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

Letter

Background

Characteristics of Adults with Limited English Proficiency

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.

Research on Adult English Language Learning

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.

Adult Education State Grant Program

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.

Sources of Adult English Language Instruction and Paths to English Language Acquisition

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.

Growing Numbers of Adults with Limited English; Extent of Participation in English Instruction Is Unknown

Data Indicate a Growing Population of Adults Who Speak Limited English

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.

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

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.

Federal Support for Adult English Instruction Is Dispersed across Many Programs That Collect Little Data and Have Limited Coordination

English Language Instruction Is Authorized under Multiple Federal Programs with Varied Purposes, and Few Have Data on the Extent of Support

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.

Federal Agencies Have Taken Recent Steps to Focus More Specifically on English Language Learning

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.

Coordination among Agencies Has Been Limited

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.

States and Service Providers Have Used a Range of Strategies to Support Adult English Language Learning

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.

States Varied in Their Overall Level of Support for the Adult Education State Grant Program and in Their Efforts to Enhance English Language Learning

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.

Some States and Local Providers Coordinated with Other Federally Funded Programs

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.

Some States and Local Providers Are Exploring Ways to Integrate English Language Learning and Occupational Training

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.

Some States Funded Their Own Programs

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.

Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Some Research, but Have Not Coordinated Research Planning across Agencies on Adult English Language Learning

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.”

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Education, HHS, and Labor Programs Authorized for Funds to Be Used for Adult English Language Learning

Program purpose/Goal

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.

Appendix III: Selected High-Growth and Community-Based Labor Grants That Align with the Limited English Proficiency and Hispanic Worker Initiative

Grantee type Amount of grant Description

$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.

Appendix IV: Methods for Providing English Language Instruction among Labor Grantees That We Interviewed

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.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

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.