<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee18038d1a1">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>Health, Education, and Human Services Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-03-30</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>48 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:HEHS-00-55</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee18038d1a1</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:he00055</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-28</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55</accessId>
 <reportNumber>HEHS-00-55</reportNumber>
 <subject>Internal controls</subject>
 <subject>Grant award procedures</subject>
 <subject>Research grants</subject>
 <subject>Conflict of interests</subject>
 <subject>Discretionary grants</subject>
 <subject>Educational grants</subject>
 <identifier>National Performance Review</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>HEHS</seriesAbbrev>
 <law congress="105" isPrivate="false" number="227"></law>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Education Discretionary Grants: Awards Process Could</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Education&apos;s redesigned discretionary grants process, focusing on: (1)
Education&apos;s progress in implementing the redesigned awards process; (2)
the management controls used to help ensure a fair peer review process
and the costs of peer review; and (3) the extent to which grant awards
are consistent with the results of peer review and the legislation
governing individual grant programs.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) Education&apos;s redesigned grant awards process has
helped the agency improve the timeliness of awards and provide better
service to applicants and grantees; (2) as a result of the redesign,
Education provides a greater percentage of new awards earlier in the
year, which allows grantees more time to prepare for implementing their
projects; (3) also, Education has made grant information more available
and accessible to applicants and increased grantees&apos; flexibility to make
certain administrative changes to their projects without prior approval;
(4) Education&apos;s peer review process, which in fiscal year 1998 cost
approximately $2.4 million for the nine programs GAO reviewed, has many
of the management controls necessary to help ensure that reviewers
fairly assess the merit of applications; (5) for example, Education
seeks to select peer reviewers who have relevant experience, requires
them to certify they are free of actual or perceived financial conflicts
of interest, and trains them to apply evaluation criteria to score the
merit of grant applications; (6) however, weaknesses in some management
controls could raise concerns about the fairness or perceived fairness
of the process; (7) for example, Education generally does not require
reviewers to certify that they have no nonfinancial conflicts of
interest (that is, personal and professional conflicts) and it lacks
guidance to assist officials in dismissing poorly performing peer
reviewers; (8) moreover, few of the programs assessed the effectiveness
of management controls to ensure that the process was conducted fairly;
(9) for example, although several programs collected information about
the peer review process, few analyzed peer reviewers&apos; feedback on their
review experiences or tracked the performance of reviewers; (10) also,
none of the programs assessed the effect that some peer reviewers&apos;
scoring variations had on applicants&apos; chances to receive funding; (11)
grant awards for the programs GAO reviewed were generally consistent
with peer review scoring, with funds typically awarded to applicants
with the highest peer review scores; (12) awards also were consistent
with legislative objectives for each program and specific measurable
objectives, where specified; (13) about half the grantees in one of
these programs and about one-third in the other had 5 to 20 times the
national average number of students with limited English proficiency.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55/html/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55/pdf/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/HEHS-00-55</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-00-55</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/HEHS-00-55; Education Discretionary Grants: Awards Process Could;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Internal controls</topic>
 <topic>Grant award procedures</topic>
 <topic>Research grants</topic>
 <topic>Conflict of interests</topic>
 <topic>Discretionary grants</topic>
 <topic>Educational grants</topic>
 <topic>National Performance Review</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="isReferencedBy">
 <titleInfo>
  <title>United States Public Law 227 (105th Congress)</title>
</titleInfo>
 <identifier type="public law citation">Public Law 105-227</identifier>
</relatedItem>
</mods>