Results Act: Using Agency Performance Plans to Oversee Early Childhood
Programs (Testimony, 03/25/99, GAO/T-HEHS-99-93).

Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act to improve
its oversight of crosscutting issues because the act requires agencies
to develop strategic and annual performance plans that clearly specify
goals, objectives, and measures for their programs. The Office of
Management and Budget has developed guidance explaining that for
crosscutting issues, agencies should describe efforts to coordinate so
that goals are consistent and program efforts are mutually reinforcing.
When GAO looked at the plans of the Departments of Education and Health
and Human Services, however, it found that the plans are not realizing
their potential. Although the plans for fiscal years 1999 and 2000
address coordination to some extent, the departments have yet to
describe in detail how they will coordinate or consolidate their
efforts. Therefore, the potential for addressing the fragmentation and
the duplication has not been realized, and GAO cannot assess whether the
agencies are effectively working together on crosscutting issues.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-HEHS-99-93
     TITLE:  Results Act: Using Agency Performance Plans to Oversee 
             Early Childhood Programs
      DATE:  03/25/99
   SUBJECT:  Infants
             Preschool education
             Preschoolers
             Interagency relations
             Performance measures
             Strategic planning
             Federal aid programs
             Congressional/executive relations
             Agency missions
             Redundancy
IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program
             Special Education-Preschool Grants and Infants and Families 
             Program
             Even Start Family Literacy Program
             GPRA
             Government Performance and Results Act
             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S.  Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m.
Thursday, March 25, 1999

RESULTS ACT - USING AGENCY
PERFORMANCE PLANS TO OVERSEE EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

Statement of Marnie S.  Shaul, Associate Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-99-93

GAO/HEHS-99-93T


(104969)


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

  ACF - Administration for Children and Families
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

RESULTS ACT:  USING AGENCY
PERFORMANCE PLANS TO OVERSEE EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to begin a series of discussions on
how the Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993 (Results Act) to oversee the work of federal agencies and, in
particular, how the performance plans required under the act can
address the issue of multiple early childhood programs. 

Almost $14 billion dollars in federal funds was available to support
early childhood activities in fiscal year 1997, yet the large number
of programs through which such funds are made available creates the
potential for inefficient service as well as difficulty for those
trying to access the most appropriate services and funding sources.\1
In fiscal years 1992 and 1993, 11 federal agencies administered more
than 90 programs that could fund early childhood services, and we
determined that education or child care was key to the mission of 34
of the programs.\2 A disadvantaged child could potentially have been
eligible for as many as 13 programs, although many programs reported
serving only a portion of their target populations and maintaining
long waiting lists.  We have reported that programs sometimes overlap
in the services they provide, regardless of how their primary mission
is described.  For example, child care programs designed primarily to
meet the needs of parents so that they can work or be trained for
work may also have an educational component.  At the same time,
programs like Head Start that operate as part-day programs to serve
the developmental needs of children also allow parents to work during
the hours in which children are in the program. 

The Results Act is intended to improve the management of federal
programs by shifting the focus of accountability for federal programs
from a preoccupation with staffing and activity levels to outcomes. 
It can provide a new and structured framework for addressing multiple
and overlapping programs.  This should lead to new information on
multiple programs, including those that cut across agency lines but
share common goals. 

My testimony today will focus on two main topics:  (1) how the
Results Act can assist in management and congressional oversight,
especially in areas where there are multiple programs, and (2) how
the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF)--which
together administer more than half of the federal early childhood
program fundsï¿½addressed early childhood programs in their strategic
and fiscal year 1999 and 2000 performance plans and the extent to
which recent plans show progress in coordinating early childhood
programs. 

In summary, the Congress can use the Results Act to improve its
oversight of crosscutting issues because the act requires agencies to
develop strategic and annual performance plans that clearly specify
goals, objectives, and measures for their programs.  The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance saying that for
crosscutting issues, agencies should describe efforts to coordinate
so that goals are consistent and program efforts are mutually
reinforcing.  When we looked at the plans of Education and ACF, we
found that the plans are not, however, living up to their potential
as expected from the Results Act.  More specifically, while the
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 plans to some extent addressed
coordination, the departments have not yet described in detail how
they will coordinate their efforts.  Therefore, the potential for
addressing fragmentation and duplication has not been realized, and
we cannot assess whether the agencies are effectively working
together on crosscutting issues. 


--------------------
\1 Child Care:  Federal Funding for Fiscal Year 1997
(GAO/HEHS-98-70R, Jan.  23, 1998). 

\2 Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping
Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Early childhood is a key period of development in a child's life and
an emphasized age group for which services are likely to have
long-term benefits.  Recent research has underscored the need to
focus on this period to improve children's intellectual development,
language development, and school readiness.\3

Early childhood programs serve children from infancy through age 5.\4
The range of services includes education and child development, child
care, referral for health care or social services, and speech or
hearing assessment as well as many other kinds of services or
activities. 

Education and ACF administer about 60 percent of the federal early
childhood program funds.  The biggest early childhood programs in
fiscal year 1997 for these departments were Head Start (approximately
$4 billion), administered by HHS, and Special Education programs
(approximately $1 billion), administered by Education.  Head Start
provides education and developmental services to young children, and
the Special Education-Preschool Grants and Infants and Families
program provides preschool education and services to young children
with disabilities.  Although these programs target different
populations, use different eligibility criteria, and provide a
different mix of services to children and families, there are many
similarities in the services they provide.  Figure 1 illustrates the
federal agencies responsible for federal early childhood funding. 

   Figure 1:  Early Childhood
   Funding by Federal Agency, 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The Department of the Treasury portion consists of the Child
and Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Exclusion of Employer Provided
Child Care.  These represent estimates of revenue loss prepared by
Treasury based upon tax law enacted as of December 31, 1996.  The
Department of Agriculture portion is the Child and Adult Food Care
Program. 

Early childhood programs were included in the list of more than 30
programs our governmentwide performance and accountability report
cited to illustrate the problem of fragmentation and program
overlap.\5 Virtually all the results that the government strives to
achieve require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more
agencies.  However, mission fragmentation and program overlap are
widespread, and programs are not always well coordinated.  This
wastes scarce funds, frustrates taxpayers, and limits overall program
effectiveness. 


--------------------
\3 ï¿½Brain Research Has Implications for Educationï¿½ in the Education
Commission of the States' State Education Leader, Vol.  15, No.  1
(Winter 1997). 

\4 At least half of the child care for infants and toddlers of
working mothers is done through providers caring for children other
than their own rather than through organized facilities such as a
child care center.  When we talk about early childhood programs, we
are discussing only these organized facilities. 

\5 Government Management:  Addressing High Risks and Improving
Performance and Accountability (GAO/T-OCG-99-23, Feb.  10, 1999). 


   THE RESULTS ACT HELPS THE
   CONGRESS AND AGENCIES OVERSEE
   PROGRAMS AND ADDRESS
   CROSSCUTTING ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The Results Act is intended to improve the management of federal
programs by shifting the focus of decision-making and accountability
from the number of grants and inspection made to the results of
federal programs.  The act requires executive agencies, in
consultation with the Congress and other stakeholders, to prepare
strategic plans that include mission statements and goals.  Each
strategic plan covers a period of at least 5 years forward from the
fiscal year in which the plan is submitted.  It must include the
following six key elements: 

  -- a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions
     and operations of the agency,

  -- a description of general goals and objectives for the major
     functions and operations of the agency,

  -- a discussion of how these goals and objectives will be achieved
     and the resources that will be needed,

  -- a description of the relationship between performance goals in
     the annual performance plan and general goals and objectives in
     the strategic plan,

  -- a discussion of key factors external to the agency that could
     affect significantly the achievement of the general goals and
     objectives, and

  -- a description of program evaluations used to develop the plan
     and a schedule for future evaluations. 

Agencies must also prepare annual performance plans that establish
the connections between the long-term strategic goals outlined in the
strategic plans and the day-to-day activities of program managers and
staff.  While the Results Act does not require a specific format for
the annual performance plans, it requires a plan to

  -- identify annual goals and measures covering each of its program
     activities,

  -- discuss the strategies and resources needed to achieve annual
     goals, and

  -- describe the means the agency will use to verify and validate
     its performance data. 

The act also requires that each agency report annually on the extent
to which it is meeting its annual performance goals and the actions
needed to achieve or modify goals that have not been met.  The first
report, due by March 31, 2000, will describe the agencies' fiscal
year 1999 performance. 

The Results Act provides a valuable tool to address mission
fragmentation and program overlap.  The act's emphasis on results
implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar
outcomes are expected to be closely coordinated, consolidated, or
streamlined, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and
that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.\6 As noted in OMB
guidance and in our recent reports on the act, agencies should
identify multiple programs within or outside the agency that
contribute to the same or similar goals and describe their efforts to
coordinate.  Just as importantly, the Results Act's requirement that
agencies define their mission and desired outcomes, measure
performance, and use performance information provides multiple
opportunities for the Congress to intervene in ways that could
address mission fragmentation. 

  -- As missions and desired outcomes are determined, instances of
     fragmentation and overlap can be identified and appropriate
     responses can be defined.  For example, by emphasizing the
     intended outcomes of related federal programs, the plans might
     allow identification of legislative changes needed to clarify
     congressional intent and expectations or to address changing
     conditions. 

  -- As performance measures are developed, the extent to which
     agency goals are complementary and the need for common
     performance measures to allow for crossagency evaluations can be
     considered.  For example, common measures of outcomes from job
     training programs could permit comparisons of programs' results
     and the tools used to achieve those results. 

  -- As continued budget pressures prompt decisionmakers to weigh
     trade-offs inherent in resource allocation and restructuring
     decisions, the Results Act can provide the framework to
     integrate and compare the performance of related programs to
     better inform choices among competing budgetary claims. 

The outcome of using the Results Act in these ways might be
consolidation that would reduce the number of multiple programs, but
it might also be a streamlining of program delivery or improved
coordination among existing programs.  Where multiple programs
remain, coordination and streamlining would be especially important. 
Multiple programs might be appropriate because a certain amount of
redundancy in providing services and targeting recipients is
understandable and can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part
of a management strategy.  Such a strategy might be chosen, for
example, because it fosters competition, provides better service
delivery to customer groups, or provides emergency backup. 


--------------------
\6 Managing for Results:  Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug.  29, 1997). 


   TWO AGENCIES' PLANS ADDRESS
   EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS BUT
   LACK IMPORTANT DETAIL ON
   COORDINATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Education and HHS's ACF--the two agencies that are responsible for
the majority of early childhood program fundsï¿½addressed early
childhood programs in their strategic and 1999 performance plans. 
Although both agencies' plans generally addressed the required
elements for strategic and performance plans, Education's plans
provided more detailed information about performance measures and
coordination strategies.  The agencies in their 2000 plans similarly
addressed the required elements for performance plans.  However,
strategies and activities that relate to coordination were not well
defined.  Although agencies state that some coordination occurs, they
have not yet fully described how they will coordinate their efforts. 
The Education plan provided a more detailed description of
coordination strategies and activities for early childhood programs
than the ACF plan, including some performance measures that may cut
across programs.  The ACF plan described in general terms the
agency's plans to coordinate with external and internal programs
dealing with early childhood goals.  Yet the information presented in
the plans did not provide the level of detail, definition, and
identification of complementary measures that would facilitate
comparisons of early childhood programs. 


      DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S
      PLANS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

Education's strategic plan for 1998-2002 highlighted early childhood
programs as a major area of departmental concern.  In establishing
the importance of early childhood education, the strategic plan said
that

  -- the extent of early learning opportunities for children has
     consequences for long-term success;

  -- research on early brain development reveals that if some
     learning experiences are not introduced to children at an early
     age, the children will find learning more difficult later;

  -- children who enter school ready to learn are more likely to
     achieve high standards than children who are inadequately
     prepared; and

  -- high-quality preschool and child care are integral in preparing
     children adequately for school. 

Early childhood issues were discussed in the plan's goal to ï¿½build a
solid foundation for learning for all childrenï¿½ and in one objective
and two performance indicators (see table 1). 



                                Table 1
                
                Department of Education's Strategic Plan
                 Framework for Early Childhood Programs

Goal                    Objective and performance indicators
----------------------  ----------------------------------------------
Build a solid           All children enter school ready to learn.
foundation for
learning for all        --The disparity in preschool participation
children.               rates between children of high-income families
                        and children of low-income families will
                        become increasingly smaller.

                        --The percentage of 3-to-5-year-olds whose
                        parents read to them or tell them stories
                        regularly will continuously increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1999 performance plan, Education's first performance plan,
followed from the strategic plan.  It clearly identified programs
contributing to Education's early childhood objective and set
individual performance goals for each of its programs.  Paralleling
the strategic plan, the performance plan specified the core
strategies Education intended to use to achieve its early childhood
goal and objective.  Among these were interagency coordination,
particularly with HHS's Head Start program.  According to Education's
strategic plan, this coordination was intended to ensure that
children's needs are met and that the burden on families and schools
working with multiple providers is reduced.  The performance plan
also said that Education would work with HHS and other organizations
to incorporate some common indicators of young children's school
readiness into their programs.  It would also work with HHS more
closely to align indicators of progress and quality between HHS's
Head Start program and its Even Start Family Literacy programï¿½which
has as part of its goal the integration of early childhood education,
adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education. 

In our examination of Education's 1999 performance plan, we reported
that one of the plan's strengths was its recognition that
coordination with other federal agencies enables it to better serve
program participants and reduce inefficiencies in service delivery.\7
We said that although this first plan included a great deal of
valuable information, it did not provide sufficient details, such as

  -- a more complete picture of intended performance across the
     department,

  -- a fuller portrayal of how its strategies and resources would
     help achieve the plan's performance goals, and

  -- better identification of significant data limitations and their
     implications for assessing the achievement of performance goals. 

These observations apply to the early childhood programs as well. 
Without this additional detail, policymakers are limited in their
ability to make decisions about programs and resource allocation
within the department and across agencies.  Education's 2000
performance plan continues to demonstrate the department's commitment
to the coordination of its early childhood programs.  Like the 1999
performance plan, the sections on early childhood programs clearly
identified programs contributing to its childhood program objectives. 
It also contained new material highlighting the importance of the
coordination of early childhood programs as a crosscutting issue,
particularly with HHS.  To facilitate collaboration, the department
added a strategy to work with the states to encourage interagency
agreements at the state level.  It also added using the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council to coordinate strategies for
children with disabilities and their families.  At the same time, the
department still needs to better define its objectives and
performance measures for crosscutting issues.  Unless the purpose of
coordination activities is clearly defined and results in measurable
outcomes, it will be difficult to make progress in the coordination
of programs across agencies. 


--------------------
\7 The Results Act:  Observations on the Department of Education's
Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan (GAO/HEHS-98-172R, June 8,
1998). 


      ACF'S PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

In its revised 1999 performance plan, ACF recognized the importance
of investment in sound growth and development for children,
particularly those in low-income families.\8 It said that programs
such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and quality child care programs
are essential to good health, early development, and school
readiness.  The ACF plan reflected early childhood programs in two
strategic goalsï¿½ï¿½increase economic independence and productivity for
familiesï¿½ and ï¿½improve healthy development, safety, and well-being of
children and youthï¿½ï¿½and three objectives (see table 2). 



                                Table 2
                
                   ACF Framework for Early Childhood
                                Programs

Goal                    Objectives and selected performance indicators
----------------------  ----------------------------------------------
Increase economic       Increase affordable child care.
independence and        --Increase the number of children receiving
productivity for        subsidized child care from the 1997 baseline
families.               average of 1.25 million served per month.

Improve healthy         Increase the quality of child care to promote
development, safety,    childhood development.
and well-being of       --Children demonstrate emergent literacy,
children and youth.     numeracy, and language skills.
                        --Children demonstrate improved general
                        cognitive skills.
                        --Children demonstrate improved gross and fine
                        motor skills.

                        Improve the health status of children.
                        --Increase from 75% to 81% the percentage of
                        Head Start children who receive necessary
                        treatment for emotional or behavioral problems
                        after being identified as needing such
                        treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACF plan, however, did not always give a clear picture of
intended performance of its programs and often failed to identify the
strategies the agency would use to achieve its performance goals. 
ACF programs that contribute to each early childhood objective were
identified, and several of these programs had individual performance
goals.  However, without a clear picture of intended program goals
and performance measures for crosscutting early childhood programs,
it will be difficult to compare programs across agencies and assess
the federal government's overall efficacy in fostering early
childhood development. 

In our preliminary review of ACF's plan for fiscal year 2000, we
found some mention of the need to encourage collaboration in
addressing ACF's crosscutting program goals.  The plan also
acknowledged and discussed the key roles of states and localities in
administering ACF's programs and achieving performance goals. 
However, internal and external coordination issues as they relate to
early childhood programs were not fully addressed.  ACF's discussion
of coordination, consultation, and partnerships primarily remained a
general description of what has happened in the past.  For example,
the plan stated as one of its strategic objectives to ï¿½increase the
quality of childcare to promote childhood development.ï¿½ To support
this objective, ACF identified the need to coordinate with the
Department of Education concerning the Head Start program along with
other internal and external stakeholders in this area.  However, it
did not define how this coordination will be accomplished or the
means by which the crosscutting results will be measured. 

Agency officials are able to describe numerous activities that
demonstrate collaboration within the agency and with Education.  The
absence of that discussion in the plan, however, limits the value the
Results Act could have to both improving agency management and
assisting the Congress in its oversight role. 

Progress in coordinating crosscutting programs is still in its
infancy, although agencies are recognizing its importance.  Agency
performance plans provide the building blocks for recognizing
crosscutting efforts.  Because of the iterative nature of
performance-based management, however, more than one cycle of
performance plans will probably be required in the difficult process
of resolving program fragmentation and overlap. 


--------------------
\8 ACF has its own performance plan, which is referred to in the HHS
performance plan. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  We would be
happy to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee
may have. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 1

Government Management:  Addressing High Risks and Improving
Performance and Accountability (GAO/T-OCG-99-23, Feb.  10, 1999). 

Head Start:  Challenges Faced in Demonstrating Program Results and
Responding to Societal Changes (GAO/T-HEHS-98-183, June 9, 1998). 

The Results Act:  Observations on the Department of Education's
Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan (GAO/HEHS-98-172R, June 8,
1998). 

The Results Act:  An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20, Apr.  1, 1998). 

Managing for Results:  Observations on Agencies' Strategic Plans
(GAO/T-GGD-98-66, Feb.  12, 1998). 

Managing for Results:  Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Can Help
Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan.  30,
1998). 

Child Care:  Federal Funding for Fiscal Year 1997 (GAO/HEHS-98-70R,
Jan.  23, 1998). 

Federal Education Funding:  Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise
Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns (GAO/T-HEHS-98-46, Nov.  6,
1997). 

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth:  Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated
Federal Effort (GAO/T-HEHS-98-38, Nov.  5, 1997). 

Managing for Results:  Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug.  29, 1997). 

The Results Act:  Observations on the Department of Education's June
1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997). 

The Government Performance and Results Act:  1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997). 

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


*** End of document. ***