[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THROUGH
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE TRAINING
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
89-632 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Virginia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Tom Price, Georgia Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Kenny Marchant, Texas John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Duncan Hunter, California Rush Holt, New Jersey
David P. Roe, Tennessee Susan A. Davis, California
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tim Walberg, Michigan Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Matt Salmon, Arizona David Loebsack, Iowa
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Mark Takano, California
Luke Messer, Indiana
Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Megan O'Reilly, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Minority Member
California Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Matt Salmon, Arizona Mark Takano, California
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Rush Holt, New Jersey
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota David Loebsack, Iowa,
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Member
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Kenny Marchant, Texas Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Carolyn McCarthy, New York
David P. Roe, Tennessee Susan A. Davis, California
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Jared Polis, Colorado
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 10, 2014............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher,
Education and Workforce Training........................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Loebsack, Hon. Dave, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Nowicki, Jacqueline, Acting Director, Education, Workforce
and Income Security Issues, U.S. Accountability Office,
Boston, MA, Inc............................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Tighe, Hon. Kathleen, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, DC.................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Additional Submissions:
Mr. Miller:
National Association for the Education of Homeless
Children and Youth..................................... 69
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado:
Article from the Denver Post............................. 48
Questions submitted for the record by:
Chairwoman Foxx.......................................... 72
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York.................................. 73
Response to questions submitted:
Ms. Nowicki.............................................. 76-80
Inspector General Tighe.................................. 75
IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THROUGH
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
----------
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training,
joint with the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary,
and Secondary Education,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
[chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training] presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on Higher Education and the
Workforce: Representatives Foxx, Petri, Guthrie, Brooks,
Hinojosa, Bonamici, Takano, and McCarthy.
Present from the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education: Representatives Rokita,
Kline, Petri, Foxx, Roe, Brooks, Loebsack, Scott, McCarthy,
Polis, and Sablan.
Staff present: Kathlyn Ehl, Legislative Assistant; James
Forester, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
Daniel Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell,
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; Emily Slack,
Professional Staff Member; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior Education
Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
Coordinator; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Eamonn Collins, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Brian Kennedy,
Minority General Counsel; and Rich Williams, Minority Senior
Education Policy Advisor.
Chairwoman Foxx. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Training and the Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education will
come to order.
Good morning. I welcome our guests and thank our colleagues
on the K-12 Subcommittee for joining us.
I want also to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses
for participating in today's hearing.
Independent oversight is a central tool to ensure the
federal government spends taxpayer dollars wisely and
administers programs and policies in the most efficient and
effective way. When you consider the challenges facing our
schools and workplaces as well as the tsunami of red ink
confronting taxpayers, the need for responsible administration
of the federal government has never been more important.
The Government Accountability Office and each agency's
Office of Inspector General play vital roles in the oversight
effort. The hardworking staff of these nonpartisan entities are
the taxpayers' first line of defense against fraud, waste, and
abuse of tax dollars. They also help identify areas where
programs and policies can be improved to ensure the American
people receive the best services possible.
Like all federal agencies, the Department of Education has
a responsibility to take the concerns and recommendations
offered by these independent investigators seriously. There is
certainly no shortage of improvements needed at the department.
In recent years the GAO has issued numerous reports
highlighting areas where programs and policies should be
strengthened, including reports entitled: ``Use of New Data
Could Help Improve Oversight of Distance Education;'' ``Foreign
Medical Schools: Education Should Improve Monitoring of Schools
that Participate in the Federal Student Loan Program;''
``Better Oversight Could Improve Defaulted Loan
Rehabilitation;'' and ``Improved Tax Information Could Help
Families Pay for College.''
These reports are in addition to those routinely released
by the Inspector General's office. The examples I just cited
are especially noteworthy because they include recommendations
not yet implemented by the department.
Agencies may not agree with every recommendation in every
report. In fact, this committee may question various
recommendations from time to time. However, each independent
report represents an opportunity for a federal agency to
consider changes and improve.
Whether it is the solutions outlined by the GAO and I.G.
offices or a set of changes proposed internally by an agency,
action must be taken. The American people deserve no less.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
important work they do. We have a special event starting at 11
o'clock that many members are interested in attending, so I
hope we can conduct this hearing expeditiously.
Toward that end, I will conclude by recognizing Chairman
Rokita, of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Foxx, Subcommittee on Higher Education
and Workforce Training
Good morning. I welcome our guests and thank our colleagues on the
K-12 subcommittee for joining us. I want also to thank our
distinguished panel of witnesses for participating in today's hearing.
Independent oversight is a central tool to ensure the federal
government spends taxpayer dollars wisely and administers programs and
policies in the most efficient and effective way. When you consider the
challenges facing our schools and workplaces, as well as the tsunami of
red ink confronting taxpayers, the need for responsible administration
of the federal government has never been more important.
The Government Accountability Office and each agency's Office of
Inspector General play vital roles in the oversight effort. The hard-
working staff of these nonpartisan entities are the taxpayers first
line of defense against waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars. They
also help identify areas where programs and policies can be improved to
ensure the American people receive the best services possible.
Like all federal agencies, the Department of Education has a
responsibility to take the concerns and recommendations offered by
these independent investigators seriously. There is certainly no
shortage of improvements needed at the department. In recent years, the
GAO has issued numerous reports highlighting areas where programs and
policies should be strengthened, including reports entitled:
* ``Use of New Data Could Help Improve Oversight of Distance
Education'';
* ``Foreign Medical Schools: Education Should Improve Monitoring of
Schools That Participate in the Federal Student Loan Program'';
* ``Better Oversight Could Improve Defaulted Loan Rehabilitation'';
and
* ``Improved Tax Information Could Help Families Pay for College.''
These reports are in addition to those routinely released by the
Inspector General's office. The examples I just cited are especially
noteworthy, because they include recommendations not yet implemented by
the department. Agencies may not agree with every recommendation in
every report. In fact, this committee may question various
recommendations from time to time.
However, each independent report represents an opportunity for a
federal agency to consider changes and improve. Whether it's the
solutions outlined by the GAO and IG offices, or a set of changes
proposed internally by an agency, action must be taken. The American
people deserve no less.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the important
work they do. We have a special event starting at 11:00 o'clock that
many members are interested in attending, so I hope that we can conduct
this hearing expeditiously. Toward that end, I will conclude by
recognizing the senior Democrat of the higher education subcommittee,
Congressman David Loebsack, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Rokita. Well thank you, Chairman.
And good morning, everyone. I also want to thank our panel
of witnesses for joining us this morning, and I extend my
appreciation to Chairwoman Foxx for leading today's hearing.
You know, a free and democratic society requires government
transparency and accountability. We all want the federal
government to serve the best interests of every American--those
directly affected by federal programs and those whose tax
dollars fund those programs. Now, to get there we need to know
what is working and what isn't, and we need to know the steps
an agency should take to turn things around.
The Department of Education alone administers roughly 80
programs tied to K-12 schools--80 programs just at the
elementary and secondary education level. That alone requires a
massive bureaucracy to administer so many programs, and the
greater the bureaucracy the greater the opportunities for
mismanagement, frankly. And that is just not an offhand
statement; that comes from a guy who used to manage five
bureaucracies.
That is why the House has taken action that would begin
streamlining these programs, because a more efficient
Department of Education can do a better job supporting our
nation's schools.
However, even the leanest federal agency can still be
susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. We must remain vigilant
in our oversight, both in Congress and the offices of our
independent partners.
The Government Accountability Office and inspectors general
are at the forefront of this important effort. Their knowledge
and investigative authority are vital tools in the fight
against government corruption and mismanagement.
Chairwoman Foxx noted several reports by GAO affecting
higher education policies with recommendations that remain
open. Now here are just a few examples affecting K-12 education
policies:
``Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools with
Applying for Discretionary Grants,'' number one. Number two:
``Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could
Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School.'' Number
three: ``Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous
Federal Requirements as Burdensome, While Recognizing Some
Benefits.'' Four: ``Education Research: Further Improvements
Needed to Ensure Relevance and Assess Dissemination Efforts.''
Each report embodies a new opportunity, frankly, to serve
the American people more effectively and spend taxpayer dollars
more wisely. President Reagan once noted, ``Government is the
people's business, and every man, woman, and child becomes a
shareholder with the first penny of tax paid.''
I am fighting for all those people so that they can build
better lives for themselves and for their families. It is our
responsibility to protect their tax dollars and ensure the
American people receive the highest level of government service
they expect.
Thank you again, Chairwoman, for hosting today's hearing,
and I look forward to a good discussion this morning.
[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Rokita, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning. I also want to thank our panel of witnesses for
joining us this morning and extend my appreciation to Chairwoman Foxx
for leading today's hearing.
A free and democratic society requires government transparency and
accountability. We all want the federal government to serve the best
interests of every American - those directly affected by federal
programs and those whose tax dollars fund federal programs. To get
there, we need to know what's working and what isn't. And we need to
know the steps an agency should take to turn things around.
The Department of Education administers roughly 80 programs tied to
K-12 schools; 80 programs just at the elementary and secondary
education level. It requires a massive bureaucracy to administer so
many programs, and the greater the bureaucracy the greater the
opportunities for mismanagement. That is why the House has taken action
that would begin streamlining these programs, because a more efficient
Department of Education can do a better job supporting our nation's
schools.
However, even the leanest federal agency can still be susceptible
to waste, fraud, and abuse. We must remain vigilant in our oversight,
both in Congress and the offices of our independent partners. The
Government Accountability Office and inspectors general are at the
forefront of this important effort. Their knowledge and investigative
authority are vital tools in the fight against government corruption
and mismanagement.
Chairwoman Foxx noted several reports by GAO affecting higher
education policies with recommendations that remain open. Here are just
a few examples affecting K-12 education policies:
* ``Education Could Do More to Assist Charter Schools with Applying
for Discretionary Grants'';
* ``Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could
Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School'';
* ``Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal
Requirements as Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits''; and
* ``Education Research: Further Improvements Needed to Ensure
Relevance and Assess Dissemination Efforts.''
Each report embodies a new opportunity to serve the American people
more effectively and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. President
Reagan once noted, ``Government is the people's business, and every
man, woman, and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax
paid.'' I am fighting for all those people so that they can build
better lives for themselves and their families. It is our
responsibility to protect their tax dollars and ensure the American
people receive the highest level of government service they expect.
Thank you again, Chairwoman Foxx, for hosting today's hearing and I
look forward to our discussion this morning.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Rokita.
Next I recognize the senior Democrat of the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Workforce Training, Congressman Ruben
Hinojosa, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
Today's joint committee hearing will examine the Government
Accountability Office, to which I will refer as GAO, and the
Inspector General's, which I will refer to in my remarks as
OIG--their recommendations made to the U.S. Department of
Education to improve quality and oversight.
To begin, I must underscore that independent oversight is a
critical tool in helping the U.S. Department of Education
achieve its goals. The GAO and the inspector general play a
vitally important role in improving the quality, efficiency,
and effectiveness of the department's programs.
With regard to implementation, the Department of Education
has made substantial progress in responding to GAO and OIG's
recommendations over the past decade. Since 2004 the department
has implemented 218 of the 268 recommendations made by GAO.
While the government-wide average for the implementation of
GAO recommendations is 80 percent, the Department of Education
has surpassed that average with an implementation of 93 percent
of GAO's recommendations from 2004 through 2014. And that is
remarkable.
According to the GAO, the implementation of these
recommendations has resulted in significant benefits,
generating more than $2.1 billion in financial benefits and
making programmatic and administrative improvements.
Since the most recent 2012 audit, the OIG has noted that
the Department of Education has placed significantly more
organizational priority in remedying outstanding audits which
have improved the timeliness of audit resolution and the follow
up. I understand that the department has action teams in place
to resolve the audits in as little time as 3 months.
In the area of higher education, the department has been
responsive on growing concerns regarding fraud rings and campus
debit cards. Since 2011 the OIG has issued a series of reports
showing an increase in fraud rings, particularly for distance
education courses. Between the years 2009 and 2012 the OIG
estimated that there was an 82 percent increase of students
participating in fraud rings, impacting $187 million in federal
student aid.
In light of the OIG's findings, Ranking Member Miller and I
urged the Department of Education to take proactive steps to
address that important issue. Thus far, I understand the
department has made progress in mitigating fraud rings,
including increasing verification requirements and better
tracking systems that can identify when a person attempts to
receive awards at multiple college campuses.
Similarly, GAO and the OIG have released reports to
Congress concluding that student and taxpayer funds are at risk
when banks create deals with colleges to steer students into
expensive debit cards that can quickly erode their financial
aid money. In a report issued in February of 2014, GAO found
that 40 percent of students attend colleges with debit card
arrangements, potentially exposing students to an array of
troubling and expensive fees, lack of free access to financial
aid, and marketing that unfairly steers the students into
potentially expensive accounts.
The OIG had similar findings, noting many agreements
provided multimillion dollar kickbacks to schools and colleges.
So as a result, the OIG recommended that the department
consider implementing a series of reforms, including the
banning of revenue sharing when colleges partner with banks to
offer credit cards.
Along the same lines, GAO recommended that Congress
consider requiring banks to submit their contracts and their
fee structures to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
which we call the CFPB, for annual analysis and publication,
just like they are required to do with the credit cards.
Since these reports were issued, several bank regulators
and consumer groups have echoed the same recommendations.
In closing, I want to say that House Democrats have also
introduced H.R. 4714, entitled ``The Campus Debit Cards Act,''
which would, among other things, implement the GAO and OIG
recommendations for transparency and disclosure of these
arrangements. However, we have seen no action from our
Republican friends and colleagues, to protect students from
these abusive financial products or to act on the
recommendations of the GAO.
As ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce
Training Committee, I look forward to hearing from our panel of
witnesses on how we can continue to enhance oversight and
improve the quality and effectiveness of our federal programs
in the Department of Education.
And with that, I thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
Today's joint committee hearing will examine the Government
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General's (OIG)'s
recommendations made to the U.S. Department of Education to improve
quality and oversight.
To begin, I must underscore that independent oversight is a
critical tool in helping the U.S. Department of Education achieve its
goals. The GAO and Inspector General play a vitally important role in
improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the
Department's programs. With regard to implementation, the Department of
Education has made substantial progress in responding to GAO and OIG
recommendations over the past decade. Since 2004, the department has
implemented 218 of the 268 recommendations made by GAO.
While the government-wide average for implementation of GAO
recommendations is 80 percent, the Department of Education has
surpassed that average with an implementation 93 percent of GAO
recommendations from 2004-2014.
According to the GAO, the implementation of these recommendations
has resulted in significant benefits, generating more than $2.1 billion
in financial benefits and making programmatic and administrative
improvements.
Since the most recent 2012 audit, the OIG has noted that the
department of education has placed significantly more organizational
priority in remedying outstanding audits which have improved the
timeliness of audit resolution and follow up. I understand that the
department has action teams in place to resolve audits in as little as
three months.
In the area of higher education, the Department has been responsive
on growing concerns regarding fraud rings and campus debit cards.
Since 2011, the OIG has issued a series of reports showing an
increase in fraud rings, particularly for distance education courses.
Between 2009 and 2012, the OIG estimated that there was an 82 percent
increase of students participating in fraud rings, impacting $187
million in federal student aid.
In light of the OIG's findings, Ranking member Miller and I urged
the U.S. Department of Education to take proactive steps to address
this issue. Thus far, I understand the department has made progress in
mitigating fraud rings, including increasing verification requirements
and better tracking systems that can identify when a person attempts to
receive awards at multiple campuses.
Similarly, GAO and the OIG have released reports to Congress
concluding that student and taxpayer funds are at risk when banks
create deals with colleges to steer students into expensive debit cards
that can quickly erode their financial aid money.
In a report issued in February of 2014, GAO found that 40% of
students attend colleges with debit card arrangements, potentially
exposing students to an array of troubling and expensive fees, lack of
free fee access to financial aid, and marketing that unfairly steers
students into potentially expensive accounts.
The OIG had similar findings--noting many agreements provided
multi-million dollar kickbacks to schools. As a result, the OIG
recommended that the Department consider implementing a series of
reforms, including banning revenue sharing when colleges partner with
banks to offer debit cards.
Along the same lines, GAO recommended that Congress consider
requiring banks to submit their contracts and fee structures to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for annual analysis and
publication, just like they are required to do with credit cards.
Since these reports were issued, several bank regulators and
consumer groups have echoed these recommendations.
House Democrats have also introduced H.R. 4714, ``The Campus DEBIT
Cards Act'' which would, among other things, implement the GAO and OIG
recommendations for transparency and disclosure of these arrangements.
However, we have seen no action from our Republican colleagues to
protect students from these abusive financial products, or to act of
the recommendations of the GAO.
As Ranking Member for Higher Education and Workforce Training, I
look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses on how we can
continue to enhance oversight, and improve the quality and
effectiveness of our federal programs in the department of education.
Thank You!
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
I now recognize the senior Democrat of the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education,
Congressman Dave Loebsack, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Loebsack. I want to start by thanking Chairwoman Foxx
for calling this joint subcommittee hearing today.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Hinojosa for sharing
the dais with me, and Chairman Rokita, as well.
And I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us
today, as well.
We are here today to examine oversight of the Department of
Education. Specifically, we will look at the Government
Accountability Office, GAO; and the Department of Education
Office of Inspector General, OIG; and the recommendations they
made to the Department of Education to improve program quality
and management.
My friends in the majority will want to highlight the
department's challenges in responding to OIG and GAO audit
findings--challenges the department is actively working to
overcome. Yet in recent years the department has made
meaningful progress not only in implementing GAO and OIG
recommendations, but also in implementing them in a more timely
manner.
In that time, E.D. has made strategic staffing decisions to
more effectively put OIG recommendations into place, and it has
also established an internal governance panel to address key
challenges in the audit process and ways to improve response
time. And I won't repeat the statistics that Ranking Member
Hinojosa just mentioned, but those are impressive statistics,
as well.
Recently the department has also placed greater priority on
resolving OIG audit reports and ensuring that appropriate
action takes place. Under the Inspector General Act of 1978,
OIG is authorized to carry out various audits or reviews to,
quote--``promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the
administration of and prevent and detect fraud and abuse in the
department's programs and operations.''
During the Obama administration, E.D. has eliminated
backlog--its backlog of overdue OIG audits and has begun
preparing corrective action plans in response to audits more
quickly. As of today, Department of Education only has one
unresolved audit more than 6 months old, and the GAO and the
OIG are vital to the Department of Education's efforts to
monitor, review, and enhance its administration and its
programs.
In addition to making recommendations to the Department of
Education, both the GAO and the department's OIG often uncover
problems that can best be addressed by congressional action.
These critical issues fall within our committees' jurisdiction;
that is why we are here today.
But sadly, we have seen in the past, as was mentioned, the
majority has refused to act on many of these, and I am
concerned in particular that the majority appears indifferent
to problems within the purview of the subcommittee on which I
am the ranking member, although I am confident that Chairman
Rokita and I can work together on these issues going forward.
In recent years, for example, the GAO has identified gaping
holes in state laws that leave children and students vulnerable
to physical and sexual abuse both in school and out of school,
and Democrats on this committee have sent at least five letters
to Chairman Kline requesting committee action on these gaps in
child abuse prevention. But four of our formal requests have
gone unanswered, and none have resulted in hearings or markups
on legislation to address the troubling findings of GAO's
investigative work.
And while committee Democrats have introduced legislation
that protects students and families, we cannot enact such
common-sense regulations without the help of colleagues on both
sides of the aisle.
And GAO has produced troubling findings on a number of
issues on which our committee is still awaiting action,
including curbing abusive seclusion and restraint in schools,
sex abuse of children and athletics programs, and aligning the
definition of ``homelessness'' across federal agencies to
better serve homeless students. And that is just to name a few.
We all know that oversight is one of this body's most
important functions. Again, that is why we are here today. And
Congress and Congress alone has the authority to put many of
the reforms recommended by OIG and the GAO into action.
And as the committee under whose jurisdiction education
laws and regulations fall, it is our duty to give those
recommendations serious consideration. Agency oversight is
important, but we must not lose sight of what we are here to
do, and that is first and foremost to protect children and
families and to help set them up for success in school and in
life.
And I do look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
and in the future, working with my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to make sure that we implement the GAO and OIG's
most pressing proposals.
And thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Loebsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Loebsack, Subcommittee Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
I want to start by thanking Chairwoman Foxx for calling this joint
subcommittee hearing. I also want to thank Ranking Member Hinojosa for
sharing the dais with me.
And I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us.
We are here today to examine oversight of the Department of
Education (the Department or ED). Specifically, we will look at the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Education
Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the recommendations they've made
to the Department of Education to improve program quality and
management.
My friends in the majority may want to highlight the Department's
challenges in responding to OIG and GAO audit findings, challenges the
Department is actively working to overcome. Yet, in recent years, the
Department has made meaningful progress not only in implementing GAO
and OIG recommendations, but also in implementing them in a timelier
manner.
In that time, ED has made strategic staffing decisions to more
effectively put OIG recommendations into place. It has also established
an internal governance panel to address key challenges in the audit
process and ways to improve response time.
Since 2004, ED has made more than 90 percent of the changes that
GAO has advised--far exceeding the government-wide average for
implementing GAO recommendations. According to GAO, taking up these
recommendations has resulted in 2.1 billion in financial benefits and a
slew of other programmatic and administrative improvements for the
Department.
Recently, the Department has also placed a greater priority on
resolving OIG audit reports and ensuring that appropriate action takes
place. Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, OIG is authorized to
carry out various audits or reviews to ``promote economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness in the administration of, and ... prevent and detect
fraud and abuse in ... [the Department's] programs and operations.''
During the Obama Administration, ED has eliminated its backlog of
overdue OIG audits and has begun preparing corrective action plans in
response to audits more quickly. As of today, ED only has one
unresolved audit more than six months old.
The GAO and OIG are vital to the Department of Education's efforts
to monitor, review and enhance its administration and its programs. In
addition to making recommendations to ED, both the GAO and ED-OIG often
uncover problems that can best be addressed by Congressional action.
These critical issues fall within our committee's jurisdiction, but,
sadly, committee Republicans refuse to act on many on them
This Republican majority seems to be particularly indifferent to
problems within the purview of the Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education Subcommittee. In recent years, for example, GAO has
identified gaping holes in state laws that leave children and students
vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse, both in school and out of
school.
Democrats on this committee have sent at least five letters to
Chairman Kline requesting committee action on these gaps in child abuse
prevention--but four of our formal requests have gone unanswered, and
none have resulted in hearings or markups on legislation to address the
troubling findings of GAO's investigative work. While Committee
Democrats have introduced legislation to protect students and families,
we cannot enact such commonsense regulations without the help of our
Republican colleagues.
GAO has produced troubling findings on a number of issues, on which
our committee is still awaiting action:
* Curbing abusive seclusion and restraint in schools;
* Sex abuse of children in athletics programs; and
* Aligning the definition of homelessness across federal agencies
to better serve homeless students
That is just to name a few.
We must not forget that oversight is one of this esteemed body's
most essential functions. Congress and Congress alone has the authority
to put many of the reforms recommended by OIG and the GAO into action.
And as the committee under whose jurisdiction education laws and
regulations fall, it is our duty to give those recommendations serious
consideration. Agency oversight is important, but we must not lose
sight of what we're here to do: protect children and families and set
them up for success in school and in life.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and, in the
future, to working with my Republican colleagues to implement the GAO
and OIG's most pressing proposals.
Thank you. I yield back.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all 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 such statements
and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to
be submitted for the official hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
witnesses.
The Honorable Kathleen S. Tighe has served as the inspector
general for the U.S. Department of Education here in
Washington, D.C. since 2010. Ms. Tighe has a long career in
government accountability. Notably, she was appointed to chair
the Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board and has
served on the Government Accountability and Transparency Board.
Prior to her work with the Department of Education, Ms.
Tighe was the deputy inspector general of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and also served as counsel to the inspector
general at the General Services Administration.
Ms. Jacqueline Nowicki is the acting director of education,
workforce, and income security issues for the U.S. Government
Accountability Office in Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Nowicki
directs GAO's K-12 education work.
Previously, she was assistant director for budget issues at
GAO, along with having worked in private sector consulting,
leading projects on education, job training, and social policy
issues.
Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras is the director of education,
workforce, and income security issues for the U.S. Government
Accountability Office in Boston, Massachusetts. In this
capacity, she oversees the agency's K-12 and higher education
work, including national studies on education issues ranging
from student loans to veterans' education benefits.
Ms. Emrey-Arras is available for questions.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to
present your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of
you will turn green; when 1 minute is left the light will turn
yellow; when your time is expired the light will turn red.
At that point I ask that you wrap up your remarks as best
as you are able. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask
questions.
I now would recognize Kathleen Tighe for 5 minutes, thank
you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. MS. KATHLEEN TIGHE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Tighe. Thank you.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss audit resolution and the timeliness of actions
by the U.S. Department of Education to address recommendations
made by the Office of Inspector General. I want to thank the
two subcommittees for holding this hearing and highlighting an
issue that is such a vital part of good government.
The goal of the Office of Inspector General's audit and
related work is not simply to identify and tally problems, but
to recommend improvements and promote corrective action based
on those recommendations. That is what audit resolution and
follow up are all about.
They are important mechanisms to help the department
improve the management and performance of its programs and
operations, and since 2002 my office has issued six reports on
the department's audit resolution and follow-up processes, most
recently in 2012. Each report noted problems with ineffective
internal controls, lack of staff and training to conduct
resolution activity, a lack of organizational priority placed
on audit resolution activities, and an overall lack of
accountability.
After our 2012 review, the department proposed a series of
actions that addressed many of the specific recommendations in
the report. As discussed in my written testimony, we have seen
some progress as a result of those actions. Specifically, the
department has made progress in its efforts to more timely
resolve recommendations made in internal audit reports, which
are those OIG reports where the department is directly
responsible for implementing corrective action.
For internal reports issued in 2010, only 63 percent of OIG
audit recommendations were resolved timely, but in each
calendar year since then, 93 percent or more of OIG
recommendations have been resolved timely. While this progress
in noteworthy, challenges remain, particularly in the area of
repeat findings, which are too common in our information
technology security and financial statement audit work.
Regarding OIG external audits, where our recommendations
are aimed at nonfederal entities such as state and local
education agencies, participants in the student financial aid
programs, and other grantees or contractors, the department has
also made some progress. However, timeliness still remains a
challenge.
For example, 10 of 49 external audit reports issued between
2010 and 2013 remain unresolved. Of those 39 resolved audits,
only 13 have been fully implemented.
Ninety-five percent of the audits resolved had not been
resolved within OMB's 6-month deadline. These audits were
overdue for resolution by an average of about 439 days.
In each calendar year between 2010 and 2014, 80 to 100
percent of OIG external audit reports issued were not resolved
timely.
This is an area of particular concern as the untimely
resolution of external audits impacts the potential recovery of
funds and creates delays in the development and implementation
of corrective actions by auditees that are intended to correct
noted weaknesses in program management. Delays also send the
wrong message to program participants about the department's
tolerance for noncompliance and misuse of program funds.
This is why we periodically review the department's audit
resolution and follow-up processes. As previously stated, we
have conducted six reviews since 2002 and we have a seventh
audit presently underway.
We are currently evaluating the effectiveness of the
department's processes to ensure that external auditees are
taking corrective actions to address weaknesses identified in
OIG reports. We expect to issue the results of our findings
later this year.
Audit recommendations can serve as a tool for department
management in its daily operations, long-term planning, and
overall risk management. Our work, however, is effective only
if the department implements corrective actions in a timely
manner to address identified deficiencies or weaknesses.
We see that the department is taking positive steps in this
area. However, work still remains. We will continue to closely
monitor and report on the department's progress.
This concludes my statement. I once again want to thank you
for highlighting this issue and making it a priority for the
department. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Tighe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Ms. Nowicki, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. JACQUELINE NOWICKI, ACTING DIRECTOR,
EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS;
ACCOMPANIED BY MS. MELISSA EMREY-ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Nowicki. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Chairman
Rokita, Ranking Members Hinojosa, Ranking Member Loebsack, and
members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to
be here today to discuss the status of GAO's prior
recommendations to the Department of Education.
GAO's recommendations create tangible benefits for the
American people by improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability of government. Government-wide, approximately 80
percent of our recommendations are implemented within 4 years,
yielding significant results. At the end of fiscal year 2013,
for example, over 1,400 recommendations we made in fiscal year
2009 had been implemented, resulting in over $50 billion in
financial benefits for the federal government, a return of
about $100 for every dollar appropriated to GAO.
However, these benefits may only be achieved when federal
agencies implement our recommendations.
My remarks today will focus on two key areas. First, I will
discuss Education's progress in implementing GAO's
recommendations and the benefits stemming from them. Second, I
will discuss characteristics of recommendations Education has
not yet implemented.
In regards to my first point, the department has
implemented 218 of the 286 recommendations we have made to
Education since fiscal year 2004. These recommendations span
more than 100 separately issued reports and address a wide
range of programs.
They have resulted in more than 2.1 billion in documented
financial benefits and 145 documented nonfinancial benefits,
such as improved accuracy in calculating students' need for
financial aid, new guidance that ensures students with
disabilities have equal opportunities to participate in
athletics, and a streamlined and less burdensome grant
application process for school districts.
In tracking the progress agencies make in implementing our
recommendations, we actively track each recommendation for 4
years. If a recommendation has not been implemented within 4
years, our experience has shown that it is not likely to be
implemented. So, for example, recommendations we made in fiscal
year 2009 are tracked through fiscal year 2013.
We are pleased to report that during the last 5 years, by
working closely with the department, we were able to close on
average about 93 percent of our recommendations to Education as
implemented, compared to a government-wide average of about 80
percent.
With regard to my second point, Education has not
implemented 68 of the 286 recommendations we have made since
2004. These include 10 recommendations we closed after 4 years
after determining that Education was unlikely to implement
them, and 58 open recommendations that we are still actively
monitoring. These 58 open recommendations, the majority of
which Education agreed with when they were made, span four of
Education's strategic goals, though more than one-third of our
open recommendations relate to Education's goal of
strengthening elementary and secondary education programs.
These 58 open recommendations also address various
weaknesses that crosscut many education programs and strategic
goals. These include strengthening external oversight and
monitoring of grantees and contractors, coordination and
collaboration with other agencies, and departmental internal
management.
Fully implementing these recommendations could yield
significant improvements in Education's operations. For
example, they would improve equity in K-12 education for racial
and ethnic minorities and strengthen postsecondary education
oversight by addressing potential inconsistencies in how
schools are treated.
In conclusion, we are proud of the many important
improvements made in both elementary and postsecondary
education as a result of GAO's work. However, the full benefit
of our work can only be achieved when federal agencies timely
implement our recommendations.
We appreciate Education's sustained efforts to work with us
in implementing recommendations that have improved outcomes for
kids, reduced administrative burden on states and schools, and
strengthened accountability for federal funds. We will continue
to closely monitor and report on the department's progress in
implementing our recommendations and pay particular attention
to the 20 recommendations that have been open for 2 or more
years.
This completes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The joint statement of Ms. Nowicki and Ms. Emrey-Arras
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
What great witnesses you are--stay within time.
I now recognize Chairman Rokita for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Yes, I have to agree. We have a lot of witnesses sit in
those chairs and we can tell that you are with the GAO and OIG.
[Laughter.]
Starting with you, Ms. Nowicki, thank you--and again, thank
all the witnesses for the testimony, but thank you, Ms.
Nowicki, as well, for talking about the 58 of the 68
recommendations that are still open, the 68 being that are
older than 4 years. Describe for me in greater detail, if you
would for the committee, what makes you decide to keep certain
ones open longer than 4 years and close other ones out. What
criteria do you use?
Ms. Nowicki. Well, typically when recommendations are open
longer than--longer in that window, or sometimes longer than 4
years, as you have said, we typically do that when we believe
that there is some reason that those recommendations will be
implemented. So, for example, there were I believe two
recommendations that we still have open right now from 2006. We
have recently learned that there is - that those
recommendations were related to managerial cost accounting
practices at the department, but we have recently learned that
it is unlikely that the department would close those older
recommendations so we will probably close them on our end as
unimplemented.
Mr. Rokita. Now it is true, though, that all 68 were agreed
to by the Department of Education. They thought the 68
recommendations were a good idea. Yes or no?
Ms. Nowicki. They generally agreed with almost all of the
recommendations that we made at the time they were made.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. And so the 58 still open, you are not
driving whether something is still open or closed; the
department is. They say, ``Now we don't want to--this is older
than 4 years. We are still not giving up on it. We still want
to try to pursue it.'' You have some evidence to that effect so
you keep it open. Is that accurate?
Ms. Nowicki. Correct.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. Then with the ones that are still open,
do you still follow up with them annually, or what is the
criteria for--
Ms. Nowicki. Yes. So our policies and procedures require
that for all open recommendations we follow up at least
annually and check in with the department on their status and
the progress of them implementing our recommendation.
Mr. Rokita. And from the introduction that Chairwoman Foxx
elaborated on, you worked in the private sector and you have
been doing this kind of work for how long?
Ms. Nowicki. Seventeen years.
Mr. Rokita. What is your biggest frustration, given your
experience--or your top three?
Ms. Nowicki. I think, you know, for us, recommendations
that remain open for longer periods of time represent a missed
opportunity to improve outcomes on the ground for students and
to, you know, improve efficiency in the working of federal
government.
Mr. Rokita. Per your testimony, do you believe in federal
government?
Ms. Nowicki. Do I believe in the federal government?
Mr. Rokita. Yes. How big should it be? Is it too big now?
Ms. Nowicki. I--
Mr. Rokita. No comment?
Ms. Nowicki. No comment.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you for your testimony, as well, Ms.
Tighe?
Ms. Tighe. Tighe.
Mr. Rokita.--Tighe. Thank you.
You indicated that--let's see--let me just ask you what
formal reporting and oversight mechanisms exist for the OIG to
monitor department programs and services?
Ms. Tighe. Oh, I think the primary means we monitor the
department is actually through our audit work. I mean, that is
our--by annually deciding what areas we want to look at for the
department through our annual work plan, and then conducting
those audits and inspections and other type of work is how we
do our job. It is certainly then up to the department to
provide specific monitoring of the department's programs.
Mr. Rokita. In your testimony you mentioned ``lack of
staff,'' for doing the--reacting to your audits or doing their
own internal audits. Can you elaborate on that? What do you
mean by ``lack of staff?'' And are you suggesting that the
bureaucracy get bigger?
Ms. Tighe. Well, I do think the department has a lot of
responsibilities, and I think that--
Mr. Rokita. You find people overworked there? And I am not
being flippant. Seriously, I mean--
Ms. Tighe. Well, you know, we haven't done audit work
specifically. I would say my impression, yes, a lot of people
carry a lot of responsibility and are, in fact, working very
hard.
The department has a lot of programs. It is not a really
large department when you look at across the federal
government. And I do think in the area of audit resolution that
we have been talking about, I don't know if we have
specifically sort of looked at--I know there is staff in every
program office that does handle audit resolution; there is an
audit liaison and people who deal with audit resolution.
You know, sometimes they may carry other responsibilities,
so I think that part of what we looked at like in our 2012
audit was, okay, you have staff here. You know, if you don't
have enough we at least need--part of what our issue was, you
need to train them. You also need to make sure that they
understand their obligations, that they understand what OMB A-
50, you know, the OMB circular that is--governs this area, you
know, what that means to the department to the
responsibilities, and I think that is an important part of the
issue.
Mr. Rokita. My time is expired. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Just a couple quick questions.
Ms. Emrey-Arras, if I could ask you, I think that we got a
little bit in terms of numbers how Education compares with
other federal agencies in implementing the GAO's
recommendations. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Ms. Emery-Arras. Sure. I would be happy to.
Overall, looking between 2004 and 2009, 93 percent of
recommendations made by the GAO were implemented by the
Department of Education within a 4-year window, and that was
higher than the government-wide average of about 80 percent.
Mr. Loebsack. Do we have any idea why that is the case, or
is that not something for you folks to sort of investigate as
to why that is the case?
Ms. Emery-Arras. That was not within the scope of our work,
though I do like to think that we work hard to collaborate with
the department to close those recommendations.
Mr. Loebsack. Any thoughts on the part of others on that,
why that is the case with the Department of Education, why they
do a good job?
Ms. Tighe. On closing audit recommendations?
Mr. Loebsack. Well, how does they accomplish 93 percent--
was that the number? And government-wide it is 80 percent. Is
that correct?
Ms. Tighe. Well, I think the department has taken steps in
the last couple years to--do what we, you know, put in our
2012, which--audit report, which was a failing at that time,
which is: You need to make it an organizational priority; you
need to say this is important to the Department of Education to
resolve these audits.
And I think it has, which is why it has been somewhat
successful in the area of internal audits. I mean, their
timeline is--numbers are good now, and it has not been as
successful in the external audits but I think you have to do
that. Accountability is another thing that needs to happen,
too.
Mr. Loebsack. Right. Ms. Nowicki, in May of 2009 GAO
testified before this committee on the issue of restraint and
seclusion in our nation's schools. The testimony looked at
individual case studies of serious student injury and sometimes
death resulting from misuse of these harmful practices.
Additionally, GAO examined the patchwork of state laws
regulating use of restraint and seclusion.
Can you speak about the findings and the factors
contributing to student death and injury?
Ms. Emery-Arras. Hi. This is Melissa. I will--
Mr. Loebsack. Okay.
Ms. Emery-Arras.--respond on Ms. Nowicki's behalf.
Mr. Loebsack. Sure.
Ms. Emery-Arras. We have done a body of work from around
2007 to 2009 on just those issues--the seclusion and restraint,
and services for children in residential treatments centers or
boot camps or wilderness camps. We did find serious concerns
regarding reported deaths at facilities. For example, in our
study of residential treatment centers we did a survey and
found that at least 28 states reported one death in residential
facilities in 2006. We also found data that showed that over
1,500 incidents of abuse or neglect of youth had occurred in
those facilities. We also found, in terms of seclusion and
restraint, multiple cases where children had died as a result
of those techniques being used in schools.
We have made recommendations in the past to address these
issues. For example, in our work on residential treatment
centers we did make a recommendation to multiple federal
agencies, including the Department of Education, to enhance its
oversight of state activities--for example, by including these
facilities in their reviews when they went out to states.
However, Education did not implement this recommendation and it
is currently closed as not implemented.
Mr. Loebsack. Is part of the issue that this is dealt
differently in different states?
Ms. Emery-Arras. There is definitely a patchwork of state
requirements, and we show in our report how certain centers are
exempt from state licensing requirements.
Mr. Loebsack. Right. So really what you are saying is
Department of Education probably has to get more involved in
this in terms of looking at the different states and what is
happening in the different states.
Ms. Emery-Arras. That was the basis for our recommendation;
and unfortunately, the department did not act and it was closed
unimplemented.
Mr. Loebsack. Okay.
Well thanks to all of you, and I yield back the remainder
of my time.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank to the witnesses for your work and for being here
with us today, your testimony and answering questions. Just a
couple of questions.
Ms. Nowicki or Emrey-Arras, I am not sure who is going to
answer here, but looking at the Government Accountability
Office, you have reported saving the government and taxpayers
billions of dollars--that sounds pretty good sitting here--
including--you specifically mention $2.1 billion in financial
benefits to Department of Education since 2004.
What does that mean? How are those realized? Is that cash
that piles up on a desk? Is it fewer dollars appropriated? What
does that mean?
Ms. Emery-Arras. I can answer that one.
Mr. Kline. Okay.
Ms. Emery-Arras. In the area of education it relates mostly
to the delivery of federal student aid funds. And in this case,
the bulk of the 2.1 billion resulted from decreased Pell Grant
expenditures. Basically, we came up with a recommendation to
improve the accuracy of the financial aid calculations, which
resulted in a decreased need for Pell Grant expenditures for
those students.
Mr. Kline. So fewer dollars were spent.
Ms. Emery-Arras. Correct.
Mr. Kline. Okay.
To Inspector General Tighe: You, in response to Chairman
Rokita's questions--he asked about staffing and was there
enough staffing and you said that people are really busy. And
so there are several ways that you can approach that problem,
right? You could spend more money and get more staff, you could
train the existing staff to perform more efficiently, or you
could perhaps have fewer programs so you don't have to have all
that audit compliance and all that sort of thing for each of
the programs.
And we know in this committee, because we have been looking
at legislation in workforce training and in K-12 and a number
of places, there are just a lot of programs. I think there are
over 80 programs--federal programs in K-12 education. If you
had, say, half that number then presumably you would need less
staff.
Do you look at that, or do you just say a program is a
program and we are only going to be concerned about whether or
not we got enough staff to deal with it?
Ms. Tighe. Well no, and I--you know, I don't know if we
always necessarily look at whether there is level of staffing
sufficient for programs in a lot of our audits. I mean, I think
we try to, in targeting our audit work, look and make sure
programs are being efficient. We have looked a little bit at
whether there is potential duplication among programs, and I am
happy to give you further information on that to follow up with
this testimony.
So it is an issue we care about. I think it is a good
government issue. We should always be looking at government's
programs to makes sure they are needed, to make sure they are
running efficiently and effectively. I think that is an
important part of what the OIG should be doing and I hope we
are doing.
So it isn't just about, wow, we need more people to do more
programs. I think it is really about, you know, once you all
decide you want a program, right, that let's make sure that it
is staffed appropriately both in terms of oversight and
monitoring as well as execution of the program, which I think
are important parts of the puzzle.
Mr. Kline. Well let me--and thank you very much for that
response, but let me ask you to provide what you just offered.
If you looked at this and are there programs where you see some
redundancy or duplication? I know the GAO has done a number of
studies for us, and in the workforce training and education
field, for example, we were looking at that as we moved the
SKILLS Act, which became WIOA, as we did the WIA
reauthorization, and part of that was driven by the GAO study
that showed how many of these programs there were, and we know
there are a lot of programs in the Department of Education that
somebody needs to be looking at for duplication.
So since you have offered, I would accept the offer. We
would love--
Ms. Tighe. All right.
Mr. Kline. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I now recognize Mrs. McCarthy for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairwoman. And I appreciate
having this.
I just want to follow back on some confusion that I have on
my part.
Ms. Arras, when you talked about, you know, with the
residential programs selected case of death, abuse, and
deception marketing, do those programs get federal money?
Ms. Emery-Arras. Some do and some do not. And so the
Department of Education would only have purview over those that
do receive public funds.
Mrs. McCarthy. All right. So some of the cases that are
open, are any of them getting federal money?
Ms. Emery-Arras. I am sorry. Could you repeat that?
Mrs. McCarthy. The cases that have been left open after 4
years because you couldn't implement them because some of these
state laws, but are they getting federal money?
Ms. Emery-Arras. The recommendation that we had that was
closed as unimplemented related to facilities that did receive
federal funds, and we recommended specifically that the
Department of Education include in its oversight reviews those
facilities. So we were not recommending that they look at
facilities that were not receiving federal funds.
Mrs. McCarthy. And just one more question on the area of
the children. I guess it is a two-part question. On some of the
restraints, have you also noticed that there were paddling
involved in some of these young children? And what are we doing
to see about sexual abuse or any kind of abuse for those
children that are in nursing homes or into secluded homes for
them?
Ms. Emery-Arras. That is a good question. I don't have the
details of the case studies at my fingertips at this moment,
but I do know that there were concerns about sexual abuse as
well as other forms of physical abuse against these youth both
in the boot camps and the residential treatment centers.
We also have done work related to concerns about sexual
abuse of children in schools by school personnel. We found, for
example, that the prevalence of abuse is not known; people are
not tracking how many schoolchildren are being abused by staff.
We also found that states were not aware of services that were
available at the federal government to help them provide
prevention information to their staff.
And we did make recommendations to the Department of
Education to assist in tracking the prevalence of this abuse
and to provide more information to states to help them provide
prevention training to prevent this from occurring.
Mrs. McCarthy. One of my concerns is especially with
children with disabilities that--especially those that might be
nonverbal--children with autism or things along those lines--
how do they verbalize, and who is watching these children if
they can't speak for themselves?
Ms. Emery-Arras. That is a good point. Part of the way that
people try to prevent issues like this from occurring is to
increase awareness of staff so that they can be aware of
situations so it is not all on the children to do the
reporting, so that the staff can help identify issues when they
are occurring. And that is something that we addressed in our
recommendation to help provide states information to assist in
this training effort.
Mrs. McCarthy. And to follow up with another question,
with--saying that our workers, you know, are--have a very large
case portfolio, I was just curious, is the turnover in these
departments high where they have to be constantly retrained, or
maybe a case has been started or maybe they have been working
on something and then someone new comes in and it is--speaking
from experience, you start from scratch again.
Ms. Emery-Arras. Right. I don't believe that the turnover
was a part of our study looking at the sex abuse of children in
schools. However, we have done other bodies of work on child
welfare and foster care issues and we would be happy to follow
up with you on that if that would be helpful for you.
Mrs. McCarthy. And if you could get me the statistics on
paddling in some of these cases I would appreciate it.
Ms. Emery-Arras. We can certainly look into that.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
With that I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx. And
thank you for holding this hearing today.
And thank you to the witnesses for testifying. There is
certainly no doubt that the Government Accountability Office
and the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General
play a critical oversight role, and I know that everyone on
this committee is grateful for your work.
Some of you were here at a spring hearing about the student
loan rehabilitation process, and I appreciate your previous
work on identifying problems with the debt management and
collection system at Federal Student Aid, FSA. I thank you for
identifying the need for improvements for at-risk borrowers.
I know that there is a lot of work to be done in getting
more information to borrowers about income-based payment
options, for example. I think that getting that information to
students is harder when private collection agencies are used to
do collection.
I have to say that back at the hearing in March I asked the
chief operating officer at Federal Student Aid if the private
collection agencies that the Department of Education contracts
with to collect student loans in default were obligated to
comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and
he said he didn't know but he assumed that the collection
agencies had to follow the law.
And after about 2 months after that hearing was when the
Justice Department and the FDIC reached a record settlement
with Sallie Mae that was $60 million plus an additional civil
penalty over its mishandling of servicemembers' loans. They
were not complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
I continue to question whether federal student aid is
adequately monitoring its contractors to ensure that they are
following the law, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
In fact, Inspector General Tighe, in July 2014 your audit
report says--and just on page one--``We found that the FSA did
not effectively ensure that the private collection agencies are
abiding by the federal debt collection laws and the related
terms of their contractual agreements with FSA.'' Also found
``FSA did not effectively monitor borrowers' complaints against
private collection agencies and ensure that corrective actions
were taken.''
So I want to ask you, Inspector General Tighe, can you talk
about the FSA's ability to oversee those collection agencies?
Are there barriers that prevent them from guaranteeing--the FSA
from guaranteeing that its contractors obey the law? And I want
to allow time for another question if you may. Thank you.
Ms. Tighe. It is clear from our audit work at the report
issued in July that we took issue with a number of factors
related to FSA's current oversight process over the PCAs and
how they handle borrower complaints. I mean, we found that
there was no consistent, you know, definition used; we found
they didn't ensure that the complaints are timely provided by
the PCAs to FSA; and we didn't--they don't ensure that
corrective action is taken.
So we did make a number of recommendations to FSA to try to
improve that process, and I believe, you know, that it is still
too recent an audit to, you know, to expect--I don't know if it
has been resolved yet. But I do know that we will--we are going
to keep an eye on what we are doing on that area.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I appreciate that because the
audit report also showed that the FSA was not using service
quality indicators in calculating--there is a score, the
competitive performance and continuous surveillance score, that
it assigns to the private collection agencies. Obviously there
are some private collection agencies that are doing a better
job than others, and the system is designed--this scoring
system is designed to help FSA decide which collection agencies
to use, but if they are not using the scoring system that is
problematic.
So given that customer satisfaction is going to factor into
the performance structure for servicers, it seems that
borrowers' complaints would be a very important oversight
function for the FSA. Were there recommendations made that FSA
can change to ensure that the collection agencies are reporting
complaints and responding to them?
Ms. Tighe. We did make recommendations, I believe, to look
at that scoring and how they factor in, you know, customer
feedback or customer complaints into the--how PCAs get paid.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Well, we have a lot of work to do
in making sure that higher education is affordable and
accessible, and income-based repayment is an important
component that I firmly believe that is--students are not
getting enough information about their options, and that is
made harder with the private collection agencies.
And just in my remaining few seconds, I want to align
myself with the comments made by my colleagues about the
importance of making sure that students in schools stay safe
not only from abuse but also concussions, and a lot of great
work has been done at the state level. We can bring some of
that good legislation here, and there are a lot of things we
can be doing to make sure our students stay safe. And I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle on that issue.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Mr. Sablan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
for holding today's hearing.
And good morning, everyone. I apologize for coming in a
little late.
I have two questions, and one for Ms. Tighe, if I may.
And as you know, Congress and the Department of Education
has established expectations that colleges act in the best
interest of their students when administering Title IV
programs. And your report on campus credit cards helps shed
light that some colleges are receiving hundreds of thousands of
dollars, if not--if--hundreds of thousands if not millions in
payouts to endorse certain types of checking accounts from
banks.
And while banks have said these accounts are good for
students, I am concerned that colleges may be more motivated by
the money than the merit of the product to their students. So
with 70 percent of students relying on student aid to pay for
college, my concerns go deeper than this--that these products
may be driving up the cost of college. They are not selected
because they provide the best deal for students.
So do you believe financial incentives paid to colleges by
banks when endorsing a financial product pose a potential for a
conflict of interest, one? And two, can you discuss your
findings on this point, please?
Ms. Tighe. Yes. Our report that we issued this--6 months
ago, I think, on debit cards did have a finding related to
conflict of interests. Our work in looking at the four schools
we did, did see that financial incentives did exist, and we
believe that if they are unmitigated can hold the potential for
conflicts of interest.
I think one of the schools we looked at, Portland, its
contract with Higher One gave them additional incentive
payments--gave the school additional incentive payments based
on the number of debit cards that were issued under Higher
One's name, and also the amount of money in the accounts. And I
think that can lead to perverse, you know, sort of incentives.
We saw similar issues in the FFEL Program on lender
inducements, and one way that was developed to mitigate those
potential conflicts was to require that the schools report to
FSA on how those arrangements still serve the students' best
interests. And it is perhaps something to think about, about
whether we want to have some similar requirement.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Arras, if I may, the GAO, the Government
Accountability Office, has recommended that Congress consider
extending the same transparency and disclosure requirements to
debit cards as banks must follow when marketing credit cards.
And I believe students and their families should be able to
scrutinize the agreements between banks and schools that give
students access to their aid money, their aid dollars. So if
these arrangements aren't working in the students' interests,
we all have a right to know.
Could you describe how transparency and disclosure on debit
card arrangements may help students better understand the
incentives for colleges and banks under these arrangements or
change bank and college behavior, one? And number two also, how
has similar transparency provisions helped students when
required for credit cards?
Ms. Emery-Arras. Thank you for the question.
We do believe that transparency and disclosure could help
students know if there are potential conflicts of interest in
those arrangements. They may not be aware that their school is
receiving payments or other financial benefits from the debit
card company and it would be helpful for them to be aware of
that when making that decision about how to receive their
federal student aid.
And we also think that this disclosure could have positive
benefits for the students. We have found that since the CARD
Act went into effect, which did put certain requirements on
credit cards that have the school's name on them, that there
has been a decrease in payments between card issuers and
colleges, and credit card marketing that is specifically
targeted to college students has declined.
Mr. Sablan. Because, you know, and I come from a very small
community, and actually it wasn't until we started working on
the Affordable Care Act when I discovered the relationships
between doctors and pharmacies. I mean, I was amazed at that,
you know, the incentives there.
And so we need to follow this, too.
And I have one question, and any one of you may feel free
to answer, if I may. Actually, the number of resolutions of
some of your findings within the Department of Education and
some of the numbers of closed findings--is that normal within
the federal government or is that--is it a much better, you
know, is it much better within the Department of Education than
across the federal government? You know what I am saying?
Closed unsolved, and closed resolved.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Sablan, since we are under a really
tight time schedule I am going to ask the witnesses to submit
their response to you in writing. Thank you.
Mr. Sablan. My time is up.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Polis, you are recognized for 5
minutes?
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I appreciate the time.
I wanted to talk about a couple things. First I wanted to
follow up on Mrs. McCarthy's question regarding abusive
practices of restraint and seclusion. I would like to see if
any of you would like to talk about the state laws on parental
notification. Do all states require that schools notify parents
whenever a child is abused?
Ms. Emrey-Arras?
Ms. Emery-Arras. We can follow up with you on that, as
well, along with the other information.
Mr. Polis. Very good.
A recent Denver Post article--without objection, I would
like to submit to the record, Madam Chair--
[The information follows:]
[Additional Submissions by Mr. Polis follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
Mr. Polis.--cited that the Colorado Department of Education
statistic found the number of homeless children in Colorado has
tripled in a decade. And before I was in Congress I had the
opportunity to form two charter school networks in Colorado and
New Mexico, one of which serves many homeless youth, and I got
to work firsthand and understand the unique circumstances
facing homeless kids.
Now according to a recent GAO report, many students
designated as homeless by the Department of Education are
denied housing benefits because HUD uses a different definition
of ``homeless.''
I would like to address to Ms. Nowicki if she can speak
about the definitional barrier GAO found and how its
implementation might leave these vulnerable students without
the necessary support to live a stable life and excel at school
just because one government agency says they are homeless and
another says they are not.
Ms. Nowicki. If you don't mind, Ms. Emrey-Arras will cover
that.
Mr. Polis. Okay.
Ms. Emery-Arras. We did find just that, that there are
differing definitions regarding homelessness and that situation
is a barrier to providing services to individuals. And we have
an open existing recommendation that has not been implemented
to come up with a common definition regarding homelessness to
resolve that issue.
Mr. Polis. And is that across HUD and Education or are
there other agencies involved with that definition?
Ms. Emery-Arras. It is at least across HUD and Education;
there may also be other agencies, and we can circle back with
you on that front as well.
Mr. Polis. Great.
I also wanted to address GAO's recognition that certain
vulnerable groups, including LGBT students, are not protected
from discrimination under federal civil rights law. And while I
am the lead sponsor of the Student Non-Discrimination Act and
all of our committee Democrats are sponsors of it, we have yet
to act on that piece of legislation and I would like you to
expand upon the GAO's recommendation related to preventing
discrimination against LGBT students.
Ms. Emery-Arras. We will include that information in our
follow up.
Mr. Polis. Very good.
I wanted to also address a question to Ms. Nowicki with
regard to the 2012 GAO report that found that charter schools
enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities than
traditional schools. In my home state charter schools have
recognized this issue and are working to improve and coordinate
services, and I was proud to work with Ranking Member Miller
and Chairman Kline to improve the Federal Charter School
Program, which we passed in the House and awaits action in the
Senate.
I would like to ask Ms. Nowicki if she can expand upon her
findings and recommendations for what the Department of
Education needs to do or can do to address the issue of equity
in charter schools with regards to students with disabilities.
Ms. Nowicki. Sure. I would be happy to.
So as you said, we did find that charter schools enroll a
slightly lower percentage of students with disabilities than
public schools do. In our report from 2012 we noted some
reasons that might be, but those are anecdotal. So our
recommendations to Education were to take steps to help charter
schools recognize practices that may in fact--may affect
enrollment of children with disabilities, and also to perform
more research at the Department of Education to identify those
factors. So those recommendations do remain open--
Mr. Polis. I would also encourage you to look one step
deeper at the economic relationship, or namely the charter,
between the charter schools and the district. In some cases the
charter schools are, if you will, paying their fair share of
special education costs, paying the district average, it is
just that kids are enrolled and being served elsewhere, much as
in a particular neighborhood school they might not--they might
have a significantly lower percentage of kids with disabilities
because better accommodations are at a different school in the
district. And so it is a relatively common phenomena but it
depends on the actual charters and might be considered a best
practice that the charter school simply pays into a district
average fund, and it might be perfectly reasonable, given that
it is a small school or a specialized curriculum, that they
might have a lower percentage of special education students
enrolled in that particular campus of the district at that
charter school.
Be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
I am going to now ask my questions, and then I will
recognize the remaining members who are here.
I don't think I heard you say what percentage of the
recommendations that are made by both of your entities are not
agreed to by the department. Did you mention that? If you did,
I apologize for missing it.
Ms. Tighe. Well in our case, we would--you should
distinguish between external and internal audits.
Chairwoman Foxx. Right. Okay.
Ms. Tighe. Currently, for internal we have resolution,
which means they have agreed with our recommendations and have
proposed corrective actions on all audits issued I think from
2010 through the end of 2013 except for one recommendation that
relates to DMCOs too. For the external audits, you know, the
track record is a little different, and then I think we have
achieved resolution of about--of the audit reports issued on--
we have 10 audit reports out of 49 issued during that tenure
that we have not agreed to at all.
Chairwoman Foxx. Okay.
Ms. Nowicki?
Ms. Nowicki. Yes. Thank you for the question. For the 58
open recommendations that we are still tracking, there are five
of them with which Education disagreed at the time that they
were made.
Chairwoman Foxx. Okay.
The reason I wanted to sort of pin that down is because it
seems as though the department is very--and I am very proud to
hear them say that they have implemented 93 percent. That is a
great record and they should be complimented for that.
But what I am concerned about is it--do they simply agree
to the recommendations and then stonewall you all and not
implement some? And do we have any way of knowing, of the ones
that are not implemented, value--I mean, do--there is no weight
put to the--or is there any weight put to the recommendations
in terms of what would be the value both short-term and long-
term? Because they might just say, ``Okay, we agree,'' and then
just never implement them.
Ms. Tighe. Well yes, I am concerned that at least in some
cases that implementation still seems to take a while. And I
think there is a cost. I think it is not a, you know, put money
in the bank kind of cost, but I do think--let's take the
example of some of the external audits, which really do take a
long time. You know, let's assume you are not going to get the
money back from, say, a particular school district you do an
audit of, but what about the recommendations related to
internal controls? Don't those--if those aren't implemented,
you know, don't you miss--you know, it affects future
expenditures, right? And so it really just keeps the problem
festering.
Chairwoman Foxx.--because it seems to me that ought to be
built into the evaluation of employees. We read all these
things about how most federal employees get top ratings for
their performances, and you mentioned--both of you, I think,
mentioned the issue--the word ``accountability.''
Okay. How do we hold individual employees accountable and
see that is part of the evaluation made of them relative to
pay, promotion, and other things? Because it is my feeling that
until we are able to hold individual employees accountable, we
will not see the changes in performance that we need to see.
Ms. Tighe. Oh, I agree. I mean, I think the best way to
achieve accountability in this regard, particularly on an area
where people--a lot of different people within the department
touch this process--so it is not one person and it is not one
office; it goes across--it is through accountability in
individual performance evaluations. I mean, I think that should
be happening. I use that in my own office to drive performance,
and I think it is an important government tool for achieving
performance and accountability.
Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Nowicki?
Ms. Nowicki. Thank you.
I think on the GAO side in terms of agreeing or
disagreeing, there is also a category of recommendations with
which Education neither agreed nor disagreed. I can get you the
exact number; it is somewhere in the 30s, I believe, of our
open set.
But we do follow up with them at least once a year and work
with them to understand any barriers that may--you know,
unanticipated barriers that they may be encountering. We
collaborate with them to help them understand what types of
documentation and steps we are looking for so that we can close
recommendations as implemented. So it is a fairly collaborative
process. We try and make it be so because we believe it is in
the best interests of taxpayers and of our American
schoolchildren to close those recommendations as implemented.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes?
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you noted in your--I am not sure which person I am
directing this to, but as you noted in your testimony, in 2011
you recommended that the Department of Education address
potential inconsistencies in its treatment of schools receiving
federal student aid by revising and applying its guidance for
determining fines for schools that violate the ban on paying
incentive compensation to individuals based on success in
enrolling students and securing their financial aid.
I am sure you know that incentive compensation is a
practice commonly used by for-profit schools, and I find this
practice very disturbing. Do you have any guesses or surmises
as to why the department has yet to address this
recommendation?
Ms. Emery-Arras. We are not sure ourselves. We think that
this is something that could be easily accomplished by the
department to provide very specific guidance to its staff to
make sure that the penalties that are assigned to schools are
consistent and that there isn't that potential sort of unlevel
playing field when schools are penalized for violations.
Mr. Takano. In your estimation, it is a rule that could
ensure that we reduce the number of bad actors in this
particular sector?
Ms. Emery-Arras. Our guidance is really focused at making
sure that the department is consistent in its treatment of
schools so that you--if you have a certain set of circumstances
in terms of a violation, that you come out with the same
penalty each time. And in that report we put out some examples
where you could receive very different penalties depending on
how things were interpreted, and we thought that wiggle room
was not good for students and not good for schools in terms of
equal treatment by the department.
Mr. Takano. Ms. Tighe, you have something to add to this?
Ms. Tighe. Yes. I just would point out that we actually
have ongoing work and I think a draft report that is being
looked at related to FSA's enforcement of the incentive
compensation ban, so we will be happy to provide that to you
once it is--
Mr. Takano. I would appreciate that. Thank you much.
I have a follow-up question to Mr. Polis' question about
the difference in charter enrollments of students with
disabilities. Didn't you find, for example, that students with
intellectual disabilities are enrolled in non-charters at twice
the rate as they are in charter schools?
Ms. Nowicki. I don't have those specific details at my
fingertips, but we did find that there were differences in the
types of disabilities that some children had and the rates at
which they were enrolled in different charter schools versus
traditional public K-12 schools. I can follow up with--
Mr. Takano. If you would, I would sure like to know just
how this is all sort of panning out in terms of the
distribution of students, and are we indeed seeing an undue
burden on the existing public schools with having to serve--I
wouldn't call it a burden, but there is a definite issue of
equity.
Thank you so much.
I would yield back my time. I yield back my time, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Takano.
Dr. Roe, you are recognized for 5 minutes?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing.
And I want to start by saying that just briefly to both GAO
and to the I.G., I had no idea until I got to Congress about
the oversight responsibility that Congress has and the role you
all play in bringing this information forward to us. Mr. Takano
and I just spent way too many hours on the V.A. Committee in
the last few months, and much of the work we were able to
uncover was due to the--what your shop does, both the GAO and
I.G. And I guess--so I want to thank you all for that because
without that information we can't really effectively do our
jobs.
I guess in doing that, how do you all determine what to
audit? Is it a whistleblower? Is it a request from Congress?
You know, out of all the things you could pick, how do you do
that?
Ms. Tighe. It is a process. I mean, we do an annual work
plan, so we sit down, you know, once a year we sort of go
through a process where we sort of decide what it is we want to
start auditing that next year. Part of it is complaints that
come into us through whistleblowers and through our hotline
generally. Some of it we also solicit you all for work plan
suggestions every year. We solicit the department for work plan
suggestions.
And we also, just ourselves, based on our experience, based
on prior audit work, based on--we have some risk modeling we
are able to do; we have some data analysis tools we have
developed that allows us to do sort of risk assessments. All of
that feeds into how we decide and who we decide to audit.
Mr. Roe. Well I think the chairman brought this up just a
minute ago, and I found it to be frustrating to me is that when
you implement these things or ask that these be--and I think,
as--I agree with her, 90-whatever percent is pretty good. But
there doesn't seem to be any accountability if it doesn't
happen. What are the penalties if you make these
recommendations and then never carry it out?
That is the thing that I have noticed and I have watched.
If you stick around long enough--if you have only been here a
term you don't see that, but after three or four terms you
begin to see, ``Hey, wait a minute. We talked about that 4
years ago and nothing has happened,'' and no one takes any
responsibility.
Ms. Tighe. I think that is the hard part, because I think
that resolution is really just the first step--that is when you
agree to something, and it is really just the first step in a
very long process. Or maybe our audit report issuance is the
first step and then you have resolution.
But until those recommendations are implemented you really
have nothing. It is like, you know, you have the recipe but you
don't have the cake at the end of it. I mean, you really need
to get to that point.
And I think the department is doing a pretty good job on
moving forward on resolution, but I think that implementation
that is real and that really gets the job done I think is still
something that they have not achieved accountability on.
Mr. Roe.--let me ask my final question and I will yield
back. We have an 11 o'clock event we need to get to, but the
last question is, would there be some recommendations from you
all for mechanisms to hold people accountable--some real teeth
in what we do so that you know that it is going to be done or
there are going to be consequences to that?
Ms. Nowicki. I think that, you know, from GAO's
perspective, Congress has been a--often been a very effective
tool in helping get GAO recommendations implemented. There are
a number of times where, for example, in 2011 we reported on
the school improvement grant process and that it did not allow
some districts enough time to plan and implement reforms, and
we recommended that the department issue guidance to help
school districts issue grant awards earlier in the school year.
And Congress itself cited our findings and urged the department
in that direction and they did actually implement new guidance.
So Congress has been a very effective tool itself in helping
draw attention to particularly potent GAO recommendations that
it takes an interest in.
Mr. Roe. Well, thank you all for your hard work.
And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Roe.
Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Inspector General Tighe, I know that before I returned that
one of the members asked a question about the campus debit
cards, and I am pleased that you have answered that because I
have two daughters in college and they are always calling that
they need money.
Ms. Tighe. Mine do, too.
Mr. Hinojosa. They don't necessarily want to talk to me,
just get me the message that they need money, so that was very
important.
The second thing that is of great importance to me also,
amongst many, is the financial literacy. I serve as the co-
chair of financial literacy, together with co-chair Congressman
Stivers from Ohio, and we are working to try to raise the level
of awareness of the importance of financial literacy. So we do
that because it is crucial in helping students understand the
complex financial products and obligations that are being
offered to them to solve some of their problems.
So when colleges partner with banks, do the schools or the
banks help the students understand how much they would likely
pay in average costs on those accounts?
Ms. Tighe. Our report on debit cards did note, you know,
although we did not talk about financial literacy as such, we
did note the problem that students aren't getting, you know,
good information from the schools, and the schools really do
have a role to play, either on their own or in partnership with
the servicers, on making sure that the students do have
knowledge of the average cost of fees in a manner that is
meaningful to them. You know, a schedule buried on a Web site
somewhere maybe isn't that meaningful, and how can they avoid
fees.
I mean, some of the cards--debit cards we looked at, if you
handled it a certain way during a transaction you would avoid
the fee. How many students really knew to do that? And, you
know, I think that, you know, our report touched on those
issues.
Mr. Hinojosa. I know that we need to get to an event so I
am going to not use up my 5 minutes, but I want to thank each
and every one of you for coming to be witnesses and to share
with us information that is vital for us to make decisions.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
I want to thank, again, our witnesses for taking the time
to testify before the subcommittees today. It is very, very
useful, very enlightening, and I appreciate the time that you
have given us.
I know, Mr. Hinojosa, you yielded back your time. I just
want to see if you have any other closing remarks before I
close the hearing.
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes. I would like to make a closing
statement.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I
can say that this discussion has also been very informative to
me. Moving forward, I will continue to work with my colleagues
on this committee on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we
have strong oversight of our federal agencies and programs, and
I am pleased that the Department of Education is working to
enhance the quality and effectiveness of our federal education
programs.
And I thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
I find, again, the comments that you have made very
important. The term ``accountability,'' again, the word
``accountability'' came up. That is a word I use a lot. And I
do think that it is very important that all of us be sensitive
to the issue of accountability.
We are asking hardworking Americans to give us some of
their money through their taxes, through their fees, and I
think about the people who really do work very hard out there--
people that I know in dangerous jobs, working under stressful
conditions. I think about those people when I think about
accountability, and I think, you know, most people in this
country pay their taxes willingly and it is our responsibility
to see that money is well spent.
I hold my staff accountable. The staff members hold me
accountable. And I think it is important that we spread that
message throughout the federal government just because it is
the only fair thing to do for those people who are giving us
their money.
So, there being no further business, the subcommittees
stand adjourned.
[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Responses to questions submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[all]