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

Letter

Proliferation of Programs That Support Teacher Quality Complicates Federal Efforts to Invest Dollars Effectively

In fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent over $4 billion specifically to improve the quality of our nation’s 3 million teachers through numerous programs across the government. Teacher quality can be enhanced through a variety of activities, including training, recruitment, and curriculum and assessment tools. In turn, these activities can influence student learning and ultimately improve the global competitiveness of the American workforce in a knowledge-based economy. Prior GAO reports have noted that sustained coordination among key federal education programs could enhance state efforts to improve teacher quality.

Federal efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the creation and expansion of a variety of programs across the federal government. However, there is no governmentwide strategy to minimize fragmentation, overlap, or potential duplication among these many programs. Specifically, GAO identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher quality, either as a primary purpose or as an allowable activity, administered across 10 federal agencies. Many of these programs share similar goals. For example, 9 of the 82 programs support improving the quality of teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM subjects) and these programs alone are administered across the Departments of Education, Defense, and Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the National Science Foundation. Further, in fiscal year 2010, the majority (53) of the programs GAO identified supporting teacher quality improvements received $50 million or less in funding and many have their own separate administrative processes.

The proliferation of programs has resulted in fragmentation that can frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost effective, and ultimately increase program costs. For example, eight different Education offices administer over 60 of the federal programs supporting teacher quality improvements, primarily in the form of competitive grants. Education officials believe that federal programs have failed to make significant progress in helping states close achievement gaps between schools serving students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, because, in part, federal programs that focus on teaching and learning of specific subjects are too fragmented to help state and district officials strengthen instruction and increase student achievement in a comprehensive manner. While Education officials noted, and GAO concurs, that a mixture of programs can target services to underserved populations and yield strategic innovations, the current programs are not structured in a way that enables educators and policymakers to identify the most effective practices to replicate. According to Education officials, it is typically not cost-effective to allocate the funds necessary to conduct rigorous evaluations of small programs; therefore, small programs are unlikely to be evaluated. Finally, it is more costly to administer multiple separate federal programs because each program has its own policies, applications, award competitions, reporting requirements, and, in some cases, federal evaluations.

While all of the 82 federal programs GAO identified support teacher quality improvement efforts, several overlap in that they share more than one key program characteristic. For example, teacher quality programs may overlap if they share similar objectives, serve similar target groups, or fund similar activities. GAO previously reported that 23 of the programs administered by Education in fiscal year 2009 had improving teacher quality as a specific focus, which suggested that there may be overlap among these and other programs that have teacher quality improvements as an allowable activity. When looking across a broader set of criteria, GAO found that 14 of the programs administered by Education overlapped with another program with regard to allowable activities as well as shared objectives and target groups (see figure 1). For example, the Transition to Teaching program and Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program can both be used to fund similar teacher preparation activities through institutions of higher education for the purpose of helping individuals from non-teaching fields become qualified to teach.

Although there is overlap among these programs, several factors make it difficult to determine whether there is unnecessary duplication. First, when similar teacher quality activities are funded through different programs and delivered by different entities, some overlap can occur unintentionally, but is not necessarily wasteful. For example, a local school district could use funds from the Foreign Language Assistance program to pay for professional development for a teacher who will be implementing a new foreign language course, and this teacher could also attend a summer seminar on best practices for teaching the foreign language at a Language Resource Center. Second, by design, individual teachers may benefit from federally funded training or financial support at different points in their careers. Specifically, the teacher from this example could also receive teacher certification through a program funded by the Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow program. Further, both broad and narrowly targeted programs exist simultaneously, meaning that the same teacher who receives professional development funded from any one or more of the above three programs might also receive professional development that is funded through Title I, Part A of ESEA. The actual content of these professional development activities may differ though, since the primary goal of each program is different. In this example, it would be difficult to know whether the absence of any one of these programs would make a difference in terms of the teacher’s ability to teach the new language effectively.

In past work, GAO and Education’s Inspector General have concluded that improved planning and coordination could help Education better leverage expertise and limited resources, and to anticipate and develop options for addressing potential problems among the multitude of programs it administers. Generally, GAO has reported that uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. However, given the large number of teacher quality programs and the extent of overlap, it is unlikely that improved coordination alone can fully mitigate the effects of the fragmented and overlapping federal effort.

In 2009, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Education work with other agencies as appropriate to develop a coordinated approach for routinely and systematically sharing information that can assist federal programs, states, and local providers in achieving efficient service delivery. Coordination is essential to ensure that programs do not work at cross-purposes, do not repeat mistakes, and do not engage in wasteful duplication of services. Education has established working groups to help develop more effective collaboration across Education offices, and has reached out to other agencies to develop a framework for sharing information on some teacher quality activities, but it has noted that coordination efforts do not always prove useful and cannot fully eliminate barriers to program alignment, such as programs with differing definitions for similar populations of grantees, which create an impediment to coordination.

Congress could help eliminate some of these barriers through legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other key education bills. Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation and overlap among teacher quality programs, Congress may choose either to eliminate programs that are too small to evaluate cost-effectively or combine programs serving similar target groups into a larger program. Education has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal, which could allow the agency to dedicate a higher portion of its administrative resources to monitoring programs for results and providing technical assistance. Congress might also include legislative provisions to help Education reduce fragmentation, such as by giving broader discretion to the agency to move resources away from certain programs. Congress could provide Education guidelines for selecting these programs. For example, Congress could allow Education discretion to consolidate programs with administrative costs exceeding a certain threshold or failing to meet performance goals, into larger or more successful programs. Finally, to the extent that overlapping programs continue to be authorized, they could be better aligned with each other in a way that allows for comparison and evaluation to ensure they are complementary rather than duplicative.

Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies Across Multiple Employment and Training Programs

Federally funded employment and training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. In fiscal year 2009, 47 programs spent about $18 billion to provide services, such as job search and job counseling, to program participants. Most of these programs are administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, and HHS.

GAO has previously issued reports on the number of programs that provide employment and training services and overlap among them. In the 1990s, GAO issued a series of reports that identified program overlap and possible areas of resulting inefficiencies. In 2000 and 2003, GAO identified programs for which a key program goal was providing employment and training assistance and tracked the increasing number of programs. GAO recently updated information on these programs, found overlap among them, and examined potential duplication among three selected large programs—HHS’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Department of Labor’s Employment Service and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult programs.

Forty-four of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. Some of these overlapping programs serve multiple population groups. Others target specific populations, most commonly Native Americans, veterans, and youth. Even when programs overlap, they may have meaningful differences in their eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may provide similar types of services in different ways.

GAO examined the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs for potential duplication and found they provide some of the same services to the same population through separate administrative structures. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same services from these programs is unknown due to limited data, GAO found these programs maintain parallel administrative structures to provide some of the same services such as job search assistance to low-income individuals (see figure 2). It should be noted that employment is only one aspect of the TANF program, which also provides a wide range of other services, including cash assistance. At the state level, the TANF program is typically administered by the state human services or welfare agency, while the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs are typically administered by the state workforce agency and provided through one-stop centers. Agency officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in delivering services through these programs but said factors such as the number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stop centers’ proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same services.

Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be challenging. Some states have colocated TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers where Employment Service and WIA Adult services are provided. Three states—Florida, Texas, and Utah—have gone a step further by consolidating the agencies that administer these programs, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. States and localities may face challenges to colocating services, such as limited office space. In addition, consolidating administrative structures may be time consuming and any cost savings may not be immediately realized.

An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives that states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives are needed.

To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts. This should include information about state initiatives to consolidate program administrative structures and state and local efforts to colocate new partners, such as TANF, at one-stop centers. Information on these topics could address challenges faced, strategies employed, results achieved, and remaining issues. As part of this effort, Labor and HHS should examine the incentives for states and localities to undertake such initiatives, and, as warranted, identify options for increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS agreed they should develop and disseminate this information. HHS noted that it lacks legal authority to mandate increased TANF-WIA coordination or create incentives for such efforts.

To the extent that colocating services and consolidating administrative structures reduce administrative costs, funds could potentially be available to serve more clients or for other purposes. For the TANF program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160 million to administer employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. According to a Department of Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA Adult program were at least $56 million in program year 2009. Officials told GAO they do not collect data on the administrative costs associated with the Employment Service program, as they are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult participant who receives training services. In periods of budgetary constraints, it is all the more important that resources are used effectively. Depending on the reduction in administrative costs associated with colocation and consolidation, these funds could be used to train potentially hundreds or thousands of additional individuals.

Options for Congress to Consider as it Addresses Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication

This Committee has authority over a wide range of programs intended to help many of our neediest and most vulnerable citizens. With pending reauthorizations, it is an opportune time to consider options for addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication among these programs. In the past, Congress has taken a range of actions to address these issues that may help you as you seek approaches on how to proceed. Today, I would like to highlight 3 of these approaches: 1. enhancing program evaluations and performance information, 2. fostering coordination and strategic planning for program areas that span multiple federal agencies, and 3. consolidating existing programs or coordinating service delivery.

Enhancing Program Evaluations and Performance Information

Information about the effectiveness of programs can help guide policymakers and program managers in making tough decisions about how to prioritize the use of scarce resources and improve the efficiency of existing programs. However, there can be many challenges to obtaining this information. For example, it may not be cost-effective to allocate the funds necessary to conduct rigorous evaluations of small programs and as a result these programs are unlikely to be evaluated. As we have reported, many programs, especially smaller programs, have not been evaluated, which can limit the ability of Congress to make informed decisions about which programs to continue, expand, modify, consolidate, or eliminate. For example, We found that of 47 employment and training programs we identified, 23 have not had a performance study of any kind completed since 2004, and only 5 have had an impact study completed since 2004.

We recommended that Labor comply with the requirement in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most effective for improving outcomes. However, Labor has been slow to implement this requirement, and does not expect to complete the study until June 2015.

In 2009, GAO reported that while evaluations have been done, or are under way, for about two-fifths of 23 programs we identified as being focused on teacher quality, little is known about the extent to which most programs are achieving their desired results.

In 2010, GAO reported that there were 151 different federal K-12 and early education programs, but that more than half of these programs have not been evaluated, including 8 of the 20 largest programs which together accounted for about 90 percent of total funding for these programs.

There are also other governmentwide strategies that may play an important role. Specifically, in January 2011, the President signed the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), updating the almost two- decades-old Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Implementing provisions of the new act—such as its emphasis on establishing outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas—could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes and addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations. Specifically, GPRAMA requires agencies to (1) disclose information about the accuracy and reliability of performance information (2) identify crosscutting management challenges, and (3) report quarterly on priority goals on a publicly available Web site. Additionally, GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. OMB and agencies are to consult with relevant committees, obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals at least once every 2 years. This information can inform deliberations on spending priorities and help re- examine the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number of federal education programs. However, to be successful, it will be important for agencies to build the analytical capacity to both use the performance information, and to ensure its quality—both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability of research and evaluation resources.

Fostering Coordination and Strategic Planning for Program Areas that Span Multiple Federal Agencies

Where programs cross federal agencies, Congress can establish requirements to ensure federal agencies are working together on common goals. For example, Congress mandated—through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010—that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), develop and maintain an inventory of STEM education programs, including documentation of the effectiveness of these programs, assess the potential overlap and potential duplication of these programs, and develop a 5-year strategic plan for STEM education, among other things. In establishing these requirements, Congress put in place a set of requirements to provide information it can use to inform decisions about strategic priorities.

Consolidating Existing Programs or Coordinating Service Delivery

Consolidating existing programs or coordinating service delivery are other options for Congress to address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. In the education area, Congress consolidated several bilingual education programs into the English Language Acquisition State Grant Program as part of the 2001 ESEA reauthorization. As we reported prior to the consolidation, existing bilingual programs shared the same goals, targeted the same types of children, and provided similar services. In consolidating these programs, Congress gave state and local educational agencies greater flexibility in the design and administration of language instructional programs. Congress has another opportunity to address these issues through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation and overlap among teacher quality programs, Congress may choose either to eliminate programs that are too small to evaluate cost effectively or to combine programs serving similar target groups into a larger program. In the employment and training area, Congress took steps to better coordinate service delivery for many employment and training programs when it enacted the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). Specifically, WIA established one-stop centers in all states and mandated that numerous programs provide their services through the centers. In doing so, WIA sought to unify a fragmented employment and training system and create a single, universal system—a one-stop system that could serve the needs of all job seekers and employers.

In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among federal teacher quality and employment and training programs is clearly challenging. These are difficult issues to address because they may require agencies and Congress to re-examine within and across various mission areas the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number of long-standing federal programs or activities. Implementing provisions of GPRAMA—such as its emphasis on establishing priority outcome-oriented goals, including those covering crosscutting policy areas—could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Sustained attention and oversight by Congress will be critical also. As the nation rises to meet its current fiscal challenges, GAO will continue to assist Congress and federal agencies in identifying actions needed to address these issues. Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the areas we have already identified.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and Members of the Committee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

GAO Contact

For further information on this testimony please contact Barbara Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, who may be reached at (202) 512-7215, or BovbjergB@gao.gov. Contact points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the last page of this statement.

Related GAO Products

Education Programs

Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early Childhood Education Programs. GAO-10-51. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010.

English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to Support Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More Coordination. GAO-09-575. Washington: D.C.: July 29, 2009.

Teacher Preparation: Multiple Federal Education Offices Support Teacher Preparation for Instructing Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, but Systematic Departmentwide Coordination Could Enhance This Assistance. GAO-09-573. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2009.

Teacher Quality: Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality. GAO-09-593. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009.

Teacher Quality: Approaches, Implementation, and Evaluation of Key Federal Efforts. GAO-07-861T. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007.

Higher Education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Trends and the Role of Federal Programs. GAO-06-702T. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006.

Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. GAO-06-114. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2005.

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.

Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5. GAO-02-394. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2002.

Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.

Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated. GAO-01-657. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2001.

Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.

Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low- Income Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington: D.C.: November 15, 1999.

Federal Education Funding: Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns. GAO/T-HEHS-98-46. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 1997.

Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities and Student Aid. GAO/T-HEHS-95-130. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 1995.

Multiple Teacher Training Programs: Information on Budgets, Services, and Target Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-71FS. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 1995.

Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings. GAO/T-HEHS-95-56. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 1995.

Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups. GAO/HEHS-95-4FS. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 1994.

Employment and Training Programs

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011.

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2003.

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.

Department of Labor: Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker Protection and Workforce Development. GAO/T-HEHS-95-125. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 1995.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163 Employment and Training Programs. GAO/HEHS-95-85FS. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 1995.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Create a More Efficient, Customer-Driven System. GAO/T-HEHS-95-70. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 1995.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results. GAO/T-HEHS-95-53. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Basic Program Data Often Missing. GAO/HEHS-94-239. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: How Legislative Proposals Address Concerns. GAO/T-HEHS-94-221. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises Questions About Efficiency. GAO/HEHS-94-193. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed. GAO/T-HEHS-94-109. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Underscore Need for Change. GAO/T-HEHS-94-120. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively. GAO/HEHS-94-88. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. GAO/HEHS-94-80. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper Delivery of Services. GAO/HEHS-94-78. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994.

Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment Training Strategy Needed. GAO/T-HRD-93-27. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1993.

Multiple Employment Programs. GAO/HRD-93-26R. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 1993.

Multiple Employment Programs. GAO/HRD-92-39R. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 1992.

Both Employment and Training Programs and Education Programs

List of Selected Federal Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, Provide Similar Services, or Are Fragmented Across Government Missions. GAO-11-474R. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-441T. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/T-HEHS-98-38. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1997.

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions. GAO/HEHS-96-34. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 1996.

Federal Reorganization: Proposed Merger’s Impact on Existing Department of Education Activities. T-HEHS-95-188. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 1995.

Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge Education, Labor, and EEOC. GAO/HEHS-95-140. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1995.

Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal Missions and Approaches. GAO/T-AIMD-95-161. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1995.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.