United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Gove.

Abuses in federal student grant programs : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, October 27-28, 1993 online

. (page 40 of 55)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on GoveAbuses in federal student grant programs : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, October 27-28, 1993 → online text (page 40 of 55)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


DecUacd



Grants, contracts, and loan activities also grew during the 1980s. The
number of contracts ed awarded increased 103 percent between fiscal
years 1986 and 1992. The number of discretionary grants rose 36 percent
and formula grants rose 85 percent between fiscal years 1988 and 1992
(see fig. rv.3). The number of loan commitments in the Federal Family
EMucation Loan Program (known as the Guaranteed Student Loan
Program) increased 109 percent from 2.3 million in fiscal year 1980 to
4.8 million loans in fiscal year 1991.



Figure IV.3: Number of Discretionary
and Formula Grants Increased Over
Time




Formulj Grants



Source: EO.



In the OfiQce for Civil Rights, civil rights complaints increased dramatically
over the last decade and now exceed any previous level in the



332



rv

Work Loxl Uemaed Wkilc BcMi
DecUacd



Department's history (see fig. rv.4). At the same time, the OfQce
experienced a 23-percent drop in its use of employees — from 1,099
employees in fiscal year 1981 to 848 in 1992. Because complaints now
require more labor-intensive investigation, the Office for Civil Rights has
been unable to devote the amount of resources it would like for
compliance review investigations and technical assistance. As a result, in
fiscal year 1992 the Office was unable to devote more than 6 percent of its
regional staff resources to compliance review investigations and 4 percent
to technical assistance activities.



Figure IV.4: Complaints Filed With the
Office tor Civil Rights Rose to Highest
Level In ED's History While Staff
Dropped 23 Percent (Fiscal Years
1981-92)



4S00 NumlMt




^^ Annual FTE Usage

^^— • Regutaf Compfami Rec«ipls*

■Excludes those refiled due to enactment ol the Civil Rights Restoralion Act ol 1987 and those
repetitively retiled by a single complainant.



Source: ED.



333



Appendix V



Human Resource Issues: Training,
Recruiting, and Work Force Assessments



Several of our m^or findings regarding leadership in the Department of
Education are human resource issues. They include the lack of vision and
commitment to management improvement on the part of its leaders. Also
significant is the Department's high proportion of political appointees,
which exacerbates the amount and frequency of turnover, particularly in
technical and policy-making leadership positions. In addition, ed needs to
address issues in training, recruiting, and work force assessments.



Work Force
Composition Diverse



In September 1992, ed employed a diverse work force, in which women
(61 percent) and minorities (46 percent) were well represented. Compared
with other Cabinet-level departments,' ed employed a higher percentage of
minorities in fiscal year 1990, had a higher percentage of women than all
but one (Health and Human Services), and employed a higher percentage
of persons with targeted disabilities.^ But while ED had the highest
percentage of blacks and women at GS 11-15 levels when compared to 22
of the largest federal agencies in fiscal year 1990, the proportion of blacks
and women decreased at higher grade levels. For example, black women
were 34 percent of employees at grades 9-12, 13 percent of employees at
grades 13-15, and 2 percent of senior executives in fiscal year 1991. In
contrast, white women were 25 percent of employees at grades 9-12,
28 percent of employees at grades 13-15, and 20 percent of senior
executives. Similarly, black men constituted 11 percent at grades 9-12,
8 percent at grades 13-15, and 6 percent of the senior executives, while
white men were 23 percent of grades 9-12, 45 percent of grades 13-15, and
63 percent of the senior executives.

ED officials are justifiably proud of the overall diversity of the
Department's work force. However, the relatively low percentage of
women and minorities at higher grade levels within ED suggest that it, like
other agencies, may have retention and discrimination problems in the
future in the absence of corrective action.



Employee Training
Neglected



ED has been unsuccessful in developing and upgrading the skills of its
current work force due to insufficient training resources. ED managers and
several reports identified serious skill weaknesses in such areas as
accounting, finance, analysis, writing, and management But throughout



The Departments of Defense and Veterans AfTairs are nuc included In this compailson.

^ar^eted disabilities' refers to deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partiaj and complete
paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of the liirbs and
spine.



334



Bumui Bcaonne brntcK Tnlnlng,
Beernltlnc, ud Work Forrc Am rmm tMM



the 1980s, ED lagged far behind the growth in training investment in the
federal government as a whole (see fig. V.l).



Figure V.l : ED Investment In Training
Lagged Behind Federal Government



PananI Chang* Fram It
1M




^^ Federal Govemmenl
Source: ED.



Likewise, the proportion of ed employees receiving training also was less
than the federal average (see fig. V.2).



335



Appendix V

Human R««oarr« Uaues: Training.

Recruiting, and Work Force AaaeaameoU



Figure V.2: Percent of Employees
Receiving Training Less Than Federal
Average (Fiscal Year 1990)




Supaoriton and Nonaupaoriaors
Managara



22 Largest Fedefai Agencies



Source: 0PM,



Recruitment Problems
Widespread,
Tlmeliriess an Issue



Many senior managers recounted difficulties related to recniiting
employees and the slow process of ED personnel actions. They called the
process frustrating because it reduces their competitiveness in hiring
qualified applicants and leaves positions unfilled for longer than they wish.

An example of the many problems in recruiting qualified people in a timely
fashion was given by one top manager, who said it took him over 9 weeks
to get an eligible list of GS-6s. Another noted it took 15 months to till a
vacancy for a professional staff position. One reason is that ed's Personnel
Management Service does not advertise positions in places where they are
likely to attract more qualified applicants, managers asserted. For
e.xample, one position required the skills possessed by school district
business managers. Rather than advertising in the professional journal to
which the pool of qualified applicants subscribe, it was only posted in the
standard federal information places. This attracted no applicants.



336



AppcadlzV

HuBU BcMvcc laracK Tniaii«.

EccmltlBg, aad Work Fokc



Nor was Personnel termed helpful in getting managers through the
nuances of hiring. For example, one numager, unfamiliar with writing
position descriptions, said she could not get the assistance she needed
from Personnel. Still other managers said that often the people on
Persormel's certification list were unqualified. Sometimes a position had to
be advertised several times before a qualified candidate was selected.

Nonetheless, some managers perceived ed's Personnel Management
Service as helpful in meeting their needs. Others suggested that Personnel
staff were simply overworked and "move as fast as they can" or perceived
the slowness of the process as attributable to oPM-mandated procedures.



Issues Identified, but
Work Force
Assessment
Unsystematic



Various studies ed has conducted highlight some of the human resource
issues confronting the Department For example, the Department's 1990
task force report and its strategic training plan said ed is having difficulty
attracting and keeping younger, high skilled workers.

A 1991, joint omb/ed study on student financial assistance' identified
serious weaknesses in human resource management, particularly the lack
of employees with adequate financial, accounting, and analysis skills;
training; and technical leadership. In our report on the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services,* we identified mjgor problems in
filling vacancies, key positions filled on an actiiig basis, and limited
training and development programs.

In addition, during our review ed managers cited concerns about a range
of human resource management problems with recruiting, training,
promotion, and a dwindling resource pool. These issues, they say, have not
been systematically assessed or studied. While some work has been done
in identifying specific needs of individual offices, and groups of
employees, no Department-wide assessment of work force needs has been
done.



"OMB^ED, Improving Guaranlted Soident Loan M»na«einent A Blueprint for Acoon , April 1991.

'Depa nmCTt of Education: Manajjeinan of the OfTice of Special Education and Rehabiliutivt Services
(CAWHRb-96-2l6ft. Um ii. 1^)



337



Appendix V

Hamui Resource iMoea: Training,

Recroidnc, &od Work Force A««eumenCa



Efforts Underway to
Improve Human
Resource
Management



In December 1991, Department officials initiated efforts aimed at
improving ed's human resource management ed officials have begun
projects to address training needs and involve their employees in
improving work processes.

For example, officials developed and piloted plans for an employee skills
clinic where ED employees can have their skills assessed and obtain
information about internal and external training opportimities to upgrade
their skills. In addition, a consultant will help ED develop a model
recruitment program, ed administered a survey to all employees to solicit
their opinions about job conditions, the work environment, recognition .
and contributions, and overall effectiveness of the Department ed's Office
of Vocational and Adult Education has implemented its "Star POC
(Principal Operating Component) initiative as part of its nussion. This
initiative is intended to improve morale, communication, and productivity
and to encourage employee involvement, contribution, and teamwork.



338



Appendix VI



Tables Supporting Figures in Text



Table VI.1: Data tor Figure 1



Fiscal year


Estimated
numlMr o(
programs


Percentage

difference from

1981 levels


Staffing
(FTE)


Percentage

difference from

19B1 levels


1981


150





6.883





1982


115


-23


5.660


-18


1983


120


-20


5.369


-22


1984


125


-17


5.026


-27


1985


135


-10


4.877


-29


1986


145


-3


4.527


-34


1987


165


10


4.413


-36


1988


180


20


4.516


-34


1989


200


33


4.425


-36


1990


208


39


4.596


-33


1991


220


47


4.630


-33






Dollars in thousands


Office




Fiscal year 1992
appropriation


Percent of
appropriation


Postsecondary Education


$12,109,136


42


Elemeniary and Secondary Education


9.188.917


32


Special Education and Renabilitative
Services


5.053.932


17


Vocational and Adult Education


1.442.608


5


All other




1.038.296


4



Table Vl^: Data for Rgure IIU



Table VU: Data for Hgure IV.1



339



Appendix VI

Table* Sappordaf n<vre« la Text



Department


Percent ctiange In staff for
1982-68


Justice


30


Treasury


23


State


11


Defer sa


7


Veterans Affairs


5


Commerce


-3


Transponalion


-3


Agriculture


-11


Energy


-13


Interior


-14


Labor


-;6


Housing and Urban Oeveiooment


-17


Health and Human Services


-23


Education


^2



Table V1.4: Data for Rgure IVJ



Dollars in thousands



Rscal year



Total EO budget



Salaries and expenaes



Request



Appropriation



Percentage
difference



Request



Appropriation



Percentage
difference



1981



$15,485,332



$14,807,740



$291,096



$262,513



1982



1983



1984



12.353.966



14.752.370



19



308.719



9.950.508



15.422.286



55



256.505



13.191.889



15.441.482



17



294.835



275.462



290.663



292.382



1985


15.484.949


19.078.624


23


301.450


303.762


1


1986


15.545.314


17.939.011


15


277.342


273.512


-1


1987


15.218.094


19.687.697


29


295.755


294,070


-1


1988


14.049.789


20.314.175


45


316.000


299.118


-5


1989


21.164.824


22.738.556


7


314.701


310.718


-1


1990


21.910.000


24.622.959


12


342.124


312.517


-9


1991


24,618.311


27.503.298


12


406.700


353.076


-13


1S92


29.620.044


28.832.889


-3


388.088


371.412


-J



340



Tabic* Sivportlx



FlganafaiTcxt



T«bl« Vl^: Data tor Rgura NJ3



Numbf of granu, tl»c»l yef



Typa of grant



isas



1988



1990



1991



1992



Discretionary



7,757



8.120



9.018 10.663



10.559



Rxmula



2.689



3.988



4.149



4.238



4.972



Table VI.6: Data for Rgura IV.4



Flacal year



1981



1982



1983



1984



1985



1986



1987



1988



1989



1990



1991



1992



Annual FTE amployae



1,099



976



941



907



913



843



807



808



789



815



797



848



Regular eomplalnl
receipt*



2,889



1.840



1,946



1,934



2.064



2.128



1.974



2.236



2.779



3.384



3.809



4.432



Table VI.7: Data for Hgurc V.I



ED



Federal government



Racal year



Training
expenditures



Percentage

change from

1981



Percentage

Training change from

expenditures 1981



1981


$1,089,425





$370,963,901


1984


885,469


-19


476,993,493 29


1985


849.631


-22


550,106.092 48


1986


752.592


-31


721,194.820 94


1987


892,446


-18


839.363.403 126


1988


824,818


-24


1.029,324.721 177


1989


1,288,864


18


972.055.228 162












Percent receiving training






Average of 22 largest
ED federal agencies


Supervisors and managers




42 62


Nonsupervisors






10 24



Table VI.8: Data for Rgure V.2



341



Appendix Vn



Comments From the Department of
Education




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE SECRCTARY

April 20, 1993

Mr. Charles A. Bowsher

Coaptroller General oC the United States
United states General Accounting Office
Washington, OC 20548

Dear Mr. Bowsher:

I an writing in response to the Draft Report to the Secretary of
Education on the management of the Departoient. I appreciate the
opportiinity to review and comnent on the draft report.

Although the report, in focusing on problems within the
Department, overlooks some positive efforts and successes — and
may thereby paint a somewhat overly bleaX picture — I believe it
is generally an accurate assessment of the management problems
that I inherited and plan to address. In a comprehensive form,
it reinforces many of the sane conclusions that the Department
itself has reached as a result of the employee survey that was
conducted last year.

The draft report will serve as a useful road map to me and my
senior staff as we pursue efforts to improve the culture and
management of the Department. Its description of the management
neglect and staffing problems that characterized the Department
during the 1980s provides me with a valuable historical
perspective and insight into the dimensions of the problems we
face. Some changes can be made in the short term but others will
taXe several years to build up the Department's management
capacity which has been eroded for the last 12 years.

r have appointed Deputy Secretary Madeleine Kunin to oversee our
efforts to strengthen the Department's management. Two teams
representing all operating units of the Department have been
meeting for several months to lay the groundwork for a
Department-wide Total Quality Management (TQM) initiative. They
are near completion of a strategic plan and TQM guidelines that
would serve as an initial framework tor improving the
Department's performance in the critical areas addressed by your
draft report. In addition, the President's initiative to
reinvent government will provide us with a further opportunity to
identify and correct many long-standing management weaknesses. I
hope that we may continue to have your suggestions as we proceed
to tackle these problems.

Yours sincerely,



Richard w. RilejrJ



«oo MA«njUfD «».. ^^



• WAMBnTOH. DC. Mta.0100



%C' (Itrougftobf Ihc tfaltam-



342



Appendix Vni



Major Contributors to This Report



Human Resources
Division,
Washington, D.C.



Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209

Sherri K. Doughty, Project Manager

Gail Johnson, Senior E>valuator

Linda C. Diggs, Evaluator

Sandra L Baxter, Senior Evaluator

Donald R. Baiardo, Senior E^raluator

Virginia T. Douglas, Report Analyst

William J. Carter-Woodbridge, Writer-Editor

Ann P. McDermott, Graphics Consultant



Information
Management and
Technology Division,
Washington, D.C.

Accounting and
Financial

Management Division,
Washington, D.C.



Douglas D. Nosik, Assistant Director
Paula N. Denntan, Senior E^^uator
Matthew D. Ryan, Evaluator



Gloria L Jarmon, Assistant Director
William Anderson, m. Senior Evaluator



jm »«ss(* ttB^l»»tl wnujAM t COMh MAW*

DAM) **-0' kav&M^A: 1 1.*© COC*""* wiHH^

LIOikAV W1ISS tt*'i DWtrtOk

»hA«i,>h L >Oiii HM«o'i-T> ;iAi> 0MIC10M am: CMtr* cOimsi .



343



Senate fenwnent Sobtommittet
V Irwstigations

Hnitcd 3tarcs 3matc^^j,T^ 84

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTA. ACFAIRS

WASHINGTON. DC :a510-62SO



Julv 28, 1993



The Honorable Richard V. Riley

Secretarj' of Education

U.S. Department of Education

Federal Office Building 6

4 00 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Secretary Riley:

As you know, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations is conducting an inquire- into allegations of
fraud and abuse in the Pell Grant program. During the course
of th.LS ongoing investigation, several policy questions have
been raised about the program.

In support of this investigation, please provide the
following information to the Subcommittee:

For the period 1986-19S2, the number of Pell grant
awardees who were incarcerated prisoners (federal, state,
and/or local), and the total ar.ount of Pell grants awarded to
them.

- For the period 1986-1992, the number of Pell grant
awardees who were studying abroad, and the total amount of
Pell grants awarded to them.

During the period 19E2-1992, the number of Pell
grant awardees who received Pell grants for more than five
consecutive years, and the total amount cf their Pell grant
awards .

During the period 1975-1992, the number of Pell
grant awardees who received Pell grants for more than ten
years, and the total amount of their Pell grant awards.

- For the period 1986-1992, the r.ui7.ber of Pell grant
awardees who were non-U. £. citizens, and the total amount of
Psll crants awarded to them .



344



The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Page 2 .

The nunber of schools participating in Title IV
programs which tre not regulated by their respective Statt
higher education departments .

The number of schools participating in Title IV
programs which are not regulated by their respective State
governments .

The number of schools participating in the Pell
grant program which are specifically exempt from the State
license requirement of the Higher Education Act.

A list of the institutions which participate in the
Pell grant program, sorted by state. Indicate accrediting
agency for each.

Thank you for the continued cooperation of the
Department during the Subcommittee's investigation. I am
hopeful that this inquiry will result in assisting the
Department and the Congress in implementing meaningful reforms
in the student aid programs.

Sincerely,

I




Sam Nunn, Chairman
Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations



345




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE SECRETARY



October 13, 1SS3



Honorable Sam Nunn i. _ .

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee U^- 'i J

on Investigations
Committee on Governmental Affairs wwostrv O?^' -

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250

Dear Senator Nunn:

Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1993 in which you requested
data and other information concerning the Federal Pell Grant
Program. As indicated in my interim response, 1 directed my
staff to compile as much data as could be produced within the
past several weeks. We now have sufficient information to
respond. The specific responses to your data requests are
provided in the enclosures to this letter. I apologize for the
delay in responding to you.

I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any
further questions, please contact me.



Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley ^^^^



Enclosures



<OOMARVLAAD A\X. b W WASHWr-^OK. D C 20202-0100
Our mi.«.«;i:r I? lo cnsuTi- ecual access lo education end to promolr t Juca.'ional CJrcc :rncr throuph^ul the Antion



346



Ouescior. : For the period 1988-92, the niimber of Pell

Grant awardeee who were incarcerated prisonere (federal, Etate,

and/or local), and the total amount cf Pell Grants awarded to

them.

Answer: Because incarceration had nor. been an eligibility
criterion, we did not collect data or. such students. However, we
have employed an imputation methodology in the past as a means of
obtaining an estimate of prisoners who obtain Federal Pell
Grants. The core assumption for this methodology' is that any
specific mailing address (mailbox, street location, etc.) where
four (4) or more Federal Pell Grant recipients share a common
address is an incarceration facility. (We recognize the inherent
flaws in the assumption since it is possible that a number of
students who are not incarcerated may also share a common
address . )

Using this methodology, we estimate that less than 70,000
incarcerated students received Federal Pell Grants each year for
the award periods in question.

Additionally, the Department's Office of the Inspector General
(DIG) recently completed a study of incarcerated students in
conjunction with several routine audits. The OIG auditors used a
different methodology than the Departmental staff. (The OIG
auditors assumed if Federal Pell Grants were awarded to a large
group of students having a common address in the same zip code as
a federal or state prison, then that common address was a prison
school . )

Using this mere conservative methodclogi', CIG estimates that
about 25,000 prisoners received Federal Pell Grants each year for
the award periods in question.

Please note that because of the restrictions of Pell eligibility
pertaining to incarcerated students imposed by the Higher
Education Amendments of 1°S2, we are, for the first time,
collecting 15S3-S4 award year data on incarcerated students. We
v.'ill be happy to share the data v.-ith you at the conclusion of the
1993-94 crocesEi."^ cvcle next summer.



347



Questicr. : For the period 1988-1PS2, the ausber of Pell Grant
aw£rdeeE who were Etudying abroad, and the total ajnount of Pell
Grants awarded to theai.

Answer: As ir. the response to the previous question, we do not
collect data on Federal Pell Grant recipients who stucx' abroad
for a portion of their education experience because such
infonr.ation does net impinge on student eligibility.

There are, of course, several universities and colleges v.-hich
maintain extension programs abroad, primarily on militarj" bases,
for the purpose of enabling ser^'icemen and ser^'ice women (and
their families) tc continue their education. Furthermore, a
number of colleges and universities actively encourage the:.r
academically outstanding students to participate ir. "Junior Year
Abroad" programs whereby undergraduates study abroad during their
junior year. It is important to remember that these
undergraduates maintain their enrollment status in a domestic
college cr university which, depending on the school, either
utilizes its own faculty to provide the instruction abroad or
enters into an agreement with a foreign university to crovide all
of the instr-jction during this junior year. Indeed, the
Education Amendments of 19S2 amended the Higher Education Act cf
lSc5 to specifically endorse the use of Federal Pell Grant funds
for study abroad programs. (See, for example. Section 401(b) (7)
and Section 401(c) (2) .)

Question: During the period 1982-1992, the niimber of Pell Grant
awardees who received Pell Grants for more than five consecutive
years, and the total amount of their Pell Grant awards.

Answer: The data table in this attachment displays the number
of recipients who received between six and ten Pell Grant awards
during the 19S2-E3 to 1S-SI-S2 award years. The table shows, for
example, that 1,010 individuals received Pell Grant awards for



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on GoveAbuses in federal student grant programs : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, October 27-28, 1993 → online text (page 40 of 55)