[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STREAMLINING FEDERAL EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE PROGRAMS: A LOOK AT THE
GAO REPORT ON GOVERNMENT WASTE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 6, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-499 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Tim Walberg, Michigan John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Richard L. Hanna, New York David Wu, Oregon
Todd Rokita, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota David Loebsack, Iowa
Martha Roby, Alabama Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
[Vacant]
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 6, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Additional submission: Letter, dated April 22, 2011, from
Hon. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Labor.................................................. 57
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 52
Statement of Witnesses:
Dodaro, Hon. Gene, Comptroller General, U.S. Government
Accountability Office...................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional submissions:
``Employment and Training Programs That Have Shown
Positive Results''................................. 53
``Teacher Quality Programs That Have Shown Positive
Results''.......................................... 54
Table: ``Federal Programs That Support Teacher
Quality and Allow Funds to be Used for Activities
Aimed at Improving the Performance of School
Administrators''................................... 56
STREAMLINING FEDERAL EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE PROGRAMS: A LOOK AT THE
GAO REPORT ON GOVERNMENT WASTE
----------
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Foxx, Roe, Thompson,
Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, Bucshon, Gowdy, Barletta, Noem,
Roby, Heck, Ross, Kelly, Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Woolsey,
Tierney, Kucinich, and Wu.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant/New
Media Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, General Counsel; Casey
Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Heather
Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Daniela Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Ben Hoog,
Legislative Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Brian
Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and
Human Services Oversight Counsel; Alex Sollberger,
Communications Director; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant
to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine, Minority
Staff Director; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy Director of
Education Policy; Sophia Kim, Minority Legislative Fellow,
Education; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant;
Jerrica Mathis, Minority Legislative Fellow, Labor; Celine
McNicholas, Minority Labor Counsel; Megan O'Reilly, Minority
General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
Meredith Regine, Labor Minority Policy Associate; Alexandria
Ruiz, Minority Administrative Assistant to Director of
Education Policy; Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Communications
Director for Education; Minority Press Secretary; Laura
Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disablity Advisor;
Michele Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor and Labor
Policy Director; and Michael Zola, Minority Chief Investigative
Counsel.
Chairman Kline [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
Committee will come to order. Well, good morning and welcome.
I would like to thank the U.S. Comptroller General, Mr.
Dodaro, for joining us today as we shed light on wasteful
federal government spending. Your time is valuable and we
appreciate the opportunity to get your thoughts on duplicative
teacher and workforce training programs.
At a time when our nation faces an historic fiscal crisis
we must make a concerted effort to reduce federal spending. A
necessary step in this process is to eliminate and streamline
federal programs. Now more than ever it is critical to ensure
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
Thanks to the work of Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, and
the Government Accountability Office, we have recently learned
of massive amounts of waste and duplication within federal
programs. According to the March 2011 report, billions of
dollars are being squandered on redundant programs. As our
nation continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent, this
muse of tax--misuse of taxpayer funds is unacceptable.
This committee is particularly concerned about the 82
individual teacher quality programs and the 47 separate job
training programs detailed in the report.
We all recognize the importance of placing more qualified
and better prepared individuals in our schools and workplaces.
This will help provide our children with a quality education
and keep our nation competitive in the global economy. But the
magnitude of duplication and overlap among the programs listed
in the GAO report is counterproductive to the achievement of
these fundamental goals.
Of the 82 distinct programs focused on improving teacher
quality, several aren't administered by the Department of
Education. Ten separate agencies are responsible for overseeing
various teacher quality programs, including the Departments of
Defense, Interior, State, Agriculture, and Energy.
In 2009, $4 billion in taxpayer funds was dedicated to
improving teacher quality. Instead of instituting a government-
wide strategy to ensure these funds were being used wisely and
effectively, communication between agencies was limited and
programs continued to be implemented without coordination or
concern about existing initiatives. As a result of this
fragmented process, taxpayer dollars were wasted and student
achievement saw little improvement.
Nine federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor,
Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Agriculture,
Defense, Justice, and Veterans Affairs, are currently
responsible for implementing 47 different employment and job
training programs that cost the taxpayers approximately $18
billion in 2009. Forty-four of the 47 programs overlap with at
least one other program.
In fact, many of the programs provide the same services to
the same populations through separate administrative
structures. This lack of coordination in workforce training
programs and teacher quality programs is irresponsible,
wasteful, and careless.
We must act now to return fiscal sanity to Washington. This
report illustrates considerable opportunities to cut federal
spending and consolidate wasteful government programs. If we
allow taxpayer funds to be wasted and federal spending to
continue unchecked we are putting our children in a more
precarious position and risking the future stability of our
country.
We all have a responsibility to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse of taxpayer dollars and make the tough choices necessary
to streamline federal programs within this committee's
jurisdiction. A failure to act when confronted with such
compelling evidence of waste would be indefensible.
And again, I would like to thank the Comptroller General
for joining us.
And I will now recognize my distinguished colleague, George
Miller, the Senior Democratic Member of the Committee, for his
opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
A quorum being present, the committee will come to order.
Good morning and welcome. I'd like to thank the U.S. Comptroller
General, Mr. Gene Dodaro (DOE-DAR-OH), for joining us today as we shed
light on wasteful federal government spending. Your time is valuable
and we appreciate the opportunity to get your thoughts on duplicative
teacher and workforce training programs.
At a time when our nation faces a historic fiscal crisis, we must
make a concerted effort to reduce federal spending. A necessary step in
this process is to eliminate and streamline federal programs. Now more
than ever, it is critical to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
Thanks to the work of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and the
Government Accountability Office, we have recently learned of massive
amounts of waste and duplication within federal programs. According to
the March 2011 report, billions of dollars are being squandered on
redundant programs. As our nation continues to borrow 40 cents of every
dollar spent, this misuse of taxpayer funds is unacceptable.
This committee is particularly concerned about the 82 individual
teacher quality programs and the 47 separate job training programs
detailed in the report. We all recognize the importance of placing more
qualified and better prepared individuals in our schools and
workplaces. This will help provide our children with a quality
education and keep our nation competitive in the global economy. But
the magnitude of duplication and overlap among the programs listed in
the GAO report is counterproductive to the achievement of these
fundamental goals.
Of the 82 distinct programs focused on improving teacher quality,
several aren't administered by the Department of Education. Ten
separate agencies are responsible for overseeing various teacher
quality programs, including the Departments of Defense, Interior,
State, Agriculture, and Energy. In 2009, $4 billion in taxpayer funds
was dedicated to improving teacher quality. Instead of instituting a
government-wide strategy to ensure these funds were being used wisely
and effectively, communication between agencies was limited and
programs continued to be implemented without coordination or concern
about existing initiatives. As a result of this fragmented process,
taxpayer dollars were wasted and student achievement saw little
improvement.
Nine federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor,
Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Agriculture, Defense,
Justice and Veterans Affairs, are currently responsible for
implementing 47 different employment and job training programs that
cost the taxpayers approximately $18 billion in 2009. Forty-four of the
47 programs overlap with at least one other program. In fact, many of
the programs provide the same services to the same populations through
separate administrative structures. This lack of coordination--in
workforce training programs and teacher quality programs--is
irresponsible, wasteful, and careless.
We must act now to return fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C. This
report illustrates considerable opportunities to cut federal spending
and consolidate wasteful government programs. If we allow taxpayer
funds to be wasted and federal spending to continue unchecked, we are
putting our children in a more precarious position and risking the
future stability of our country.
We all have a responsibility to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse
of taxpayer dollars and make the tough choices necessary to streamline
federal programs within this committee's jurisdiction. A failure to act
when confronted with such compelling evidence of waste would be
indefensible.
Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Dodaro (DOE-DAR-OH) for joining us,
and I will now recognize my distinguished colleague George Miller, the
senior Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing.
And I want to also welcome Comptroller General Dodaro,
again, to the committee.
Witnesses from the General Accountability Office aren't new
to this committee. The GAO has completed some incredible work
on behalf of this committee.
Your undercover investigations 2 years ago showed us the
Bush administration failed to respond to serious allegations of
waste and child labor violations. This investigation resulted
in the hiring of 200 new investigators and ordering the
retraining of current investigators.
Your work about the residential boot camps and the abuse of
special needs children under the guise of discipline garnered
national attention and led to legislation that passed this
committee and the House with bipartisan support.
Today I am reintroducing that bill in this Congress. In the
years since the bill has passed hundreds of kids have continued
to be abused and we can prevent those abuses by setting minimum
safety standards among the states.
Your food safety investigations identified major gaps
within USDA that led to administrative changes to protect the
food of our students eating the school lunch and nutrition
programs. In these prior investigations GAO reports told how a
great--a great deal about what the need is on the ground and
where the avenues for action might be.
The report before us today seems to be of a different
nature. There is absolutely a need to identify, reduce, and
eliminate government waste. It is clear from reading the
testimony and related reports that when it comes to the issues
within the jurisdiction of this committee, the relevant
agencies recognize the need to address many of the issues
identified by the GAO over the years.
On the education side, the Department of Education has
taken proactive action to better align programs and consolidate
where possible. They have established a working group across
the agencies to better collaborate and propose to consolidate
programming in a number of areas, including consolidating 38
teacher training programs into 11.
With Secretary Duncan at the helm, the department has
identified areas where the consolidation makes both--makes
sense both for the taxpayer and the students, teachers, and
schools. But as the GAO noticed in the past, Congress must take
action to address program realignment, which I hope we will
have a chance to do so with the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year.
In regards to job training, GAO found that there are 47
programs that spend $18 billion to provide training services.
What I would like to hear from GAO's view on--I would like to
hear GAO's views on how many individuals receive effective job
training, how many individuals have been denied service, and
what specific savings and program improvements can be achieved
by consolidating administrative structures.
While the report before us today has already been the
subject of congressional hearings and discussion, I hope that
today's hearing can somehow move us forward in the
consideration of the items I have just mentioned. If Congress
is to act and to address the issues of government waste then
there is very specific detailed information that we need to
know about the effectiveness of the programs you reviewed.
If, on the other hand, the information we hear today is
limited to what has already been reported, then the hearing
that the majority has called unfortunately may be redundant
and, in fact, duplicative of what already has taken place in
the Congress. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning and welcome Comptroller General Dodaro.
Witnesses from the Government Accountability Office aren't new to
this committee.
GAO has completed some incredible work on behalf of this committee.
Your undercover investigation two years ago showed us how the Bush
administration failed to respond to serious allegations of wage theft
and child labor law violations.
This investigation resulted in the hiring of 200 new investigators
and ordering the retraining of current investigators.
Your work about residential boot camps and abuse of special need
children under the guise of discipline garnered national attention and
lead to legislation that passed this Committee and the House with
bipartisan support.
Today, I am reintroducing that bill in this Congress. In the year
since the bill passed this House, hundreds of kids have been abused and
we can prevent those abuses by setting minimum safety standards.
Your food safety investigations identified major gaps within USDA
that led to administrative changes to protect the food our students eat
in school.
In these prior investigations, GAO reports told us a great deal
about what the need is on the ground and where the avenues for action
might be.
The report before us today is of a different nature.
There is absolutely a need to identify, reduce and eliminate
government waste.
It is clear from reading the testimony and related reports that
when it comes to the issues within the jurisdiction of this committee,
the relevant agencies recognize the need to address many of the issues
identified by GAO over the years.
On the education side, the Department of Education has taken
proactive action to better align programs and consolidate where
possible.
They've established working groups across agencies to better
collaborate and have proposed to consolidate programming in a number of
areas, including consolidating 38 teacher training programs to 11.
With Secretary Duncan at the helm, the Department has identified
areas where consolidations make sense both for the taxpayer and for
students, teachers and schools.
But as GAO has noted in the past, Congress must take action to
address program alignment which I hope we will have a chance to address
through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act this year.
In regards to job training, GAO found that there are 47 programs
that spent $18 billion to provide job training services.
I'd like to hear GAOs views on how many individuals received
effective job training, how many individuals have been denied services,
and what specific savings and program improvements can be achieved by
consolidating administrative structures.
While the report before us today has already been the subject of
congressional hearings and discussions, I hope today's hearing could
somehow move us forward.
If Congress is to act to address issues of government waste, there
is very specific, detailed information that we need to know about the
effectiveness of the programs you reviewed.
If, on the other hand, the information we hear today is limited to
what has already been reported, then this hearing that the majority has
called is, unfortunately, just more government waste.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all committee members will
be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements,
questions for the record, and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
witness. The Honorable Gene Dodaro became the eight Comptroller
General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government
Accountability Office on December 22, 2010, when he was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
As Comptroller General, Mr. Dodaro helps oversee the
development and issuance of hundreds of reports and testimonies
each year to various committees and individuals Members of
Congress. His longstanding career at GAO dates back more than
30 years. Prior to serving as the Comptroller General, he
served as the Chief Operating Officer for 9 years, assisting
the Comptroller General and providing direction and vision for
GAO's diverse, multidisciplinary workforce.
I now recognize the Comptroller General.
STATEMENT OF HON. GENE DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Miller, members of the committee. I am very pleased to
be here today to discuss our recent report on opportunities to
reduce potential duplication in federal programs, reduce costs,
and to enhance revenues.
This report is the first of a statutorily required mandate
for GAO to produce a report each year on these topics. In this
first report we identified 34 areas that we believe are a
subject of either program fragmentation, overlap, or potential
duplication, and they range across the spectrum of the federal
government's activities from defense, to energy, to economic
development programs, to transportation programs, to those that
you already mentioned in your opening statements, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member Miller, today on education and employment
and training.
In addition to those 34 programs we identify 47 other
opportunities to reduce costs and to enhance revenues,
particularly to address a yawning tax gap of $290 billion,
which is estimated at this point in time. So we cover the full
range of the federal government's activities.
The 81 areas offer opportunities to save billions of
dollars, and importantly, also, make programs more effective
and efficient. And the objective of the review was to do both.
Now, of special interest today are two of the 81 areas on
teacher quality and the employment and training programs. With
regard to the teacher quality programs, as mentioned, we
identified 82 distinct teach quality programs administered by
10 states.
Importantly, however, we found there was no government-wide
strategy to reduce fragmentation and overlap and potential
duplication in those programs. And this fragmentation has led
to limitations on agencies' abilities to comprehensively tackle
this issue, to evaluate the individual programs to determine
what is working effectively and what is not working effectively
in the programs, and it adds to administrative burdens not only
at the federal level but at the state and local level as well.
As you mentioned, Ranking Member Miller, the Education
Department has already put forth a proposal to consolidate 38
of these areas into 11 areas, and we think this is a good
starting point for the discussions and that Congress should use
the opportunities afforded through its legislative vehicles,
Mr. Chairman, as you approach reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. And we would be happy to support
the committee in that endeavor.
Now, with regard to the employment and training programs,
44 of the 47 programs overlap, at least providing the same
service to the same types of populations over time. Now,
importantly, in terms of the question about what do we know
about the effectiveness of these programs, 23 of these programs
have not been subject to any evaluation since 2004. So there is
limited information and a lot of our recommendations in the
past have been encouraging the Department of Labor to evaluate
these programs, and we can talk more about that in the Q&A
session.
We think at a minimum there are opportunities to gain
administrative efficiencies in dealing with these programs, but
the federal departments and agencies have to move forward with
some of our recommendations about determining what is being
experimented with at the state and local level, what is working
well, disseminating some of these best practices, and
importantly, trying to figure out what incentives there are or
could be to incentivize the state and local governments to more
effectively come up with pilots to administer these programs.
We think this is very important, and one of the departments
believes there are some legislative limitations on their
abilities to work with agencies in the TANF program, and we
think that is something that the Congress could remedy.
Now, there are activities that, in the short term, can be
dealt with; and also in the employment training area the
administration has put forth a proposal to consolidate nine of
the programs into three and to shift another program from Labor
to HHS, and so we think those merit congressional attention as
well.
Now, while there are a lot of opportunities in the short
term to deal with these two areas, in the longer term
legislation the Congress passed last year in the Government
Performance Results Act Modernization provides additional
legislative tools to help deal with these issues.
It requires, for example, OMB to set a specific number of
crosscutting goals and requiring greater coordination across
agencies and areas. It requires individual agencies to identify
what they are doing to collaborate and coordinate with other
agencies in related program efforts. It requires quarterly
reviews with performance measures to be posted on public Web
sites. And importantly, it requires the executive agencies to
consult with the Congress in the development of performance
measures and in determining what the priorities would be for
these program areas.
So there is a heavy role contemplated and increased
requirements for consultation with the Congress, which I think
offer important opportunities.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, Mr.
Chairman, to discuss these issues. GAO stands ready to help the
Congress deal with the enormous fiscal pressures that are upon
us right now and to help make decisions in a careful,
deliberative manner, and these areas require careful
consideration, and I am sure this committee will give.
And so I would be happy to answer questions at this point.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Dodaro follows:]
------
Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir. Again, thank you for being
here and for your time and the hard work that the GAO does.
And I am keenly mindful of the ranking member's comments
about we don't want this hearing to be either redundant or
duplicative. We have actions that we need to take. We have been
discussing here, in fact, for some years whether--whichever
side was occupying this chair--that we need to address some of
this duplication, some of the problems, some of the shortfalls
in WIA and other areas.
Your report just sort of put a double underscore over the
scale of the problem that has been sitting out there. And as
you know, we have some--it is not only a question of nine or 10
agencies; it is also a question of, sometimes, nine or 10
committees here in Congress, and we have to work that out. And
I am hoping that some of the questions and discussion that we
go through here today can kind of help us sort that out, and I
think it is part of my job to work with the leadership and
other chairmen to see if we can sort out some of these
jurisdictional challenges here in Congress.
You mentioned some of the things that the administration is
doing; Mr. Miller mentioned some of the things that Secretary
Duncan is doing. But you also said, or I certainly inferred
from your testimony, that there are some legislative actions
that should be taken.
Can you expand that a little bit? What are the things that
you are thinking about, looking at, that the Congress should be
taking up?
Mr. Dodaro. First, there are reauthorizations that are upon
you in both of these programs in the education area as well as
employment training activities, and the reauthorization of
Workforce Investment Act. So I do think those reauthorizations
provide really pivotal, timely opportunities to reassess what
the federal role should be.
A lot of these programs have developed over a period of
time, and it is a good opportunity to take a step back to try
to determine what is working well, what isn't, to set
priorities, and for the Congress to be clear on what the
desired outcomes it would like to achieve in these programs,
and to also potentially use legislative vehicles to require
coordination across federal government's programs and
activities.
The Congress did that recently with the Competes America
Act in the areas dealing with the scientific technical
engineering and math programs requiring a strategic plan,
requiring a role of OMB and the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy. So I think the Congress can use its
legislative platform to make sure that there is more
coordination across the executive branch and to get clearer
reports from the executive branch activities.
The other legislative change that we would suggest the
Congress consider is in the employment and training area. The
Department of Health and Human Services has indicated that
there are legislative barriers to them in the TANF program, the
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, in order to
allow them to deal properly with incentives to work with other
program activities. So we think that makes sense.
Also, I think this is also a very important opportunity for
the Congress to get input from the state and local level as
well as it considers legislation. Most of these programs are
administered at the state and local level. They are under
enormous fiscal pressures as well.
We have done long-range simulations of the collective
fiscal path of the state and local sector and it is on the same
difficult long-range unsustainable path that the federal
government is on. And so trying to work with them to give them
incentives to streamline administrative operations to provide
more efficient delivery services I think would be enormously
helpful at all levels of government.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
In the media advisory--the majority media advisory for
today's hearing--it says that the GAO has identified a number
of programs aimed at improving teacher quality and it says that
GAO has identified a number of employment and training programs
in the same vein. And I think that is accurate.
However, the advisory asserts that GAO has found, and I
quote--``Many of these programs are managed by multiple
agencies and aimed at the same beneficiaries, causing
unnecessary duplication and wasted tax dollars.'' I don't see
that in your report, and I do not see in the evidence of your
testimony that that is the case of showing unnecessary
duplication or identifying specific tax dollars wasted.
In fact, where you discuss the teacher quality programs at
the top of page 6 you actually say, ``Several factors make it
difficult to determine whether there is unnecessary duplication
in these programs,'' and you go on to say that, ``when similar
teacher quality activities are funded through different
programs and delivered by different entities, some overlap''--
the word you use, overlap can be unintentional but it is not
necessarily wasteful. And I think that is a difference from the
cast of the advisory on this hearing.
Later in your testimony, with regard to job training and
employment programs, you say on page 8 that the extent to which
individuals receive the same services from job training
programs is unknown. More than 15 times throughout your
testimony you include the title and the use of phrase
``potential duplication,'' but you don't find the massive
duplication. I recognize, and we have been very concerned on
this committee, about who is offering--in the Competes Act we
try to get rid of some of the duplication and let the National
Science Foundation deal with science and STEM.
But let me ask you in the time remaining, as quickly as I
can, did you--in this GAO report did you identify specific
examples of programmatic duplication--not administrative
duplication, but specific examples of programmatic duplication?
Mr. Dodaro. What we did identify were fragmentation and
overlap, which we believe can be harbingers of potential
duplication----
Mr. Miller. Okay. I understand. But----
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. But for these two program areas we
did not identify any examples of duplication.
Mr. Miller. Right. And I think that your response comports
with what is on page 6, where you talk about the overlap, and
some overlap can occur unintentionally, but again, it is not
necessarily wasteful----
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. In terms of tax dollars.
Did you identify and calculate specific cost savings to be
achieved by consolidating administrative structure?
Mr. Dodaro. We believe that it is Congress's prerogative to
decide the priorities on these programs, so we did not provide
specific recommendations on how to address this area. What our
main recommendation was is that to get ahead of this, to make
sure there isn't----
Mr. Miller. No, I understand that. But in your report where
you find overlap and whatever you have not assigned a cost or
concern about what that would be----
Mr. Dodaro. No. We have pointed out some limitations in the
ability to be able to do that because----
Mr. Miller. You also mentioned that some states have done
this and you say they said they saved a lot of money, and yet--
but they couldn't provide you any dollar amounts.
Mr. Dodaro. Not at this time. And this is why we think the
federal agencies should have a stronger role in developing that
information.
Mr. Miller. So we don't know whether they saved or didn't
save. They said they saved, and I appreciate that, but--okay.
Mr. Dodaro. And I think given their situation, I mean they
are looking for ways to reduce costs.
Mr. Miller. I understand.
Did you assess the effectiveness of the programs identified
in the report?
Mr. Dodaro. We had not been asked to assess the
effectiveness, and we think this is an important area where the
agencies have not stepped up to fulfill their responsibilities
to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs.
Mr. Miller. Are you planning on doing effectiveness--
looking at these teacher programs or the training programs?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I think first and foremost our effort is
making sure that the agencies fulfill their responsibilities to
do these effectiveness studies. Like, for example, in the
workforce investment area the 1998 legislation mandated that
they do an impact study and that study is way late and it is
not due to be completed until 2015, almost 17 years after. So--
--
Mr. Miller. I guess my concern is here is if the
recommendation is--and the department, at least in education,
is heading toward consolidation and made these recommendations,
when you are doing consolidation I assume what you would take
would be the most effective programs and try to provide for
that consolidation. And therefore, you would somehow wring the
savings out of here. But we really don't have those
recommendations from this report.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. There are some programs--and I would be
happy to provide for the record--that have had evaluations,
that have shown positive results that could be built off of,
and so we will provide that for the record.
But in the other--many other areas' programs aren't
evaluated so it is really hard to determine at this point. You
know, that is why we think this Government Performance and
Modernization Act requires agencies to do more rigorous
evaluations, to discuss the quality of the data, to provide
publicly available results to help not only the Congress but
the public understand what is effective in these programs----
Mr. Miller. That would be a methodical----
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Reevaluation or periodic
effectiveness evaluation of the programs that would be required
by the act?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Dr. Foxx, you are recognized.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, Mr. Dodaro. I appreciate it.
I am very interested in the comments that you made about--
particularly, it has been 17 years since the law was passed to
create evaluation and some effectiveness. I think the American
public would find that absolutely appalling that here we
justify paying high wages to the people who work in the federal
government based on the fact that they have degrees and should
be very highly skilled, and yet they can't come across with an
evaluation program in 17 years. I think something is really
lacking.
I am really curious, also, about some of the things that
you have talked about. I wonder if we could focus a little bit
more on the evaluation aspect. I think there is a great irony
here that we are debating No Child Left Behind or the ESEA
reauthorization and the concerns that local school systems have
on how they have been evaluated.
And I think perhaps we ought to bring in a group of
teachers and principals and let them set up the evaluation
programs for the Department of Education. Since the Department
of Education has been able, it seems, to design extraordinarily
intricate evaluation programs for the school systems and yet
have failed completely to set up evaluation programs for
themselves.
I noted in the information we were given that in 2003
Congress attempted to streamline federal literacy efforts by
establishing a commission to look at how to eliminate areas of
overlap, and that commission found absolutely no areas of
overlap. So it looks like we can't do evaluation from within.
Did you come across, in your work, any evaluative systems
that you thought were really good and that should--or people
from outside or inside who could then establish models for
evaluations? Did you find any of those?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. There have been some evaluations that have
been done in the teacher quality area and in the employment and
training area, and I would be happy to provide, you know, that
for the record.
You know, one of the challenges here is that of the 82
programs, 53 of them are relatively small programs, making it
difficult to evaluate it. And I think that is part of the
rationale for the Education Department's consolidation efforts,
to be able to have programs large enough, you know,
particularly given the fact that the federal government's
efforts are supplemental to what is already being spent at the
state and local level, and that is another complicating factor
in the evaluations.
I think the Congress' oversight activities could be
enhanced in these areas to make sure that the agencies do do
the evaluations that are scheduled to be done and that are
critically important to make sure that the Congress gets good
information to make informed decisions.
Mrs. Foxx. I was also curious about the comment you made
about the 38 programs being collapsed into 11 programs. When we
heard from Secretary Duncan he talked about that also, but I
asked him the question, because we have been informed by staff
that there will be no savings as a result of consolidating
those programs, and I think there has to be some emphasis
placed on savings.
You didn't mention that in your comments, but did you find
that we could have some savings as a result of that? You
mentioned administratively, but how about in other areas?
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Well, first of all, I would point out
that two teacher quality programs of the ones we have mentioned
Congress has already eliminated in these continuing resolutions
that it has passed to date, so there have been two programs
that have been eliminated. Obviously savings attended with
those.
We haven't formally evaluated the department's
consolidation effort and what is to be gained from savings. We
would be happy to look at that and provide our thoughts to the
committee.
Then there are 20 remaining programs within the department,
which I think in the reauthorization program and the teacher
quality area questions could be put forward to the department
to determine why those programs weren't consolidated, as well
and what the opportunities are there and whether there are
evaluations there.
So I think there is a systematic way to look at the 60 of
the 82 programs that are within the Department of Education's
purview, and then there are questions of the other programs
outside the department that could then be pursued as a line of
questioning that would be, I think, very informative to the
reauthorization deliberations.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Kildee, you are recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro, you mentioned there were 82 teacher quality
programs. Is the problem the number of the substantive
redundancy in many of these programs?
Mr. Dodaro. I think the issue is both, in terms of the
number and the size of some of these programs, as I mentioned,
are relatively small. In some programs, Congressman, what we
found was that it is an allowable activity among many
activities, and then there are specific smaller targeted
programs intended to get at different particular issues.
So because of that, it is hard to plan, you know, sort of a
comprehensive approach to the program, both at the federal
level and at the state and local level. So it is both the
number, I think, the size of the programs, and the specific
areas that involve some degree of overlap that need to be
rationalized.
And I think they are all well-intended. The question is,
what is the most efficient way to do it? And because there
aren't evaluations it is difficult to provide information from
the Education Department to the state and local level of what
techniques have worked well, what should be replicated. And so
I think that is limiting the--ultimately achieving the goals of
all these programs.
Mr. Kildee. If they are allowable the agency or the state
could do away with those programs themselves; if they are
mandated then we would have to take action on that.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, a lot of them are competitive grants
too. Where people apply for education determines that. So there
is a cost associated with filling out the applications,
reviewing them, that needs to be taken into account as well.
Mr. Kildee. So these 82 are spread through various levels
of government, various states----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Kildee [continuing]. So the entire----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Kildee [continuing]. Country then.
You said that some of these programs could be shifted from
Labor to HHS. How would that help? Are some of the programs
that similar that they could carry out their--both their
missions?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. The administration's proposal in the
employment and training area is to shift one program dealing
with senior services to the Department of HHS, which has other
related programs dealing with that population. So it would
allow them to try to provide a more, you know, comprehensive
approach in dealing with that part of our population.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you for your good
work.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentelman.
Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
Mr. Roe. Thank you.
I want to thank you for this report. I had a chance to read
in detail and you all did a great job of really clarifying for
me where all these programs were. And your staff and you are to
be commended for that. It is very enlightening for me to see
what this bowl of spaghetti looked like.
And obviously it is complicated when you have this many
programs. And just to bring up a couple here, both in workforce
and in education: In 2010 the GAO reported there were 151
different federal K through 12 programs in early educational
programs. More than half of these programs have not been
evaluated, including eight of the 20 largest programs, which
together accounted for about 90 percent of the total funding of
these programs.
I can't believe that, that we haven't looked at it in some
detail to find out if they work. There is no business in the
world that would spend the kind of money we are spending and
not find out if it is effective.
And I think your points you just made were the number of
programs, the size, and then to evaluate the effectiveness of
it--I mean, that is our fiduciary responsibility. And to have
those tools we have to have the--we have to have the
information about whether they are working or not.
Mr. Dodaro. That is exactly right. I mean, one of the laws
that was passed in 1993 was the original Government Performance
and Results Act, which was--required agencies to set goals, to
provide measurements on that. And that has produced some
additional impetus but it really hasn't produced systematic
program evaluations of what has worked.
That is why I mentioned this Modernization Act that was
passed last year. And, you know, my belief is it won't work
effectively without the Congress' oversight role and
participation as a stakeholder.
So I think it is a great opportunity that Congress should
seize. Hold the agencies accountable. It fixes more
accountability with a performance officer in the agencies, and
I think it is a--it could be a sort of a game changing
paradigm.
Mr. Roe. I don't think you all looked at this specifically,
but how much--when you have this many duplicative programs how
much cost is there in just the administration and how much of
it actually gets to the classroom, or to the teacher, or
whatever? I wonder if there is any way to know how much we are
spending, because we know how much charitable organizations--
and I don't donate to them when 50 percent of their money goes
to administration, and I don't think taxpayers ought to be
donating to something where it's not going to the classroom and
being effective.
Mr. Dodaro. It is very difficult to obtain that information
both at the federal level and at the state and local level. I
think the only two areas in our report where we identify
clearly administrative costs associated with the employment and
training programs are in the employment services area and the
Workforce Investment Act Adult services, and I think we--those
administrative costs are between--I think they are over $150
million just for those two programs.
Mr. Roe. That is a lot. And the other one--another point
here in workforce, and you mentioned it before, but 47
employment and training programs, 23 have not have a
performance study of any kind completed since 2004 and only
five have had an impact study since 2004, so we don't know what
they are doing. We don't know whether they are effective. And
as you pointed out, when you have got--in addition to the
states administer a lot of these are overlapping, we are
singing to the same people with both administrations.
The other thing you pointed out, which I thought was
excellent, was the fact that if your program was small enough
it never got evaluated. And I think you mentioned 53.
And the Secretary is to be commended for trying to shrink
these down; I give him credit for that and that is a very good
start, I think. But he can't know what to shrink if he doesn't
know--having the accountability either. He can't know whether
he is making any forward progress or not.
So I think that those 53 programs--I want to be in one of
those where I never get looked at.
Mr. Dodaro. I think it is very important to make sure that
everything that is done is evaluated. I mean, I think that, you
know, there is a presumption that things continue to get funded
unless there is a proven problem as opposed to making sure
things work and are evaluated properly before they get
additional funding.
Mr. Roe. What kind of timeline do you think is reasonable
to get this done so that we--it is a huge task, but what kind
of timeline do you think we should be on?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I think there are things that could be
tackled relatively short-term. I think it is clear the way to
do that would be to set priorities with the administration and
build off of some of the work that they have already done. That
would be my recommendation. And then set priorities for where
there are gaps in evaluation and requiring them to begin to
close those gaps as soon as possible on a sort of a set
schedule.
Mr. Roe. Okay. Again, thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, if I might----
Chairman Kline. You may.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. For a second, one thing I forgot
to do is introduce our program experts that are with me here
today. We have our managing director for employment and
workforce and income security programs, Barbara Bovbjerg.
George Scott and Andy Sherrill are experts in these areas, too.
And if I might, I might ask them to help to answer some of the
more detailed questions.
Chairman Kline. You certainly may. When I saw you look over
your shoulder, I suspected that that indeed might be the case.
So we welcome all of you here, and we welcome any input
that you have got.
Mr. Payne, you are recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
It is good to see you, and I thought that you just had it
all in your head since you are one of the first presenters that
I have seen that have not used a prepared text. Let me commend
you for knowing your information so well that you don't need
any notes. I have some, so you are ahead of me. [Laughter.]
Let me just ask a question. In your testimony you said that
the GAO found that many federal programs to improve teacher
quality and employment and training had similar goals,
beneficiaries, and allowable activities. Did the GAO report
take into consideration the effectiveness of these programs or
capacity for each program to meet the demand for the provided
services? I mean, in light of the fact that you said there are
duplicates, what were the results?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We tried to find out whether or not there
had been evaluations done on these programs and in these areas.
And as I mentioned earlier, in many areas there really wasn't a
lot of information about program evaluations that were
available.
So those that we did have available we were able to use,
but there were a lot of gaps. So you weren't able to
systematically look at all the 82 programs and determine, of
the 82, which one's program evaluation showed the most
promising results, and I think for the reasons that I mentioned
earlier, some of them were too small, some of them are part of
a broader program. And so there are a lot of difficulties in
gaining that picture that you are seeking.
Mr. Payne. In your testimony you said that, you know, as
you have just mentioned, that even when programs overlap they
may have meaningful differences in their eligibility criteria
or objectives, or they may provide similar types of services in
different ways. Are there any examples of that that you can
cite where that would occur?
Mr. Dodaro. In the teacher quality area?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I don't have notes but I do have people,
and I would like to ask George Scott to come up as our expert
in that area. He can enlighten you on that----
Mr. Payne. Great.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. If I will.
George, please?
Mr. Scott. Good morning, Congressman Payne.
Mr. Payne. How are you?
Mr. Scott. So again, what was your specific question?
Mr. Payne. That in the testimony it said that even when
programs overlap they may have meaningful differences in their
eligibility criteria or objectives or they may provide similar
types of services in different ways. And I just wondered if
there were any examples of how this might occur.
Mr. Scott. Well, there are examples across some of the
teacher quality programs where either, you know, through
comparative grants or through allowable activities you may see
very similar activities but, you know, they could be targeted
to very similar populations. That is why we were very careful
to distinguish between fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.
And what we say clearly in our work is that, you know, we
have found evidence of fragmentation, where you have a lot of
activity spread across several agencies or departments. We also
have some indication of overlap, at least for a small number of
programs under the Department of Education.
But we talk about potential duplication but we did not
actually find examples of duplication in the teacher quality
programs.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you very much.
Just a final question: This is probably for the future, but
as, you know, in H.R. 1 they are regarding--in the program
there will be an effort to close 3,000 one-stop career centers,
eliminate summer youth employment programs, which provide
access to job training and education to up to 7,000
disadvantaged students, and then the workforce development
support provided to more than 1 million dislocated workers. Is
this effort in line with the recommendations submitted in the
report or have you dealt on what the potential would be if
these cuts went into effect?
Mr. Dodaro. I don't think we have evaluated that, so I will
go back and we will take a look at it and if we have evaluated
that, Congressman, we will provide it for the record, get it to
you.
Mr. Payne. Great. Thank you very much.
Yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thanks for being here, for your testimony. Your
report--I was going through the report--specifically identified
47 separate employment training programs across nine agencies.
The programs spent $18 billion.
And certainly, you know, workforce development, I think, is
the key to America's competitiveness, but in your findings only
five of those 47 programs had self-evaluations outcomes or
impact studies of really outcomes. And as a former workforce
investment board member I certainly have seen the value of
workforce development programs in my local areas.
And everyone--everyone--is concerned about jobs. What are
some immediate actions the committee can take to assure that
value and outcomes for employment training are delivered with
the investment that we are making with taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Dodaro. I think the best way to go about it is to hold
the department accountable for producing the evaluations that
they were supposed to produce, and they are behind. Labor
Department has been slow to produce the evaluations. We have
made many recommendations over the years to try to get them to
improve the performance measures.
So, you know, I believe that you really have to, you know,
put the responsibilities with them and try to get them to give
you what they have. Now, they do have some of the evaluations
and some show positive results, so I think it is important to
understand that. But I think in these other areas you have to
really, you know, basically hold them accountable for providing
the type of evaluations that you are looking for.
Mr. Thompson. So I am sure we will do oversight hearings on
this. I think that is kind of what I am taking from your
recommendations.
But there will be some program areas where there is--based
on your department's analysis there really isn't good data or
tracking of outcomes with some programs?
Mr. Dodaro. Right. In fact, let me ask Andy Sherrill, who
is our expert in the employment and training area, to come up
and give you sort of a rundown on what is available and what
isn't.
Mr. Sherrill. Okay. With regard to the tracking of
outcomes, we found that most all of the 47 employment and
training programs do track certain outcomes, most frequently
things like entered employment, or retention of a job, or
wages, that kind of thing.
But we also found that, with regard to the evaluations, as
we have said, you know, programs typically track outcomes but
not a lot is known about sort of the effectiveness--to what
extent do the programs contribute to the achieving the
outcomes? What would have happened in the absence of the
programs?
And so that is sort of historically--in the work we have
done on the Workforce Investment Act programs, sort of a
repeated theme of our work has been the need for more
information about what works and what doesn't.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Well, thank you.
I want to change gears just a little bit. The report states
that in April 2010 the GAO recommended to the Department of
Agriculture--I sit on the Agriculture Committee as well--that
it identify and develop methods for addressing potential
inefficiencies and reduce unnecessary overlap in smaller food
assistance programs, including convening a group of experts to
examine the issue. To date, however, the USDA has not
implemented any of the recommendations.
Were you able to determine why the USDA ignored this
proposal?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. My understanding is the reason that they
gave our team was that they didn't have funding in order to
implement the recommendation. But I think this is something
that the Congress should expect. It is part of normal
management activity; it should be budgeted for and it should be
done.
Now, in this particular area we found 18 food assistance
programs, 11 of which there weren't a lot of evaluations done.
There was a lot known about the seven larger ones but these
other 11 there really weren't, and so we were trying to
encourage them to close that gap.
And I think this, you know, it is something that should
be--Congress should expect the agencies putting the money out
to be able to tell you what we received for the money and
whether it is working effectively or not. And so we will keep
pressing our recommendations but I would encourage the Congress
to follow up.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, General.
I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for your testimony, and the others
as well.
I am interested in what you said about the--and what your
associates said about measuring the outcomes on the Workforce
Investment programs. Last time we reauthorized that bill it was
a big conversation about the fact that we had been measuring
the data in terms of the number of people it served, the number
of dollars allocated to those people, but not enough on the
outcomes.
Now, if I am hearing right, what you are saying is we have
information about the outcomes of those programs--how many
people now have jobs, and how many people have increased
wages--and you think that there is a need to measure, somehow,
how it is that the program got those outcomes. How would you go
about measuring that?
Mr. Sherrill. Well, for example, the WIA Adult and
Dislocated Worker programs track outcomes with regard to, you
know, how--and have performance goals with regard to the
percentage of people that they want to have enter employment,
have certain wage levels, and retain jobs. And, for example,
for the program year 2009, if you look at to what extent were
those goals achieved, in many cases they weren't achieved, in
part--you know, obviously the economy has a key effect. But any
time, you know, you have outcome measures you also want to get
some sense of whether the programs meet them or not, to what
extent are sort of funding for the program responsible for
those?
Mr. Tierney. So if I am hearing you, what you are saying is
they had the outcomes but they didn't match them up with the
expectations, so they didn't have the goals as they relate to
the outcomes?
Mr. Sherrill. Well, they had the performance goals,
performance--things that they wanted to achieve, but we don't
have a good enough sense of to what extent are the things that
the programs are doing, and sort of the one-stop center
approach, actually making a difference. In other words----
Mr. Tierney. Yes, and I guess my question to you is, how do
you do that, all right? If you have the goals and then you have
the outcomes you can match those up and see whether or not it
is working, or to what extent. But how do you determine whether
or not the action you took is the action that got it to that
point or some abstract thing that--I don't know how you
measure----
Mr. Sherrill. Well, there are two kinds of key ways. One is
to do an impact study that relies on random assignment, so you
have a control group of people who don't go through the
program, and so you compare what effects the program has versus
those for the control group.
There has also been other kinds of studies that use
administrative data to do sort of comparisons, where there
isn't a control group, but to look at other people who are
similar to the people going through the program and try to
assess the outcomes. Are there differences in outcomes of the
program versus the comparison group?
And so there have been studies in some of the WIA programs
to assess, is the program, as far as we can tell, having an
impact on results?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Now, General Dodaro, you did say in your report that you
don't question the fact that the job training programs play an
important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. Is
that accurate?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. But that there are some overlap you think. But
I don't think you made a judgment as to whether or not all of
the overlap was, in fact, problematical. And I draw that to a
distinction on some veterans programs.
I know in many districts on that--there is a veterans
program that serves the veterans homeless; there is another
veterans program that might target, you know, disable veterans,
for instance. Really, that is two different challenges that
might be required of them.
So you are not making an evaluative judgment on whether
those should be allowed together or anything. You are saying
that they exist and they are separate?
Mr. Sherrill. That is right. I mean, when we say that there
was overlap and that they provide at least one similar service
to a similar population we are not saying that that in itself
is a problem, but that might warrant a deeper look, just as you
are saying, because there are several programs that serve
youth, for example, but as a target population, you know Job
Corps provides services to--in a residential setting, other
programs, you know, provide different--so we think that overlap
provides an opportunity to look deeper at some of these
programs to see the extent they are coordinated, the extent
they might potentially be duplicating services.
Mr. Tierney. No, in the context of trying to reauthorize
this bill over the last several years have you made any
evaluation--I know that we have made efforts, the different
groups on both sides, of trying to consolidate some of these
programs and make the kinds of adjustments you are talking
about, as has the administration.
Have you taken that work to date and seen how it measures
up to your suggestions, whether or not what you are suggesting
is, in fact, being addressed at all in that process?
Mr. Sherrill. We haven't made any evaluations of the
consolidation proposals there. The focus of our recommendation
on the employment training front was really to foster more
innovation at the state and local area, and for the federal
agencies to disseminate information about what is working there
and what might be replicated in terms of achieving greater cost
efficiencies.
Mr. Tierney. Now, there is an effort going on, but I know--
just because I happen to be fortunate enough to have a
workforce investment board that is one of the national models
so I brag a little bit about that--but I know that those types
of studies are going on, and in fact, work is being done within
that network of workforce investment boards on monitoring each
other, mentoring each other, and trying to bring best practices
around. Was that evaluated at all--that effort?
Mr. Sherrill. Well, we think that is a--we didn't evaluate
that effort but we think that is a good avenue for looking for
cost efficiencies and mining what states are doing.
Mr. Tierney. But you didn't take any measure of how that is
doing----
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Bucshon?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you for cutting me off, Mr. Chairman.
Very polite.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is just the type of report I think the American people
just hate to hear out of Washington, D.C. I mean, I think it
confirms their impression of what we do here with their money.
I am also continued to be amazed at the resistance by some
in Congress to tackling this problem, especially, in fact, that
we continue to find excuses of why we can't consolidate
programs and make things more efficient here in Washington,
D.C., including some comments that have been recently made
right here in this hearing.
In my view, it is not good enough to consolidate programs
but actually not decrease the size and scope of government.
Putting the same number of Washington bureaucrats under
different titles without actually eliminating those with
duplicative roles doesn't accomplish anything. And in that
vein, I look forward to the specifics from the administration
in regards to this process within the Department of Education.
The question I have is, could you discuss briefly how
inclusive the research was? Did it include all federal
departments and programs? What were the limitations and why did
you choose to limit the limitations that you chose?
Mr. Dodaro. Basically, the statute requires us to produce
an annual report every year, and we don't have the resources to
cover the entire federal government every year. And so what we
decided our plan was is we started with discretionary programs
and work that GAO had already done over the years that we could
build upon for this first report, which was done.
And so we included defense and civilian agencies. We are
going to be looking, in the next 2 years, in entitlement areas
and also tax expenditures.
You know, at any one time every year there is as much
revenue foregone through tax expenditures as there is outlaid
in discretionary programs, and some tax expenditures,
particularly, like, in the student loan area, overlap some of
the lending programs. So we are going to be looking at lending
programs as well as tax expenditures, discretionary and
mandatory programs, as well.
And so we hope over the next 2 years we will cover the
entire federal government in these first three reports. That is
our goal and we are aiming toward that.
Now, we also included in the report additional
recommendations on cost savings that did not involve overlap,
duplication, or fragmentation, that GAO had identified in its
work, and also ways to enhance revenue coming into the
government. And so we plan to continue to do that, Congressman.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
And also, you did comment some about the states, and did
you look at state-funded programs around the country and
crosscheck those with some of these federal programs within the
departments? And would that likely have even led to a higher
number of redundant programs within the federal government?
Mr. Dodaro. You know, I have had that similar question
myself, and our mandate goes to federal programs, so federal
programs that are administered through the state and local
level we are including in our review. But I do believe one of
the next things we need to do once we get through the federal
government is look at that very issue, because I think the
intergovernmental delivery system that we have is rather
fragmented as a whole, and I think there are opportunities
there as well.
And if we did look at that, you know, I think we would come
up with some potential recommendations. But that is down the
road.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the challenges we have is trying to figure out an
idea that we want to have here in Washington and then you--by
the time the idea gets down to our local districts, as you have
suggested, the money gets caught up in bureaucracy and red
tape. And another consideration we have is a teenager, even if
there is overlap, if you have got a job--a summer job program a
teenager is only going to get one job so the fact that there
may be overlap in programs isn't much of a problem.
Can you tell us what we can do with the money we are
spending to enhance the number of young people who have summer
jobs?
Mr. Dodaro. Let me ask Andy to come to the table and talk
about that, Congressman.
Mr. Sherrill. One of the areas we looked at under our
Recovery Act work was the WIA Summer Youth Employment program,
and what we found there was that states really--well, states
had a very short time to gear up because Congress did emphasize
the importance of providing summer youth employment. It was, in
general, a success story. Most of the states we visited and
analyzed were able--and some states hadn't previously had
summer youth programs--most were able to quickly ramp up and
serve a lot of additional youth with their summer youth
programs.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. So with the money that we provided
an appropriate number of youth actually got jobs?
Mr. Sherrill. In some cases they weren't able to meet the
entire demand at some places. In other places they had trouble
finding enough youth to sort of--that they wanted to serve. But
what we heard sort of in most places was that people thought
that was a very useful program for serving youth.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. Was there any overlap or any
bureaucratic red tape between Washington and the youth actually
getting a job?
Mr. Sherrill. I mean, part of one of the issues we found
was that Department of Labor--in fact, we recommended--needed
to provide more guidance in terms of the outcomes expected for
the youth program, in terms of sort of the guidance, because we
found that what states were measuring in terms of skill
attainment for the youth, the way they were measuring it kind
of across the board didn't easily allow you to tell--sort of to
assess the gains across localities and states. So we
recommended that Department of Labor provide more guidance in
this area and pay attention to that issue.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. Okay. I noticed that you have a lot
of overlap in programs to enhance teacher quality. Again, even
though they may overlap, each teacher will presumably only get
one program. Can you tell us how we are doing on teacher
quality?
Mr. Dodaro. I will ask George Scott to come up and
elaborate, but we do have an example in our testimony about how
one individual teacher could get several different assistance
over a period of their career. So it is possible for one
teacher to get aid under multiple programs that may or may not
be duplicative. It might be quite appropriate in some
circumstances.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. But that could be a good thing, that
they would learn a lot of different things.
Mr. Dodaro. Right. But again, it will only be known if
there is evaluation done of these programs, which, in many
cases, is not happening. But let me ask George to elaborate.
Mr. Scott of Virginia. And is the answer to the problem
evaluation or is the problem red tape getting the program from
idea in Washington to on the ground in our districts?
Mr. Scott. The issue we have highlighted is the lack of
rigorous evaluation of many of these programs. As the
Comptroller General mentioned, there are instances where
teachers, under either the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act or under the Higher Education Act, can qualify for various
teacher quality programs throughout their career. That is not
where the problem is.
From our perspective, one of the key issues is it is not
clear based on the limited number of evaluations that the
Department of Education has conducted, you know, to what extent
are those programs achieving their stated objective? And so
from our perspective, that is really why it is really important
to hold the department accountable for ensuring that in
addition to rolling out these programs that there is some
evaluation component built in so that at the end of the day we
have a clear picture of whether these programs are achieving
their intended objective.
Mr. Dodaro. I think basically, Congressman, also, in the
department's justification for consolidating the 38 programs
into 11 they point out that, I think, they think the problem is
both, that there is a lot of effort and time that goes into
evaluating these competitive grant programs that could be
better spent focusing on programs that have a proven track
record, and that is part of their justification for the
consolidation.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby, you are recognized.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for being here. I
appreciate your testimony and your willingness to answer our
questions.
On page 141 of the report it mentioned that some states
have colocated the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
employment, and training services in one-stop centers where
employment services and the Workforce Investment Act Adult
Services are provided. Additionally, three states, as stated in
the report--Florida, Texas, and Utah--have consolidated the
agencies that administer these programs, and state officials
said that this reduced cost and improved services.
Could you just expand further on how either colocating
services or consolidating agencies can improve the services and
what kind of improvements we might expect to see?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. That is a very good question. I will let
Andy explain the details.
Mr. Sherrill. On the colocation theme, part of what we
found in our work--previous work on WIA--is that provides an
opportunities for different program partners to do things like
cross-training staff, have common intake processes, share
computer systems, sort of provide services more efficiently and
sort of have a more common face for the people coming through,
a single plan for the person, that kind of thing. So it
provides opportunities for better serving customers.
On the three states that we--Utah, Texas, and Florida--that
had consolidated their state welfare and workforce agencies,
they basically told us that this had--in their view, has
allowed them to save some administrative costs and better serve
people, as well. But as we have said here, there is not a lot
known about this.
You know, what were the challenges? What were the results?
What were the approaches that they used? What are the remaining
issues to doing those kinds of initiatives?
So that is where we think there can be more focus.
Mrs. Roby. Right. And I guess, to add on to that, I mean, I
think you said earlier in your testimony that 23 of the--there
are 44 out of 47 that have been identified, but 23 of them
haven't been evaluated at all as it relates to the
administrative efficiencies, but of the programs that have been
evaluated, are there any performance measurements to show that
they actually result in individuals finding jobs faster or
securing jobs at higher pay? Has any of this been looked at?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. There are some limited studies. I will ask
Andy to elaborate on them. There are two that we know of. They
are not generalizable to the entire population but they do
provide some insight into people gaining employment that leads
to a higher income.
Mrs. Roby. Okay.
Mr. Sherrill. Right. Both of these studies--one in 2008,
one in 2005--were impact evaluations of the Workforce
Investment Act Adult and Dislocated Worker programs that--one
of them, I think, was 12 states; another was in seven states.
Both found that the program had positive impacts compared to
other sort of similar populations where they did statistical
data-matching.
So people coming through the WIA--these WIA programs tended
to have higher getting into jobs, like one of them found
receiving any WIA services in these two programs was
generally--result in a 10 percent gain in sort of--10
percentage point gain in entering employment, so getting into
jobs more. They also found sort of increases in people's
earnings achieved as well, compared to the comparisons group
they had. So some positive impacts.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey, you are recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my apologies for not being here during your testimony,
and I may be somewhat repetitive. But I am definitely concerned
that if we were to consolidate all the programs that you
studied, and maybe--which is four more, you are recommending,
than the department has recommended--I am really worried about
how it would affect the quality of our education system.
And would there actually be a net positive in terms of
bringing more efficiencies, or would it just leave teachers and
students who receive federal assistance hanging because all of
a sudden there are fewer programs and less funding and they are
all competing for the--out of the same pot?
This is, like, three questions. Here is the third: Isn't it
reasonable to believe that new programs have been added over
time to cover areas not included in the existing programs, and
how will we ensure that those programs don't get left out?
Mr. Dodaro. I will ask George to elaborate a little bit,
but it is clear that programs have been added over time to fill
what is a perceived need or a gap in particular services. But
what we have observed in looking at programs over time, after a
period of time the original intent of the program can change
over a period of time and there needs to be careful monitoring
to make sure that it actually achieved what it did.
Right now one of our messages is that in many of these
programs we really don't know whether they are achieving their
original objectives or not in the first place. Now, there is a
danger of unintended consequences. If you do change those
programs or consolidate in some way it may have unintended
consequences, but unless the department clearly monitors what
is going on and provides feedback to the Congress we won't know
whether these programs either serve their intended purpose or
what the revised purpose will be that the Congress sets for
itself.
There are safeguards that could be put into the programs to
make sure--Congress could give the Education Department, for
example, some additional flexibility if something goes wrong.
There could be more flexibility given to the state and local
governments as well to be able to deal with those issues.
So I think there are possibilities for consolidation while
building in appropriate safeguards that guard against
unintended consequences. But let me ask George to elaborate.
Ms. Woolsey. So, George, while you are elaborating, tell me
what that safeguard would look like or sound like.
Mr. Scott. As our work has pointed out, there is a mix of
programs across a range of agencies, including both specific
programs as well as allowable activities, and our message here
has been, you know, while clearly, you know, these programs are
serving--can serve similar target populations, can provide
similar types of assistance, can even have very similar
objectives, but what that does is it raises a couple
challenges.
One is that it really complicates efforts--and we have
heard this from the Department of Education--it really
complicates efforts to effectively administer these programs in
the comprehensive manner across--not only within the
department, but across other federal agencies. That is why it
is important that to the extent that there can be a higher
level of strategic planning about some of these activities--for
example, as the Congress did with Competes Act, it really sort
of allows agencies to look outside of themselves and look
across the other--to similar activities across the federal
government.
That could be, for example, one of the safeguards we can
build into these other programs to ensure that their folks are
ensuring that the programs are reaching the target populations.
One of the other challenges that the Department of
Education has raised, and we certainly concur with, is that by
having such broadly fragmented programs it makes it very
difficult to understand and to evaluate which programs work and
which are not. Out of the 23-plus programs that we looked at
back in 2009 only about six of them have completed evaluations.
And the bottom line from those evaluations was little is known
about how effective these programs are.
So clearly, you know, it creates problems or challenges for
the Department of Education as well as for the grantees, in
terms of having to apply for these grants.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, were there any programs that you thought
had legitimate reason for overlap? I mean, could you----
Mr. Scott. Well, as we said, you know, out of the 82
programs we looked at--we looked at those specifically within
the Department of Education--we found that 14 of those actually
overlapped with at least one other program across a couple key
areas--similar objectives, target populations, activities, and
services. We did not, however, find the duplication, which is
sort of doing the exact same thing for the exact same target
group.
So we are very careful in terms of how we phrase what we
found in terms of the teacher quality programs.
Ms. Woolsey. So out of 80 there was 14?
Mr. Scott. Fourteen of the programs within the Department
of Education. There were 63 programs administered by the
Department of Education, and out of those we found 14
overlapped.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlewoman.
Mrs. Noem, you are recognized.
Mrs. Noem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming today, Mr. Dodaro. And I appreciate
your testimony and your willingness to be here, and your
explanations as well.
You know, your report is very comprehensive and I
appreciate that. I think it has, unfortunately, confirmed a lot
of the public's sentiments, that a lot of what we do at the
federal government level is fragmented and duplicative, and
frankly, we can't keep track of what we do ourselves. So I
thank you for that report.
I also wanted to talk to you a little bit specifically,
because I represent the state of South Dakota--the entire
state--which is filled with rural, small schools. And so I know
that there are a lot of challenges that they face because they
have very small staff, they have difficulty complying with the
different requirements between different programs and keeping
them straight, between agencies and departments.
And so I would like you to tell me a little bit of, do you
feel that this duplication puts small schools and rural schools
at a disadvantage in trying to comply and qualify for a lot of
these different programs in order to receive possible funding
or assistance?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, what we have found over time--and George
can talk specifically in the education area to your question
about the small schools--but it is difficult for a lot of
people to identify what federal funding is available, how to
foresee--to achieve that funding, how to write a good grant
application to be competitive in that area.
So it does put a burden on entities that are applying for
assistance, and that was one of the things that we thought
could be looked at in this particular case to streamline that.
In fact, that is one of the reasons that the Education
Department puts forth its consolidation proposal is to
eliminate some of that competitive grant kind of process and
allow its employees to focus more on improving teacher quality
and outcomes----
Mrs. Noem. But competitive grants would also create that
same problem for rural schools that maybe don't have a staff
that are used to writing grants, as well.
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Well, but you would be able to--yes,
right, you would be able to free up resources that are consumed
through administrative processes competing for small amounts of
money to be able to look at it in a broader standpoint and to
give more flexibility to the local officials to meet their
needs, which is, I think, an important tenet of the program.
But let me see if George has anything to add.
Mrs. Noem. Okay.
Mr. Scott. Sure. We have not yet specifically looked at
this issue of the capacity--basically it is a capacity issue--
of states or LEAs. We do have a couple ongoing reviews, but I
think we will touch on that issue.
We have work going on looking at both Race to the Top, the
competitive large federal grant--competitive grant program, as
well as state improvement grants. And so we are out in the
states, and so we will be able to provide here this summer
some--a better picture of some of the challenges. And the
Comptroller General has already, you know, laid out what we
have heard generally about the capacity of certain states in
terms of competitive grants, but we will have more specific
information on that this summer.
Mrs. Noem. Okay. I will look forward to that.
You know, Mr. Dodaro, one more question: I know that the
Federal Tea Taster was abolished already, but in your view,
after putting this report together, what do you feel is the
most wasteful or duplicative program that you found when you
were putting this together?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, there are a lot to look at. I don't have
any personal favorites.
There are some, though, that we were able to put some
dollar savings on, which I think are really important. Like,
for example, in the Social Security program state and local
workers that aren't in the program, their spouses--the Social
Security offsets if somebody is receiving another government
pension, they don't have, really, the information from the
state and local level to be able to offset those pensions. If
IRS put one line on one form to be able to collect that
information it is estimated by CBO the federal government could
save $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion every 10 years if we collect
more information.
There is also $640 billion that has been sitting for 10
years in the customs service of an additional duty that was
imposed, and really, nobody has determined what the proper use
of that money would be. We recommend a look at the duplication
between the Ethanol Tax Credit and the Renewable Fuel Standard
and basically say, ``We don't believe you need both at this
point in time,'' and if you reduced the tax credit last value
was about $5.7 billion in amount of money that could be saved.
And so we also point out that there could be more
competition in federal contracts. About 30 percent of those
contracts aren't competed or there is only one person competing
it, and where there have been competition the federal
government's costs go down through that activity.
We point out the oil and gas revenue management. We just
added that to our high-risk list. And we don't believe there is
reasonable assurance the federal government is getting its
value for oil that is produced on federally leased lands and
that, you know, a lot more money could be achieved through that
process.
So that is just a sampling.
Mrs. Noem. That is a good list. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Heck?
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, General Dodaro. I am appreciative for your
thoughtful and candid comments and the very thorough and
knowledgeable preparation of your staff. It is a pleasure to
have you here.
In the report in March it states that overlap and
fragmentation among government programs or activities can be
harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating
duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save
billions of tax dollars annually.
And then in the March 18th letter to congressional
addressees it was stated that determining whether and to what
extent these programs are actually duplicative requires
programmatic information that is often not readily available.
I recently introduced a resolution that would require
Congress to proactively list any duplicative programs as part
of the committee process prior to authorizing a new program.
Would that help GAO better track and highlight duplication and
overlap of programs? And what, in your opinion, could Congress
do better?
We can always talk about what is out there now, but what
can we do moving forward to prevent this from happening? What
can we do better to avoid these pitfalls in the future?
Mr. Dodaro. That is a very good issue. In fact, I was
testifying before the Senate Budget Committee and they asked me
the exact same question.
I think, you know, having something going forward that
involves some sort of an analysis about a new program proposal
to make sure it doesn't duplicate or overlap something that
already exists would be a very good process for the Congress to
incorporate into its deliberations and decision making. That
function could be performed by OMB or CBO. Some have suggested
GAO as another alternative for that.
And so I think that that is just a prudent approach to be
able to do it. Like, right now there are cost estimates of CBO
about what it costs to implement new legislation. I think
having some safeguard in place--or at least informing the
Congress--and it may decide to proceed for very valid reasons
in any event, but I think having that information is better
than not.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg?
Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
You know, I want to focus on workforce because I think that
is rather important. I mean, we have been up here talking about
jobs and I think that the federal government doesn't have a
responsibility for creating private sector jobs but I think it
has a responsibility for creating the environment and making
sure, of course, that we have programs out there that will
train and provide the qualifications necessary for people to
find sustainable private sector employment.
And I see in your report where three states, one of which
is mine--Florida, Texas, and Utah--have gone a step further by
consolidating, but you can't determine what the savings is from
that. Now, the reason for consolidating--are there any federal
incentives in these programs to consolidate the resources?
Mr. Dodaro. Not enough. That was our recommendation. Our
recommendation was that the federal agencies should provide
more incentives to the states.
I think, no, the states and the locals are closer to the
ground. They understand the populations they are serving. They
have their own individual arrangements within each state.
And so, you know, we think there ought to be more
incentives. And that was one of the concerns I had when HHS
said that they can't provide it legislatively under the TANF
program. I think that they should make a proposal and Congress
should give them the flexibility to be able to do that. But I--
--
Mr. Ross. Any idea what incentives you would suggest to
encourage them to do that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Well, there are pilot activities that
could be made. There is some freedom from administrative
requirements that could be put in place.
There are a lot of incentives, and if they consult the
state and local governments I bet they will get a longer list.
Mr. Ross. I think you are right.
With regard to the 47 programs that you identified, would
it be safe to say, however, that there are other state
programs, as Mr. Bucshon was talking about, that may also
receive federal funding that were not included in this?
Mr. Dodaro. Let me ask Andy if he knows that.
Mr. Ross. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Sherrill. That is possible. I mean, we focused for this
on federally funded programs, so we didn't look to see whether
there are also state-funded programs that might also be
providing similar services.
Mr. Ross. What about appropriations that may go through the
educational system--say, like, into community colleges for
their workforce or reemployment programs? Is that included as
part of the 47 or is that something different?
Mr. Sherrill. No. Those weren't included as part of the 47.
I mean, Department of Labor has done certain grant programs in
the past to provide sort of high-growth job initiatives, that
kind of thing.
Mr. Ross. So in essence, there could be significantly more
duplication than just what was found by the 47 if you take into
account not only those 47 programs but also educational
programs through the Department of Education as well as any
state programs that may receive federal funding?
Mr. Sherrill. It is possible. I mean, we did focus on
federally funded programs that have a primary focus on
employment and training, which we defined as enhancing the
skills--the job-related skills of workers, identifying job
opportunities, and helping people find a job.
Mr. Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Dodaro, you----
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I do want to look at that down the road.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Dodaro. We do a lot of work with the state auditors,
and I think we can have a joint effort to look at that program.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Ross. Thank you. I commend you on what you are doing,
and I yield back.
Mr. Miller. Would the gentleman from Florida just yield for
1 second?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Just to follow up on his questions, in the case
of WIA, though, at least it appears to me at the local level
that some of that money is used--he was talking about community
colleges, and when employer and community colleges and people
sit down and some of that money is used to develop a program--
they may have a need because of a new employer or somebody
coming and talking. And so would that be duplicative or is
that--you know, because the community college is now----
Mr. Sherrill. No. I think that would be typically included
in the kinds of WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs where,
you know, they would work with contractors or community
colleges to provide training for people----
Mr. Miller. So the make-up is they might shift--it might,
you know, in one case Dow Chemical is doing all of the training
themselves; in another case they have outsourced that to the
community colleges because they wanted a broader spectrum of
training. But the introduction of different parties doesn't
necessarily make that a duplicative effort?
Mr. Sherrill. No. No.
Mr. Miller. Okay.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, could I make a quick comment in
relation to what Mr. Miller said?
Chairman Kline. If Dr. DesJarlais will yield to you, which
I now recognize him.
Mr. DesJarlais. Actually, I don't really have any
questions, so I would be happy to yield my time to
Congresswoman Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you.
I just wanted to tell Mr. Miller that in my experiences as
a community college president we did work with folks who were
running WIA programs, but in many cases there were three or
four layers of administration, and it appeared as though the
WIA programs were funding unnecessary and duplicative
administrative structures in various committees across the
district and across the state.
In many cases the community college was doing all of the
work, basically, but other agencies were skimming off as much
as 30 percent of the money that was being provided, and all
that was doing was paying for administrators in those agencies.
And I think it is a real issue that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Miller. If the gentlewoman would yield just for a
second, and that may be the case. I guess my experience, I
think--I guess I would say in my area that was more likely to
be the case 10 years ago.
What I find now is as they sit down on a regular basis--the
education institutions and the employers and representatives of
local government--they basically make a decision, how are they
going to farm this project out? And then that entity, in the
case of community colleges or a single employer or a group of
employers who share the same need--I have a lot of heavy
manufacturing in my district--they then take the responsibility
for that.
One of the reasons I was kind of down on WIA as they had an
opportunity to reauthorize it because I still had concerns
about kind of a heavy overhead in a lot of instances.
Mr. Sherrill. One of the ongoing studies we have in this
area that we think might shed some light is to look at WIA one-
stop locations that experts view as having promising practices
as really bringing in multiple partners, economic development
and others, and to really collaborate in new ways. So this is
part of what we are doing currently and I think this should
yield some examples of ways that are doing this in promising
ways.
Chairman Kline. I forget whose time it is, but I think, Dr.
DesJarlais, if you are yielding back, Mr. Barletta, you are
recognized.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Dodaro, for testifying today.
Yesterday I met with two middle school principals from
Northeastern Pennsylvania who suggested that teacher quality
programs should consider school administrators or those
individuals who actually hire and evaluate teachers. Do any of
these teacher quality programs consider school administrators
or educational leaders that actually do the hiring?
Mr. Dodaro. We will provide you an answer for the record. I
don't know offhand. It is a good question, and I will get you
an answer.
Mr. Barletta. Just a follow up: Can you identify how the
fragmentation and duplication of federal programs impacts
states, school districts, and school administrators and how do
they impact students?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Our evaluation did not go down to that
level of granularity. We were just looking at the federal level
and coordinating it. I think ultimately if some of these
consolidations go through that the department is looking at we
can then do follow-up studies and to see if we can identify
some additional areas.
But I can tell you from evaluating federal programs that
are administered at state and local level for many years, state
and local governments appreciate greater flexibility and being
able to use the funds to meet what their local needs are. And
that could work effectively as long as there are good
accountability mechanisms in place. But we will try to focus on
that in the future.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. And to go back to the original
question, if they do not--if these teacher quality programs do
not--I believe they should. I think it makes sense to include
those that are actually doing the hiring.
Mr. Dodaro. And the administrators and the hiring--yes, we
will get you a quick answer.
Mr. Barletta. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
I think all Members have had an opportunity to ask a
question. I obviously want to thank the Comptroller General.
I will yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he has.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing, again.
And I just wanted to follow up a little bit on what
Congresswoman Noem talked about, and we have had this
discussion a little bit on the--for rural areas, these small
pots of money you really have to raise the question of whether
or not it is worth the cost of applying for those monies.
And one of the things we are trying to look at in
reauthorization is the consolidation with allowable uses, and
they can make the determination how they want to use that
professional development money within the guidelines, but have
that kind of flexibility.
But if they got something it would be worth applying for. I
guess we have kind of come to that stage for a number of
different reasons.
And so we have tried to think about this in rural areas
because it is starting to make less and less sense, and yet
could they acquire the services, the resources to do that it
would probably help improve the educational experience in that
district. But a lot of times that district, you know, is not
very big. There is one school and not a lot of alternatives.
So I just want to say that I think what we are looking at
in reauthorization--I guess I am making a commercial for
reauthorization--is this kind of--these kinds of changes that
we would look to adopt in terms of both flexibility and
consolidation, so it would make sense for--I think it would
make--the same case can be made even for large urban districts,
in terms of how we--funds are segregated back and forth.
Mr. Dodaro. I agree with you. And that is one of the
reasons we were raising the issues we were, to stimulate that
type of discussion and debate, Congressman, so I think it makes
sense.
Mr. Miller. Let me just raise one other point: As I
understand the authorization under which this report--the big
report--is done, department and government report annually to
the Congress the findings, including the cost of duplication
and recommendations for consolidation and elimination. Is there
a follow-on to this initial report where----
Mr. Dodaro. There will be one--the legislation requires an
annual report, so we will be doing one every year. I am hoping
that we will cover--the first three reports will cover the
entire federal government and then I will be able to work with
the people who authorize that legislation. It was initially
sponsored by Senator Coburn----
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. And to see if it makes sense for
us to do it--keep doing it in perpetuity. Right now, yes, there
will be a report every year.
Mr. Miller. But in this report--I am sort of suggesting two
things. One is, you didn't find duplication, but yet if you had
found outright duplication as opposed to overlap or shared
missions or whatever they call it, would you then be making--in
the future would you be making a recommendation with--for
consolidation and elimination?
Mr. Dodaro. We could. If we have the necessary work done we
would present some options to the Congress, yes.
And one of the things I would suggest for this committee,
if there are areas that you would like us to look at and
incorporate into our future work in this area we would be more
than happy to do so. Actually, the 81 areas that I mentioned in
this first report were really done as part of work for well
over a third of the committees in both the House and the Senate
over a period of time, and so we just built off of that work,
created some new work. But we would, and some areas where we
are doing that.
We were also trying to get ahead of--you know, not waiting
for duplication to occur----
Mr. Miller. No, I understand.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, and so, but we would be happy to entertain
areas that this committee thinks are important to look at and
incorporate into our work.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
And this is one of those committees, and sometimes we agree
on other sides of the aisle, and occasionally Mr. Miller and I
exactly agree. And it happens rarely, and so we try to make
note of it.
But I identify with his comments about the difficulties
that, again, Mrs. Noem raised of rural schools, and these
programs that are very small, and you indicated that some of
them haven't been even evaluated; they are too small and people
don't bother with it.
And the small schools don't have the--maybe some of these
school districts are one school, and they simply can't. They
simply can't find people to put in grant applications and so
forth. So we are looking for much more flexibility and
consolidation.
And I appreciate the plea or advertisement for
reauthorization. We are moving on reauthorization on a number
of fronts, and one of them--obviously ESEA is in front of us,
but WIA is in front of us.
And again, I want to thank you very much for coming in, for
the really terrific work that you do. And I know it is a lot of
work and there is a temptation, which we apparently can't
resist, to keep tasking you to do more working. And I heard you
volunteering to do more work, so probably more will be coming
your way.
So again, thank you very much to our guests and to our
witnesses and to my colleagues. There being no further
business, the committee stands adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana
Thank you Mr. Chairman. We are here today to address a very
important issue--the continued spending of money that our Country does
not have. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I have spent the
past few months working with our colleagues on ways to rein in
Washington's out of control spending problem. The issue we have before
seems to me to be a very strong step forward--eliminate those programs
our government is spending money on that are duplicative, wasteful, and
ineffective.
As a new Member of Congress, I have already learned that the rules
in Washington are stacked in favor of people who want to spend more
money. I come from the great state of Indiana--we have a balanced
budget, triple-A bond rating, and we have not raised taxes because we
know taxes are not the problem. The problem is our colleagues who
continue to push for more government spending knowing that our debt is
over $14 trillion and climbing.
The U.S. borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends. When the
Federal government borrows money, we are passing along a tax increase
to our children and grandchildren. In fact, I call it a ``birth tax''
because every baby born today owes $45,000 as his share of the public's
debt. Moreover, every taxpayer alone owes $127,000 of the debt.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report
entitled ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.'' We have always known
that waste exists, this report quantifies it. According to the report,
billions of dollars are being squandered on redundant programs and many
of these programs are managed by multiple agencies only adding to the
confusion and waste. In our current economic situation, how can we
ignore this data?
I appreciate the first steps the Administration took by identifying
13 programs to eliminate and 38 more for consolidation. However, this
does not come close to what needs to be done. In the GAO report alone,
82 programs are identified as being focused on teacher quality. Can
anyone honestly tell me that all 82 are necessary and have been proven
effective? It is time for us to rein in our spending problem, put
taxpayer dollars to work where they can be most effective, and reduce
the regulatory burden imposed on states and school districts.
I refuse to leave the next generation less freedom and a lower
standard of living--and that is what we continue to do by keeping the
status quo.
______
[Additional submissions from the GAO follow:]
Employment and Training Programs That Have Shown Positive Results
As part of GAO's recent study of multiple employment and training
programs, we conducted a survey of federal agency officials and asked
them to identify impact studies that had been completed since 2004 to
assess program performance with respect to employment and training
activities.\1\ An impact study assesses the net effect of a program by
comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened
in the absence of the program. This type of study is conducted when
external factors are known to influence the program outcomes, in order
to isolate the program's contribution to the achievement of its
objectives. Of the 8 studies cited by survey respondents, we determined
that 5 can accurately be described as completed impact studies. These
studies found that 4 programs had positive impacts on participant
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 (Washington, D.C.:
January 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult (Labor)
Study citation: Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth
R. Troske, Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact
Evaluation, Final Report, a report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Labor (December 2008).
Study design and scope: Quasi-experimental design (used a closely
matched comparison group rather than a randomly assigned control
group). Examined outcomes for 95,580 WIA Adult participants and
compared them to outcomes for matched comparison group members selected
from a pool of nearly 3 million individuals who had similar demographic
characteristics but either did not receive WIA Adult services or did
not receive WIA Adult training. Examined the impact of the programs on
average earnings and employment using 16 quarters (4 years) of wage
record data from 12 states, starting with the quarter in which the
participant entered the program (between July 2003 and June 2005).
Findings are not generalizable.
Findings: The program had positive impacts on average earnings and
employment up to 4 years after participant entry. Longer term impacts
for participants receiving training were greater than for those
receiving core and intensive services. Impacts were generally larger
for women than for men. The authors caution that the impact estimates
are averages, and differences across states were substantial.
2. WIA Dislocated Worker (Labor)
Study citation: Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth
R. Troske, Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact
Evaluation, Final Report, a report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Labor (December 2008).
Study design and scope: Quasi-experimental design (used a closely
matched comparison group rather than a randomly assigned control
group). Examined outcomes for 63,515 WIA Dislocated Worker participants
and compared them to outcomes for matched comparison group members
selected from a pool of nearly 3 million individuals who had similar
demographic characteristics but either did not receive WIA Dislocated
Worker services or did not receive WIA Dislocated Worker training.
Examined the impact of the programs on average earnings and employment
using 16 quarters (4 years) of wage record data from 12 states,
starting with the quarter in which the participant entered the program
(between July 2003 and June 2005). Findings are not generalizable.
Findings: For participants receiving core and intensive services,
the program had positive impacts on their average earnings and
employment, although these impacts were smaller than the impacts for
WIA Adult participants and took several quarters to materialize.
Impacts were generally more positive for employment than for earnings.
The authors caution that there was uncertainty about the causes for the
impacts that they found. They also caution that the impact estimates
are averages, and differences across states were substantial.
3. National Guard Youth Challenge Program (Defense)
Study citation: Dan Bloom, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks and Conrad
Mandsager, Reengaging High School Dropouts--Early Results of the
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation (MDRC, 2009).
Study design and scope: Experimental design (used a randomly
assigned control group). Examined outcomes for program participants in
10 states and compared them to outcomes for youth who applied and were
eligible to participate in the program but were not invited to
participate because there were too few slots available. About 3,000
youth were assigned to either the experimental or the control group in
2005-2006. About 1,000 youth in each group completed a brief survey
approximately 9 months after they entered the study (the survey did not
target all study participants; the response rate among those targeted
was 85 percent).
Findings: The program had short-term positive impacts on
participants' education (high school diploma/GED receipt), employment,
mental health, and criminal activity (lower arrest rates) in the first
year of participation. However, since participants had not yet
completed the program, it is too early to say whether the program will
have positive, long-term impacts such as increased earnings.
4. Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (Labor)
Study citation: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, In
Search of Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Corrections: An
Evaluation of Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart
Program, a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice and the
U.S Department of Labor (September 2009).
Study design and scope: Experimental design (used a randomly
assigned control group). Examined outcomes for 369 program participants
and compared them to outcomes for 345 youth assigned to the control
group. Youth in both groups had similar characteristics including
criminal history and demographics. Youth were randomly assigned to one
of these groups between June 2002 and February 2003, and then
participated in residential programs between June 2002 and May 2005.
After these youth were released to the community, about 67 percent of
them participated in a series of post-release interviews over a period
of several years.
Findings: The program had short-term positive impacts on
participants' employment, earnings, and recidivism in the first year
after release from a juvenile corrections facility, but these impacts
were not sustained for all participants during the second and third
years after release. Positive impacts on employment and recidivism were
sustained for Hispanic youth in the second and third years after
release.
______
Teacher Quality Programs That Have Shown Positive Results
Based on our review of outcome and impact evaluations of teacher
quality programs administered by the Department of Education
(Education), GAO identified two studies that found positive results for
two programs: Early Reading First Program and Teacher Quality
Partnership Grants Program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outcome evaluations assess the extent to which a program
achieves its outcome-oriented objectives, but may also assess program
processes to understand how outcomes are produced. Impact evaluations
use scientific research methods to assess the net effect of a program
by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have
happened in the absence of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Early Reading First Program (Education)
Study citation: National Evaluation of Early Reading First: Final
Report to Congress, a report prepared by U.S. Department of Education,
Decision Information Resources, Inc., Mathematica Policy Research, and
Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and
Education (May 2007).
Study design and scope: The purpose of this national impact
evaluation of the Early Reading First (ERF) program to assess the
impact of ERF funding and program support for preschools on the
language and literacy preparedness of preschool children. In
particular, it was designed to measure the effects on children's
language development and emergent literacy when preschools receive
funding to adopt scientifically based methods and materials and
teachers are provided with focused professional development that
supports the use of these materials and methods. The evaluation sample
was composed of a treatment group, which consisted of 4-year-olds
attending preschool in 28 of 30 ERF grantee sites, whereas the
comparison group consisted of children attending preschool in 37 of the
67 unfunded applicant sites that had the highest application scores and
that agreed to participate in the study. The study team randomly
selected approximately 11 4-year-old students per classroom whose
parents had provided written consent for participation in the study.
ERF participants appeared to be more disadvantaged than the national
average according to a number of demographic factors, including family
income level, single-parent household status, among other factors. They
also scored lower than national norms on three standardized
assessments.
Findings: The evaluation found that the program had positive,
statistically significant impacts on several classroom and teacher
outcomes and one of four child outcomes measured, including the
following areas:
Classroom environments and teacher practices: classroom
language environment; book-reading practices; materials and teaching
practices to support print and letter knowledge and writing, among
other areas.
Teacher outcomes: number of hours of professional
development that teachers received and on the use of mentoring as a
mode of training.
Classroom quality: quality of teacher-child interactions;
classroom organization; activity planning.
Child outcomes: Children's print and letter knowledge.
Limitations: The design of this study was based on the assumption
that the grant application score fully reflects the selection rule
Education used to award ERF grants. Furthermore, the authors of the
report noted several limitations of their sub-group analysis that meant
that they could not draw conclusions about the program's effectiveness
for the groups considered.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Examples of sub-groups they analyzed included teachers with and
without a bachelor's degree; teachers with five or more years of
teaching experience and teachers with fewer years of experience;
whether the preschool received Head Start funding; and whether the
preschool offered full-time or part-time classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Teacher Quality Partnership Grants (Education)
Study citation: Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher
Preparation Through the Title II HEA Partnership Program (Final
Report), a report prepared by American Institutes for Research and SRI
International for U.S. Department of Education (May 2006).
Study design and scope: The purpose of this outcome evaluation was
to identify and describe the collaborative activities taking place in
partnerships under the Title II Partnership Grants Program. It was also
designed to examine approaches to preparing new and veteran teachers
and to assess the sustainability of project activities after the grant
ends. Specifically, the evaluation surveyed nearly 300 representatives
from 25 grantees of the 1999 cohort of the partnership grants,
including at least 66 colleges and universities, 28 community colleges,
179 school districts, and 821 elementary schools in more than 25
different states. More than 500 principals were surveyed once, during
the 2002--03 school year. The study also included secondary data
analyses using publicly available data on school characteristics,
school-level achievement data, and pass rates on teacher assessments
reported as part of the Title II HEA reporting requirements. Five
diverse projects were the subject of case studies that included
repeated week-long visits.
Findings: The evaluation found that the program had certain
positive outcomes, such as enhanced collaboration between colleges/
universities and schools around teacher preparation; a shared focus on
the accountability concerns of the HEA Title II; and increased
requirements for teachers entering and exiting teacher preparation
programs.
Limitations: The analytic sample for this study had several sources
for potential bias, including survey- and item-level nonresponse
(across and within partnerships). Nonresponse bias, which includes
issues of missing data, nonrespondent bias and the potential for
selection bias must be considered when interpreting the survey results
presented in this study. Furthermore, this evaluation could not
determine with precision the extent to which the partnership program
alone was responsible for any of the measured outcomes. For example,
the report authors indicated that some partners had multiple grants and
projects operating simultaneously, sometimes with shared goals, making
it difficult to separate the effects of these efforts from those of the
teacher quality partnerships.
______
FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT TEACHER QUALITY AND ALLOW FUNDS TO BE USED
FOR ACTIVITIES AIMED AT IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFDA No. Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.048 Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.083 Women's Educational Equity Act Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.101 Career and Technical Education--Grants to Native
Americans and Alaska Natives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.165 Magnet Schools Assistance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.206 Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Grant
Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.256 Freely Associated States--Education Grant Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.283 Comprehensive Centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.299B Indian Education Professional Development Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.336B Teacher Quality Partnership Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.363 School Leadership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.367 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.374 Teacher Incentive Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.377 School Improvement Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This is a preliminary list based on a review of information
provided in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and the
Department of Education documents. We interpreted the authority for
these purposes broadly, but did not verify our interpretation with the
Department of Education. Therefore, the list may be incomplete and
some of the programs may not be targeted to providing services to
school administrators or principals.
------
[Letter, dated April 22, 2011, from Secretary Solis
follows:]
------
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]