WASHINGTON – Since 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been telling the U.S. Department of Education that it needs to improve the way it monitors and provides technical assistance to Title III and V grantees. These federal education funds go to institutions that enroll large numbers of low-income and minority students, including historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and others. And, in the past 10 years, funding has almost tripled, from $230 million to $681 million.
But according to testimony delivered before the House Committee on Education and Labor on Thursday, the agency continues to make only limited progress. In fact, GAO uncovered “questionable expenditures” at four of the seven institutions where it conducted financial site visits last year—to the tune of more than $140,000.
One Maryland-based institution was responsible for $105,117 of that amount. It used $79,975 for student trips to locations such as amusement parks and resorts as part of a character and leadership building activity; $6,000 was used to purchase a desk and chair; and $4,578 was used to purchase an airplane global positioning system although the school does not own an airplane. More surprising, however, is that the Department of Education recommended the school as a model grantee.
“[The Department of] Education has made some progress in implementing a systematic approach to grant monitoring and technical assistance, but much work needs to be done,” said George Scott, GAO’s director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, at the hearing.
Scott said that the department has made progress in automating its monitoring tools and developing risk-based criteria. The redesigned system, he said, increases the ability to assess the risk of grantee noncompliance. The department also has taken steps to improve its technical assistance programs and develop mechanisms to routinely collect and use grantee feedback.
“Despite progress in these areas, we found that Education still lacked a coordinated approach to guide its monitoring efforts,” Scott added. “It recently developed a draft monitoring plan for Title III and V programs but has not consistently developed realistic and measurable targets for each of the activities in the plan.” In addition, Scott said that not having a comprehensive approach increases the potential for fraud, waste and abuse.
Robert Shireman, an Education Department deputy undersecretary, reported that the agency has made progress in its monitoring and technical assistance efforts. Its monitoring index, he said, helps to identify institutions for possible review based on audit and accreditation findings, commercial credit scores and other measures. In addition, the agency is reviewing annual performance reports to alert them to whether grant benchmarks are being met or the funds are being used in ways not identified in the grant application.
