Early childhood is a key period of development in a child’s life and an emphasized age group for which services are likely to have long-term benefits. Recent research has underscored the need to focus on this period to improve children’s intellectual development, language development, and school readiness. Early childhood programs serve children from infancy through age 5. The range of services includes education and child development, child care, referral for health care or social services, and speech or hearing assessment as well as many other kinds of services or activities. $4 billion), administered by HHS, and Special Education programs (approximately $1 billion), administered by Education. Head Start provides education and developmental services to young children, and the Special Education-Preschool Grants and Infants and Families program provides preschool education and services to young children with disabilities. Although these programs target different populations, use different eligibility criteria, and provide a different mix of services to children and families, there are many similarities in the services they provide. Figure 1 illustrates the federal agencies responsible for federal early childhood funding. Early childhood programs were included in the list of more than 30 programs our governmentwide performance and accountability report cited to illustrate the problem of fragmentation and program overlap.Virtually all the results that the government strives to achieve require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies. However, mission fragmentation and program overlap are widespread, and programs are not always well coordinated. This wastes scarce funds, frustrates taxpayers, and limits overall program effectiveness. The Results Act is intended to improve the management of federal programs by shifting the focus of decision-making and accountability from the number of grants and inspection made to the results of federal programs. The act requires executive agencies, in consultation with the Congress and other stakeholders, to prepare strategic plans that include mission statements and goals. Each strategic plan covers a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted. It must include the following six key elements: a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the agency, a description of general goals and objectives for the major functions and operations of the agency, a discussion of how these goals and objectives will be achieved and the resources that will be needed, a description of the relationship between performance goals in the annual performance plan and general goals and objectives in the strategic plan, a discussion of key factors external to the agency that could affect significantly the achievement of the general goals and objectives, and a description of program evaluations used to develop the plan and a schedule for future evaluations. describe the means the agency will use to verify and validate its performance data. The act also requires that each agency report annually on the extent to which it is meeting its annual performance goals and the actions needed to achieve or modify goals that have not been met. The first report, due by March 31, 2000, will describe the agencies’ fiscal year 1999 performance. The Results Act provides a valuable tool to address mission fragmentation and program overlap. The act’s emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes are expected to be closely coordinated, consolidated, or streamlined, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. As noted in OMB guidance and in our recent reports on the act, agencies should identify multiple programs within or outside the agency that contribute to the same or similar goals and describe their efforts to coordinate. Just as importantly, the Results Act’s requirement that agencies define their mission and desired outcomes, measure performance, and use performance information provides multiple opportunities for the Congress to intervene in ways that could address mission fragmentation. As missions and desired outcomes are determined, instances of fragmentation and overlap can be identified and appropriate responses can be defined. For example, by emphasizing the intended outcomes of related federal programs, the plans might allow identification of legislative changes needed to clarify congressional intent and expectations or to address changing conditions. As performance measures are developed, the extent to which agency goals are complementary and the need for common performance measures to allow for crossagency evaluations can be considered. For example, common measures of outcomes from job training programs could permit comparisons of programs’ results and the tools used to achieve those results. As continued budget pressures prompt decisionmakers to weigh trade-offs inherent in resource allocation and restructuring decisions, the Results Act can provide the framework to integrate and compare the performance of related programs to better inform choices among competing budgetary claims. The outcome of using the Results Act in these ways might be consolidation that would reduce the number of multiple programs, but it might also be a streamlining of program delivery or improved coordination among existing programs. Where multiple programs remain, coordination and streamlining would be especially important. Multiple programs might be appropriate because a certain amount of redundancy in providing services and targeting recipients is understandable and can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part of a management strategy. Such a strategy might be chosen, for example, because it fosters competition, provides better service delivery to customer groups, or provides emergency backup. Education and HHS’s ACF—the two agencies that are responsible for the majority of early childhood program funds—addressed early childhood programs in their strategic and 1999 performance plans. Although both agencies’ plans generally addressed the required elements for strategic and performance plans, Education’s plans provided more detailed information about performance measures and coordination strategies. The agencies in their 2000 plans similarly addressed the required elements for performance plans. However, strategies and activities that relate to coordination were not well defined. Although agencies state that some coordination occurs, they have not yet fully described how they will coordinate their efforts. The Education plan provided a more detailed description of coordination strategies and activities for early childhood programs than the ACF plan, including some performance measures that may cut across programs. The ACF plan described in general terms the agency’s plans to coordinate with external and internal programs dealing with early childhood goals. Yet the information presented in the plans did not provide the level of detail, definition, and identification of complementary measures that would facilitate comparisons of early childhood programs. research on early brain development reveals that if some learning experiences are not introduced to children at an early age, the children will find learning more difficult later; children who enter school ready to learn are more likely to achieve high standards than children who are inadequately prepared; and high-quality preschool and child care are integral in preparing children adequately for school. Early childhood issues were discussed in the plan’s goal to “build a solid foundation for learning for all children” and in one objective and two performance indicators (see table 1). The 1999 performance plan, Education’s first performance plan, followed from the strategic plan. It clearly identified programs contributing to Education’s early childhood objective and set individual performance goals for each of its programs. Paralleling the strategic plan, the performance plan specified the core strategies Education intended to use to achieve its early childhood goal and objective. Among these were interagency coordination, particularly with HHS’s Head Start program. According to Education’s strategic plan, this coordination was intended to ensure that children’s needs are met and that the burden on families and schools working with multiple providers is reduced. The performance plan also said that Education would work with HHS and other organizations to incorporate some common indicators of young children’s school readiness into their programs. It would also work with HHS more closely to align indicators of progress and quality between HHS’s Head Start program and its Even Start Family Literacy program—which has as part of its goal the integration of early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education. other federal agencies enables it to better serve program participants and reduce inefficiencies in service delivery. We said that although this first plan included a great deal of valuable information, it did not provide sufficient details, such as a more complete picture of intended performance across the department, a fuller portrayal of how its strategies and resources would help achieve the plan’s performance goals, and better identification of significant data limitations and their implications for assessing the achievement of performance goals. These observations apply to the early childhood programs as well. Without this additional detail, policymakers are limited in their ability to make decisions about programs and resource allocation within the department and across agencies. Education’s 2000 performance plan continues to demonstrate the department’s commitment to the coordination of its early childhood programs. Like the 1999 performance plan, the sections on early childhood programs clearly identified programs contributing to its childhood program objectives. It also contained new material highlighting the importance of the coordination of early childhood programs as a crosscutting issue, particularly with HHS. To facilitate collaboration, the department added a strategy to work with the states to encourage interagency agreements at the state level. It also added using the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council to coordinate strategies for children with disabilities and their families. At the same time, the department still needs to better define its objectives and performance measures for crosscutting issues. Unless the purpose of coordination activities is clearly defined and results in measurable outcomes, it will be difficult to make progress in the coordination of programs across agencies. development, safety, and well-being of children and youth”—and three objectives (see table 2). The ACF plan, however, did not always give a clear picture of intended performance of its programs and often failed to identify the strategies the agency would use to achieve its performance goals. ACF programs that contribute to each early childhood objective were identified, and several of these programs had individual performance goals. However, without a clear picture of intended program goals and performance measures for crosscutting early childhood programs, it will be difficult to compare programs across agencies and assess the federal government’s overall efficacy in fostering early childhood development. and external stakeholders in this area. However, it did not define how this coordination will be accomplished or the means by which the crosscutting results will be measured. Agency officials are able to describe numerous activities that demonstrate collaboration within the agency and with Education. The absence of that discussion in the plan, however, limits the value the Results Act could have to both improving agency management and assisting the Congress in its oversight role. Progress in coordinating crosscutting programs is still in its infancy, although agencies are recognizing its importance. Agency performance plans provide the building blocks for recognizing crosscutting efforts. Because of the iterative nature of performance-based management, however, more than one cycle of performance plans will probably be required in the difficult process of resolving program fragmentation and overlap. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. Government Management: Addressing High Risks and Improving Performance and Accountability (GAO/T-OCG-99-23, Feb. 10, 1999). Head Start: Challenges Faced in Demonstrating Program Results and Responding to Societal Changes (GAO/T-HEHS-98-183, June 9, 1998). The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education’s Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan (GAO/HEHS-98-172R, June 8, 1998). The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20, Apr. 1, 1998). Managing for Results: Observations on Agencies’ Strategic Plans (GAO/T-GGD-98-66, Feb. 12, 1998). Managing for Results: Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan. 30, 1998). Child Care: Federal Funding for Fiscal Year 1997 (GAO/HEHS-98-70R, Jan. 23, 1998). Federal Education Funding: Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns (GAO/T-HEHS-98-46, Nov. 6, 1997). At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated Federal Effort (GAO/T-HEHS-98-38, Nov. 5, 1997). Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997). The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education’s June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997). The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997). Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed how Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act to facilitate agency performance plans to oversee early childhood programs, focusing on: (1) how the Results Act can assist in management and congressional oversight, especially in areas where there are multiple programs; (2) how the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS)--which together administer more than half of the federal early childhood program funds--addressed early childhood programs in their strategic and fiscal year 1999 and 2000 performance plans and the extent to which recent plans show progress in coordinating early childhood programs. GAO noted that: (1) Congress can use the Results Act to improve its oversight of crosscutting issues because the act requires agencies to develop strategic and annual performance plans that clearly specify goals, objectives, and measures for their programs; (2) the Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance saying that for crosscutting issues, agencies should describe efforts to coordinate federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes so that goals are consistent and program efforts are mutually reinforcing; (3) when GAO looked at the Education and HHS plans, it found that the plans are not living up to their potential as expected from the Results Act; (4) more specifically, while the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 plans to some extent addressed coordination, the departments have not yet described in detail how they will coordinate or consolidate their efforts; and (5) therefore, the potential for addressing fragmentation and duplication has not been realized, and GAO cannot assess whether the agencies are effectively working together on crosscutting issues.