    Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge Education, Labor,
    and EEOC (Letter Report, 06/07/95, GAO/HEHS-95-140).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the proposal to merge
    the Departments of Education and Labor and the Equal Employment
    Opportunity Commission into the new Department of Education and
    Employment, focusing on: (1) issues relating to the funds and staff each
    new Department of Education and Employment office would have; (2) the
    likely impact of proposed administrative cost savings on staffing levels
    in the Department of Education and Employment; and (3) additional
    opportunities to further consolidate programs within the Department of
    Education and Employment.

    GAO found that: (1) the proposed Department of Education and
    Employment's budget would be about $71 billion and would support over
    25,600 full-time positions and about 1,200 field offices; (2) the new
    Department would be organized under three undersecretary activities,
    including workforce preparation and policy, civil rights, and workplace
    policy; (3) administrative cost savings could total about $1.65 billion
    by eliminating some programs currently administered within and outside
    of Education and Labor, eliminating duplicative departmental functions,
    reducing operating budgets for certain programs, and consolidating
    education and job training programs; (4) if the reduction in
    administrative spending occurred in fiscal year 1996, about 4,600
    positions would need to be eliminated to achieve 5-year savings from
    compensation and benefits; (5) if reductions were phased in over a
    3-year period, it would allow for a more orderly transition and increase
    the likelihood of using other alternatives to reduce staffing; (6) 13
    other agencies administer about 65 federally funded job training
    programs which target the same clients and share the same goals, but
    these programs are not included in the proposal; and (7) an in-depth
    examination of the proposal and its components is needed before
    considering such a merger.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  HEHS-95-140
         TITLE:  Federal Reorganization: Congressional Proposal to Merge
                 Education, Labor, and EEOC
          DATE:  06/07/95
       SUBJECT:  Reductions in force
                 Federal agency reorganization
                 Administrative costs
                 Cost control
                 Education or training
                 Human resources utilization
                 Personnel management
                 Federal employees
                 Public administration
                 Centralization
    IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program

    **************************************************************************
    * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
    * report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
    * headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
    * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
    * identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
    * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
    * document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
    * numbers of the printed product.                                        *
    *                                                                        *
    * No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
    * captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
    * those in the printed version.                                          *
    *                                                                        *
    * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
    * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
    * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
    * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
    * for printed documents at this time.                                    *
    **************************************************************************

    Cover
    ================================================================ COVER

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    June 1995

    FEDERAL REORGANIZATION -
    CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSAL TO MERGE
    EDUCATION, LABOR, AND EEOC

    GAO/HEHS-95-140

    Proposed Federal Reorganization

    Abbreviations
    =============================================================== ABBREV

      ADR - alternative dispute resolution
      AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
      BAT - Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training
      DCR - Directorate for Civil Rights
      EEO - equal employment opportunity
      EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
      ERISA - Employee Retirement Income Security Act
      ESA - Employment Standards Administration
      ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
      ETA - Employment and Training Administration
      FTE - full-time equivalent
      HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
      JOBS - Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program
      JTPA - Job Training Partnership Act
      MSHA - Mine Safety and Health Administration
      OFCCP - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
      OCR - Office for Civil Rights
      OLMS - Office of Labor-Management Standards
      OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
      OWCP - Office of Workers Compensation Programs
      PCEPD - President's Committee for the Employment of
          People With Disabilities
      PBGC - Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
      PWBA - Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
      RIF - reduction in force
      UI - Unemployment Insurance
      VA - Department of Veterans Affairs
      WHD - Wage and Hour Division

    Letter
    =============================================================== LETTER

    B-261054

    June 7, 1995

    The Honorable William F.  Goodling
    Chairman, Committee on Economic and
     Educational Opportunities
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Steve Gunderson
    House of Representatives

    Over the years, the Congress has responded to the public's need for
    educational and employment assistance and services by creating
    federal programs and authorizing executive branch departments and
    agencies, such as the Departments of Education and Labor, to
    administer these programs.  Because of the spiraling federal deficit,
    the Congress has become concerned over the federal role in funding
    and managing these programs.  Currently, the Congress and the
    administration are considering ways to improve the federal role to
    achieve cost savings without losing necessary education and
    employment assistance and services.

    As part of the congressional deliberations, you jointly proposed on
    February 15, 1995, to merge the current Departments of Education and
    Labor.  The proposal also would merge the Equal Employment
    Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal entity enforcing laws
    prohibiting employment discrimination, with the two departments.
    This merger proposal had two major components:  (1) the
    consolidation, elimination, and reduction of existing management
    functions and programs from Education, Labor, EEOC, and other federal
    agencies into a new cabinet-level organizational structure and (2)
    the achievement of administrative cost savings resulting from this
    new structure.

    Although your proposal identified the specific organizational
    structure for the new Department of Education and Employment,
    deliberations concerning which programs would be affected were
    ongoing when you asked for our assistance.  Consequently, we were
    asked to concentrate on the administrative cost savings component of
    the merger proposal, which, on the basis of your draft proposal,
    would be about $1.65 billion over 5 years.\1

    More specifically, you asked us to provide the following information
    related to your proposal:

      What funds and staff would each new Department of Education and
         Employment office have, and, on the basis of prior GAO work,
         what additional issues should be addressed when creating these
         offices?

      What is the likely impact of proposed administrative cost savings
         on staffing levels in the Department of Education and
         Employment?

      What additional opportunities may exist to further consolidate
         programs within the Department of Education and Employment?

    To answer these questions, we analyzed your February 1995 draft
    proposal and subsequent changes made to the proposal through April
    26, 1995.  We used fiscal year 1995 budget data to determine the
    funding and staffing impact of estimated cost savings.  However, we
    did not include any proposed fiscal year 1995 program funding
    rescissions for Education, Labor, EEOC, and other federal agencies.
    We worked closely with officials in the federal agencies affected by
    the proposed merger to obtain needed budget data.  As agreed with
    your offices, we did not independently verify the budget information
    obtained nor did we compare it with similar data presented in the
    President's budget.  In addition, we reviewed past GAO work to
    identify further opportunities for program consolidation within the
    new offices.\2

    Our report does not critique the validity of the merger proposal nor
    identify alternative methods to streamline Education, Labor, and EEOC
    operations.  In addition, this report does not discuss ongoing
    efforts within these agencies to streamline and downsize their
    respective agency operations.

    Education, Labor, and EEOC provided comments on a copy of our draft
    report.  (See apps.  IV through VI.) Although the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) was asked to provide comments
    because, under the proposal, several programs it currently manages
    would be transferred into the new Department, it did not.

    --------------------
    \1 As we reported in Budget Issues:  Assessing Executive Order 12837
    on Reducing Administrative Expenses (GAO/AIMD-94-15, Nov.  16.
    1994), no common definition exists for administrative expenses at the
    federal level.  Definitions and reporting of administrative expenses
    vary signigicantly among agency credit and grant programs because of
    differences in programs.  We define administrative costs in this
    report as compensation, benefits, and other related expenses
    associated with managing the proposed Department, administering grant
    programs, providing safety and health inspections, and overseeing
    employee pensions.

    \2 See appendix VII for a list of related GAO products.

       RESULTS IN BRIEF
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

    The proposed Department would consolidate many of the programs and
    functions within the existing Departments of Education and Labor and
    EEOC as well as some programs currently administered by other
    agencies.  The new Department's budget would be approximately $71
    billion and support over 25,600 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions
    and about 1,200 field offices.

    Under this proposal, the new Department would be organized under
    three undersecretary activities:  (1) Workforce Preparation and
    Policy, which incorporates most education and adult training
    programs; (2) Civil Rights, which incorporates all aspects of
    enforcement of employment discrimination and civil rights laws; and
    (3) Workplace Policy, which incorporates programs focusing on
    workplace modernization, safety, and employee benefits.  While there
    are opportunities to be gained in merging and consolidating these
    Departments, there are also issues which need to be addressed to
    achieve the intended goals of the new Department.

    To realize administrative cost savings, the proposal would (1)
    eliminate some programs currently administered within and outside of
    Education and Labor, (2) eliminate or reduce duplicative
    departmentwide management functions, (3) reduce operating budgets for
    selected programs, and (4) consolidate education and job training
    programs.  Administrative cost savings could total about $1.65
    billion--$990 million in compensation and benefits; $530 million in
    other expenses, such as rents and utilities; and $140 million from
    the administrative costs of eliminated programs.  The program savings
    from consolidations are not discussed in this report because final
    decisions on affected programs had not been made at the time our
    review was completed.

    If the reduction in administrative spending occurred in fiscal year
    1996, about 3,500 positions would need to be eliminated to achieve
    the $990 million in 5-year savings from compensation and benefits.
    However, about 1,100 additional positions may need to be eliminated
    to cover the costs of a reduction in force (RIF) of this size.  If
    the reductions were phased in over a 3-year period, about 4,200
    positions would need to be eliminated to achieve the same savings.

    Our past work has shown that private-sector firms that downsize
    through dramatic staffing reductions in a single year, without
    adequate planning for the structure and functions of the
    organization's downsizing, frequently do not succeed.  The
    combination of staff skills becomes imbalanced, and subsequent
    rehiring of separated employees or hiring and training of new
    employees often occurs.  Rather, a phased-in approach could allow for
    a more orderly transition and would increase the likelihood of using
    other alternatives to reduce staffing.

    The proposal also identifies specific categorical programs to be
    consolidated.  On the basis of our past work, we have identified
    additional categorical programs that may be candidates for
    consolidation.  For example, in addition to Education and Labor, 13
    other agencies administer about 65 federally funded job training
    programs.  Many of these programs frequently target the same clients,
    share the same goals, and provide similar services, but are not
    included in the proposal.  Other similar program areas with
    opportunities for program consolidation include teacher training
    programs and early childhood programs.

    Ultimately, merging the affected agencies is a policy decision that
    will be made by the Congress in consultation with the administration.
    Our work contributes to this process by (1) providing basic
    information on the components of the proposal, (2) identifying
    staffing implications of estimated cost savings in the proposal, and
    (3) highlighting additional opportunities to consolidate programs
    based on our work.  We emphasize in our report that an in-depth
    examination of the proposal and its components is needed before
    considering such a merger.  Such an examination is not currently
    included in the proposal.

       BACKGROUND
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

    Currently, the Department of Education manages the federal investment
    in education and leads the long-term effort to improve education.
    Established in 1980, Education's mission is to ensure access to
    education and to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness
    of education.  In fiscal year 1995, Education was appropriated $32.1
    billion and authorized 5,131 FTE positions to administer and carry
    out its activities.  Education administers about 240 programs with
    its budget.  About three-fourths of its budget is discretionary and
    one-fourth is mandatory funds.

    The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and develop
    the welfare of U.S.  wage earners, to improve their working
    conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable
    employment.  In carrying out this mission, Labor--established as a
    department in 1913--administers and enforces a variety of federal
    labor laws guaranteeing workers' rights to safe and healthful working
    conditions, a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, freedom from
    employment discrimination, unemployment insurance, and workers'
    compensation.

    Labor also protects workers' pension rights; provides for job
    training programs; helps workers find jobs; works to strengthen free
    collective bargaining; and keeps track of changes in employment,
    prices, and other national economic measurements.  Although Labor
    seeks to assist all Americans who need and want to work, special
    efforts are made to meet the unique job market problems of older
    workers; economically disadvantaged, dislocated workers, youth,
    women, individuals with disabilities, and other groups.  In fiscal
    year 1995, Labor had a budget of $33.8 billion and was authorized
    17,632 FTE positions to administer and carry out its activities.  One
    important fact to keep in mind is that about two-thirds of Labor's
    budget is composed of mandatory spending on income maintenance
    programs.

    Established in 1964, EEOC's mission is to eliminate discrimination
    based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or
    age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training,
    apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment.
    EEOC conducts investigations of alleged discrimination; makes
    determinations on the basis of gathered evidence; attempts
    conciliation when discrimination has taken place; files lawsuits; and
    conducts voluntary assistance programs for employers, unions, and
    community organizations.  EEOC also has oversight responsibility for
    all compliance and enforcement activities relating to equal
    employment opportunity among federal employees and applicants,
    including discrimination against individuals with disabilities.  In
    fiscal year 1995, EEOC was appropriated $233 million and authorized
    3,020 FTE positions to perform its assigned duties and
    responsibilities.

    According to congressional sponsors, the proposal for the new
    Department of Education and Employment is based on the premise that
    the nation cannot adequately prepare its youth for the challenges of
    the 21st century until fundamental changes are made in federal policy
    on education and employment issues.  The sponsors believe such policy
    changes would require merging federal duties and responsibilities
    into a single Department.

       A CONSOLIDATED DEPARTMENT COULD
       ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AGENCIES,
       BUT SOME ISSUES REMAIN
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

    The proposed Department of Education and Employment, as shown in
    figure 1, would consolidate the Departments of Education and Labor
    and EEOC and several programs from other agencies.  On the basis of
    fiscal year 1995 data, the new Department would have a budget of
    $70.6 billion and 25,652 authorized FTE positions.  The proposed
    Department would also have about 1,200 field offices throughout the
    country.  According to the proposal, the Department's mission would
    be to (1) administer federal education and employment programs and
    policies that support the preparation of a skilled U.S.  workforce
    able to compete in a global economy and (2) ensure the civil rights
    of students and workers.

       Figure 1:  Proposed Department
       of Education and Employment

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    The Department would be headed by a presidentially appointed
    Secretary, with support from a Deputy Secretary and three
    Undersecretaries.  Each of the three Undersecretaries would be
    responsible for one of the following activities:  (1) Workforce
    Preparation and Policy, which incorporates most elementary,
    secondary, and higher education and adult training programs; (2)
    Civil Rights, which incorporates all aspects of enforcing employment
    and educational discrimination laws; and (3) Workplace Policy, which
    incorporates programs focusing on workplace modernization, safety,
    and employee benefits.  (See app.  I.)

    Certain issues relative to the new Department of Education and
    Employment offices have been raised in prior GAO reports and should
    be considered during merger deliberations.  (See app.  I.) In
    addition, efforts need to be made to ensure that a sound financial
    management structure results from the merger of these agencies.  At a
    minimum, compliance with the structural aspects of the Chief
    Financial Officers Act of 1990 must be met.

    Education, Labor, and EEOC also raised other issues in their comments
    on a draft of this report.  These agency concerns will need to be
    addressed to alleviate agency reservations about the proposed merger.
    (See apps.  IV through VI.)

       IMPACT OF ESTIMATED
       ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS ON
       STAFFING LEVEL
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

    As currently drafted, the proposal to merge Education and Labor and
    the EEOC could result in a savings of about $1.65 billion in selected
    administrative costs through the year 2000--an average reduction of
    about 20 percent from current administrative costs.  The proposal
    does not call for any administrative cost reductions in the functions
    that will carry out civil rights activities in the proposed
    Department's Office of Civil Rights.

    The proposal plans to achieve this estimated average administrative
    savings by (1) eliminating or reducing duplicative departmentwide
    management functions, (2) eliminating some programs currently
    administered within and outside of Education and Labor, (3) reducing
    operating budgets for selected programs, and (4) consolidating
    education and job training programs.  For example, the proposal would
    eliminate the Secretaries of Education and Labor and replace them
    with one Secretary for the new Department.

    To illustrate the impact of the estimated administrative cost savings
    on staffing levels, we were asked to compare the impact of taking the
    full amount needed to achieve the $1.65 billion savings in 1 year
    with the impact of spreading administrative cost reductions over 3
    years.  In each case, we applied the percentage reduction specified
    in the proposal to both compensation and benefit costs and other
    expenses.  The overall administrative cost reduction averaged 20
    percent, although percentages for individual offices ranged from 4 to
    40 percent.  The smallest reductions required by the proposal are in
    the Office of Employee Benefits and the Bureau of Education and
    Employment Statistics, a unit included in the Program Administration
    function.  The largest reductions--40 and 30 percent--are planned for
    departmentwide management functions, such as the Secretary, and for
    the administration of education and job training programs,
    respectively.  (See app.  II.)

    If the full reduction in administrative spending occurred in fiscal
    year 1996, which we refer to as "scenario 1," about 3,500 FTE
    positions would need to be eliminated to achieve the $990 million in
    5-year savings from compensation and benefits that we used for
    analysis purposes.  As previously mentioned, we determined that an
    additional $530 million would be taken from other administrative
    costs such as rents, utilities, travel, and equipment and $140
    million in administrative cost savings from eliminated programs.

    Our past work has shown that similarly sized government downsizing
    efforts have required RIF procedures.  In these situations, the costs
    associated with RIFs often require additional staffing reductions,
    usually about a third more.\3 Thus, the total FTE position reductions
    likely in a single year could be about 4,600 (3,500 direct reductions
    and 1,100 additional reductions to cover RIF expenses).

    On the basis of our past work, we found that dramatic staffing
    reductions taken in a single year, without adequate planning for the
    structure and functions of the new downsized organization, frequently
    result in skill imbalances and subsequent rehiring of separated
    employees or hiring and training of new employees.  Projected savings
    are often not realized.\4 (See app.  II.)

    One approach to minimizing such a disruption, which we refer to as
    "scenario 2," would be to reduce administrative spending over a
    3-year period; the total reduction would be about 4,200 FTEs over 3
    years.  Such an approach would allow more time for strategic planning
    to identify appropriate functions to be eliminated and to modify or
    develop new administrative processes.  This approach is typically the
    one followed by successful private-sector organizations that
    downsize.  Taking average reductions in staffing of 9 percent in both
    the first and second years and 7 percent the third year would allow
    for the same level of budget savings as would occur if the reductions
    were fully implemented in fiscal year 1996.

    If attrition and other voluntary separations were insufficient to
    achieve the desired reductions, RIFs would still be necessary,
    increasing the required staffing reductions--beyond 4,200--because
    additional employees would have to be terminated to cover costs
    associated with RIF procedures.

    Figure 2 illustrates the impact of immediate and phased-in
    administrative cost reductions on staffing levels.  While scenario 1
    could result in a deeper staffing reduction in the first year (about
    3,500 FTEs, which do not include the 1,100 positions that may be
    required to cover RIF expenses), scenario 2 may actually result in
    greater overall staffing reductions over the 5-year period (almost
    4,200 FTEs) from current staffing levels.  Because the proposal
    eliminates selected programs, does not call for administrative cost
    reductions in the Office of Civil Rights, and excludes Labor trust
    funds, the universe of FTE positions from which staffing reductions
    could be taken is only about 18,000 of the proposed Department's
    25,650 FTEs.  (See app.  II.)

       Figure 2:  Staffing
       Implications of Administrative
       Cost Reductions Under
       Alternative Scenarios

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Base staffing is 17,858 FTEs.

    Total reduction for scenario 1 is 3,460 FTEs.

    Total reduction for scenario 2 is 4,189 FTEs.

    These totals do not include the 300 FTEs that would be reduced as a
    result of eliminated programs.

    Decisions about which specific positions or staff would be affected
    or how the staffing reductions would be taken have not been made.  As
    a result, it is impossible to pinpoint the actual staffing
    implications or costs of these reductions.  Additionally, because
    these basic decisions have yet to be made, we could not incorporate
    in our analysis any offsetting costs the proposed Department may
    incur during a staff reduction, such as buy-out expenses, severance
    pay, and other costs associated with eliminating staff.

    While possibilities exist for short-term budgetary savings,
    positioning the new Department to absorb the proposed reductions
    without hurting service quality and meet future challenges requires
    extensive planning and follow through.  According to private-sector
    experts, this type of top management-led review requires officials to
    (1) identify new ways of doing business and the organizational
    changes needed to achieve them, (2) earmark outmoded work processes
    and structures for elimination or revision, and (3) determine the
    types and number of employees needed in the new organization.  Such
    an examination of current agency activities is not included in the
    proposal.

    --------------------
    \3 Reduction in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than
    Attrition and Furlough (GAO/PEMD-85-6, July 24, 1985) and
    Congressional Oversight:  The General Accounting Office
    (GAO/T-OCG-95-4, Mar.  30, 1995).

    \4 Workforce Reductions:  Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected
    Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54, Mar.  13, 1995).

       ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATION
       OPPORTUNITIES NOT INCLUDED IN
       MERGER PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

    Potential opportunities to consolidate programs exist beyond those
    identified in the merger proposal.  On the basis of our past work, we
    have identified additional categorical grant programs that may be
    candidates for consolidation.  These programs would primarily be
    administered by the proposed Offices of Basic Education, Higher
    Education, and Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning.  However,
    further review by agency officials would be needed before these
    programs could be merged with the other programs already in the
    proposal.

          OFFICE OF BASIC EDUCATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

    The existing proposal calls for the Head Start program, now
    administered by HHS, to be managed by the Office of Basic Education.
    However, HHS and other federal agencies currently administer many
    other early childhood programs not included in the proposal.  We
    found in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 that the federal government
    funded over 90 early childhood programs in 11 agencies and offices.\5
    Of this total, 34 programs are considered to be key programs that
    served at least 2 million children and spent $3.66 billion in fiscal
    year 1992.  (See app.  III.)

    This office would also manage programs that fund or provide teacher
    training services, but at least eight other agencies currently
    administer similar programs not included in the proposal.  We
    recently reported that in fiscal year 1993 at least 86 teacher
    training programs existed in nine federal departments and agencies.\6
    (See app.  III.)

    We identified other elementary and secondary programs in addition to
    those included in the proposal that could be considered for inclusion
    in or consolidation under this office's authority.  Currently, at
    least eight departments and agencies administer these programs.  (See
    app.  III.)

    --------------------
    \5 Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping
    Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994).

    \6 Multiple Teacher Training Programs:  Information on Budgets,
    Services, and Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb.  22, 1995).

          OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

    According to the proposal, this office would administer about 33
    programs that provide financial aid and scholarships to students
    preparing to attend or currently enrolled in postsecondary
    institutions.  The fiscal year 1995 grant amounts for programs to be
    administered by this proposed office total $15.2 billion.  However,
    we identified about 35 additional postsecondary education programs
    that could be considered for inclusion in or consolidation under this
    new office's authority.  These programs also provide support for
    students in postsecondary institutions.  Many of these programs are
    currently administered by HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs
    (VA).  (See app.  III.)

          OFFICE OF WORKFORCE TRAINING
          AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

    The number of federally funded executive branch job training funding
    streams has grown to 163.\7 Along with several Education and Labor
    programs, 64 employment training programs administered by 13 other
    agencies could be considered for program consolidation purposes.  In
    fiscal year 1995, funding for these 64 programs totaled about $3
    billion.  Many of these programs frequently target the same clients,
    share the same goals, and provide similar services.  Merging these
    programs would provide an opportunity to place them under the same
    management authority.\8 Additionally, 13 employment training programs
    administered by Education and Labor could be considered for program
    consolidation purposes.  (See app.  III.)

    --------------------
    \7 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Major Overhaul Needed to
    Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results
    (GAO/T-HEHS-95-53, Jan.  10, 1995).

    \8 We also noted in Addressing the Deficit:  Budgetary Implications
    of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1996 (GAO/OCG-95-2, Mar.  15,
    1995) the possible budgetary savings for consolidating such programs.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

    The proposal to merge the Departments of Education and Labor and EEOC
    to create a new Department of Education and Employment envisions
    saving administrative costs and creating a streamlined, less
    duplicative, and more efficient means to provide needed services.
    However, downsizing to the degree specified in the existing proposal
    must be carefully planned.  If downsizing proceeds too rapidly,
    expected cost savings might not be realized due to the added costs of
    RIF procedures and disruption of service delivery.  The experience of
    private-sector organizations that downsized has been that in-depth
    examination is imperative for successful downsizing.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

    On May 10, 1995, Education, Labor, and EEOC provided comments on this
    draft report.  (See apps.  IV through VI.) The agencies expressed two
    major concerns.  First, they were critical of the proposal and
    questioned whether it would achieve program efficiencies and
    management improvements.  Second, they also believed our report
    should have critiqued the draft proposal.  We understand their
    concerns about the draft proposal and anticipate their views will be
    addressed in subsequent congressional deliberations.  Regarding their
    comments about our report, we provided information that will
    contribute to ongoing and future debates, such as staffing and
    funding levels in the new Department, implications of estimated cost
    reductions, and additional opportunities for program consolidation.
    Additionally, we clearly pointed out the importance of an in-depth
    examination prior to making any further decisions on the merger.

          COMMENTS ON CONGRESSIONAL
          PROPOSAL
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

    The Secretary of Education stated that the merger proposal is both
    unwise and unworkable.  In his view, creating a mega-bureaucracy
    would not in any way make government more streamlined, effective, or
    efficient.  He believes that the merger would de-emphasize the
    importance of education at a time when education is more important
    than ever to America's future.

    In Labor's comments, the Assistant Secretary for Policy stated that
    the merger proposal has profound and far-reaching implications that
    have not been adequately analyzed and that require further study.  He
    further stated that it is both unwise and counterproductive to send
    the signal that either Labor or Education is expendable given the
    nation's looming deficit in skills and education.  In Labor's view,
    the merger could only compromise service, increase confusion, and
    decrease productivity.

    The EEOC Chairman's major concern was that, although it is not clear
    how EEOC would fit into the new merged agency, EEOC's structure as a
    bipartisan and independent agency would be lost.  The existing agency
    has been in existence since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964 as a five-member, bipartisan independent executive
    branch agency charged with enforcing employment antidiscrimination
    law.  The Congress recognized that this structure would enhance
    enforcement and insulate EEOC from direct political pressures.  In
    the Chairman's view, the proposal will require the Congress to
    revisit this long-standing approach concerning the enforcement of
    antidiscrimination laws.

    We appreciate these concerns.  Ultimately, however, the Congress will
    decide on the merits of the merger proposal after consultation with
    the administration.  The proposal continues to evolve, and we
    understand that congressional hearings will be held in the future.
    These hearings should offer an opportunity for the affected agencies
    to air their concerns about the proposal.

          COMMENTS ON GAO DRAFT REPORT
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

    The Secretary of Education was the most critical of our report
    because he believed it discussed administrative staffing reductions
    without any discussions of the program changes that might make such
    cuts possible.  In this regard, Education pointed out that proposal
    sponsors estimated in February 1995 that more than $20 billion in
    savings over 5 years would result from the proposed merger.  Among
    other things, the Secretary believes our report largely accepted at
    face value the claims of the proposed merger.  He also believed that
    perhaps the only value added by our report is that it answers the
    question of how many staff positions would be eliminated to reach
    $1.65 billion in projected administrative cost savings over 5 years.

    Labor was also critical of the fact that our report addressed only
    the $1.65 billion in administrative savings.  Labor believes that the
    more than $19 billion in savings needed to reach the $21 billion
    savings over 5 years claimed by proposal sponsors would have to come
    from specific programmatic cuts that were not included in the
    proposal and our report.

    In EEOC's comments, the Chairman mentioned several concerns relative
    to our draft report.  EEOC stated that the draft report contains no
    discussion of the impact of the new agency on the vigorous
    enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws that would fall within
    its jurisdiction.  The Chairman also stated that the report did not
    discuss the implications of a merger on what EEOC considers to be its
    most pressing problem--
    inadequate resources to adequately accomplish its statutory mission.

    Despite the issues raised by the agencies, we believe our work
    provides a valuable contribution to the continuing debate about the
    proposal.  First, the report provides basic information on the
    proposal that has not been previously developed.  Second, it
    highlights additional candidates for program consolidation.  Third,
    it raises issues that must be dealt with before any action is taken
    to merge the affected agencies into the new Department.

    We used information in the draft proposal as of April 26 to prepare
    profiles to describe the new Department's management functions and
    six major offices.  This information included funding and staffing
    levels, field office locations, as well as other issues that, on the
    basis of our prior work, the new Department may have to address.  We
    also identified the staffing implications of the administrative cost
    savings in the proposal.

    At the time of our review, final decisions about the programs to be
    administered by the new Department had not been made.  As a result,
    we did not address issues associated with program changes.  Instead,
    on the basis of our past work, we highlighted additional programs
    that could be candidates for inclusion in the proposal to assist
    congressional sponsors in their efforts to achieve cost savings or
    increase program efficiencies.  It is important to recognize that
    overall savings attributable to this merger cannot be determined
    until final decisions are made on remaining phases of this proposal.

    Finally, throughout our report we repeatedly cautioned that this
    merger effort must be conducted in a careful and thorough manner.
    Additionally, we noted that positioning the new Department to absorb
    staffing reductions without hurting service quality and to meet
    further challenges requires extensive planning and follow through.
    Even though Education and Labor criticized our report, both agreed
    that this issue was central to any decision that would be made about
    merging Education, Labor, and EEOC.

    The Departments and EEOC also provided technical comments.  These
    comments included updated information on the material contained in
    our draft report.  Changes were made to the final report where
    appropriate to address these comments.

    As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
    contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
    until 30 days after its issue date.  At that time, we will send
    copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and
    Budget; the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS; the Chairman of
    EEOC; and other interested parties.  Other GAO contacts and staff
    acknowledgments are listed in appendix VIII.  If you or your staffs
    have any questions concerning this report, please call me on (202)
    512-7017.

    Clarence C.  Crawford
    Associate Director, Education and
     Employment Issues

    THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF
    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT:  OFFICE
    PROFILES
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    As envisioned by the congressional proposal to merge the Departments
    of Education and Labor and EEOC, the new Department of Education and
    Employment would have six major offices and a management function
    that would oversee these six offices.  Program Administration would
    consolidate various management, internal oversight, and statistical
    activities from the Departments of Education and Labor.  (The current
    proposal does not include similar EEOC activities.) The six offices,
    which would each be under the direction of an Undersecretary, would
    be the Office of Civil Rights; the Office of Basic Education; the
    Office of Higher Education; the Office of Workforce Training and
    Life-Long Learning; the Office of Workplace Modernization,
    Reorganization, and Safety; and the Office of Employee Benefits.

    This appendix profiles the Program Administration function and the
    six offices for (1) the program activities from existing agencies
    that would be included, (2) the role, and (3) the fiscal year 1995
    funding and staffing\9 levels and field offices that would support
    each of the proposed offices.\10 In each profile we also identify, on
    the basis of our prior work, issues that should be considered if
    these offices are created.  Appendix III includes a list of other
    programs that could be considered for consolidation and brought into
    the new Department.

       Figure I.1:  Proposed Program
       Administration Function

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \9 In this report, staffing levels are designated by authorized
    full-time equivalent (FTE) levels for fiscal year 1995.

    \10 All field office information is current as of May 1995, except
    for data provided by two offices within the Department of Labor.  We
    used August 1994 data to determine the field offices currently
    supporting the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and December 1994 data
    for the Office of Veterans' Employment and Training.

       PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

    As shown in figure I.1, the proposed Department would have an overall
    management function called Program Administration.  This function
    would consolidate various management, internal oversight, and
    statistical activities from the Departments of Education and Labor.
    As the proposal is currently drafted, comparable activities from EEOC
    are not merged with those from Education and Labor.

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

    The proposal states that Program Administration would include various
    departmentwide management functions from the Departments of Education
    and Labor.  These functions include the Offices of the Secretary and
    Deputy Secretary; public, congressional, intergovernmental, and
    interagency affairs; management and budget; adjudication; general
    counsel and solicitor; and the inspector general.  In addition,
    Program Administration would include the statistical activities
    currently performed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
    National Center for Education Statistics.  A list of these activities
    and their current agency location is shown in table I.1.

                              Table I.1

                Locations of Activities to Be Included
                      in Program Administration

                                          Department
                                                  of  Department
    Activities                             Education    of Labor
    ------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
    Secretary                                      X           X
    Deputy Secretary                               X           X
    Legislative and Congressional                  X
     Affairs
    Congressional and Intergovernmental                        X
     Affairs
    Intergovernmental and Interagency              X
     Affairs
    Public Affairs                                 X           X
    Small Business and Minority Affairs                        X
    Undersecretary                                 X
    Office of Management                           X
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for                             X
     Policy and Budget
    Administration and Management                              X
    Chief Financial Officer                        X           X
    General Counsel                                X
    Solicitor                                                  X
    Adjudication                                               X
    Office of the Inspector General                X           X
    National Center for Education                  X
     Statistics
    Bureau of Labor Statistics                                 X
    Women's Bureau (statistics)                                X
    America's Job Bank                                         X
    National and State Occupational                X           X
     Information Coordinating Committees
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  The proposal calls for including only the statistics portion
    of the Women's Bureau; other management functions are scheduled to be
    eliminated.

    Source:  Congressional proposal.

    As envisioned in the proposal, Program Administration would provide
    the vision and direction for the development of coordinated federal
    education and employment policies.  It would focus on the effective
    and efficient delivery of education and job training programs, proper
    resolution and oversight of internal civil rights complaints, and
    adequate provision of proper working conditions, benefits, and
    pensions.  The office would also collect and disseminate statistical
    information to be used by Department officials as well as public and
    private users.

    The proposal also calls for eliminating at least part of two
    Department of Labor activities:  the Bureau of International Labor
    Affairs and selected management functions of the Women's Bureau.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

    To better understand the resources potentially available for this
    function, we identified the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing
    levels of activities proposed for inclusion in Program
    Administration.  (See table I.2.) Program Administration would have
    about 154 field offices; about 40 percent (62) would be located
    outside of headquarters.  Almost two-thirds of the offices (92) would
    be located in the headquarters cities of the 10 federal regions (see
    fig.  I.2).

                              Table I.2

                 Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
                Information for Program Administration

                        (Dollars in millions)

                      Fiscal                              Number
                        year                                  of
                        1995                               field
                      fundin          Headquarte          office
    Functions              g   Total          rs   Field       s
    ----------------  ------  ------  ----------  ------  ------
    Office of the      $14.2     129         129       0      0\
     Secretary
    Office of the        2.7      28          28       0       0
     Deputy
     Secretary
    Public,             21.1     226         141      85      30
     Congressional,
     and
     Intergovernment
     al Affairs
    Planning,           59.8   1,343         952     391     20\
     Management, and
     Budget\b
    Chief Financial     38.9     385         385       0       0
     Officer
    General Counsel     80.1     855         526     329      15
     and Solicitor
    Adjudication\       37.4     415         311     104       8
    Office of the       82.6     855         244     611      63
     Inspector
     General
    Bureau of          580.9   2,771       1,888     883      18
     Education and
     Employment
     Statistics\c
    ============================================================
    Total             $917.7   7,007       4,604   2,403     154
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b Includes staffing for the Working Capital Fund, a centralized
    source of administrative and other support services in Labor.

    \c This function would include the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
    Women's Bureau, America's Job Bank, and the National Occupational and
    Information Coordinating Committee from the Department of Labor.  It
    also includes the National Center for Education Statistics and the
    National Occupational and Information Coordinating Committee from the
    Department of Education.  While the proposal calls for including only
    the statistics portion of the Women's Bureau, the entire function is
    included here because the Department of Labor could not provide
    detailed information for the statistics function alone.

    Source:  Departments of Education and Labor.

             ISSUES
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2.1

    The Program Administration function as proposed focuses on decreasing
    the redundancy of administrative and oversight activities in the
    Departments of Education and Labor by consolidating similar functions
    such as the Office of the Secretary, public and congressional
    affairs, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Offices of the
    Inspector General.  Consolidating these functions into one office
    could also provide the opportunity to develop unified, efficient
    systems that not only streamline processes but support the new
    Department's mission and vision.  Such systems could, for example,
    include a single payroll and personnel system.

    However, to achieve the greatest potential savings from reducing
    administrative duplication, the consolidation of similar
    activities--such as EEOC's Office of the Inspector General--into
    Program Administration may be required.  A separate Inspector General
    for civil rights activities may not be needed if the EEOC becomes
    part of the proposed Office of Civil Rights.

       Figure I.2:  Regional
       Organization and Headquarters
       Cities of the Departments of
       Education and Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.3:  Proposed Office of
       Civil Rights

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

    As shown in figure I.3, the proposal would establish an Office of
    Civil Rights that would be headed by an Undersecretary.  This new
    office would bring together (1) EEOC, (2) Labor's Office of Federal
    Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Directorate for Civil Rights
    (DCR), and the President's Committee for the Employment of People
    With Disabilities (PCEPD), and (3) Education's Office for Civil
    Rights (OCR) and Training and Advisory Services Program (under Title
    IV of the Civil Rights Act) administered by the Office of Elementary
    and Secondary Education.

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

    The proposed Office of Civil Rights would have jurisdiction over the
    Education and Labor programs affecting the civil rights of minority
    populations, disabled persons, and other populations requiring
    special considerations.  The office would include all functions and
    responsibilities related to enforcing equal employment opportunity
    (EEO) laws currently administered by EEOC.  The office would be
    charged with developing alternative methods of carrying out its
    responsibilities to create enforcement efficiencies designed to
    improve workforce and workplace civil rights protection.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

    To better understand the resources available for this proposed
    office, we identified the approximate number of staff and funding in
    the existing offices, programs, and activities that would be brought
    into this office.  Our data are based on fiscal year 1995 funding and
    staffing levels provided by the Departments of Education and Labor
    and EEOC (see table I.3).  The locations of the field offices in each
    of these activities and all that would support the proposed Office of
    Civil Rights are illustrated in figures I.4 through I.7

                              Table I.3

                 Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
                Information for the Proposed Office of
                             Civil Rights

                        (Dollars in millions)

                          Fiscal                          Number
                            year                              of
                            1995                           field
    Agency/program/       fundin  Tota  Headquarte  Fiel  office
    activities                 g     l          rs     d       s
    --------------------  ------  ----  ----------  ----  ------
    EEOC                  $233.0  3,02       725\b  2,29      50
                                     0               5\b
    OFCCP\c                 61.5   855          96   759      64
    OCR                     58.3   833         166   667      11
    Training and            21.6     3           3     0       0
     Advisory Services
    DCR                      4.8    63          54     9     0\d
    PCEPD                    4.4    35          35     0       0
    ============================================================
    Total                 $383.6  4,80       1,079  3,73     125
                                     9                 0
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b The EEOC could not give us its FTE ceiling broken out by
    headquarters and field offices.  Therefore, we derived these numbers
    on the basis of EEOC's actual FTE data projections for headquarters
    and field offices in fiscal year 1995.  EEOC based its projections on
    actual FTE usage as of March 1995.

    \c Totals include an allocated amount from management functions in
    the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration, where
    OFCCP is currently located.

    \d Field offices for DCR are included in the Administration and
    Management function in Program Administration.

    Source:  Departments of Education and Labor and EEOC.

             ISSUES
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2.1

    Former and current EEOC officials and civil rights experts have
    suggested several options that they believe could improve the federal
    government's ability to enforce employment nondiscrimination laws.\11
    The one mentioned most often is increased use of alternative dispute
    resolution (ADR) approaches, such as mediation.  ADR is a group of
    techniques designed to resolve conflicts consensually, generally with
    the help of a neutral third party.  While not much quantifiable data
    exist on ADR, many experts believe that ADR holds promise for
    achieving agreements in a less adversarial environment than exists in
    litigation and resolving conflicts in less time and at lower costs.

    In 1994 EEOC reported on a pilot study using mediation to resolve
    discrimination complaints.\12 A total of 267 cases were mediated in
    four district offices, and the pilot showed that the average time to
    complete mediation was much less than for fully investigated cases.
    While the ADR pilot resulted in much shorter average processing times
    than for fully investigated cases, it should be noted that cases
    selected for the pilot were new cases and were referred immediately.
    About 52 percent of mediated cases were settled; in the comparable
    period, about 13 percent of fully investigated cases were conciliated
    or settled.  Also, 92 percent of complainants and employers said they
    believed the mediation process was fair or very fair.

    In April 1995, EEOC announced it will initiate an ADR program using
    mediation to handle some of its workplace discrimination complaints.
    Starting in fiscal year 1996, EEOC plans to randomly select cases for
    mediation and estimates that eventually about 10 percent of new
    eligible complaints will be included in the mediation program.

    EEOC has also experimented with a screening process (called triage)
    to deal with new discrimination charges, resulting in a significant
    reduction in average processing time from 598 days in fiscal year
    1990 to 204 days in the first 6 months of fiscal year 1993.  Staff
    during the initial investigation at intake were expected to obtain
    from charging parties all evidence that supported their
    discrimination claims and assess the weight of evidence obtained.

    EEOC then initiated a task force study related to this issue in
    November 1994 and in April 1995 announced that sweeping changes will
    be made in the way it handles discrimination complaints.  EEOC
    initiated a triage process by which new discrimination cases will be
    categorized according to the early evidence presented that a
    violation has occurred.  At the same time, EEOC announced that it
    will repeal its full investigation policy, in effect since 1983,
    which required it to investigate fully every complaint.  EEOC also
    repealed its policy statement on remedies and relief for individual
    cases of unlawful discrimination.

    If the proposed merger took place and EEOC's responsibilities were
    consolidated into an executive department, a reevaluation of EEOC's
    current five-member Commission structure may be needed since EEOC was
    originally established as an independent bipartisan Commission.  The
    new office would be headed by the Undersecretary for Civil Rights.

       Figure I.4:  Locations of Field
       Offices Currently Supporting
       the Equal Employment
       Opportunity Commission

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.5:  Locations of Field
       Offices Currently Supporting
       the Office of Federal Contract
       Compliance Programs, Department
       of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.6:  Locations of Field
       Offices Currently Supporting
       the Office for Civil Rights,
       Department of Education

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.7:  Locations of All
       Field Offices for the Proposed
       Office of Civil Rights

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.8:  Proposed Office of
       Basic Education

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \11 EEOC's Expanding Workload:  Increases in Age Discrimination and
    Other Changes Call for New Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-32, Feb.  9, 1994).

    \12 Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot Program prepared
    by EEOC's Office of Program Operations (Dec.  1994).

       OFFICE OF BASIC EDUCATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

    As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce
    Preparation and Policy (see fig.  I.8), the Office of Basic Education
    would join together about 40 federal programs currently administered
    by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS)
    and the National Endowment for the Arts.  (A list of these programs
    follows.) The Office of Basic Education would be charged with
    administering elementary and secondary education programs, including
    those related to special education, bilingual education, and
    education for Indian youth.  It would also be asked to administer the
    Head Start program--the federal government's best known early
    childhood program--and selected art education and library programs.

    According to the proposal, this office would be responsible for
    developing policies for and administering programs that support the
    general education of U.S.  youth from preschool through adulthood,
    including special populations such as disadvantaged, disabled,
    limited English proficient, and Indian children.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

    To better understand the resources available to this proposed office,
    we determined the staffing and funding of the approximately 40
    programs that would be included in this office.  Our data are based
    on fiscal year 1995 funding for grant programs and authorized
    staffing levels to administer those programs (see table I.4).  As
    shown in figure I.9, the proposed Office of Basic Education would be
    responsible for managing staff who administer the Head Start Program
    in 12 regional offices.

                              Table I.4

                 Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
                Information for the Proposed Office of
                           Basic Education

                        (Dollars in millions)

                      Fiscal                              Number
                        year                                  of
                        1995                               field
                      fundin          Headquarte          office
    Type of program        g   Total          rs   Field       s
    ----------------  ------  ------  ----------  ------  ------
    Early childhood   $3,534     232        72\b     160    12\c
     education            .4
    Elementary and    9,562.     206         206       0       0
     secondary             2
     education
    Special           3,252.     145         145       0       0
     education             8
    Bilingual          245.2      44          44       0       0
     education
    Indian education    74.2      32          32       0       0
    Other\d            167.2     192         192       0       0
    ============================================================
    Total             $16,83     851         691     160      12
                         6.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b Includes staff located at two regional offices in Washington, D.C.

    \c Two regional offices are located in Washington, D.C.

    \d Includes selected programs currently administered by the National
    Endowment for the Arts and Education's Offices of Postsecondary
    Education and Education Research and Improvement.

    Source:  Departments of Education and HHS and the National Endowment
    for the Arts.

             ISSUES
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2.1

    While the proposal calls for the Head Start program to be managed by
    the Office of Basic Education, HHS and other federal agencies
    currently administer many other early childhood programs not included
    in the proposal.  We found in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 that the
    federal government funded over 90 early childhood programs in 11
    agencies and 20 offices.\13 Of this total, 34 programs are considered
    to be key programs, and these 34 programs served at least 2 million
    children below the age of 5 and spent $3.66 billion in fiscal year
    1992.  Key programs not included in the proposal are identified in
    appendix III.

    This office would also manage Education programs that fund or provide
    teacher training services, but at least eight other agencies
    currently administer similar programs that are not included in the
    proposal.  We recently reported that in fiscal year 1993 at least 86
    teacher training programs existed in nine federal departments and
    agencies.\14 Agency officials identified 42 of these programs that
    obligated $280 million in fiscal year 1993 as primarily dedicated to
    teacher training.  The programs not included in the proposal but that
    we believe should be considered for consolidation are identified in
    appendix III.

    We identified other education-related programs in addition to the
    elementary and secondary education programs included in the proposal
    that could be considered for inclusion in or consolidation under this
    office's authority.\15 Currently, at least eight departments and
    agencies administer these programs, some of which are also identified
    in appendix III.

    --------------------
    \13 Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping
    Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994).

    \14 Multiple Teacher Training Programs:  Information on Budgets,
    Services, and Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb.  22, 1995).

    \15 Department of Education:  Information on Consolidation
    Opportunities and Student Aid (GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr.  6, 1995).

       PROGRAMS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
       THE PROPOSED OFFICE OF BASIC
       EDUCATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

          DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

    Goals 2000
     State Grants
     Parents as Teachers
     Other Goals 2000 programs
    Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
     Grants to local education agencies (LEA)
     Neglected and Delinquent Children
     State Program Improvement Grants
     Private School Improvement Expenses
     Evaluation
    Revised Title VI--Innovative Education Program Strategies
     Innovative Education Program Strategies (Current Title VI)
     Eisenhower Professional Development
     Eisenhower National Activities
     Bilingual Programs
     Research Labs
     Safe and Drug Free Schools
     Education Infrastructure
    Dropout Prevention
     Magnet Schools
     Charter Schools
     Family and Community Endeavor Schools
     Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse
     Telecommunications Demonstration in Math
    Impact Aid
    Inexpensive Book Distribution
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Technical Assistance
    Consolidation
    Even Start
    Assessment
    Javitz Gifted and Talented Program
    Indian Education (youth)
    Education for Homeless Children and Youth
    Minority Teacher Recruitment and Minority Services
    Foreign Language Assistance
    Special Education\16
    21st Century Learning Centers
    Library Support
     Interlibrary Cooperative
     Library Education and Training
     Library Research and Demonstrations

    --------------------
    \16 Includes grants for states, preschools, and infants and toddlers,
    and funding for special purposes, such as children with severe
    disabilities and serious emotional disturbances.

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2

    Head Start

          NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE
          ARTS PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.3

    Art in Education

       ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
       EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR
       ELIMINATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

    Instruction in Civics, Government, and Law
    Ellender Fellowships (Close-Up)
    Education for Native Hawaiians
    Training in Early Childhood Education and Violence Training
    Women's Educational Equity
    Ready to Learn TV
    Star Schools

       Figure I.9:  Locations of Field
       Offices Currently Supporting
       the Head Start Program,
       Department of Health and Human
       Services

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.10:  Proposed Office
       of Higher Education

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.1

    As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce
    Preparation and Policy (see fig.  I.10), the Office of Higher
    Education would manage about 33 federal programs currently
    administered by the Department of Education.  (A list of these
    programs follows.) The Office of Higher Education, headed by an
    Assistant Secretary, would be responsible for administering programs
    that provide financial aid and scholarships to U.S.  citizens
    preparing to attend or currently enrolled in colleges, universities,
    and trade and technical schools.  It would also be charged with
    providing grants to postsecondary institutions such as Howard and
    Gallaudet Universities.

    On the basis of the proposal, this office would serve as the central
    unit for carrying out the federal role in providing access to
    postsecondary education by managing student loans, grants, and a
    scholarship block grant.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.2

    To understand better the resources available to this proposed office,
    we determined the staffing and funding of the approximately 33
    programs that would be included in this office.  Our data are based
    on fiscal year 1995 funding for these grant programs and authorized
    staffing levels to administer these programs (see table I.5).  As
    shown in figure I.11, the proposed Office of Higher Education would
    be responsible for managing staff who administer postsecondary
    education programs in 10 regional offices.

                              Table I.5

                 Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
                Information for the Proposed Office of
                           Higher Education

                        (Dollars in millions)

                      Fiscal                              Number
                        year                                  of
                        1995                               field
                      fundin          Headquarte          office
    Type of program        g   Total          rs   Field       s
    ----------------  ------  ------  ----------  ------  ------
    Grants            $7,507     422          \b      \b
                          .0
    Loans (direct     6,494.     886          \b      \b
     and other)            6
    Fellowships and   1,120.      21          \b      \b
     Scholarships          3
    Other\c            122.0     152          \b      \b
    ============================================================
    Total             $15,24   1,481         835     646      10
                         3.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b All Department of Education headquarters and field offices
    currently administer one or more grant, loan, fellowship/scholarship,
    and other postsecondary programs or functions associated with one or
    more of those programs.

    \c Includes the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and
    postsecondary education programs supporting special populations, such
    as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Gallaudet
    University, and Legal Training for the Disadvantaged.

    Source:  Department of Education.

             ISSUES
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.2.1

    In light of the continuing financial pressures to minimize federal
    costs while helping to ensure that needy students have access to
    financial aid for their postsecondary education, we reported in
    January 1995 that the Perkins loan program was one program that could
    be discontinued.\17 This program is a campus-based loan program
    whereby the federal government provides funds to schools that match
    them and make loans to needy students.  The schools service and
    collect the loans and use funds collected from these loans to make
    new student loans.  The federal government could discontinue its
    capital contributions and allow schools to continue to operate the
    programs at their own expense, or with the help of states, if they
    choose.

    --------------------
    \17 Department of Education:  Opportunities to Realize Savings
    (GAO/T-HEHS-95-56, Jan.  18, 1995).

       PROGRAMS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
       THE PROPOSED OFFICE OF HIGHER
       EDUCATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

          DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.1

    Pell Grants
    Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
    Work Study
    Perkins Loans
    State Student Incentive Grants
    State Postsecondary Review Program
    Federal Family Education Loan Program
    International Education
    Student Financial Database
    TRIO\18
    Early Intervention
    Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
    Strengthening Institutions
    Howard University
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities
    National Technical Institute for the Deaf
    Gallaudet University
    Direct Student Loans
    Christa McAuliffe Fellowships
    Desert Storm Benefits
    Byrd Honors Scholarship
    National Science Scholars
    National Academy of Science, Space, and Technology
    Douglas Teachers Scholarships
    Olympic Scholarships
    Teacher Corps
    Harris Fellowships
    Javitz Fellowships
    Graduate Assistance
    Faculty Fellowships
    School, College, and United Nations Partnerships
    Legal Training for the Disadvantaged

    --------------------
    \18 These programs include Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student
    Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and the McNair
    Postbaccalaureate Program.

       POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
       PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR
       ELIMINATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8

    Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development
    Eisenhower Leadership Programs
    Law School Clinical Experience
    Interest Subsidy Grant
    Mary McLeod Bethune Fine Arts Center
    Cooperative Education
    College Housing and Academic Facilities Loan

       POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
       PROGRAMS PROPOSED FOR TRANSFER
       TO OTHER AGENCIES
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9

    Innovative Community Services Projects
    (to the National Service Corporation)
    Urban Community Service
    (to the National Service Corporation)

       Figure I.11:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Office of
       Postsecondary Education,
       Department of Education

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.12:  Proposed Office
       of Workforce Training and
       Life-Long Learning

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       OFFICE OF WORKFORCE TRAINING
       AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.1

    As one of three units within the proposed Office of Workforce
    Preparation and Policy (see fig.  I.12), the Office of Workforce
    Training and Life-Long Learning would include about 70 federal
    programs currently administered by the Departments of Education,
    Labor, and HHS.  (A list of these programs follows.) The Office of
    Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning, headed by an Assistant
    Secretary, would be responsible for administering programs and
    proposed block grants for adult and youth employment and training,
    adult education and literacy, and vocational education and
    rehabilitation.  It would also be charged with administering the Job
    Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program from HHS.

    On the basis of the proposal, the Office of Workforce Training and
    Life-Long Learning would create a comprehensive workforce development
    strategy by overseeing a consolidated system of federal employment
    training and education programs for youth and adults.  As envisioned,
    this comprehensive strategy would better ensure that American workers
    are prepared for jobs in an increasingly competitive global economy.
    To carry out the strategy, the office would be asked to encourage
    states in partnership with business to fashion programs that
    emphasize (1) training people for and placing them in jobs and (2)
    upgrading the skills of people who are currently employed.  The
    office would also administer services through a series of block
    grants to the states and provide funding to grantees.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.2

    To better understand the resources available to this proposed office,
    we determined the funding and staffing for the approximately 70
    programs that would be included in this office.  Our data are based
    on fiscal year 1995 funding for grant programs and authorized
    staffing levels to administer those programs.  (See table I.6.) The
    field offices for the existing programs, as well as all the field
    offices that would support this proposed office, are shown in figures
    I.13 through I.17.

                              Table I.6

                 Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
                Information for the Proposed Office of
                   Workforce Training and Life-Long
                               Learning

                        (Dollars in millions)

                      Fiscal                              Number
                        year                                  of
                        1995                               field
                      fundin                        Fiel  office
    Type of program        g   Total  Headquarters     d       s
    ----------------  ------  ------  ------------  ----  ------
    Education/        $125.0       9             9     0       0
     Youth/
     School-to-Work
    Adult Education   7,463.   1,644           647   997     276
     and Training          0
    Adult Literacy      49.1      11            11     0       0
    Vocational        2,203.     175            80    95      10
     Rehabilitation        4
    JOBS              1,300.      91            26    65      10
                           0
    ============================================================
    Total             $11,14   1,930           773  1,15     296
                         0.5                           7
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    Source:  Departments of Education, Labor, and HHS.

             ISSUES
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10.2.1

    Our work suggests that the consolidation of employment training
    programs would provide an opportunity to reduce federal
    administrative duplication.\19 For example, 14 departments and
    agencies currently provide some employment training to the
    economically disadvantaged, and consolidation could decrease the
    number of entities providing this service.  Obstacles to program
    coordination among state and local employment training officials
    could also be significantly reduced by eliminating conflicting
    planning and reporting cycles.  For example, we concluded from our
    past work that establishing uniform planning and reporting cycles
    within or across programs would make it easier to deliver services at
    the local level.\20

    Moreover, the restructuring that could result from creating new block
    grants from programs to be administered by this office could present
    an opportunity to hold state and local administrators more
    accountable for employment training program results.  From our work,
    we found that although almost 90 percent of the employment training
    programs collected data on the number of people served each year,
    less than 50 percent of the programs had knowledge of participants'
    obtaining jobs after they received services.\21 From our research on
    the 1981 block grants, we found that a lack of reliable
    outcome--rather than process--data led, in large measure, to a
    gradual recategorization of these block grants.\22

    We identified that 64 additional employment training programs, like
    those programs already earmarked under the proposal, could be
    considered for inclusion in or consolidation under this office's
    authority.\23 Currently, these 64 programs are being administered by
    13 departments and agencies other than Education and Labor and have
    fiscal year 1995 funding of about $3 billion.  Appendix III lists
    these programs and 13 Education and Labor job training programs not
    included in the proposal.

    --------------------
    \19 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Overlapping Programs Can
    Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-80, Jan.  28,
    1994).

    \20 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Conflicting Requirements
    Hamper Delivery of Services (GAO/HEHS-94-78, Jan.  28, 1994).

    \21 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Basic Program Data Often
    Missing (GAO/T-HEHS-94-239, Sept.  28, 1994) and Multiple Employment
    Training Programs:  Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know If Their
    Programs Are Working Effectively (GAO/HEHS-94-88, Mar.  2, 1994).
    Education stated, however, that it maintains outcome data on
    vocational rehabilitation programs.

    \22 Block Grants:  Characteristics, Experiences, and Lessons Learned
    (GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb.  9, 1995).

    \23 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Information Crosswalk on
    163 Employment Training Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-85FS, Feb.  14, 1995).

       PROGRAMS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
       THE PROPOSED OFFICE OF
       WORKFORCE TRAINING AND
       LIFE-LONG LEARNING
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11

          DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.1

    High School Equivalency Program
    Migrant State Agency
    College Assistance for Migrant Education
    School-to-Work
    Federal Corrections Institute
    Vocational Education Basic State Grant
    Comprehensive Career Guidance
    Blue Ribbon Programs
    Regional training--Skilled Trades
    Business/Education Labor Partnerships
    State Programs and Activities
    Single Parents/Displaced Homemakers
    Sex Equity
    Criminal Offenders
    Cooperative Demonstrations' Community-Based Organizations
    Bilingual Vocational Training
    Consumer and Homemaking Education
    TechPrep Education
    Student Literacy Corps
    State Councils
    Research
    Smith-Hughs Act
    Territorial Set Aside
    Indian and Hawaiian Natives Set Aside
    Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions
    Vocational Rehabilitation
     Basic State Grants
     Client Assistance
     Training
     Special Demonstrations
     Supported Employment Projects
     Migratory Workers
     Recreational Programs
     Projects With Industry
     Supported Employment State Grants
    Adult Education/Literacy
     Demonstration Projects for Vocational/Academic Integration
     National Workplace Literacy
     Literacy for Incarcerated Adults
     State Literacy Resource Centers
     Adult Education Basic Grant Program
     Homeless
     National Programs
     Library Service
     Indian Education
    American Printing House for the Blind

    (As of April 26, 1995, the proposal did not specifically address the
    disposition of the following education programs:  National Institute
    on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Independent Living
    Centers, State Grants, and Services for Older Blind Individuals;
    Evaluation; Helen Keller Center for Deaf Blind Youth and Adults;
    Assistive Technology; and JTPA Adult Literacy Training.)

          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.2

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Program Operations
    Veterans' Employment and Training
    Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) IIA Adult
    JTPA III Dislocated Workers
    Defense Conversion Adjustment
    Clean Air Employment Transition
    Job Corps
    Veterans' Reemployment
    Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
    Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program (Veterans'
     Dislocated Workers)
    JTPA National Activities
    Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project
    North American Free Trade Agreement--Trade Adjustment Assistance
    Employment Service Grants
    Native American Training
    Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
    JTPA IIC Youth
    JTPA Summer Youth
    Skills Standards
    School-to-Work
    Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT)

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.3

    Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program

       EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
       PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:12

    International Education Exchange
    Civic Education
    National Writing Project
    National Diffusion Network
    Educational Technology
    Library Construction
    Youth Fair Chance
    Targeted Jobs Tax Credit
    Job Corps "Freeze and Fix" Plan

    (Proposal sponsors also plan to eliminate the Department of
    Agriculture's Food Stamp Employment and Training program and
    Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations
    currently administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission.)

       EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM
       PROPOSED FOR TRANSFER
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:13

    Senior Community Service Employment Program (to the National Service
    Corporation)

       Figure I.13:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Employment and
       Training Administration,
       Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.14:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Office of
       Veterans' Employment and
       Training, Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.15:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Rehabilitative
       Services Administration,
       Department of Education

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.16:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Job
       Opportunities and Basic Skills
       Training Program, Department of
       Health and Human Services

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.17:  Locations of All
       Field Offices for the Proposed
       Office of Workforce Training
       and Life-Long Learning

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.18:  Proposed Office
       of Workplace Modernization,
       Reorganization, and Safety

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       OFFICE OF WORKPLACE
       MODERNIZATION, REORGANIZATION,
       AND SAFETY
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:14

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.1

    As one of two units within the proposed Office of Workplace Policy,
    the Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety
    would be under the direction of an Assistant Secretary.  (See fig.
    I.18.) This office would include four programs from the Department of
    Labor that would work with employers and workers to enforce various
    workplace standards.

    The Office of Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and Safety
    would include (1) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    (OSHA), which enforces standards for workplace safety and health; (2)
    the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which enforces
    standards for mine safety and health; (3) the Wage and Hour Division
    (WHD) from the Employment Standards Administration, which enforces
    standards for wages and other working conditions; and (4) the Office
    of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), from the Office of the American
    Workplace, which works with unions.\24

    The office would be charged with working with the business community
    to create world-class enterprises that use innovative production
    technologies and organizational work practices to achieve greater
    productivity and competitiveness.  At the same time, the office would
    be responsible for encouraging greater labor-management cooperation
    to ensure workers safe and healthful working conditions.  The
    proposal also calls for eliminating the Office of Workplace
    Standards, which is currently located in the Office of the American
    Workplace.

    --------------------
    \24 This office would also include the Review Commissions for OSHA
    and MSHA.  These commissions were not proposed for inclusion until
    after April 26, 1995, and we did not have the opportunity to gather
    relevant budget data.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.2

    To better understand the resources available to this proposed office,
    we determined the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing for the
    activities that would be included in this office.  (See table I.7.)
    The locations of field offices in the activities that would be
    included in this office, as well as all that would support the
    proposed office, are shown in figures I.19 through I.23.

                             Table I.7

                Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
               Information for the Proposed Office of
              Workplace Modernization, Reorganization,
                             and Safety

                       (Dollars in millions)

              Fiscal
                year
                1995                                    Number
              fundin                            Fiel  of field
    Agency         g     Total    Headquarters     d   offices
    --------  ------  --------  --------------  ----  --------
    OSHA      $315.4     2,323             413  1,91       107
                                                   0
    MSHA       200.6     2,521             244  2,27       129
                                                   7
    WHD\b      105.6     1,380             172  1,20       280
                                                   8
    OLMS        24.0       320              65   255        33
    ==========================================================
    Total     $645.6     6,544             894  5,65       549
                                                   0
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b Totals include an allocated amount from management functions in
    the Employment Standards Administration.

    Source:  Department of Labor.

             ISSUES
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:14.2.1

    We reported in April 1995 that a consensus is emerging that the
    federal government must change the way it ensures worker
    protections.\25 The creation of a single office to ensure worker
    protections could result in a system that places greater
    responsibility on employers and employees to create and maintain a
    safe and healthful workplace.  Additionally, a consolidated office
    could enhance employer outreach and training to achieve greater
    knowledge of and respect for workplace safety from both employers and
    workers.  We reported in 1992 that employer involvement in on-site
    programs that promote worker safety and health were effective in
    reducing work-related injuries and illnesses.\26

    While fostering an environment of greater voluntary compliance, an
    effective enforcement presence with employers and workers at
    workplaces and mines across the country would still be needed.  As a
    result, the continued use of field offices may prove essential.
    Serious consideration should be given to the mission and function of
    the new office to determine the proper amount of field presence
    required to carry out that mission effectively.

       Figure I.19:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Occupational
       Safety and Health
       Administration, Department of
       Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.20:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Mine Safety and
       Health Administration,
       Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.21:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Wage and Hour
       Division, Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.22:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Office of
       Labor-Management Standards,
       Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.23:  Locations of All
       Field Offices in the Proposed
       Office of Workplace
       Modernization, Reorganization,
       and Safety

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.24:  Proposed Office
       of Employee Benefits

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \25 Department of Labor:  Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker
    Protection and Workforce Development (GAO/T-HEHS-95-125, Apr.  4,
    1995).

    \26 Occupational Safety and Health:  Worksite Safety and Health
    Programs Show Promise (GAO/HRD-92-68, May 19, 1992).

       OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:15

          REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.1

    As one of two units within the proposed Office of Workplace Policy,
    the Office of Employee Benefits would be under the direction of an
    Assistant Secretary.  (See fig.  I.24.) The office would be
    responsible for administering several existing programs from the
    Department of Labor that focus on providing benefits and overseeing
    the proper functioning of private-sector pensions.\27

    These programs are (1) the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, which
    is administered by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
    as relief to temporarily unemployed individuals; (2) the Office of
    Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) from the Employment Standards
    Administration (ESA), which oversees various benefit programs;\28 (3)
    the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA), which
    evaluates and monitors the operations of private- sector pensions;
    and (4) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which
    insures most private-sector defined benefit pension plans.  The PBGC
    currently is a wholly owned government corporation housed in Labor,
    but which operates quasi-independently.  Although PBGC would be
    administratively housed in this office, it would retain its current
    quasi-independent status.

    The Office of Employee Benefits would be charged with administering a
    comprehensive array of laws and programs to ensure benefit and
    pension protection.  The office would administer the UI program, as
    well as disability compensation programs that compensate for
    work-related injury, disease, or death.  Finally, the office would
    monitor, oversee, and insure private-sector pensions under Titles I
    and IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
    (ERISA), which together account for over 700,000 private-sector
    pension plans and 4.5 million private-sector welfare benefit plans.

    --------------------
    \27 The proposal would also include a Contributions fund from the
    Department of Education and a Gifts and Bequests fund from the
    Department of Labor.  The budget data for these funds are not
    included here because they are relatively small ($.4 million in
    fiscal year 1995) and have no FTEs associated with them.

    \28 The benefit programs that would be monitored by this office are
    Federal Employees Compensation Act benefits; Special Workers'
    Compensation Benefits; Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation
    Benefits; and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

          GAO ANALYSIS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.2

    To better understand the resources available to this proposed office,
    we determined the fiscal year 1995 funding and staffing levels for
    the programs that would be included in this office.  (See table I.8.)
    The locations of the field offices in the existing activities that
    would be included in the office, as well as all the field offices
    that would support the new office, are illustrated in figures I.25
    through I.28.

                             Table I.8

                Funding, Staffing, and Field Office
               Information for the Proposed Office of
                         Employee Benefits

                       (Dollars in millions)

                Fiscal                               Number of
    Progra   year 1995  Tota                  Fiel       field
    m          funding     l    Headquarters     d     offices
    ------  ----------  ----  --------------  ----  ----------
    ETA      $23,575.5   280             168   112        10\b
    OWCP\c  1,421.8 \d  1,44             114  1,32          51
                           2                     8
    PWBA          69.3   621             219   402          15
    PBGC\     137.7 \e   687             687     0           0
    ==========================================================
    Total    $25,066.6  3,03           1,188  1,84          76
                           0                     2
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a Total authorized FTE levels.

    \b These are the same field offices that administer job training
    programs and are included in the proposed Office of Workforce
    Training and Life-Long Learning.

    \c Totals include an allocated amount from management functions in
    the Employment Standards Administration.

    \d All but $110 million of this total are benefit amounts paid to
    recipients.  These benefit programs are the Federal Employees
    Compensation Act Benefits, Special Workers' Compensation Benefits,
    Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Benefits, and the Black
    Lung Disability Trust Fund.

    \e While staffing for PBGC is included with Labor's staffing totals,
    PBGC's budget is included for illustrative purposes and is not
    included in Labor's budget totals.

    Source:  Department of Labor.

             ISSUES
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:15.2.1

    In the past, we have expressed concern over the ability of the
    federal pension agencies to adequately enforce and oversee private
    pensions.\29 PBGC has been of particular concern to us because of its
    inadequate pension reserves.\30 However, legislation was passed in
    December 1994 that PBGC anticipates will significantly reduce
    underfunding in the plans it insures and thereby improve its
    financial condition.  Creating a single office to oversee pension
    activities could allow for a more cohesive federal pension policy.

    However, it will be important to maintain PBGC's quasi-independent
    status.  Under present law, the federal government is not liable for
    liabilities incurred by PBGC because PBGC is primarily responsible
    for guaranteeing benefits of the plans it insures.  Most of PBGC's
    funding is raised through premiums on private pension plans, assets
    of terminated plans, and investments of those premiums and assets.
    It uses these funds to guarantee employee pensions in cases of
    insolvency.  Additionally, care would have to be taken to ensure that
    these funds are not diverted to other uses and therefore not
    available for their intended purpose.  Furthermore, it would be
    important to ensure that the improvements PBGC has made are not
    jeopardized.  The improvements, together with the December 1994
    legislation referred to above, led us to remove PBGC from our list of
    high-risk programs.\31

    Regarding the UI program, currently it and virtually all job training
    programs are administered by Labor's Employment and Training
    Administration (ETA).  In so doing, ETA has the opportunity to use UI
    benefits to facilitate job training for those who need it.  As a
    matter of fact, some states use UI as the entry point for individuals
    entering the employment system.

    We have already reported on a number of problems with the UI
    program's operations and its inadequate reserves.\32 We believe it is
    important that UI remain with ETA's job training programs for
    suggested improvements to take place.  In that respect, we believe
    the UI program, and the current ETA offices that administer it,\33

    should be included in the Office of Workforce Training and Life-Long
    Learning.

    Finally, because this office has several disparate missions, the task
    of consolidating field offices may be problematic and savings may be
    limited.  OWCP administers the benefit programs and has 51 field
    offices, but it has little in common with ETA's 10 field offices that
    administer the UI program.  Moreover, these offices have little in
    common with PWBA, which has 15 field offices to carry out pension
    oversight.

       Figure I.25:  Locations of
       Field Offices for ETA's
       Administration of Unemployment
       Insurance, Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.26:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Office of
       Workers' Compensation Programs,
       Department of Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.27:  Locations of
       Field Offices Currently
       Supporting the Pension and
       Welfare Benefits
       Administration, Department of
       Labor

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure I.28:  Locations of All
       Field Offices for the Proposed
       Office of Employee Benefits

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \29 Pension Plans:  Stronger Labor ERISA Enforcement Should Better
    Protect Plan Participants (GAO/HEHS-94-157, Aug.  8, 1994); Private
    Pensions:  Protections for Retirees' Insurance Annuities Can Be
    Strengthened (GAO/HRD-93-29, Mar.  31, 1993); and Pension Plans:  IRS
    Needs to Strengthen Its Enforcement Program (GAO/HRD-91-10, July 2,
    1991).

    \30 Financial Audit:  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's 1993 and
    1992 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-94-109, May 4, 1994).

    \31 Financial Audit:  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's 1994 and
    1993 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-95-83, Mar.  8, 1995).

    \32 Unemployment Insurance:  Program's Ability to Meet Objectives
    Jeopardized (GAO/HRD-93-107, Sept.  28, 1993) and Unemployment
    Insurance:  Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate to Meet Recession Needs
    (GAO/HRD-90-124, May 21, 1990).

    \33 As noted earlier, the 10 ETA regional offices that administer the
    UI program are the same 10 offices that administer job training
    programs.

    IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE
    COST REDUCTIONS
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    The proposal to merge the Departments of Education and Labor and the
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could result in
    savings of about $1.65 billion in selected administrative costs
    through the year 2000.  Its sponsors plan to achieve these savings
    from four major activities:  (1) eliminating or reducing duplicative
    departmentwide management functions; (2) eliminating programs
    currently administered within and outside of Education and Labor; (3)
    reducing operating budgets for selected programs; and (4)
    consolidating education and job training programs.  As previously
    mentioned, the proposal does not call for any reductions in the
    functions that will be carrying out civil rights activities\34 in the
    proposed Department's Office of Civil Rights.

    As requested, we have developed two scenarios illustrating how
    proposed administrative cost savings could be achieved and the
    staffing implications of those cost savings.\35 We found that
    achieving cost savings under either of these scenarios would require
    significant reductions in current staffing levels in the existing
    Departments.  The first scenario could require immediate staffing
    reductions of almost 3,500 positions, which may necessitate a
    reduction in force (RIF) and an additional 1,100 positions to cover
    the costs of a RIF.  The second scenario would phase in the
    reductions and provide additional time for planning for these
    reductions and implementing alternative methods for achieving
    staffing reductions over a 3-year period.  This scenario, however,
    could require staffing reductions of almost 4,200 positions.

    The effect of these reductions on the new Department's ability to
    fulfill its mission and carry out its responsibilities depends upon
    the extent of reengineering that accompanies the merger.  If
    processes and procedures are executed in the same way they were
    before any reductions were taken, the level of services provided to
    the proposed Department's internal and external customers are likely
    to suffer.  If, on the other hand, the reductions are accompanied by
    a reexamination of how the new Department's responsibilities are to
    be carried out, then it may be possible to lessen the negative effect
    on services and attain the proposal's goal of providing more
    effective services with fewer resources.

    We recently studied the experiences of private-sector organizations
    and state and foreign governments that faced similar downsizing
    challenges.  We found that those who successfully downsized first
    analyzed the structural changes and other revisions to traditional
    methods of operating that were needed before making decisions about
    workforce reductions.\36

    --------------------
    \34 These functions are EEOC; the Directorate of Civil Rights, the
    President's Committee for the Employment of People With Disabilities,
    and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (from the
    Department of Labor); and the Offices for Civil Rights and Training
    and Advisory Services (from the Department of Education).  The
    budgets for these activities are not included in our analysis in this
    appendix.

    \35 We did not determine savings associated with consolidating
    education and job training programs.

    \36 Workforce Reductions:  Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected
    Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54, Mar.  13, 1995).

       ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE COST
       SAVINGS IN PROPOSAL
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

    As currently drafted, the proposal would result in a 5-year
    administrative cost savings of $1.65 billion between fiscal years
    1996 and 2000.\37 The total savings average about a 20-percent
    reduction from current administrative costs.  Administrative costs
    here include compensation, benefits, and other expenses, those
    associated with managing the proposed department, administering grant
    programs, providing safety and health inspections, and overseeing
    employee pensions.  According to the proposal, the actual percentage
    reductions within each of these functional areas vary.  For example,
    the departmentwide management functions within Program
    Administration\38 would be subject to a 40-percent reduction from
    current levels.  The Bureau of Education and Employment Statistics,
    however, also in Program Administration, would only be subject to a
    5-percent reduction from current levels.

    As you requested, we developed two scenarios for how the
    administrative savings could be achieved over the next 5 years.  Our
    scenarios, which are provided for illustrative purposes only, are
    based on the following data and assumptions:

      For administrative costs, we used fiscal year 1995 appropriations
         data for (1) compensation and benefits costs and (2) other
         costs, such as travel, equipment, rents, and communications.\39
         These data do not include grants or activities funded through
         trust funds, as the proposal stated that the administrative
         reductions would not affect these funding sources.\40

      We assumed that an equal percentage reduction would be taken from
         both compensation and benefits and other costs, because it is
         unlikely that the new Department would have the flexibility to
         take all reductions from only one of these categories.

      We assumed that all reductions would be made at the beginning of
         the fiscal year, which would translate into a full year of
         savings.

    Table II.1 shows the fiscal year 1995 administrative costs
    (compensation and benefits and other costs) for the programs to be
    included in the proposed offices in the new Department, as well as
    the administrative costs of the programs that are proposed for
    elimination.  The table also illustrates the percentage reductions,
    by office, called for in the proposal and the savings resulting from
    that reduction through 2000.  Also shown are the administrative
    savings derived from programs proposed for elimination.  As shown in
    the table, these administrative savings would amount to about $990
    million from reductions in compensation and benefits, $530 million
    from other cost reductions, and $140 million from the elimination of
    programs, for a total of about $1.65 billion.

                                            Table II.1

                              Estimated Administrative Cost Savings,
                             Fiscal Years 1996-2000, in the Proposed
                              Department of Education and Employment

                                      (Dollars in millions)

                       Estimated                 Estimated
                     fiscal year               fiscal year
                            1995                      1995
    Function/     administrative  Proposed  administrative            From
    office in          costs for   percent       costs for        eliminat  Compensati
    the proposed        included  reductio      eliminated  Tota        ed      on and  Othe
    department          programs         n      programs\a     l  programs    benefits     r
    ------------  --------------  --------  --------------  ----  --------  ----------  ----
    Program               $615.6        22           $10.1  738.      50.5       467.2  221.
     Administrat                                               9                           2
     ion
    Departmentwi           305.4        40            10.1  661.      50.5       430.0  180.
     de                                                        3                           8
     management
     functions
    Bureau of              310.2         5               0  77.6         0        37.2  40.4
     Education
     and
     Employment
     Statistics
    Basic                  375.7        28             9.7  578.      48.7       321.5  208.
     Education,                                                1                           0
     Higher
     Education,
     and
     Workforce
     Training
     and Life-
     Long
     Learning\b
    Workplace              567.0        10             7.4  320.      37.0       190.8  92.8
     Modernizati                                               5
     on,
     Reorganizat
     ion,
     and Safety
    Employee                69.3         4               0  13.9         0         7.3   6.6
     Benefits
    ========================================================================================
    Total               $1,627.6      20\c           $27.2  1,65     136.2       986.8  528.
                                                             1.4                           6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals may not add due to rounding.

    \a The proposal did not specifically address the disposition of
    several Education programs.  Their estimated administrative costs are
    included here.

    \b Costs to administer education and labor programs.  The proposal
    does not break out estimated savings for specific types of education
    programs.

    \c Includes reductions associated with eliminated programs.

    Source:  Congressional proposal, Departments of Education, Labor, and
    Health and Human Services.

    --------------------
    \37 As stated elsewhere in this report, the proposal also calls for
    savings in programs.  These savings are not discussed in this
    appendix.

    \38 See appendix I for a discussion of the Program Administration
    function.

    \39 We have raised questions in the past about the consistency of
    what agencies include as administrative costs.  See, Budget Issues:
    Assessing Executive Order 12837 on Reducing Administrative Expenses
    (GAO/AIMD-94-15, Nov.  17, 1993) and Budget Object Classification:
    Origins and Recent Trends (GAO/AIMD-94-147, Sept.  13, 1994).

    \40 For that reason, the data that appear here will correspond to,
    but not necessarily equal, those used in the office profiles in
    appendix I.  Also, our budget estimates do not account for inflation.

       POTENTIAL IMPACT OF COST
       SAVINGS ESTIMATES ON PROPOSED
       DEPARTMENT'S STAFFING
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

    We developed two scenarios to demonstrate the impact of these cost
    savings estimates on the current staffing levels of the existing
    Departments.  These two scenarios are provided for illustrative
    purposes only.  Because we were unable to fully determine the impact
    of these cost reductions, we used fiscal year 1995 authorized
    full-time equivalents (FTE) for staffing levels; on-board staff
    levels would have to be used for actual staffing decisions.
    Additionally, Education was not able to provide compensation,
    benefit, and other expense data by program; as a result, we derived
    these costs on the basis of program staffing levels and current
    officewide administrative costs.\41 If a staffing reduction were to
    take place, the agencies would need to identify specific
    administrative costs.  The offsetting costs that may occur as a
    result of downsizing, such as buy-outs, severance pay, or other
    financial incentives, were not incorporated into our analysis because
    at this point no decisions have been made about what types of staff
    would be affected.  As a result, these scenarios serve only as
    demonstrations of possible impacts from achieving the estimated cost
    savings.  Management of the proposed Department could opt to achieve
    these cost reductions in other ways.

    The two scenarios we developed would achieve the same 5-year savings
    for compensation and benefits and other costs.  Scenario 1 calls for
    taking the proposed reductions in the selected administrative and
    program management functions in 1 year (fiscal year 1996).  The
    savings achieved through this reduction would then be rolled over
    each year until 2000.  The cumulative savings would be $1.65 billion
    by 2000 ($990 million from compensation and benefits, $530 million
    from other costs, and about $140 million from the eliminated
    programs).  We used the fiscal year 1995 average cost per FTE for
    each office to determine the number of positions that would have to
    be eliminated to achieve the compensation and benefits reduction.

    Scenario 2 calls for phasing in the compensation and benefits savings
    ($990 million) over a 3-year period (fiscal years 1996-1998).  This
    would mean generally that, compared to scenario 1, a relatively
    smaller staffing reduction may be taken in the first year, but larger
    reductions would have to be taken in the subsequent years to achieve
    the total reduction by the third year.  Again, we used the fiscal
    year 1995 average FTE cost for each office to determine the number of
    positions that would have to be eliminated each year to achieve the
    savings in the 3-year period.  Generally, the number of FTEs taken in
    the first two years varied according to the proposed percent
    reduction for the office--the greater the overall proposed percentage
    reduction, the greater the FTE reduction.  The number of FTEs cut in
    the third year was the residual, that is, the remaining number of
    FTES that were needed to achieve the total compensation and benefits
    savings.  However, because the proposed percentage reductions for
    each office varied dramatically (with a high of 40 percent and a low
    of 4 percent), the FTE reduction for all the offices averaged 9
    percent for the first 2 years and 7 percent in the third year.  Table
    II.2 illustrates the results of our analysis.

                              Table II.2

                  Comparison of Staffing Reductions
                Resulting From Cost Savings Scenarios

                                                     FTE     FTE
                                                  reduct  reduct
                                                    ion-    ion-
                                                  scenar  scenar
                                                    io 1    io 2
                                                     (1-     (3-
    Function/office in the proposed department     year)   year)
    --------------------------------------------  ------  ------
    Program Administration                         1,711   2,155
    Departmentwide management functions            1,578   2,009
    Bureau of Education and Employment               133     146
     Statistics
    Basic Education, Higher Education, and         1,069   1,241
     Workforce Training and Life-Long Learning
    Workplace Modernization, Reorganization, and     655     768
     Safety
    Employee Benefits                                 25      25
    ============================================================
    Total                                          3,460   4,189
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    These FTEs (300) do not include those associated with eliminated
    programs.  We did not make yearly estimates for how the other costs
    would be reduced because they would not directly affect staffing.  We
    kept other reductions constant during the 5-year period.

    --------------------
    \41 In commenting on a draft of this report, Education officials said
    that this procedure generally underestimates the full cost of
    operating these programs.

          THE STAFFING IMPACT OF
          SCENARIO 1
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

    As shown in table II.2, if the total proposed cuts are taken in the
    first year--fiscal year 1996--without a phase-in period, we estimate
    that a reduction in staffing of almost 3,500 positions, measured in
    FTEs, could be required to achieve the compensation and benefit
    reductions.  The savings would amount to almost $200 million in
    compensation and benefits a year, which would equal the $990 million
    in the 5-year period.  To the extent that the staffing reductions
    would require formal RIF procedures, additional costs for severance
    pay and other expenses would be incurred.  These additional costs
    would likely require additional reductions in staff, perhaps by as
    much as a third, or 1,100 FTEs.  This could increase the total
    reduction to about 4,600 FTEs.\42

    Given the downsizing experiences of other organizations, such a major
    reduction in 1 year would likely be extremely disruptive.  RIFs have
    been found to affect many more staff than the released employees.
    For example, the experiences of eight federal agencies who carried
    out major RIFs in the early 1980s--including the Department of
    Labor's Employment and Training Administration and the Occupational
    Safety and Health Administration--showed that over 2,000 people were
    affected; yet only 557 people were actually released.\43

    --------------------
    \42 Reductions in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than
    Attrition and Furloughs (GAO/PEMD-85-6, July 24, 1985) and
    Congressional Oversight:  The General Accounting Office
    (GAO/T-OCG-95-4, Mar.  30, 1995).

    \43 Reductions in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly to Agencies Than
    Attrition and Furloughs.

          THE STAFFING IMPACT OF
          SCENARIO 2
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

    The second scenario for achieving the proposed cost savings would
    phase in the staffing reductions over 3 years, starting at the
    beginning of fiscal year 1996.  Under the reduction assumptions we
    used in this scenario, we determined that almost 4,200 positions
    would be eliminated--1,600 the first year, 1,500 the second year, and
    1,100 the third year.  Because this scenario provides a longer period
    of time to achieve the savings, it allows for more time to plan for
    how the merger and budget reductions would occur.  In addition, it
    would increase the likelihood of using attrition and retirement
    incentives, rather than only RIFs, to reduce staff.  This could allow
    for a more orderly transition.  However, if these other options do
    not provide enough reductions, RIFs may still be needed, increasing
    the number of positions to be reduced to cover RIF costs.

       ESTIMATED SAVINGS UP TO THE
       YEAR 2002
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

    If carried out until 2002, the potential administrative savings could
    increase to over $2.3 billion, as is shown in table II.3.  Some
    additional savings may be achieved under scenario 2 because of the
    greater reduction in staffing levels.  Even though the savings for
    the two scenarios converge in 2000, under scenario 2, the new
    Department would be operating at a lower staffing level, achieving
    additional savings in compensation and benefits.  As the table
    illustrates, the savings in other costs and from eliminated programs
    is the same in either scenario, while differences in compensation and
    benefits savings mean that scenario 2 could save about $2.4 billion,
    while scenario 1 could save about $2.3 billion.

                                        Table II.3

                         Estimated Administrative Savings, Fiscal
                            Years 1996-2002, Under Alternative
                                        Scenarios

                                  (Dollars in millions)

    Function
    /office
    in the            Elimin                              Elimin
    proposed            ated  Compensati   Other            ated  Compensati   Other
    departme          progra      on and  expens          progra      on and  expens
    nt         Total      ms    benefits      es   Total      ms    benefits      es
    --------  ------  ------  ----------  ------  ------  ------  ----------  ------
    Program   $1,034   $70.7      $653.8  $310.1  $1,083   $70.7      $702.4  $310.1
     Adminis      .6                                  .2
     tration
    Departme   926.1    70.7       602.0   253.4   972.8    70.7       648.7   253.4
     ntwide
     managem
     ent
     functio
     ns
    Bureau     108.5       0        51.8    56.7   110.4       0        53.7    56.7
     of
     Educati
     on and
     Employm
     ent
     Statist
     ics
    Basic      809.1    67.9       450.2   291.0   829.3    67.9       470.4   291.0
     Educati
     on,
     Higher
     Educati
     on, and
     Workfor
     ce
     Trainin
     g and
     Life-
     Long
     Learnin
     g
    Workplac   449.4    51.8       267.4   130.2   462.3    51.8       280.3   130.2
     e
     Moderni
     zation,
     Reorgan
     ization
     , and
     Safety
    Employee    19.6       0        10.5     9.1    19.6       0        10.5     9.1
     Benefits
    ================================================================================
    Total     $2,312  $190.4    $1,381.9  $740.4  $2,394  $190.4    $1,463.6  $740.4
                  .7                                  .4
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  Congressional proposal, Departments of Education, Labor, and
    Health and Human Services.

       LESSONS FROM RECENT DOWNSIZING
       EXPERIENCES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

    We recently studied the downsizing experiences of private-sector
    organizations and state and foreign governments.\44 In general, we
    found that decisions to downsize in the private sector were the
    result of corporate restructuring designed to make work processes
    more efficient or eliminate unnecessary functions.  Reducing
    employment was seldom the initial objective.  Rather, it was the
    consequence of eliminating unnecessary work.  Officials stressed the
    importance of identifying needed structural changes and other
    revisions to traditional methods of operating before deciding whether
    and where workforce cuts may be appropriate.

    Once the decision to downsize had been made, 15 of the 25
    organizations we studied said that they found it important to plan
    how the reductions would be carried out to retain a viable workforce
    when the reductions were completed.  Those organizations that said
    that they did not properly plan their downsizing acknowledged that
    they cut needed employees, suffered skills imbalances, and were often
    forced to rehire or replace employees who had been separated.
    Further, the organizations said that they generally found that
    attrition and hiring freezes were not always effective in
    significantly reducing the workforce in the short term.  Most used
    monetary incentives to encourage employees to resign or retire.

    For those organizations that planned extensively for downsizing,
    officials said that strategic planning--a disciplined effort to
    produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what
    an organization is, what it does, and why it does it--is an essential
    first step to be taken before any decisions on the appropriate size
    and composition of the workforce are made.  Most of the organizations
    found that workforce planning, with care taken to retain employees
    with skills and training needed to accomplish the organization's
    work, was an important component of successful downsizing.  Officials
    from one company noted that reducing head-counts without changing the
    work can produce speedy, visible, measurable, and demonstrable
    results.  However, they cautioned that such reductions are also
    costly, indiscriminate, and inconsistent with a continuing productive
    work flow involving fewer staff.  Eventually, they said,
    organizations have to address their work processes.

    Of the 25 organizations that we studied, at least 18 provided
    incentives to encourage employees to leave voluntarily.  Incentives
    included early retirement, lump-sum payments, continuation of health
    and/or life insurance, tuition payments, and business start-up
    assistance.  Often these incentives were offered in some combination.
    Eighteen organizations downsized several times (32 times in the case
    of one company), and the features of their incentive programs varied
    with each downsizing.

    Seventeen of the organizations offered early retirement programs that
    allowed employees to retire before their normal retirement age.  At
    least 10 of these organizations offered a variety of incentives to
    encourage employees to retire early.  Generally, the incentive
    programs gave employees credit for a specified number of years of
    service and/or years added to their age toward retirement eligibility
    and calculation of benefit amounts.

    Fourteen incentive programs provided for employees to separate
    voluntarily and receive lump-sum payments.  The amount of the payment
    was usually based on the organization's severance pay
    formula--generally 1 or 2 weeks' pay for each year of service, with a
    maximum of a year's salary.  These lump-sum payments were available
    to employees electing early retirement, regular retirement, or
    resignation.

    At least four incentive programs continued the health and/or life
    insurance benefits for specified periods for employees who
    voluntarily separated.  In four downsizing programs, companies paid
    separating employees' tuition for up to 2 years for college or
    training programs to enhance their skills and help make them
    marketable for employment elsewhere.  Finally, one company sponsored
    workshops to teach separating employees how to start their own
    business.

    --------------------
    \44 Workforce Reductions:  Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected
    Organizations.

    PROGRAMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
    MERGER PROPOSAL THAT MAY BE
    CONSOLIDATION CANDIDATES
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    In addition to the administrative and management functions already
    earmarked for consolidation by the congressional sponsors of the
    proposed Department of Education and Employment, we have identified a
    number of education- and job training-related programs that also
    could be considered for consolidation.  We found, on the basis of our
    past work, that many of these programs have purposes similar to those
    programs included in the proposal and serve similar types of people.
    The lists that follow illustrate the wide range of programs in
    several categories that the federal government currently manages.
    Sponsors of the merger proposal have selected for elimination or
    transfer some of the programs included in our previous work.

    Before consolidation decisions are made, these programs, along with
    those included in the proposal, would need to be systematically
    reviewed to determine whether they are consistent with the mission of
    the proposed Department and the offices that will administer them.
    Officials may also want to examine characteristics of these types of
    programs such as their (1) congressional intent/mission, (2) target
    populations, (3) eligibility criteria, (4) services provided, (5)
    funding levels and methods, (6) administrative and budgetary impact
    on state and local governments, and (7) effectiveness.

       KEY EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
       NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

    As part of our ongoing review of early childhood education, we
    identified 34 key programs of this type in fiscal years 1992 and
    1993.\45 For these programs, education or child care was key to their
    missions.  Sixteen of the 34 programs are not included in the
    proposal.  We found that some of these key programs provided similar
    services, served only a portion of their target populations, and
    varied in the comprehensiveness of the services they provided.

    Family Resource and Support\46
    Child Abuse and Neglect State Prevention Grants
    Emergency Protection Grants--Substance Abuse (see footnote 46)
    Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants
    At-Risk Child Care
    Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) Transitional Child
    Care
    AFDC/JOBS Child Care
    Title XX
    Appalachian Child Development
    Native Hawaiian Family Based Education Centers
    Abandoned Infants
    Family and Child Education
    Comprehensive Residential Drug Treatment Projects
    Follow Through\47
    Temporary Child Care and Crisis Nurseries
    Child Care and Development Block Grant

    --------------------
    \45 Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping
    Target Groups.

    \46 In fiscal year 1995, funding for some or all of this program was
    redirected to the Community-based Family Resource program by
    authority of the Human Services Amendments of 1994, P.L.  103-252.

    \47 Not funded in fiscal year 1995.

          TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS
          NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1

    For our report on multiple federal teacher training programs, we
    compiled information on 86 programs whose primary focus was teacher
    training.\48 These programs generally funded conferences, trainer
    salaries, travel, and materials.  The proposal does not include 35 of
    these programs.

    --------------------
    \48 Multiple Teacher Training Programs:  Information on Budgets,
    Services, and Target Groups.

          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2

    Nutrition Education and Training Program

          DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.3

    Educational Partnerships
    Follow Through (see footnote 46)
    Higher Education--Cooperative Education (Cooperative Education
     Program) (proposed for elimination)
    Law-Related Education (proposed for elimination)
    Leadership in Educational Administration Development
    National Diffusion Network (proposed for elimination)
    National Writing Project (proposed for elimination)
    Star Schools Program (proposed for elimination)
    Supplementary State Grants for Facilities, Equipment, and Other
     Program Improvement Activities
    Territories--Freely Associated States Education Grant
    Training Programs for Educators--Alcohol Abuse
    Training in Early Childhood Education and Violence Counseling
     (proposed for elimination)

          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.4

    Minority Undergraduate Training for Energy Related Careers
    Summer Teacher Institute Program
    Teacher Research Associates Program

          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
          AGENCY PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.5

    Environmental Education and Training Program
    Environmental Education Grants

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.6

    Child Development Associate Scholarships\49
    Cooperative Agreements to Support School Health Education to Prevent
     the Spread of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
    Minority High School Student Research Apprentice Program
    National Institute of Health Science Education Partnership Award
    Science Enhancement Award Program

    --------------------
    \49 In the President's proposed fiscal year 1996 budget, this program
    is proposed for consolidation into the Child Care and Development
    Block Grant.

          NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
          SPACE ADMINISTRATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.7

    Aerospace Education Services Program
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Educational Workshop
     for Elementary Teachers
    Teacher Training Pre-Service Program

          NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE
          ARTS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.8

    Challenge Grants
    Promotion of the Humanities--Elementary and Secondary Education in
     the Humanities
    Promotion of the Humanities--Higher Education in the Humanities
    Promotion of the Humanities--Summer Seminar for School Teachers
    Promotion for the Humanities--National Endowment for the Humanities/
     Reader's Digest Teacher-Scholar Program
    Promotion of the Humanities--Foreign Lingual Education
    Science and Humanities
    State Programs

          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.9

    Education and Human Resources

          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
          PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.10

    Aviation Education

       OTHER EDUCATION-RELATED
       PROGRAMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
       PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

    The following programs are just a few of those that we identified as
    overlapping federal education-related programs at a recent hearing on
    opportunities for cost savings at the Department of Education.\50

    --------------------
    \50 Department of Education:  Information on Consolidation
    Opportunities and Student Aid.

          DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

    Cooperative Science and Education Program
    Meteorologic and Hydrologic Modernization Development
    Office of Administration Special Programs

          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

    Basic and Applied Scientific Research
    Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science
    Mathematical Sciences Grants Program

          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

    Basic Energy Sciences
    Regional Biomass Energy Programs
    Minority Energy Information Clearinghouse
    Minority Educational Institution Research Travel Fund
    Academic Partnerships
    Used Energy-Related Laboratory Equipment

          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
          AGENCY PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4

    Environmental Education and Training Program
    Environmental Education Grants

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.5

    Family Resource Centers (See footnote 46)
    Family Support Center and Gateway Demonstration Program

          DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
          URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.6

    Public and Indian Housing Family Investment Centers
    Community Development Work-Study Program

          DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.7

    Grants for Mining and Mineral Resources and Research

          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.8

    Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation
    Engineering Grants
    Computer and Information Science and Engineering
    Biological Sciences
    Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
    Education and Human Resources

          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.9

    Aviation Education
    Aviation Research Grants
    Federal Transit Grants for University Research and Training
    University Transportation Centers Program

       SELECTED POSTSECONDARY
       EDUCATION PROGRAMS NOT INCLUDED
       IN THE PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

    In preparation for the hearing concerning opportunities for cost
    savings at the Department of Education, we compiled a list of
    programs from the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance that
    included ones supporting students at the postsecondary level.

          DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
          AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.1

    Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
    Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance
    All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance

          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.2

    Science and Engineering Research Semester
    Minority Undergraduate Training for Energy-Related Careers
    Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance
    Financial Assistance Program--Science Education

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.3

    Minority International Research Training Grant
    Health Education Assistance Loans
    Grants for Preventive Medicine and Dental Health
    Health Professionals Pregraduate Scholarship Program
    Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships
    Financial Assistance for Disadvantaged Health
    Programs of Excellence in Health Professions Education
    Indian Health Service Educational Loan Repayment Program
    Grants for State Loan Repayment
    Nursing Education Opportunities for Individuals From Disadvantaged
     Backgrounds
    Special Project Grants to Schools of Public Health
    Allied Health Project Grants
    Matching Grants for Health Professions Scholarships
    Loan Repayment Program for Individuals From Disadvantaged
     Backgrounds
    Health Professions Student Loans--Including Primary Care/Loans for
     Disadvantaged Students
    Nursing Student Loans
    Minority Biomedical Research Support
    Scholarships for Students of Exceptional Financial Need
    Health Careers Opportunity Program
    Rural Health Medical Education Demonstration Projects
    Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program for Registered Nurses
    Scholarships for Health Professions Students
    Demonstration Grants to States for Community Scholarships
    Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship Program
    Health Professions Scholarship Program

       EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS
       NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

    We reported early this year that the federal government administered
    163 employment training programs in fiscal year 1995.\51 These
    programs provided employment training assisitance to (1) help the
    unemployed find jobs, (2) create job opportunities, and (3) enhance
    the skill levels of adults and out-of-school youths not enrolled in
    advanced-degree programs.  The following 77 employment training
    programs described in our previous report are not included in the
    proposal.

    --------------------
    \51 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Information Crosswalk on
    163 Employment Training Programs.

          DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1

    Women's Equity (proposed for elimination)
    Vocational Education--Comprehensive Career Guidance and Counseling
    Tribal Economic Development
    Workplace Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders
    Native Hawaiian Education Community-Based Education Learning  Centers
    Community School Partnerships
    Vocational Education--Demonstration Centers for the Training
     of Dislocated Workers
    Comprehensive Services for Independent Living
    National Center for Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults

          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.2

    Federal Bonding Program
    Senior Community Service Employment Program (proposed for
     transfer
    Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (proposed for elimination)
    Youth Fair Chance (proposed for elimination)

          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.3

    Food Stamp Employment and Training (proposed for elimination)

          APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
          COMMISSION PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.4

    Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations
     (proposed for elimination)

          DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.5

    Minority Business Development Centers
    American Indian Program
    Economic Development--Grants for Public Works and Development
     Facilities
    Economic Development--Public Works Impact Program
    Economic Development--Support for Planning Organizations
    Economic Development--Technical Assistance
    Economic Development--State and Local Economic Development
     Planning
    Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program
     --Sudden and Severe Economic Dislocation and Long-Term Economic
      Deterioration
    Community Economic Adjustment

          CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
          SERVICE PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.6

    Literacy Corps
    Foster Grandparent Program
    Senior Companion Program

          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.7

    Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning Assistance
    Transition Assistance Program

          DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
          HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.8

    Community Services Block Grant
    Community Services Block Grant--Discretionary Award
    Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards--
     Demonstration Partnership
    Refugee and Entrant Assistance--Discretionary Grants
    Refugee and Entrant Assistance--State Administered Programs
    Refugee and Entrant Assistance--Voluntary Agency Programs
    Family Support Centers and Gateway Demonstration Program
    State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants
    Transitional Living for Runaway and Homeless Youth
    Independent Living
    Scholarships for Health Professions--Students from Disadvantaged
     Backgrounds
    Health Careers Opportunity Program

          DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
          URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.9

    Emergency Shelter Grants Program
    Supportive Housing Program
    Youthbuild
    Family Self-Sufficiency Program
    Service Coordinators
    Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program

          DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
          PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.10

    Indian Employment Assistance
    Indian Grants--Economic Development

          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.11

    Ounce of Prevention Grant Program
    Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program
    Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth
    Police Recruitment
    Local Partnership Act
    National Community Economic Partnership
    Substance Abuse Treatment in Federal Prisons

          OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
          MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.12

    Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth--Summer

          SMALL BUSINESS
          ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.13

    Management and Technical Assistance for Socially and
     Economically Disadvantaged Businesses
    Small Business Development Center
    Women's Business Ownership Assistance
    Veteran Entrepreneurial Training and Counseling
    Service Corps of Retired Executives Association
    Business Development Assistance to Small Business
    Procurement Assistance to Small Business
    Minority Business Development

          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
          PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.14

    Transit Planning and Research Program

          DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
          AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.15

    All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
    Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program
    Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance
    Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
    Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance
    Vocational Training for Certain Veterans Receiving
     VA Pensions
    Vocational and Educational Counseling for Servicemembers
      and Veterans
    Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training
    Health Care for Homeless Veterans
    Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans
    Housing and Urban Development/Veterans Affairs--Supported
      Housing

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    EDUCATION
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    LABOR
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
    COMMENTS FROM THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
    OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    SELECTED GAO PRODUCTS ON
    EDUCATION, LABOR, AND EEOC-RELATED
    ISSUES
    ========================================================= Appendix VII

       BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND
       MINORITY LANGUAGES AFFAIRS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

    Immigrant Education:  Federal Funding Has Not Kept Pace With Student
    Increases (GAO/T-HEHS-94-146, Apr.  14, 1994).

    Hispanic Dropouts and Federal Programs (GAO/PEMD-94-18R, Apr.  6,
    1994).

    Limited English Proficiency:  A Growing and Costly Educational
    Challenge Facing Many School Districts (GAO/HEHS-94-38, Jan.  28,
    1994).

    Immigrant Education:  Information on the Emergency Immigrant
    Education Act Program (GAO/HRD-91-50, Mar.  15, 1991).

       BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

    Trade and Economic Data:  Many Federal Agencies Collect and
    Disseminate Information (GAO/NSIAD-91-173, May 1, 1991).

       CIVIL RIGHTS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3

    Within-School Discrimination:  Inadequate Title VI Enforcement by the
    Office for Civil Rights (GAO/HRD-91-85, July 22, 1991).

       DEPARTMENTAL
       ADMINISTRATION-DEPARTMENT OF
       EDUCATION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:4

    Department of Education:  Information on Consolidation Opportunities
    and Student Aid (GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr.  6, 1995).

    Department of Education:  Opportunities to Realize Savings
    (GAO/T-HEHS-95-56, Jan.  18, 1995).

    Buyouts at the Department of Education (GAO/GGD-94-197R, Aug.  17,
    1994).

    Department of Education:  Long-Standing Management Problems Hamper
    Reforms (GAO/HRD-93-47, May 28, 1993).

    Transition Series:  Education Issues (GAO/OCG-93-18TR, Dec.  1992).

    Department of Education:  Management Commitment Needed to Improve
    Information Resources Management (GAO/IMTEC-92-17, Apr.  20, 1992).

    Education Grants Management:  Actions Initiated to Correct Material
    Weaknesses (GAO/HRD-91-72, June 26, 1991).

    Education Regulations:  Reasons for Delays in Issuance
    (GAO/HRD-91-4BR, Nov.  15, 1990).

       DEPARTMENTAL
       ADMINISTRATION-DEPARTMENT OF
       LABOR
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:5

    Department of Labor:  Opportunities to Realize Savings
    (GAO/T-HEHS-95-55, Jan.  18, 1995).

    Security Protection:  Costs of Services Provided for Selected Cabinet
    Officials (GAO/GGD-95-50, Dec.  30, 1994).

    Political Appointees:  Turnover Rates in Executive Schedule Positions
    Requiring Senate Confirmation (GAO/GGD-94-115FS, Apr.  21, 1994).

    Department of Labor:  Noncompetitive.  Discretionary Grants
    (GAO/HEHS-94-9, Feb.  22, 1994).

    Women-Owned Businesses (GAO/RCED-93-159R, June 7, 1993).

    TQM Implementation at Labor (GAO/GGD-93-27R, Apr.  2, 1993).

    Labor Issues (GAO/OCG-93-19TR, Dec.  1992).

    Commuter Security:  Agencies Reported Having Implemented Most System
    Security Controls (GAO/IMTEC-92-45, Apr.  30, 1992).

    Program Fraud:  Implementation of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies
    Act of 1986 (GAO/AFMD-91-73, Sept.  13, 1991).

       DISLOCATED WORKERS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:6

    Dislocated Workers:  An Early Look at the NAFTA Transitional
    Adjustment Assistance Program (GAO/HEHS-95-31, Nov.  28, 1994).

    Military Downsizing:  Persons Returning to Civilian Life Need More
    Help From DOD (GAO/HEHS-94-39, Jan.  21, 1994).

    Dislocated Workers:  Proposed Re-employment Assistance Program
    (GAO/HRD-94-61, Nov.  12, 1993).

    Dislocated Workers:  Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
    Act Not Meeting Its Goals (GAO/HRD-93-18, Feb.  23, 1993).

    Dislocated Workers:  Improvements Needed in Trade Adjustment
    Assistance Certification Process (GAO/HRD-93-36, Oct.  19, 1992).

    Dislocated Workers:  Comparison of Assistance Programs
    (GAO/HRD-92-153BR, Sept.  10, 1992).

    Dislocated Workers:  Labor-Management Committees Enhance Reemployment
    Assistance (GAO/HRD-90-3, Nov.  21, 1989).

       EDUCATION REFORM
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:7

    Multiple Teacher Training Programs:  Information on Budgets,
    Services, and Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-71FS, Feb.  22, 1995).

    Schools Facilities:  Condition of American Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61,
    Feb.  1, 1995).

    Charter Schools:  New Model for Public Schools Provides Opportunities
    and Challenges (GAO/HEHS-95-42, Jan.  18, 1995).

    Education Reform:  School-Based Management Results in Changes in
    Instruction and Budgeting (GAO/HEHS-94-135, Aug.  23, 1994).

    Regulatory Flexibility in Schools:  What Happens When Schools Are
    Allowed to Change the Rules?  (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr.  29, 1994).

    Regulatory Flexibility Programs (GAO/HRD-94-51R, Nov.  3, 1993).

    Transition From School to Work:  States Are Developing New Strategies
    to Prepare Students for Jobs (GAO/HRD-93-139, Sept.  7, 1993).

    Educational Achievement Standards:  NAGB's Approach Yields Misleading
    Interpretations (GAO/PEMD-93-12, June 23, 1993).

    Systemwide Education Reform:  Federal Leadership Could Facilitate
    District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr.  30, 1993).

    Educational Testing:  The Canadian Experience With Standards,
    Examinations, and Assessments (GAO/PEMD-93-11, Apr.  28, 1993).

    Planning for Education Standards (GAO/PEMD-93-21R, Apr.  12, 1993).

    Student Testing:  Current Extent and Expenditures, With Cost
    Estimates for a National Examination (GAO/PEMD-93-8, Jan.  13, 1993).

    Transition From School to Work:  Linking Education and Worksite
    Training (GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug.  2, 1991).

    Training Strategies:  Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in
    the U.S.  and Foreign Countries (GAO/HRD-90-88, May 11, 1990).

       EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND
       IMPROVEMENT
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:8

    National Assessment Technical Quality (GAO/PEMD-92-22R, Mar.  11,
    1992).

    Education's Library:  Actions Needed to Improve Its Usefulness
    (GAO/HRD-91-61, Apr.  11, 1991).

       ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
       EDUCATION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:9

    School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61,
    Feb.  1, 1995).

    Hispanics' Schooling:  Risk Factors for Dropping Out and Barriers to
    Resuming Education (GAO/PEMD-94-24, July 27, 1994).

    Women's Educational Equity Act:  A Review of Program Goals and
    Strategies Needed (GAO/PEMD-95-6, Dec.  27, 1994).

    Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target
    Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994).

    Homelessness:  McKinney Act Programs and Funding Through Fiscal Year
    1993 (GAO/RCED-94-107, June 29, 1994).

    Homelessness:  McKinney Act Programs Provide Assistance but Are Not
    Designed to Be the Solution (GAO/RCED-94-37, May 31, 1994).

    School-Age Children:  Poverty and Diversity Challenge Schools
    Nationwide (GAO/HEHS-94-132, Apr.  29, 1994).

    GAO Work Related to ESEA of 1965 (GAO/HEHS-94-156R, Apr.  26, 1994).

    Immigrant Education:  Federal Funding Has Not Kept Pace With Student
    Increases (GAO/T-HEHS-94-146, Apr.  14, 1994).

    Elementary School Children:  Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming
    Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb.  4, 1994).

    School-Linked Human Services:  A Comprehensive Strategy for Aiding
    Students (GAO/HRD-94-21, Dec.  30, 1993).

    School Age Demographics:  Recent Trends Pose New Educational
    Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug.  5, 1993).

    Exiting Program Improvement (GAO/HRD-93-2R, Mar.  30, 1993).

    Chapter 1 Accountability:  Greater Focus on Program Goals Needed
    (GAO/HRD-93-69, Mar.  29, 1993).

    Compensatory Education:  Difficulties in Measuring Comparability of
    Resources Within School Districts (GAO/HRD-93-37, Mar.  11, 1993).

    Compensatory Education:  Additional Funds Help More Private School
    Students Receive Chapter 1 Services (GAO/HRD-93-65, Feb.  26, 1993).

    Department of Education:  The Eisenhower Math and Science State Grant
    Program (GAO/HRD-93-25, Nov.  10, 1992).

    Remedial Education:  Modifying Chapter 1 Formula Would Target More
    Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992).

    Drug Education:  Rural Programs Have Many Components and Most Rely
    Heavily on Federal Funds (GAO/HRD-92-34, Jan.  31, 1992).

    Homelessness:  Access to McKinney Act Programs Improved but Better
    Oversight Needed (GAO/RCED-91-29, Dec.  28, 1990).

    Drug Education:  School-Based Programs Seen as Useful but Impact
    Unknown (GAO/HRD-91-27, Nov.  28, 1990).

    Impact Aid:  Most School Construction Requests Are Unfunded and
    Outdated (GAO/HRD-90-90, July 12, 1990).

    Homelessness:  McKinney Act Reports Could Improve Federal Assistance
    Efforts (GAO/RCED-90-121, June 4, 1990).

       EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:10

    Employment Service:  Improved Leadership Needed for Better
    Performance (GAO/HRD-91-88, Aug.  6, 1991).

    Employment Service:  Variations in Local Office Performance
    (GAO/HRD-89-116BR, Aug.  3, 1989).

       EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
       ADMINISTRATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:11

    Garment Industry:  Efforts to Address the Prevalence and Conditions
    of Sweatshops (GAO/HEHS-95-29, Nov.  2, 1994).

    Equal Employment Opportunity:  Displacement Rates, Unemployment
    Spells, and Reinvolvement Wages by Race (GAO/HEHS-94-229FS, Sept.
    16, 1994).

    Federal Employees' Compensation Act:  No Evidence That Labor's
    Physician Selection Processes Biased Claims Decisions (GAO/GGD-94-67,
    Feb.  11, 1994).

    Davis-Bacon Act (GAO/HEHS-94-95R, Feb.  7, 1994).

    Family and Medical Leave Act Cost Estimate (GAO/HRD-93-14R, Feb.  1,
    1993).

    Minimum Wages and Overtime Pay:  Change in Statute of Limitations
    Would Better Protect Employees (GAO/HRD-92-144, Sept.  22, 1992).

    Foreign Farm Workers in U.S.:  Department of Labor Action Needed to
    Protect Florida Sugar Cane Workers (GAO/HRD-92-95, June 30, 1992).

    Child Labor:  Information on Federal Enforcement Efforts
    (GAO/HRD-92-127FS, June 15, 1992).

    Summary Information on Farmworkers (GAO/HRD-92-30R, Apr.  10, 1992).

    Federal Employees' Compensation Act:  Need to Increase Rehabilitation
    and Reemployment of Injured Workers (GAO/GGD-92-30, Feb.  28, 1992).

    Hired Farmworkers:  Health and Well-Being at Risk (GAO/HRD-92-46,
    Feb.  14, 1990).

    Child Labor:  Characteristics of Working Children (GAO/HRD-91-83BR,
    June 14, 1991).

    U.S.-Mexico Trade:  Information on Wages, Fringe Benefits, and
    Workers' Rights (GAO/NSIAD-91-220, May 10, 1991).

    Workers at Risk:  Increased Numbers in Contingent Employment Lack
    Insurance, Other Benefits (GAO/HRD-91-56, Mar.  8, 1991).

    Employee Benefits:  Improvements Needed in Enforcing Health Insurance
    Continuation Requirements (GAO/HRD-91-37, Dec.  18, 1990).

    Child Labor:  Increases in Detected Child Labor Violations Throughout
    the United States (GAO/HRD-90-116, Apr.  30, 1990).

    Immigration Reform:  Employer Sanctions and the Question of
    Discrimination (GAO/GGD-90-62, Mar.  29, 1990).

    Black Lung Program:  Further Improvements Can Be Made in Claims
    Adjudication (GAO/HRD-90-75, Mar.  21, 1990).

    Workers' Compensation:  The Impact of 1984 Amendments on the
    Longshore Program (GAO/HRD-90-76BR, Mar.  8, 1990).

    Immigration Reform:  Major Changes Likely Under S.  358
    (GAO/PEMD-90-5, Nov.  9, 1989).

       EEOC
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:12

    Equal Employment Opportunity:  Displacement Rates, Unemployment
    Spells, and Reemployment Wages by Race (GAO/HEHS-94-229FS, Sept.  16,
    1994).

    Federal Affirmative Employment:  Better Guidance Needed for Small
    Agencies (GAO/GGD-94-71, July 7, 1994).

    Sex Discrimination:  Agencies' Handling of Sexual Harassment and
    Related Complaints (GAO/T-OSI-94-22, Mar.  8, 1994).

    EEOC'S Expanding Workload:  Increases in Age Discrimination and Other
    Changes Call for New Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-32, Feb.  9, 1994).

    Federal Personnel:  The EEO Implications of Reductions-in-Force
    (GAO/T-GGD-94-87, Feb.  1, 1994).

    EEOC:  An Overview (GAO/T-HRD-93-30, July 27, 1993).

    Age Employment Discrimination:  EEOC's Investigation of Charges Under
    1967 Law (GAO/HRD-92-82, Sept.  4, 1992).

    Federal Workforce:  Agencies' Estimated Costs for Counseling and
    Processing Discrimination Complaints (GAO/GGD-92-64FS, Mar.  26,
    1992).

    Federal Workforce:  Continuing Need for Federal Affirmative
    Employment (GAO/GGD-92-27BR, Nov.  27, 1991).  Testimony on same
    topic (10/23/91, GAO/T-GGD-92-2).

    Equal Employment Opportunity:  EEOC and State Agencies Did Not Fully
    Investigate Discrimination Charges (GAO/HRD-89-11, Oct.  11, 1988).

       MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
       ADMINISTRATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:13

    Mine Safety and Health:  Tampering Scandal Led to Improved Sampling
    Devices (GAO/HRD-93-63, Feb.  25, 1993).

       MULTIPLE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
       PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:14

    Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Information Crosswalk on 163
    Employment Training Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-85FS, Feb.  14, 1995).

    Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Overlap Among Programs Raises
    Questions About Efficiency (GAO/HEHS-94-l93, July 11, 1994).

    Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Most Federal Agencies Do Not
    Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively (GAO/HEHS-94-88, Mar.
    2, 1994).

    Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Overlapping Programs Can Add
    Unnecessary Administrative Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-80, Jan.  28, 1994).

    Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Conflicting Requirements
    Hamper Delivery of Services (GAO/HEHS-94-78, Jan.  28, 1994).

    Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/HRD-93-26R, June 15, 1993).

    Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/HRD-92-39R, July 24, 1992).

       OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
       ADMINISTRATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:15

    Department of Labor:  Rethinking the Federal Role in Worker
    Protection and Workforce Development (GAO/T-HEHS-95-125, Apr.  4,
    1995).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Changes Needed in the Combined
    Federal-State Approach (GAO/HEHS-94-10, Feb.  28, 1994).

    Health and Safety:  DOE's Implementation of a Comprehensive Health
    Surveillance Program Is Slow (GAO/RCED-94-47, Dec.  16, 1993).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Differences Between Programs in the
    United States and Canada (GAO/HRD-94-15FS, Dec.  6, 1993).

    U.S.-Mexico Trade:  The Work Environment at Eight U.S.-Owned
    Maquiladora Auto Parts Plants (GAO/GGD-94-22, Nov.  l, 1993).

    Air Force Depot Maintenance:  Status of Safety Initiatives
    (GAO/NSIAD-94-37, Oct.  28, 1993).

    Paperwork Reduction:  Agency Responses to Recent Court Decisions
    (GAO/PEMD-93-5, Feb.  3, 1993).

    Asbestos in Federal Buildings:  Federal Efforts to Protect Employees
    From Potential Exposure (GAO/RCED-93-9, Oct.  6, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Uneven Protections Provided to
    Congressional Employees (GAO/HRD-93-1, Oct.  2, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Improvements Needed in OSHA's
    Monitoring of Federal Agencies' Programs (GAO/HRD-92-97, Aug.  28,
    1992).

    Risk-Risk Analysis:  OMB's Review of a Proposed OSHA Rule
    (GAO/PEMD-92-33, July 2, 1992).

    Hazardous Waste:  A North Carolina Incinerator's Noncompliance With
    EPA and OSHA Requirements (GAO/RCED-92-78, June 30, 1992).

    Response to Incinerator Report (GAO/RCED-92-216R, June 29, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Worksite Safety and Health Programs
    Show Promise (GAO/HRD-92-68, May 19, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Options to Improve Hazard-Abatement
    Procedures in the Workplace (GAO/HRD-92-105, May 12, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Employers' Experiences in Complying
    With the Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-63BR, May 8,
    1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Penalties for Violations Are Well
    Below Maximum Allowable Penalties (GAO/HRD-92-48, Apr.  6, 1992).

    Toxic Substances:  Information on Costs and Financial Aid to Schools
    to Control Asbestos (GAO/RCED-92-57FS, Jan.  15, 1992).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  OSHA Action Needed to Improve
    Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov.
    26, 1991).

    Indoor Air Pollution:  Federal Efforts Are Not Effectively Addressing
    a Growing Problem (GAO/RCED-92-8, Oct.  15, 1991).

    Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants:  Regulatory Actions Provide
    Uncertain Protection (GAO/PEMD-92-3, Oct.  2, 1991).

    Air Force Depot Maintenance:  More Efforts Are Needed to Improve
    Safety and Training (GAO/NSIAD-91-89, May 23, 1991).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  OSHA Policy Changes Needed to
    Confirm That Employers Abate Serious Hazards (GAO/HRD-91-35, May 8,
    1991).

    Nuclear Health and Safety:  More Attention to Health and Safety
    Needed at Pantex (GAO/RCED-91-103, Apr.  15, 1991).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Inspectors' Opinions on Improving
    OSHA Effectiveness (GAO/HRD-91-9FS, Nov.  14, 1990).

    Occupational Safety and Health:  Options for Improving Safety and
    Health in the Workplace (GAO/HRD-90-66BR, Aug.  24, 1990).

       OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN
       WORKPLACE
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:16

    Workplace Regulation:  Information on Selected Employer and Union
    Experiences (GAO/HEHS-94-138, June 30, 1994).

       PENSION INSURANCE AND
       ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:17

    Private Pensions:  Funding Rule Change Needed to Reduce PBGC's
    Multibillion Dollar Exposure (GAO/HEHS-95-5, Oct.  5, 1994).

    Pension Plans:  Stronger Labor ERISA Enforcement Should Better
    Protect Plan Participants (GAO/HEHS-94-157, Aug.  8, 1994).

    Financial Audit:  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's 1993 and
    1992 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-94-109, May 4, 1994).

    ERISA Targeting (GAO/HRD-93-34R, Sept.  30, 1993).

    Private Pensions:  Protections for Retirees' Insurance Annuities Can
    Be Strengthened (GAO/HRD-93-29, Mar.  31, 1993).

    Pension Plans:  Labor Should Not Ignore Some Small Plans That Report
    Violations (GAO/HRD-93-45, Mar.  26, 1993).

    Pension Restoration Act (GAO/HRD-93-7R, Dec.  18, 1992).

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (GAO/HRD-93-5, Dec.  1992).

    Pension Plans:  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Needs to Improve
    Premium Collections (GAO/HRD-92-103, Aug.  11, 1992).

    Employee Benefits:  Improved Plan Reporting and CPA Audits Can
    Increase Protection Under ERISA (GAO/AFMD-92-14, Apr.  9, 1992).

    Employee Benefits:  States Need Labor's Help Regulating Multiple
    Employer Welfare Arrangements (GAO/HRD-92-40, Mar.  10, 1992).

    Pension Plans:  Fiduciary Violations in Terminated Underfunded Plans
    (GAO/HRD-91-87, May 13, 1991).

    Private Pensions:  Millions of Workers Lose Federal Benefit
    Protection at Retirement (GAO/HRD-91-79, Apr.  25, 1991).

    Government Financial Vulnerability:  14 Areas Needing Special Review
    (GAO/OCG-90-1, Jan.  23, 1990).

       POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:18

    Department of Education:  Information on Consolidation Opportunities
    and Student Aid (GAO/T-HEHS-95-130, Apr.  6, 1995).

    Pell Grant Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-215R, Sept.  28, 1994).

    Pell Grants for Prison Inmates (GAO/HEHS-94-224R, Aug.  5, 1994).

    Financial Audit:  Federal Family Education Loan Program's Financial
    Statements for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1992 (GAO/AIMD-94-131, June 30,
    1994).

    Default Rates at HBCUs (GAO/HEHS-94-97R, Mar.  9, 1994).

    GAO High-Risk Program (GAO/AIMD-94-72R, Jan.  27, 1994).

    Student Loans:  Millions Loaned Inappropriately to U.S.  Nationals at
    Foreign Medical Schools (GAO/HEHS-94-28, Jan.  21, 1994).

    Higher Education:  Information on Minority-Targeted Scholarships
    (GAO/HEHS-94-77, Jan.  14, 1994).

    Student Financial Aid Programs:  Pell Grant Program Abuse
    (GAO/T-0SI-94-8, Oct.  27, 1993).

    Financial Management:  Education's Student Loan Program Controls Over
    Lenders Need Improvement (GAO/AIMD-93-33; Sept.  9, 1993).

    Student Loans:  Default Rates at Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities (GAO/HRD-93-117FS, Aug.  19, 1993).

    Direct Student Loan Savings (GAO/HRD-93-25R, July 15, 1993).

    Financial Audit:  Federal Family Education Loan Program's Financial
    Statements for Fiscal Year 1992 (GAO/AIMD-93-4, June 30, 1993).

    HEAF 1992 Financial Condition (GAO/HRD-93-21R, June 18, 1993).

    Direct Student Loans:  The Department of Education's Implementation
    of Direct Lending (GAO/T-HRD-93-26, June 10, 1993).

    Financial Audit:  Guaranteed Student Loan Program's Internal Controls
    and Structure Need Improvement (GAO/AFMD-93-20, Mar.  16, 1993).

    Direct Loan Debate (GAO/HRD-93-15R, Feb.  8, 1993).

    Federal Data Collection:  Agencies' Use of Consistent Race and Ethnic
    Definitions (GAO/GGD-93-25, Dec.  15, 1992).

    High-Risk Series:  Guaranteed Student Loans (GAO/HRD-93-2, Dec.
    1992).

    Student Loans:  Direct Loans Could Save Billions in First 5 Years
    With Proper Implementation (GAO/HRD-93-27, Nov.  25, 1992).

    Guaranty Agency Solvency:  Can the Government Recover HEAF's
    First-Year Liquidation Cost of $212 Million?  (GAO/HRD-93-12BR, Nov.
    13, 1992).

    Parent and Supplemental Student Loans:  Volume and Default Trends for
    Fiscal Years 1989 to 1991 (GAO/HRD-92-138FS, Sept.  22, 1992).

    Stafford Student Loans:  Prompt Payment of Origination Fees Could
    Reduce Costs (GAO/HRD-92-61, July 24, 1992).

    Guaranteed Student Loans:  Eliminating Interest Rate Floors Could
    Generate Substantial Savings (GAO/HRD-92-113, July 21, 1992).

    Stafford Student Loan Program:  Correspondence Schools' Loan Volume
    Declines Sharply (GAO/HRD-92-62FS, Mar.  13, 1992).

    Student Financial Aid:  Characteristics of Jobs Provided Through the
    College Work-Study Program (GAO/HRD-92-72BR, Feb.  21, 1992).

    Student Financial Aid:  Most Supplemental Educational Opportunity
    Grants Are Awarded to Needy Students (GAO/HRD-92-47, Jan.  31, 1992).

    Stafford Student Loans:  Lower Subsidy Payments Could Achieve Savings
    Without Affecting Access (GAO/HRD-92-7, Jan.  6, 1992).

    Perkins Student Loans:  Options That Could Make the Program More
    Financially Independent (GAO/HRD-92-6, Dec.  9, 1991).

    Medical Residents:  Options Exist to Make Student Loan Payments
    Manageable (GAO/HRD-92-2l, Nov.  11, 1991).

    Student Loans:  Direct Loans Could Save Money and Simplify Program
    Administration (GAO/HRD-91-144BR, Sept.  27, 1991).

    Student Financial Aid:  Education Can Do More to Screen Schools
    Before Students Receive Aid (GAO/HRD-91-145, Sept.  27, 1991).

    Student Loans:  Characteristics of Defaulted Borrowers in the
    Stafford Student Loan Program (GAO/HRD-91-82BR, Apr.  26, 1991).

    Perkins Student Loans:  Need for Better Controls Over Loans Recovered
    From Closed Schools (GAO/HRD-91-70, Mar.  27, 1991).

    Stafford Student Loans:  Millions of Dollars in Loans Awarded to
    Ineligible Borrowers (GAO/IMTEC-91-7, Dec.  12, 1990).

    Guaranteed Student Loans:  Profits of Secondary Market Lenders Vary
    Widely (GAO/HRD-90-130B, Sept.  28, 1990).

    Student Loan Lenders:  Information on the Activities of the First
    Independent Trust Company (GAO/HRD-90-183FS, Sept.  25, 1990).

    Defaulted Student Loans:  Analysis of Defaulted Borrowers at Schools
    Accredited by Seven Agencies (GAO/HRD-90-178FS, Sept.  12, 1990).

    School Accreditation:  Activities of Seven Agencies That Accredit
    Proprietary Schools (GAO/HRD-90-179BR, Sept.  12, 1990).

    Supplemental Student Loans:  Legislative Changes Have Sharply Reduced
    Loan Volume (GAO/HRD-90-149FS, Aug.  3, 1990).

    Consolidated Student Loans:  Borrowers Benefit but Costs to Them and
    the Government Grow (GAO/HRD-90-8, June 15, 1990).

    Supplemental Student Loans:  Who Are the Largest Lenders?
    (GAO/HRD-90-72FS, Feb.  21, 1990).

    Pell Grants:  How the Department of Education Estimates Program Costs
    (GAO/HRD-90-73BR, Feb.  21, 1990).

       SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:19

    Transition from School to Work:  States Are Developing New Strategies
    to Prepare Students for Jobs (GAO/HRD-93-139, Sept.  7, 1993).

    Vocational Education:  Status in 2-Year Colleges in 1990-91 and Early
    Signs of Change (GAO/HRD-93-89, Aug.  16, 1993).

    Vocational Education:  Status in School Year 1990-91 and Early Signs
    of Change at Secondary Level (GAO/HRD-93-71, July 13, 1993).

    Skill Standards:  Experience in Certification Systems Shows Industry
    Involvement to Be Key (GAO/HRD-93-90, May 18, 1993).

    Apprenticeship Training:  Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity
    (GAO/HRD-92-43, Mar.  4, 1992).

    Transition From School to Work:  Linking Education and Worksite
    Training (GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug.  2, 1991).

    Training Strategies:  Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in
    the U.S.  and Foreign Countries (GAO/HRD-90-88, May 11, 1990).

       SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
       REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:20

    Special Education Reform:  Districts Grapple With Inclusion Programs
    (GAO/T-HEHS-94-160, Apr.  28, 1994).

    Deaf Education:  Improved Oversight Needed for National Technical
    Institute for the Deaf (GAO/HRD-94-23, Dec.  16, 1993).

    Vocational Rehabilitation:  Evidence for Federal Program's
    Effectiveness Is Mixed (GAO/PEMD-93-19, Aug.  27, 1993).

    Vocational Rehabilitation:  Clearer Guidance Could Help Focus
    Services on Those With Severe Disabilities (GAO/HRD-92-12, Nov.  26,
    1991).

    Department of Education:  Monitoring of State-Formula Grants by
    Office of Special Education Programs (GAO/HRD-91-91FS, Apr.  15,
    1991).

    Special Education:  Estimates of Handicapped Indian Preschoolers and
    Sufficiency of Services (GAO/HRD-90-61BR, Mar.  5, 1990).

       TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT
       SERVICES
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:21

    JOBS and JTPA:  Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program Performance
    (GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Labor Title IV Initiatives Could
    Improve Relations With Native Americans (GAO/HEHS-94-67, Mar.  4,
    1994).

    Job Corps Costs and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-93-16R, Feb.  19, 1993).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Actions Needed to Improve Participant
    Support Services (GAO/HRD-92-124, June 12, 1992).

    Comments on JTPA Bills (GAO/HRD-92-35R, May 20, 1992).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Racial and Gender Disparities in
    Services (GAO/HRD-91-148, Sept.  20, 1991).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Inadequate Oversight Leaves Program
    Vulnerable to Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement (GAO/HRD-91-97, July
    30, 1991).

    Targeted Jobs Tax Credit:  Employer Actions to Recruit, Hire, and
    Retain Eligible Workers Vary (GAO/HRD-91-33, Feb.  20, 1991).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Youth Participant Characteristics,
    Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan.  24, 1990).

    Job Training Partnership Act:  Services and Outcomes for Participants
    With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989)

       UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:22

    Unemployment Insurance:  Program's Ability to Meet Objectives
    Jeopardized (GAO/HRD-93-107, Sept.  28, 1993).

    Unemployment Insurance:  Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate to Meet
    Recession Needs (GAO/HRD-90-124, May 31, 1990).

    Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate (GAO/HRD-88-5,
    Sept.  26, 1988).

       VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND
       TRAINING
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:23

    Federal Contractor Hiring:  Effect of Veteran Hiring Legislation Is
    Unknown (GAO/GGD-94-6, Oct.  18, 1993).

    Vocational Rehabilitation:  VA Needs to Emphasize Serving Veterans
    (GAO/HRD-92-133, Sept.  28, 1992).

    Vocational Rehabilitation:  Better VA Management Needed to Help
    Disabled Veterans Find Jobs (GAO/HRD-92-100, Sept.  4, 1992).

       VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:24

    Vocational Education:  Status in 2-Year Colleges in 1990-91 and Early
    Signs of Change (GAO/HRD-93-89, Aug.  16, 1993).

    Vocational Education:  Status in School Year 1990-91 and Early Signs
    of Change at Secondary Level (GAO/HRD-93-71, July 13, 1993).

    Transition From School to Work:  Linking Education and Worksite
    Training (GAO/HRD-91-105, Aug.  2, 1991).

       OTHER
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VII:25

    Labor's Regional Structure and Trust Funds (GAO/HEHS-95-82R, Feb.
    10, 1995).

    Block Grants:  Characteristics, Experiences, and Lessons Learned
    (GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb.  9, 1995).

    Implementation:  The Missing Link in Planning Reorganizations
    (GAO/GGD-81-57, Mar.  20, 1981).

    Workforce Reductions:  Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected
    Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54, Mar.  13, 1995).

    GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    ======================================================== Appendix VIII

    GAO CONTACTS

    Fred E.  Yohey, Jr., Assistant Director, (202) 512-7218
    Karen A.  Whiten, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7291
    Lori Rectanus, Senior Evaluator, (202) 512-9847

    STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    Lawrence J.  Horinko, Assistant Director
    Nancy K.  Kawahara, Senior Evaluator
    Tamara A.  Lumpkin, Senior Evaluator
    Ann P.  McDermott, Graphics Advisor
    Sigurd R.  Nilsen, Assistant Director