respondents reported they did  not take classes because they were unaware of offerings, did not have  enough time or money, or were limited by child care or transportation  barriers.
section_title: Research on Adult English Language Learning
paragraphs: There is broad consensus among academics that very limited scientifically  based research has been conducted to identify effective approaches to  adult English language instruction. Much research in the field has focused  on the challenges faced by adult English language learners and the factors  that affect the learners’ ability to master English. Such factors may include  educational attainment and literacy in the learners’ native language.  Additional factors that may pose challenges include economic issues, such  as the competing priorities of work and family and a lack of transportation  and child care; cultural background; age; and motivational challenges.  Because there appear to be differences between language learning in the  early years and language learning that occurs in adulthood, the needs of  adult learners and effective approaches may not be similar to those for  students in grades K-12 education.
While existing research is limited, some entities have played a role in  providing or developing research-based information to providers and  instructors. In the past, IES funded dissemination of research on adult  literacy through the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and  Literacy (NCSALL). However, funding for NCSALL ended in 2007.  Education supports dissemination of research through a contract with the  Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, which has disseminated  research-based resources for more effective adult English language  instruction through its Web site. NIFL, a federal agency, serves as a  national resource on literacy across all age groups. NIFL was established  in 1991 and was reauthorized by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998  (WIA), and its role was expanded by the No Child Left Behind Act of  2001 to help children, youth, and adults learn to read by supporting and  disseminating scientifically based reading research.
section_title: Adult Education State Grant Program
paragraphs: The Adult Education State Grant Program funds English language  instruction as well as adult basic education and adult secondary  education, and was established under the Adult Education and Family  Literacy Act (AEFLA), as title II of WIA. Eligible participants are those  ages 16 and over who are not currently enrolled or required by state law to  be enrolled in secondary school and who lack the basic skills needed to  function effectively in their daily lives, a high school credential, or English  language skills. In fiscal year 2007, the total federal allocation for the Adult  Education State Grant Program, for all components of instruction, was  about $564 million. Congress reserves a portion of the state grant  funding—$68 million in 2007—for EL Civics, which supports integrated  English literacy and civics education services to immigrants and other  limited English populations. In addition, the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $53.6 billion in appropriations for the  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to be administered by Education. School  districts may use a portion of the stabilization funds for any allowable  purpose under AEFLA as well as the Elementary and Secondary Education  Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or the Carl D.  Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006  (Perkins IV).
Under the Adult Education State Grant Program, states fund English  language instruction through various types of providers that offer  instruction for free or for a nominal fee. The Adult Education State Grant  Program is administered by Education’s Division of Adult Education and  Literacy within the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE).  Program funds are distributed by formula to states using Census Bureau  data on the number of adults (ages 16 and older) in each state who lack a  high school diploma or its recognized equivalent and who are not enrolled  or required by state law to be enrolled in school. Twenty-five percent of  the expenditures for adult education in each state must come from state or  local matching funds. States award a minimum of 82.5 percent of their  federal grants to local providers of adult education, and may retain up to  12.5 percent for state leadership activities to be used for program  improvement and 5.0 percent for administrative expenses. Education is  also tasked with carrying out national leadership activities to enhance the  quality of adult education and literacy programs nationwide. Such  activities may include providing technical assistance to adult education  providers, carrying out demonstration programs, and supporting research.
The states report outcomes for adult English language learners  participating in the Adult Education State Grant Program to Education’s  NRS using a six-level system that describes mastery of different aspects  of English language skills. The percentage of learners who achieved level  gains in 2007 was 38.9 percent. In comparison, 31.8 percent of learners did  not achieve a level gain during the enrollment year, but remained in the  program, and 29.4 percent separated from the program in 2007 before  achieving an educational-level gain.
section_title: Sources of Adult English Language Instruction and Paths to English Language Acquisition
paragraphs: Providers of adult English language learning have varied characteristics  and instructional formats and may be supported by many different funding  sources. Instruction varies in format, intensity, setting, and focus—such as  civics, family, or work-focused topics. Classes may have open or closed  enrollment, have varied frequency and hours, and take place in large  classroom settings, in small groups, or one-on-one with volunteers.  Providers receiving federal funds through the Adult Education State Grant  Program include local education agencies (school districts), community  colleges, community-based organizations (CBO), and correctional  institutions. According to a 2002 survey funded by Education, of  providers receiving Adult Education State Grant Program funds, English  language learners were a larger percentage of all adult education learners  who attended classes sponsored by CBOs than by other provider types— over one-half of adult education learners in CBOs received English  language instruction. According to the survey, providers reported  receiving funding from a wide range of sources. One-third of providers  reported receiving the majority of their funding from the federal  government and almost one-half received the majority of funding from  state government. Providers reported smaller proportions of funding from  local government, private sources, and participant fees. CBOs reported  receiving more financial support from a combination of foundation grants  and corporate, civic, and individual giving than did other providers. Aside  from publicly funded providers, English language learning is also privately  supported by small faith-based organizations, such as churches, and by  privately funded CBOs. English language learners may also access English  language instruction from for-profit providers of self-paced materials and  software and from some private industry associations or businesses that  provide English language learning opportunities to their workers without  federal support.
According to data from the 2003 NAAL, among adults who learned  English at age 16 or older (regardless of source of instruction), a higher  proportion of those who reported past or current enrollment in English  language programs scored at least basic levels of literacy compared with  those who had never been enrolled. Among adult English language  learners who had never been enrolled in English language programs,   61 percent scored below basic prose literacy and 36 percent scored basic  prose literacy.
section_title: Growing Numbers of Adults with Limited English; Extent of Participation in English Instruction Is Unknown
subsections: section_title: Data Indicate a Growing Population of Adults Who Speak Limited English
paragraphs: Census Bureau data indicate that the number of adults in the United States  who speak limited English has grown since 2000. According to the 2007  ACS, about 21.7 million adults who reported speaking a language other  than English at home also reported speaking limited English, an increase  from 17.8 million in 2000 (see fig. 1). The size of this population increased  by 21.8 percent over this time period, and, as a percentage of the total U.S.  to 9.5  adult population, it increased from about 8.5 percent in 2000 to 9.5  percent in 2007.  percent in 2007. lih proficient population (in million)
ACS 2007 data were the most recent data available at the time of our review.
The distribution of reported English speaking ability among those  reporting speaking another language at home changed little from 2000 to  2007. For example, in 2007, 4.3 million adults reported speaking no English  at all. This represented 20 percent of all limited English proficient adults,  which was relatively unchanged from the 18 percent this group comprised  in 2000. In addition, the proportions of limited English proficient adults  who reported speaking English “not well” (38 percent) and speaking  English “well” but not “very well” (42 percent) were relatively unchanged  from 2000 to 2007.
The geographic distribution of the limited English proficient population  mirrors the general population distribution in some respects; it is  concentrated in the most populated states with some sizable  representation in most other states (see fig. 2). However, some states have  concentrations of limited English proficient persons higher than the state’s  proportion of the U.S. population. For example, California, Florida,  Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas accounted for 68.1 percent of  the national population of adults with limited English proficiency in 2007  and 39.4 percent of the national adult population.
This handful of populous states and other southwestern states generally  had the greatest concentrations of limited English proficient adults as a  percentage of total adults (see fig. 3). However, among these states, there  is variation in the concentration. For example, in 2007, about one in five  adults in California spoke limited English, whereas one in nine adults  spoke limited English in Illinois.
Less populous states that have traditionally had smaller adult limited  English proficient populations have had the greatest growth rates since  2000. From 2000 to 2007, some southern states with relatively small adult  limited English proficient populations had the greatest growth rates, as  shown in fig. 4. For example, Tennessee’s adult limited English proficient  population was below the national median in 2000. However, it  experienced about 46 percent growth from 2000 to 2007, moving it above  the national median in 2007. In addition to Tennessee, other southern  states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia had large growth rates in their  adult limited English proficient populations, as did Alaska, Arizona, and  Nevada. However, states with the largest limited English populations  experienced the greatest growth in sheer numbers.
section_title: While the Full Extent of Participation in English Instruction Is Unknown, Enrollment in a Key Federal Program Has Remained Fairly Stable, Although State Officials Report Increased Demand
paragraphs: The full extent of participation in federally funded English language  learning programs is unknown, but enrollment in the Adult Education  State Grant Program, the federal grant program most directly associated  with English language instruction, has remained relatively stable. As we  discuss later in this report, we identified many federal programs within  Education, HHS, and Labor for which funding may be used to support  English language learning opportunities for adults. However, federal  officials administering these programs reported that they do not collect  national data on participation in English language instruction funded by  the programs. Only the Adult Education State Grant Program collects and  maintains enrollment data.
In the Adult Education State Grant Program, reported enrollment in  English language classes was stable from 2000 to 2007. Reported national  enrollment was between 1.0 million and 1.2 million English language  learners each reporting year from 2000 to 2007. Enrollment was 1.12  million in 2000 and 1.06 million in 2007, with small fluctuations over the  years in between. Throughout this time period, national enrollment in the  Adult Education State Grant Program was concentrated in lower literacy- level classes. Specifically, the greatest percentage of learners—70 percent  to 75 percent—were in the lowest three levels of classes from 2000 to 2005  (Beginning Literacy to Low Intermediate), while 25 percent to 30 percent  of learners were in the highest three levels (High Intermediate to High  Advanced).
While national enrollment in English language classes funded by the Adult  Education State Grant Program remained stable, enrollment trends from  2000 to 2007 varied widely across states (see fig. 5). The median state  reported an 11 percent decrease, with most states reporting fluctuations  no greater than 20 percent. However, changes ranged from a roughly   75 percent reduction to a 100 percent increase, with 10 states having  fluctuations of more than 40 percent. These larger variations in enrollment  were not reflective of trends in the adult limited English proficient  populations or the general adult populations in these states. For example,  among the 6 states experiencing the largest growth in the numbers of  persons with limited English proficiency, 5 reported decreasing  enrollments. Similarly, among the 6 states with the fastest growing limited  English populations, 4 reported decreasing enrollments.
State officials said enrollment in their states’ Adult Education State Grant  Programs changed over time because of changes in state funding  priorities, data management system changes, and other factors. Most of  the state officials we interviewed said funding constraints limited the  extent to which programs could expand, and some officials identified  obtaining more funding to serve students as a top priority. Additionally, a  few state officials with stable or declining enrollment said these trends  were the result of improved data management systems or efforts to better  validate data, which caused reported enrollments to appear stable or  declining. States also identified the economy and natural disasters as other  factors that resulted in stable or declining enrollment. In some of the  states, officials whom we interviewed said immigration may have  increased enrollment, while immigrants’ fears of accessing government  services may have reduced enrollment.
Both state officials and local providers with whom we spoke told us that  stable enrollment in English language classes did not indicate stable  demand. Of the 12 states we contacted, according to the NRS, most  reported declining enrollment in their states’ Adult Education State Grant  Programs. However, 8 of 12 state officials said that demand was  increasing, and 3 said that demand remained the same. One state official  said that enrollment would grow exponentially if it kept pace with  demand. Although many state officials reported increasing demand,  waiting lists for entry into programs were not consistently used to track  demand. Not all states required local providers to maintain waiting lists,  and, in states without requirements, some local providers did not keep  such lists. Some state officials cited their use of Census data as an  indicator of demand to distribute resources.
section_title: Federal Support for Adult English Instruction Is Dispersed across Many Programs That Collect Little Data and Have Limited Coordination
subsections: section_title: English Language Instruction Is Authorized under Multiple Federal Programs with Varied Purposes, and Few Have Data on the Extent of Support
paragraphs: Federal support for adult English language learning is dispersed across a  diverse array of programs within Education, HHS, and Labor, but most of  the programs that allow it do so in support of other program goals, such as  self-sufficiency, workforce attachment, or family literacy, and do not  collect data that would indicate participation in or spending on adult  English language learning. Of all the programs we reviewed, only the Adult  Education State Grant Program is explicitly focused on adult English  language learning. Administered by Education, this program provides  English language learning as one of three program areas. In 2007, about   46 percent of the state grant program’s total enrollment was in English  language instruction. However, even this program does not collect  spending data specific to its English language learning component. The  program recognizes learners’ multiple goals in learning English, such as  employment, citizenship, and increased involvement in their children’s  education, and, as we have previously mentioned, the federal program  collects data from states on educational gains in English language classes.
Other programs within Education, HHS, and Labor allow for English  language learning, as shown in appendix II. However, according to federal  officials responsible for administering these programs, none systematically  collects data on spending or enrollment, and only Even Start, in addition  to the Adult Education State Grant Program, collects data on outcomes  specific to adult English language learning. Anecdotally, across the  federal programs, some of the federal program officials with whom we  spoke noted that some of their local grantees provide English language  instruction to adult participants directly, while other grantees provide  support indirectly by paying English language providers to instruct  participants or referring participants to these providers. While the extent  to which these numerous programs support English language learning for  adults is unknown, during our site visits, we found various federal funding  streams being used by some of the community colleges, CBOs, and public  schools that we visited. Although most of the providers we visited drew on  the Adult Education State Grant Program to support their English  language learning activities, we also found other funding streams being  used. For example, among all providers that used more than one funding  stream, several providers received the Adult Education State Grant as well  as refugee program funding streams. However, some providers used funds  from as many as four or five federal programs.
These federal programs—under which adult English language learning is  allowable, but the extent of its use is unknown—vary greatly in purpose  and focus. In HHS, the Office of Refugee Resettlement provides several  funding streams that allow for English language learning. These funding  streams include Refugee Social Services formula grants, Targeted  Assistance Grants, and matching grants. While English language  instruction is provided concurrently with other services, refugee agencies  generally have just 8 months to place their clients in employment. Also  within HHS, under the Head Start Program, English language learning for  adults is allowable as a part of family literacy, and, under the Temporary  Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant, states may provide  English language instruction as an activity that supports clients’ self- sufficiency, generally in the categories of job skills or education directly  related to employment, or vocational education.
Within Labor, English language instruction is allowable under key  programs, such as Trade Adjustment Assistance, in which it may be  provided with other services to retrain workers who have lost their jobs  due to trade with foreign countries, and programs for Adults and  Dislocated Workers under WIA’s title I. Other programs under this title,  including the Job Corps and the National Farmworkers Jobs Program, also  allow English language instruction, consistent with these programs’  training and employment missions. In addition, certain of Labor’s existing  Community-Based and High Growth grants have incorporated English  language learning to some degree (see app. III). See appendix IV for the  methods used to provide English language instruction among the local  grantees we visited that receive funds from these various Labor funding  streams.
Additionally, within Education, English language instruction is also  allowed as remedial or developmental education within, for example, the  Pell Grant program and certain Higher Education Act of 1965 programs.  Education and HHS manage certain programs, such as Even Start and  Head Start, that, while they serve children, may also reach adults through  their family literacy activities, and these activities may include English  language instruction. In addition, certain of Education’s other programs,  such as those targeting after-school programs and migrant education, may  also reach adults and include English language learning opportunities.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Taken Recent Steps to Focus More Specifically on English Language Learning
paragraphs: In recent years, Education and Labor have developed some special  initiatives that involve English language learning as a distinct focus (see  table 1). Specifically, Education supported the development of a new  distance learning Web site for English language learners, known as USA  Learns, which became available in November 2008. Through its Career  Connections demonstration, Education addressed the needs of high- skilled English learners, who participated in the funded projects along  with other adult education students, by providing access to occupational  training and English language learning opportunities. Education also plans  to study those English language learners who are transitioning to adult  basic education and adult secondary education programs in order to  prepare for postsecondary education and the workforce—through an  initiative known as Transitioning English Language Learners (TELL). For  its part, Labor has undertaken a multifaceted initiative (the Limited  English Proficiency and Hispanic Worker Initiative) that relies, in part, on  the nation’s workforce centers, also known as One-Stop Career Centers  (one-stops). Labor developed tools to help one-stops serve limited  English clients: that is, it recalculated Census Bureau data on the limited  English population by local workforce area and issued guidance for  identifying this population’s needs. As part of this initiative, Labor issued  several grants for English language learning in a workforce setting. In San  Diego, for example, workforce-oriented English language instruction was  provided to the new and existing employees of a large shipbuilder. Finally,  Labor’s New Americans grants supported English language instruction at  one-stops and promoted referrals to Adult Education State Grant  Programs.
Beyond these initiatives, federal agencies have also provided technical  assistance related to English language learning in administering their  standing grant programs, and, in Labor’s case, regarding one of its special  initiatives. For example, within the Adult Education State Grant Program,  Education has monitored states’ procedures for assessing English  language learners’ proficiency and for reporting data on their gains, and  has also provided training on using data for program improvement.  Education has also disseminated information on 3 states’ approaches to  performance-based funding. In addition to technical assistance aimed at  the Adult Education State Grant Program overall, Education has, through  a contractor, supported technical assistance that focused on areas such as  the training needs of teachers who work with adult English language  learners. Also, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has supported  technical assistance to agencies serving refugees that addressed English  language learning. Likewise, the National Office of Head Start has  supported technical assistance to Head Start programs to inform them  about English language learning opportunities through the Adult  Education State Grant Program, according to an HHS official. For its part,  Labor has sponsored a webinar on its Limited English Proficiency and  Hispanic Worker Initiative and also has created a Web site and provided  webinars for Job Corps Centers that serve English language learners.
section_title: Coordination among Agencies Has Been Limited
paragraphs: There has been some coordination among federal agencies on the subject  of English language learning. Our previous work has highlighted the  benefits of actions that federal agencies have taken to enhance and sustain  their collaborative efforts, including the ability to leverage resources,  improve quality, expand services, and reach more clients. Yet, while  Education, HHS, and Labor all serve populations in need of language  assistance, there is no ongoing mechanism to share information or expand  and capitalize on the agencies’ individual efforts.
The agencies have at times used interagency agreements to support  English language learning for adults. For example, Education and the  Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Citizenship have an  interagency agreement to support a Web-based tool for lessons in civics-  and citizenship-oriented English language learning, according to  Homeland Security and Education officials. To promote mutual  understanding of their programs, HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement  and Labor’s Office of Workforce Investment temporarily placed employees  in one another’s agencies and participated in each other’s conferences in  2008, with one result being a list of promising practices. Additionally,  Labor officials said that they have begun to meet with Education officials  to identify effective strategies for adult learning, and that adult English  language learning would be included in this effort.
Beyond these collaborations, there have been some interagency task  forces established; however, generally these task forces have been  temporary and have not focused on adult English language learning. For  example, all three agencies, as well as other agencies, participated in an  interagency Task Force on New Americans, created in response to a June  2006 executive order, and this task force issued a report that touched on  English language learning and other issues. The task force, while still  technically active, has not met since the issuance of the report in  December 2008, according to a Homeland Security official. Also, in 2006,  the agencies participated in the Interagency Coordination Group for Adult  Literacy to focus on multiple objectives, including improving coordination,  leveraging resources and reducing duplication among federal agencies and  programs, sharing best practices, and helping states maximize the federal  investment in adult education. The group supported the creation of a  database of foundations supporting literacy efforts and developed Web- based adult literacy resources, and, according to an Education official,  served as the starting point for an interagency group on strengthening  adult education, created by an executive order in 2007, that fulfilled its  mission with the issuance of a report in 2008. These short-term  collaborative efforts point to the interest in and need for collaboration,  and others have also identified the need for collaboration specific to adult  English language learning. In 2006, NIFL convened a working group on  English language learning that, in 2007, recommended to NIFL interagency  coordination on adult English language learning “to facilitate collaborative  work and information sharing” to better serve this population. However,  as of the time of our review, according to a NIFL official, the  recommendation had yet to be considered by NIFL. Additionally, we did  not identify any federal agency that has been specifically tasked to  coordinate information sharing on adult English language learning.
Further coordination between and among the agencies is still uncertain,  despite a common interest in English language learners’ employment and  despite shared challenges in serving learners with certain characteristics.  For example, Education and HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement have  discussed but not developed an interagency agreement to provide local  refugee programs with information on English learning resources, and no  exchange of staff with Education has been discussed along the lines of  what had been done with Labor. However, in technical comments on a  draft of this report, Education indicated that it is open to collaboration  with HHS, as well as other federal agencies, as appropriate. Coordination  between Labor and Education on their respective initiatives has been  variable. Although Education officials reported helping Labor with its  Limited English Proficiency and Hispanic Worker Initiative, they had not  involved Labor in Education’s employment- and training-related initiative,  namely the Career Connections project. For its part, while Labor has  provided technical assistance to one-stops and other stakeholders on  working with the Adult Education State Grant Program, it has provided no  guidance or technical assistance specifically regarding English language  instruction, according to Labor officials. Furthermore, although HHS’s  Office of Refugee Resettlement and Labor’s Office of Workforce  Investment took temporary steps to coordinate, as we have previously  discussed, an Office of Refugee Resettlement official said that it was  unclear whether such coordination would be reinitiated, despite the  benefits it provided in identifying additional resources available to  refugees.
The limited nature of federal efforts to coordinate is apparent in the  agencies’ efforts to issue guidance and information that could help local  providers identify both promising practices for providing English language  instruction and additional resources in their communities for providing  such instruction. While guidance can support efficient and effective  coordination across programs, there has been no recent guidance from  HHS, for example, to grantees of the refugee resettlement program for  obtaining their language instruction resources through local collaboration,  despite an official’s acknowledgment that the refugee program’s limited  funding might require agencies serving refugees to tap additional  resources. For the TANF program, HHS officials said guidance has been  focused on how to count English language instruction as an activity, but  not on how to identify and leverage local resources. Nor has the HHS  Office of Community Services, which manages the Community Service  Block Grant program, issued any guidance that would help local programs  identify English instruction resources in their communities, according to a  department official. Also, Labor’s update of Trade Adjustment Assistance  guidance focused on the conditions under which English language  instruction would be allowable, rather than resources for how to best  provide instruction. Regarding Labor’s 2003 initiative instructing one-stop  managers to develop plans for helping clients with limited English  proficiency (LEP plans), the guidance offered no specific information on  promising practices or information about local resources available  through the Adult Education State Grant Program. Additionally, an official  of the National Farmworkers Job Program said that this program has  issued no guidance on this topic. An exception to the absence of  information on resources and opportunities for local collaboration is  Education’s Web site, “Community Partnerships for Adult Learning.” This  Web site offers information on how to collaborate locally, based on 12  community profiles, and makes it possible to search for examples  involving English language instruction. At the same time, however, we  found that many local providers were unaware of Education’s USA Learns  Web site providing English language instruction, despite federal efforts to  publicize it. Although Labor did apprise its regional offices of this  resource, 22 of the 28 farmworker program grantees whom we contacted  were not aware of it, none of the Job Corps operators we contacted had  heard of USA Learns, and an association of refugee agencies also was not  acquainted with the Web site.
Representatives of programs serving certain populations of English  language learners, including refugees, farmworkers, and Job Corps  students, said that greater coordination could benefit their clients by, for  example, offering information about innovative practices, access to  teacher training opportunities, and the efficient use of scarce resources.  For example, certain agencies that serve refugees at the local level  expressed interest in information about additional English language  learning resources that could benefit refugees after their job placement.  Additionally, an official of an association of refugee-serving agencies said  that, while some refugee agencies might be aware of the Adult Education  State Grant Program’s English language learning component, others might  not or might have questions about refugees’ eligibility for it. This official  also noted that refugee agencies would be likely to welcome information  about additional English language learning opportunities for their clients,  given scarce resources in the refugee system. A farmworkers’ program  grantee said that the benefits of greater coordination could include access  to updated and innovative materials, curricula, and teaching methods, as  well as access to additional teacher training opportunities, while others  pointed to access to additional resources. Among Job Corps Center  managers with whom we spoke, the potential benefits cited included  additional information for centers inexperienced in serving English  language learners, additional information about promising instructional  practices, and additional information about curricula that combine English  language learning and occupational skills training.
In addition, it is important to note, all three agencies serve subpopulations  of English language learners who share some characteristics. For example,  providers of services under the Adult Education State Grant Program and  refugee funding streams, Job Corps Center managers, and officials of the  farmworkers’ program all indicated the presence of beginning English  learners among their clients, such as those who lack literacy in their  primary language. Among those who mentioned this subpopulation,  effectively and efficiently serving these learners was frequently described  as challenging. In addition, some refugee-serving agencies told us that  some refugees are highly educated—precisely the subpopulation targeted  by several local programs through Education’s Career Connections  initiative.
section_title: States and Service Providers Have Used a Range of Strategies to Support Adult English Language Learning
paragraphs: States have supported adult English language learning in a variety of ways,  particularly through the one federal program with an explicit focus on  English language learning—the Adult Education State Grant Program—but  also beyond this program. They have provided matching funds at various  levels for this program and devised additional ways to enhance their  support. Moreover, some states are addressing program quality through  teacher qualifications and training, content standards, and other means  and are developing mechanisms for local planning. Additionally, some  states are coordinating with other programs. States and local providers are  also taking steps to integrate English language instruction with  occupational training. Furthermore, states are supplementing these  activities with their own efforts to support English language instruction,  such as through libraries and special schools. Some state agencies and  local providers are exploring innovative practices and are carrying them  out in a great variety of ways and venues, both within and beyond the  Adult Education State Grant Program.
subsections: section_title: States Varied in Their Overall Level of Support for the Adult Education State Grant Program and in Their Efforts to Enhance English Language Learning
paragraphs: Within the Adult Education State Grant Program, the 12 states that we  contacted—states with either the largest or most rapidly growing limited  English proficient populations—varied substantially in the amount of state  funding they contributed. While most states did not distinguish the funding  they provided for English language learning from the funding provided for  other components of adult education, their financial contributions for  adult education varied considerably. Specifically, state and local spending  used to match Federal Fiscal Year 2005 funds ranged from the federally  required 25 percent minimum in Tennessee and Texas to 88 percent of  total spending in California and 90 percent in Florida. At least 2 states— California and New York—described current or planned reductions to  their state contributions to the Adult Education State Grant Program.  Meanwhile, officials for Arizona’s program said that their program has  begun to track funding for English language learning separately, to provide  a specific focus on such learning as a distinct activity.
The states we contacted reported using a variety of considerations in  allocating funding to local areas under the Adult Education State Grant  Program, and some reported that they are beginning to use provider  performance as a consideration. While Minnesota used factors such as  instructional hours in allocating funds to local providers, other states— including Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey—directed funding to  local programs, at least in part, on the basis of the size of the local limited  English proficient population, using Census Bureau data. Illinois further  emphasizes need, according to a state official, by giving extra weight to the  population least proficient in English. In terms of performance-based  funding, while California adopted this funding approach after the passage  of WIA in 1998, Illinois has considered local provider performance in  distributing funding to local programs since 2005, according to officials in  each state. According to a Florida official, that state is redesigning its  funding formula to emphasize performance, beginning July 1, 2009. Also,  Tennessee is also revising its formula to give greater weight to  performance, with an anticipated implementation in 2010, according to an  official from that state.
Most of the 12 states we contacted through our semistructured telephone  interviews also reported taking steps to improve the quality of English  language teaching, such as by supporting professional development for  English language teachers. Ten states had set minimum requirements for  teaching English—typically, a state teacher’s license or a Bachelor of Arts  degree—while 2 states had no specific teacher qualifications. Generally,  however, in those states that had established qualifications, they were the  same as those for other adult education teachers. Two of these states had  or were developing qualifications specific to teachers of English language  learners: California required a special credential for such teachers, and  Arizona, according to state officials, was developing standards that would  delineate specifically what teachers of English language learners need to  know. Additionally, 1 state—Arkansas—requires certain providers to  adhere to standards specifically for volunteers who work with English  language learners through the Adult Education State Grant Program. To  augment these minimum qualifications, most states addressed teachers’  training needs through professional development activities. Six states had  set an annual minimum number of professional development hours,  although this minimum varied widely, from 5 to 60 hours. Additionally, all  but 1 of the 12 states reported using most of their Adult Education State  Grant state leadership funds to finance their teachers’ professional  development. For example, Arkansas, Illinois, and Nevada have used such  funding for special centers, which can provide professional development  opportunities for teachers of English language learners. Furthermore, 8 of  the 12 states reported having adopted content standards to guide English  language instruction. Among the reasons that these states cited for  developing content standards was consistency of instruction statewide.
States and local providers with whom we met also cited ways in which  they were using NRS data on English language learners to improve service  delivery. For example, in Washington State, the Adult Education State  Grant Program agency officials said they discovered through reviewing  program data that learners’ outcomes were lower in classes that were held  at certain locations, and were subsequently able to make changes in those  locations by addressing the needs of teachers, actions that the officials  said eventually led to better results. Furthermore, this agency has  developed a workshop for local providers to train them on how to use data  for program improvement. At the local level, one provider in Washington  State reported using the data to compare day and evening classes and  make adjustments in their scheduling without adversely affecting  outcomes. Moreover, officials of California’s Adult Education State Grant  agency described using the data to determine that numbers of English  language learners were not successfully transitioning to adult basic  education, and worked closely with a technical assistance provider and  held regional meetings to address this issue.
Also within the Adult Education State Grant Program, states reported  providing technical assistance to local providers, sponsoring special  projects on a variety of topics, or taking other steps to address program  quality. For example, Illinois provided training on its new content  standards to local providers to support their curriculum development.  Florida and New Jersey reported efforts to focus on beginning-level  learners by providing special training and issuing targeted grants,  respectively. In addition, California provided technical assistance to local  programs to find ways to improve student retention. The state has also  piloted an electronic English language assessment in certain locations to  increase efficiency and reduce teachers’ burden in conducting written  assessments. Additionally, Arizona has adopted stricter enrollment  policies, a step described by state officials as part of their effort to address  program quality for English language learners. Finally, Florida and  California also supported provider efforts to offer distance learning  opportunities for English language learners, and 5 other states are  exploring distance learning applications for English language learning  through a project sponsored by the University of Michigan.
Mechanisms to guide and coordinate local service delivery have been  developed in 2 of the 4 states that we visited—Illinois and Minnesota.  According to a state official, Illinois has established about 30 Area  Planning Councils across the state comprising a diverse array of providers  that are required to meet twice a year and submit annual areawide service  plans. These councils can encourage individual providers to focus on  specific skill levels to minimize duplication of services. While Adult  Education State Grant providers must belong to these councils, they may  also include representatives from state agencies and the private sector,  and, in some cases, agencies that serve populations outside the Adult  Education State Grant Program. Meanwhile, Minnesota relies on 53 local  consortia of providers for local service coordination, and requires them to  submit comprehensive plans every 5 years. For example, the St. Paul  Community Literacy Consortium includes both public schools and CBOs;  according to state officials, the public schools generally serve more  advanced learners, while the CBOs serve more beginning-level learners. In  addition to facilitating the targeting of resources in this way, the  consortium structure has, according to a consortium official, allowed  individual providers to work together to respond to emerging trends and  explore common interests, such as the uses of technology for English  language learners.
section_title: Some States and Local Providers Coordinated with Other Federally Funded Programs
paragraphs: Some state agencies that manage the Adult Education State Grant Program  and the local providers they support have taken steps to coordinate with  other federal- and state-funded programs that serve populations likely to  need this help—particularly refugees, those seeking assistance through  one-stops, and those receiving public financial support. For example,  Washington State has established an “LEP Pathway” that refers refugees  and TANF clients to providers of English language instruction. According  to state officials, many, although not all of these providers, also receive  funding from the state’s Adult Education State Grant Program agency.  According to state officials, the LEP Pathway has helped ensure timely and  culturally appropriate services for refugees, particularly for the majority  who are beginning-level English speakers, and given the state a flexible  way to respond to changes in refugee flows from different countries and  primary languages. In Minnesota, the state agency that administers both  TANF and services for refugees uses a state-funded family stabilization  program to serve most limited English clients, which serves these clients  for 1 year to address a variety of barriers to immediate employment,  including limited English. Additionally, Minnesota’s refugee program has  transferred funding to its Adult Education State Grant Program agency, to  secure seats in English language classes for refugees within the relatively  short period before they are placed in employment. In Florida, the refugee  Program contracts with local Adult Education State Grant Program  providers for English language instruction, according to a state official. By  contrast, Nevada’s Adult Education State Grant Program agency has  provided funding to that state’s refugee agency, as one of several English  language providers.
Among the 12 states we contacted through semistructured telephone  interviews, 6 reported formal, state-level coordination between the Adult  Education State Grant Program and the TANF program. For example,  Arkansas officials reported that this coordination helped target learners at  the beginning levels. Texas officials reported that such coordination  helped prevent duplication of effort and facilitated the cotraining of staff  from both the Adult Education State Grant Program and the TANF  program. None of the 12 states, on the other hand, reported formal  coordination at the state level between agencies administering the Adult  Education State Grant Program and those administering services for  refugees.
Furthermore, of the 12 states we contacted through semistructured  telephone interviews, 8 reported formal, state-level coordination between  the Adult Education State Grant Program and the state agency that  administers the one-stop system. For example, New York’s Adult  Education State Grant Program officials said that English language  instruction is available at all one-stops in New York City. Other states that  reported English language instruction on-site at one-stops were Alaska and  Tennessee. Beyond these 12 states, Minnesota’s Adult Education State  Grant Program specifically requires all local providers to establish formal  agreements with their local one-stops to include help for English language  learners, as well as other adult education clients, such as those needing  basic skills. While Georgia officials did not report formal, state-level  coordination, they did report that such coordination, including the co- location of services, occurs on the local level. States reported that their  state-level coordination with the one-stop system involved functions such  as assessment (Arkansas and Texas), improved referral (Arizona), and a  special pilot in 12 sites to electronically assess both literacy and job skills  (California). State officials also attested to some benefits from this formal,  state-level coordination between the two programs. In Tennessee, officials  said this coordination provided better services for clients and reduced the  burden of filling out multiple forms in multiple locations, while Texas  officials said that it has helped provide access to work and training  programs.
Meanwhile, some states reported coordination with other federal or  federally supported programs, such as Even Start, postsecondary  education, and the federal program for farmworkers. For example, Illinois  and Texas reported state-level coordination between English language  learning under their adult education programs and the Even Start program,  a family literacy program administered by Education. Illinois officials  reported that its Even Start program has a representative on an adult  education advisory board, in an effort to ensure that the programs’ policies  are consistent. Additionally, Adult Education State Grant Program  agencies in Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York reported initiatives  that focused on transitioning English language learners to postsecondary  education. On another front, Florida’s farmworkers’ program is housed  within the same division of the state education department as the Adult  Education State Grant Program. According to a state official, coordination  between the two programs has reduced testing costs for the farmworkers’  program, allowed the farmworkers’ program to focus on its primary  mission of employment, provided access to information about promising  practices in English language instruction, facilitated joint efforts to serve  beginning-level learners, and created opportunities for program clients to  continue their training.
However, such coordination efforts were not universal, and some  providers, particularly refugee agencies in California and Washington  State, said they did not know how to access or acquire additional  resources through the Adult Education State Grant Program, despite, in  some cases, expressing a need for such additional resources. Furthermore,  officials of one of these refugee-serving agencies said that it would be  prohibitively expensive for the agency to pay Adult Education State Grant  Program providers to secure seats for refugees in their classes.
section_title: Some States and Local Providers Are Exploring Ways to Integrate English Language Learning and Occupational Training
paragraphs: In a variety of settings, a number of states are combining occupational  training with English language instruction to support local workforce  development and to improve the ability of new English speakers to gain  employment. In 2004, Washington State began to merge English  instruction with occupational instruction in its community college  classrooms as a pilot program. The project was designed to shorten the  time that it was taking new learners to progress from mastering English to  mastering an occupational skill. According to state officials, a sequential  approach had required as long as 7 or 8 years, in some cases. Today,  Washington State has adopted the dual approach of the pilot program for  its occupational curricula at community colleges and expanded this  approach statewide. Under this program, called I-BEST, or the Integrated  Basic Education and Skills Training Initiative, each classroom has both an  occupational skills teacher and a basic skills teacher, who may be an  English language instructor. While the particular occupational tracks at  the community colleges vary, each reflects jobs that are in demand locally,  according to state officials. Occupational programs are available, for  example, for English language learners who seek to become nursing  assistants, medical assistants, phlebotomists, automotive technicians,  welders, accountants, and advanced manufacturing workers, among other  occupations. In May of 2009, an evaluation of I-BEST reported better  educational outcomes for participants, including English language  learners, compared with nonparticipants. Illinois and Minnesota, which  we also visited, as well as Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin have been  exploring other approaches to integrating English and occupational  training under the Joyce Foundation’s Shifting Gears initiative.
Certain states we contacted had targeted English language learners in  high-demand occupations in other ways. Minnesota’s workforce agency  has used a state-funded program to support workforce-oriented English  language learning with projects that required employers to provide  matching funds. To date, the program has sponsored projects in  occupational fields such as manufacturing, health care, food processing,  hospitality, and horticulture. In addition, its workforce agency and its  department of education, which manages the Adult Education State Grant  Program, have collaborated on 14 projects, some of which integrate  English language learning in fields such as manufacturing and health care.  All 14 projects will be evaluated, according to state officials. In Texas, the  Adult Education State Grant Program and workforce agencies have  collaborated to develop industry-specific curricula for English language  learning in the fields of services, manufacturing, and health care. Florida is  planning to refine its existing curriculum in order to make it industry- specific, according to a state official. In addition, Arizona has used federal  incentive funding for health care education and training for limited English  proficient and other low-skilled adults.
Some local providers of adult education programs have also responded to  employer requests for customized English language instruction for their  employees. An Illinois community college, for example, provided classes  to various companies, including a printing company, often with support  from certain city and state grants. At the state level, Illinois has a program  to support such workplace-based activities that serve English language  learners and others with literacy needs, with employers paying part of the  cost. Also, a California community college provided English lessons to  culinary workers, and a California CBO provided safety-oriented English  instruction to warehouse workers. However, some providers told us that  their ability to contract with employers to provide such customized  English language instruction depends on factors such as having enough  people enrolled to meet costs, while accommodating different levels of  English proficiency.
In the course of our site visits, we visited a number of local providers  involved in combining English language instruction with occupational  training. These providers were involved with a wide range of industries  and venues for training or retraining workers, and they used a wide range  of funding sources (see table 2). For example, one community college  provider in California placed an English language instructor in the same  classroom with the occupational instructor, who taught advanced  carpentry. In other cases, to accommodate workers’ schedules, providers  delivered English language and occupational instruction at different times,  or—when it was delivered on-site—between shifts. Another model, used at  community colleges, such as City College of San Francisco and Cerritos  College in Norwalk, California, involves offering a “support course” with  terms and concepts specific to certain occupations; college officials told  us this English language support course may precede or follow the  occupational course.
section_title: Some States Funded Their Own Programs
paragraphs: Aside from their use of Adult Education State Grant Program funds, some  states and local jurisdictions have supported English language learning  through additional programs of their own, such as through state literacy  organizations, libraries, and special schools, and some states aim to offset  employers’ costs by offering tax credits or other incentives. In 2007,  California had enrolled some 466,000 adults in its own English language  learning program for adults—almost as many as were enrolled (528,000) in  its Adult Education State Grant Program. The state has also invested   $50 million annually in its Community-based English Tutoring program,  which officials said has, heretofore, reached about 1.5 million adults each  year. New Jersey also funds a separate state-funded program to provide  English language learning opportunities through the one-stop system, that,  according to state officials, has reached about 6000 individuals annually.  Also, Illinois has a state-funded program to provide civics- and citizenship- oriented English language instruction that it has funded at about $2 million  annually. At the local level, New York City funds an initiative that serves  about 30,000 English language learners annually, according to a city  official.
Family literacy programs, which can include English language instruction  for parents as well as children, have also been an area of state and local  activity. Illinois has such a program, which aims to serve those whose  child care responsibilities may prevent them from accessing other  services. According to a state official, the program was funded at   $1.2 million in state fiscal year 2008 and served about 900 adult  participants, the majority of whom were English language learners. A  local agency in Los Angeles County has used revenue from a state tobacco  tax to provide English language learning opportunities through family  literacy activities. According to an agency official, this project served 688  adults in state fiscal year 2008. Additionally, local public schools in 75  locations across the country, including in Memphis, Tennessee, have  developed family literacy programs that focus specifically on English  language learners, with support from Toyota and the National Center for  Family Literacy, according to a representative of the center.
Other states have supported English language learning indirectly, by  supporting the volunteers who work with English language learners and  others enrolled in Adult Education State Grant Program activities. In  Illinois, a state agency—the Office of the Secretary of State—has provided  access to training and set standards for volunteers who work in these  programs. By contrast, in Washington State, a private association that  receives state funding fulfills these functions. In fact, when we asked  about standards for volunteers, officials from 5 of the 12 states we  contacted said that such standards had been set by entities other than the  Adult Education State Grant Program.
Public libraries have been another venue by which states and local  governments have provided funds for English language learning. Officials  of the California State Library, for example, told us that the Library has a  program that reaches more advanced English language learners and some  libraries in the state also use local resources, grants, and fund-raising to  support their own English language learning activities. Officials of  Arizona’s Adult Education State Grant Program also noted that their  agency has transferred funding to the Arizona State Library to support  services for English language learners. Some have estimated that a  significant portion of public libraries across the country provide English  language instruction. Additionally, in seven communities around the  country, libraries and other entities, including some adult education  providers, have begun to develop an Internet tool, known as the Learner  Web, that can help adult English language learners access online and  community resources. Public support for people learning English  through their libraries was also augmented in 2008 with a grant from the  American Library Association and the Dollar General Foundation, whichawarded one-time grants to 34 libraries in 18 states to better serve adultEnglish language learners.
Also aside from activities associated with the Adult Education State Grant  Program, some states have supported adult English language learning  through special schools. For example, Washington State provides funding  for a vocational school for farmworkers, the Community Agriculture  Vocational Institute. According to the local farmworkers program director,  the school incorporates workforce-oriented English language instruction  as part of tractor, ladder, and pesticide safety classes. In Arizona, there  are charter schools managed by both a National Farmworkers’ Jobs  Program grantee and a Job Corps Center that provide English language  instruction to young adults. In the District of Columbia, a charter school  for adults, the Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School,  combines English language instruction with occupational training in  computer technology and culinary arts.
Finally, a few of the state officials we interviewed reported that their  states have devised incentives for employers to provide English language  learning opportunities. According to state officials, employers in Florida  and Georgia may claim a tax credit for providing training for their  employees, and this training can include English language instruction. In  New Jersey, according to state officials, employers can be reimbursed for  one-half of their employees’ salaries while the employees are in training,  including English language instruction.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Some Research, but Have Not Coordinated Research Planning across Agencies on Adult English Language Learning
paragraphs: At the time of our review, Education had one research study under way to  test the effectiveness of a particular approach to adult English language  learning, and Education and Labor had some ongoing work related to  adult English language learners. Education officials said that there had  been little research on what approaches are effective for adult English  language learning, and that there are limited federal funds for rigorous  research. However, while agencies cited a few efforts to collaborate on  specific projects, they had not coordinated research planning across  agencies to systematically leverage research resources for increasing the  knowledge base regarding adult English language learning.
Education was funding a study, led by IES, evaluating the effectiveness of  one instructional strategy for low-literacy English language learners.  Funded using $6.9 million in AEFLA national leadership dollars over  multiple years, the study’s final report is expected in the summer of 2010.  The impetus for this research, according to Education officials, was that  while English language learners made up the largest share of participants  in the Adult Education State Grant Program, there had been little research  on what approaches are effective for adult English language learners and  few instructional strategies are available for low-literacy English language  learners. The particular literacy textbook being tested, according to the  study’s design report, was chosen on the basis of its consistency with  characteristics identified in literature as promising, as well as through  recommendations from experts in the field. Depending on the results of  the study, Education officials said they expect that the results could be  disseminated for use at the classroom level and could make classroom  materials more research-based.
Also at the time of our review, Education and Labor were doing analyses  of the NAAL survey data looking at literacy levels of adults, including  those of English language learners. Education’s OVAE and Labor’s  Employment and Training Administration had a memorandum of  understanding covering a contractor’s preparation of four issue briefs on  the NAAL data, including one brief on the literacy of nonnative English  speaking adults. According to Education and Labor officials, the briefs are  expected to be released in the late summer of 2009. In addition to this joint  effort, according to Labor officials, the contractor is using the NAAL data  to prepare a separate report for Labor’s Employment and Training  Administration, expected in early 2010, that will address the literacy of the  working poor, workers in high-growth and declining occupations and  industries, and nonnative English speaking workers, and address how this  information may be utilized when serving these populations in the public  workforce system. Separately, Education’s NCES was finalizing two  studies, according to an NCES official, expected to be released in one  report in 2009, examining the oral reading and contextual reading skills of  adults with the lowest levels of literacy. The NCES official with whom we  spoke about the studies said that the studies will discuss the results for  different subgroups, including nonnative English speakers.
Federal officials cited interest in identifying effective approaches to adult  English language learning but said that little research on adult English  language learning has been conducted or planned by federal agencies  because of cost and competing priorities. However, officials did not  identify steps to coordinate research planning on adult English language  learning across agencies. Education officials said that there are limited  funds for rigorous research and multiple research priorities within the  department. Furthermore, officials noted that sound research takes years  of investment and strategic planning. However, at the same time, officials  from the agencies did not identify efforts to coordinate research planning  across agencies on adult English language learning, which could help  leverage resources used for research. For example, the NCES official  responsible for the NAAL studies reported being unaware of Labor’s NAAL  work at the time that we spoke, and asked for more information about  Labor’s effort to avoid duplicating efforts. NIFL prepared a working  document of research themes and priorities in adult literacy, with input  from experts in the field, as well as Education’s OVAE. However, the  document was submitted to its Interagency Group in January 2008 and,  according to a NIFL official, no further action has occurred.
In 2007 and 2008, two working groups identified the need for better  collaboration across Education, HHS, Labor, and NIFL on adult education  and English language learning research. In September 2007, a planning  group, organized to help NIFL consider options for its future work on  issues related to adult English language learners, recommended a system  to coordinate research efforts on adult English language learner education  across organizations and agencies to ensure that strong research  methodologies are used and to develop a common knowledge base.  However, implementation of this recommendation has not yet been  considered by NIFL. Similarly, in July of 2008, the Interagency Adult  Education Working Group, convened to fulfill Executive Order 13445,  reported that there was no unified federal research agenda for adult  education, and that, across Education, HHS, Labor, and NIFL, each entity  invested in research addressing its individual programmatic needs without  considering holistically what educators and policymakers need to know  about adult learning. The group recommended greater collaboration in  research planning efforts to leverage funds to invest in high-quality  scientific research. Specifically, the group recommended that federal  agencies meet annually to discuss current and planned research efforts to  provide agencies with the opportunity to coordinate their efforts and  permit them to plan joint research efforts when possible. In technical  comments on a draft of this report, Education indicated that it intends to  address the recommendations of the working group, but is “awaiting any  final decisions until appropriate leadership positions at Education have  been filled under the new administration.”
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The landscape for providing English language instruction to adults is  multifaceted. In addition to the numerous federal programs identified in  this report, English language instruction can also be provided by for-profit  vendors, private employers, and volunteer organizations. Regarding  federal support, there is a wide array of federal programs that may provide  English language instruction to adults, yet little data on the extent to  which these programs are providing English language instruction. Because  they vary greatly in purpose and focus, it is understandable that these  programs do not collect data on the extent of support for adult English  language instruction; however, in our view, more coordinated information  sharing across these programs and their agencies would have a number of  possible benefits. Specifically, coordinated information sharing may help  agencies assess the demand for services and find the best ways to deliver  those services, help agencies discover inefficiencies in program operations  and make improvements that may reduce program costs or increase the  number of people served, and help to improve the quality of services by  learning about the most effective way to deliver services and obtain  positive outcomes. During our review, we found a few instances in which  agencies shared information about their initiatives, but we also found  instances of missed opportunities to use resources and information to  benefit the missions of more than one agency. Similarly, during our  review, we found that the agencies invested resources in research studies  without taking steps to consider other research needs or plans across  agencies. Greater collaboration in research planning could ensure that  limited funds for research are put to the best possible use in a field in  which there is little research indicating what is effective. Such planning  efforts would allow agencies to think more globally about the needs and  priorities for research in this area and could help to build a common base  of knowledge to inform practitioners on effective approaches to English  language instruction for adults. The speed with which adult English  language learners acquire English proficiency not only affects the  livelihood of these learners and their children, but also their ability to  effectively participate in civic life. Without a more coordinated approach,  the limited resources available to facilitate English language learning  among those who seek it may not be used to their optimal benefit.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that federal programs, states, and local providers are able to  optimize resources and knowledge in providing adult English language  instruction, we recommend that the Secretary of Education work with the  Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and  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  provision. Such coordination may include the following activities:    developing interagency agreements for sharing information on resources  that states and local programs may leverage for adult English language  learning,   devising a plan for routinely sharing information on available technical  reviewing the extent to which federal guidance assists local providers in  leveraging resources,   meeting regularly to discuss efforts under way in each agency and to  consider potential for joint initiatives, or   establishing clear time frames for the accomplishment of joint objectives.
To ensure the most efficient use of available research resources and to  inform practitioners and other stakeholders in the area of adult English  language instruction, we recommend that the Secretary of Education work  with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of  Labor, and the National Institute for Literacy to implement a coordinated  strategy for planning and conducting research on effective approaches to  providing adult English language instruction and disseminating the  research results.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education, the  Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and  the National Institute for Literacy for review and comment. Education,  HHS, and Labor provided written responses to this report (see apps. V, VI,  and VII). The three agencies concurred with our recommendations.  Education and Labor also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. NIFL indicated that it had coordinated with  Education, and had nothing to add to Education’s comments.
In its formal comments, Education noted that the recommendations were  consistent with those of the Interagency Adult Education Working Group,  whose July 2008 report, pursuant to Executive Order 13445, identified the  potential benefits of coordination at the federal level on adult education.  Education also noted that a coordinated federal approach to research is  necessary to address the most important issues in adult education,  including English language learning, and would help ensure that the  federal investment in research is optimized. Additionally, Education  expressed the intent to pursue relevant opportunities for increased  coordination with other federal agencies.
HHS’s formal comments emphasized the need for broader resource  mapping and coordination across all levels of government and nonprofit  entities to ensure the successful delivery of English language instruction.
Finally, Labor, in its formal comments, indicated that it agreed that a  coordinated approach to sharing information and conducting planning and  research is key to optimizing resources and knowledge in providing  English language instruction. Labor added that it is committed to  strengthening cooperation with Education and HHS. Additionally, in a  separate e-mail, Labor indicated the concurrence of the National Office of  Job Corps.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Labor, the  Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of NIFL, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review focused on (1) trends in the need for and enrollment in  federally funded adult English language programs, (2) the nature of federal  support for adult English language learning, (3) ways in which states and  local public providers have supported English language programs for  adults, and (4) federal agencies’ plans for research to identify effective  approaches to adult English language learning. Overall, to address these  research objectives, we selected three key federal agencies—the  Departments of Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), and  Labor—to be included in the scope of our review. We selected these  agencies on the basis of their missions to administer education- and  workforce-related programs. We also selected these agencies because of  their mandate to collaborate with the National Institute for Literacy  (NIFL), which is tasked with serving as a resource to support literacy—the  development of reading and writing skills—across all age groups.
To answer all of our research objectives, we also conducted state and  local interviews in California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington State.  We selected these states for our site visits because they provided a mix of  large, adult limited English proficient populated states (California and  Illinois) and high-growth states (Minnesota and Washington State). We  also selected these states for diversity in administrative structures and  practices under way regarding adult English language learning. For  example, Minnesota’s and California’s Adult Education State Grant  Programs are housed within their state education agencies, while Illinois’  and Washington State’s are housed in the community college agencies. In  addition to these site visits, we selected 12 states for semistructured  telephone interviews with state officials responsible for administering the  Adult Education State Grant Program. Of these 12 states, 6 were selected  because they had the largest adult limited English proficient populations  in the nation in 2007 (California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York,  and Texas), and the other 6 states were selected because they had the  highest growth rates in their adult limited English proficient populations  from 2000 to 2007 (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Nevada, and  Tennessee). To determine the states with the largest and highest growth  adult limited English proficient populations, we used U.S. Census Bureau  data on the English speaking ability of adults ages 18 and over who speak  a language other than English at home. Specifically, we used American  Community Survey (ACS) data for 2007 to determine the largest adult  limited English proficient populated states, and we used 2000 Census data  and 2007 ACS data to determine the states with the highest growth.  Together, the 12 states account for 75 percent of the national adult limited  English proficient population and 75 percent of the Adult Education State  Grant Program’s national enrollment in English language classes for 2007.  In addition, we consulted with outside researchers, academics, industry  associations, union representatives, and others—including the American  Library Association, AFL-CIO, Asian-American Justice Center, Association  of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, Catholic Legal Immigration  Network, Center for Law and Social Policy, Institute for the Study of  International Migration, Literacywork International, Migration Policy  Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of State  Directors of Adult Education, National Center for Family Literacy,  National Coalition for Literacy, National Council of La Raza, National Job  Corps Association, Pew Hispanic Center, Proliteracy, Refugee Council  USA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
To determine what is known about trends in the need and enrollment in  federally funded programs, we reviewed and analyzed Census and ACS  data on English language speaking ability for 2000 to 2007. Both the  decennial Census and ACS collect self-reported information on the English  language speaking ability of respondents who speak a language other than  English at home. Specifically, respondents are asked whether they speak  English “very well,” “well,” “not well,” or “not at all.” To assess the  reliability of the Census Bureau data, we (1) reviewed Census Bureau  documents and external literature on the reliability of the data and (2) met  with internal GAO staff knowledgeable about the reliability of the Census  Bureau data. We also reviewed Adult Education State Grant Program  enrollment data for 2000 to 2007 reported in the Adult Education National  Reporting System (NRS). To assess the reliability of data reported by  Education, we (1) reviewed NRS implementation guidelines,   (2) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data, and   (3) interviewed officials responsible for administering their Adult  Education State Grants in the 14 states included in our review about  procedures used to ensure the reliability of the data they report to the  NRS. We determined that both the Census Bureau and NRS data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. However, it is  important to note a few limitations of and modifications to the data.  Regarding the Census Bureau data, the data are self-reported by  respondents, and are not based on any standard assessment of speaking  ability. Additionally, the data are limited to English speaking ability, and  do not ask respondents to assess their abilities in reading or writing  English. Regarding the NRS data, the definitions of the NRS English  language levels changed in 2006. Specifically, the highest level was  removed and one of the lowest levels was broken into two levels. We note  this change when we discuss enrollment trends by level in the report. In  addition, Education officials within the Office of Vocational and Adult  Education (OVAE), as well as state officials responsible for administering  their Adult Education State Grant programs, reported federal and state  efforts to improve NRS data over the last several years. Specifically, OVAE  also issued a data quality checklist for use by states to certify compliance  with assessment policies and developed monitoring tools for OVAE  monitoring site visits. OVAE and state officials reported training and  technical assistance, and some of the state officials with whom we spoke  reported state data systems that have improved their ability to ensure the  data are reliable. It is also important to note that the NRS only includes  data for programs funded by the Adult Education State Grant Program. We  also reviewed information on adult literacy from the National Household  Education Surveys (NHES) and the 2003 National Assessment of Adult  Literacy (NAAL), both sponsored by the National Center for Education  Statistics. To identify whether other federal programs that allow for adult  English language learning have national enrollment data specific to such  instruction, we also interviewed federal agency and program officials for  agencies included in the scope of our review.
To assess the nature of federal support, we identified federal programs  that allow for adult English language learning within Education, HHS, and  Labor. To do this, we began by interviewing federal agency officials about  programs within their agencies supporting adult English language learning  and reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and other  relevant literature. We reviewed federal laws and interviewed federal  officials responsible for each program to verify that the programs allow for  English language learning for adults and to learn about the extent that they  collect data on spending and other data related to adult participation in  English language instruction in their programs. We also identified some of  the federal programs through interviews and data gathered from local  providers of English language programs in the 4 states we visited, and  corroborated this information with our review of the law and interviews  with federal program officials. For the purposes of identifying programs,  we generally defined adults as those who were at least age 16 and not  enrolled in secondary school. The programs identified in this report may  not capture all programs that support English language learning for adults  within the three agencies. We reviewed agency strategic plans, and for the  programs included in our review, performance reports and the Office of  Management and Budget’s Performance Assessment Rating Tool. We  interviewed Job Corps Center managers and obtained information from   28 National Farmworkers’ Job Program grantees about their experiences  in serving English language learners. In addition, in the 4 states we visited,  we also met with state program officials responsible for administering  their Adult Education State Grant, Even Start, refugee and Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families programs, and Workforce Investment Act of  1998 (WIA) title I programs. We visited multiple WIA one-stops, Even Start  providers, a Head Start grantee, a Community Services Block Grant  grantee, a Job Corps Center, a Youthbuild site, a National Farmworkers’  Job Program grantee, two community-based organizations (CBO)  receiving Trade Adjustment Assistance funds, and grantees of special  Labor initiatives.
To determine ways in which states and local providers support English  language learning for adults, we conducted semistructured telephone  interviews with officials responsible for administering the Adult Education  State Grants in the 12 states that we have previously mentioned. In the   4 states we visited, in addition to interviewing state officials responsible  for administering federal programs as we discuss in the previous  paragraph, we also interviewed providers of adult English language  programs. In sum, we interviewed 16 CBOs, 11 community colleges, and 8  adult schools. In selecting providers to visit, we considered  recommendations from state officials. We asked state officials responsible  for administering their adult education and refugee programs to  recommend local providers with the following criteria in mind:  demonstrated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, leveraged community  resources or developed private partnerships, exhibited promising  practices, or reduced waiting lists. We selected providers from their  recommendations to get a range of different types of providers. These  interviews focused on ways in which English language instruction is  provided, spending and cost, coordination with other public and private  entities, and challenges to supporting English language learning.
To determine what federal research is planned in this area, we met with  federal officials from Education, HHS, and Labor for the programs  included in this review. We also met with the officials from the Institute of  Education Sciences and NIFL to learn about ongoing research and  research priorities regarding English language learning for adults, as well  as efforts to coordinate research across the agencies. We also identified  and reviewed published research in the field of adult English language  learning. We conducted our review from May 2008 through July 2009 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Education, HHS, and Labor Programs Authorized for Funds to Be Used for Adult English Language Learning
subsections: section_title: Program purpose/Goal
paragraphs: To assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge  and skills necessary for employment and self-sufficiency; to  assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills  necessary to become full partners in the educational  development of their children; and to assist adults in the  completion of secondary school education.
To help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy and improve  the educational opportunities of low-income families, by  integrating early childhood education, adult literacy or adult  basic education, and parenting education into a unified family  literacy program.
To help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy and improve  the educational opportunities of low-income families, by  integrating early childhood education, adult literacy or adult  basic education, and parenting education into a unified family  literacy program.
To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in  obtaining the equivalent of a high school diploma and,  subsequently, to begin postsecondary education, enter  military service, or obtain employment.
To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary  education by providing financial aid in the form of grants in an  efficient, financially sound, and customer-responsive manner.
To improve the education of limited English proficient children  and youth by helping them to learn English and meet  challenging state academic content and student academic  achievement standards.
To provide opportunities to establish or expand activities in  community learning centers that provide academic  enrichment and additional services to students who attend  low-performing schools to help meet core academic  achievement standards and to offer families of students  opportunities for literacy and related educational  development.
To carry out a program of making grants and contracts  designed to identify qualified individuals from disadvantaged  backgrounds, to prepare them for a program of  postsecondary education, to provide support services for  such students who are pursuing programs of postsecondary  education, to motivate and prepare students for doctoral  programs, and to train individuals serving or preparing for  service in programs and projects so designed.
To support institutions of education in their effort to increase  their self-sufficiency by improving academic programs,  institutional management, and fiscal stability.
To support institutions of education in their effort to increase  their self-sufficiency by improving academic programs,  institutional management, and fiscal stability.
To improve the academic quality, institutional management,  and fiscal stability of eligible institutions, to increase their self- sufficiency and strengthen their capacity to make a  substantial contribution to the higher education resources of  the nation.
To enable institutions of higher education, combinations of  such institutions, and other public and private nonprofit  institutions and agencies to improve postsecondary education  opportunities.
To develop and carryout activities to improve and expand the  institution’s capacity to serve Hispanic and other low-income  students.
To help refugees become economically self-sufficient.
To help refugees become economically self-sufficient.
To help refugees become economically self-sufficient within  120 to 180 days.
To provide assistance to needy families; end dependence on  government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and  marriage; prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies;  and encourage two-parent families.
To promote the school readiness of low-income children by  enhancing their cognitive, social, and emotional development.
To reduce poverty, revitalize low-income communities, and  empower low-income families and individuals to become fully  self-sufficient.
To provide workforce investment activities that increase the  employment, retention, and earning of participants and  increase the occupation skill attainment by participants, which  will improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare  dependency, and enhance the productivity and  competitiveness of the nation’s economy.
Adult education and literacy activities  combined with occupational and job skills  training (under training services)
To strengthen the ability of eligible migrant and seasonal farm  workers and their families to achieve economic self- sufficiency.
To assist disadvantaged youth ages 16 to 24 in obtaining  education and employment skills to achieve economic self- sufficiency; to foster leadership skills; and to expand the  supply of affordable housing.
To assist eligible youth ages 16 to 24 who need and can  benefit from an intensive program operated in a group setting  in residential and nonresidential centers, to become more  responsible, employable, and productive citizens.
To provide adjustment assistance to qualified workers  adversely affected by foreign trade.
To award grants to states that exceed performance levels of  WIA title I, title II, and Perkins III to carry out innovative  programs consistent with the requirements of each program.
section_title: Appendix III: Selected High-Growth and Community-Based Labor Grants That Align with the Limited English Proficiency and Hispanic Worker Initiative
subsections: section_title: Grantee type Amount of grant Description
paragraphs: $837,424   Offered training that involved an English language learning  component to 120 individuals in automotive technology.  494,386   Provided English language and occupational skills training to  hospitality industry workers.  1,500,000   Supported occupational training and English courses to limited  English proficient Job Corps participants to prepare them for health  care careers.  2,762,496   Provided occupational training and English language instruction to  meet the needs of health care employers in critical areas.  1,649,348   Builds on existing occupational program focused on the  transportation sector, and provides remedial English language  instruction for trainees whose primary language is not English.
section_title: Appendix IV: Methods for Providing English Language Instruction among Labor Grantees That We Interviewed
paragraphs: Site was itself an Adult  Education State Grant
In addition to visiting this Job Corps Center, we obtained information from officials who manage 41  Job Corps Centers in multiple states. These officials stated that the centers they manage provide  English language instruction both directly, with their own resources, and indirectly, through other  providers.
In addition to visiting this grantee, we obtained information from 2 farmworkers’ program grantees,  27 of which offered or provided access to English language instruction. About one-half of these  grantees provided instruction both directly, with their own resources, and indirectly, through  relationships with Adult Education State Grant Program or other providers.
This site provided English language instruction directly in the following two ways: through a  vocational school for farmworkers and through an English language teacher hired directly, who led  classes at a nearby one-stop.
In addition to visiting this grantee, we conducted a telephone interview with another grantee who told  us that the program had referred participants to a local community college for English language  instruction, but was about to acquire language software to provide this service directly.
When the Labor grant expired, this grantee applied for and received a grant from the Office of  Refugee Resettlement to support English language instruction, according to grantee officials.
English language instruction was provided at four one-stops. According to officials, most participants  were referred to Adult Education State Grant providers. However, some instruction was provided at  the one-stops by non-Adult Education State Grant community-based organizations.
English language instruction was provided at 12 one-stops. Clients at the one-stops accessed  commercially available English language software, with some support provided by one-stop staff,  some of whom were former English language teachers, according to the officials. In addition, referrals  were made to Adult Education State Grant Program providers.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant Director, and Cady S. Panetta, Analyst-in- Charge, managed this report. Other staff who made key contributions to  all aspects of the report include Chris Morehouse and Anthony Mercaldo.  Alexandra Edwards and Meredith Trauner assisted with data collection.  Craig Winslow provided legal assistance. Ashley McCall assisted in  identifying relevant literature and background information. Ken Bombara,  Ron Fecso, and Cindy Gilbert assisted with the methodology and  statistical analysis. Sue Bernstein, Melinda Cordero, and Jena Sinkfield  helped prepare the final report and the graphics.