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

