Initiated in 2002, the Education’s PBDMI has four goals: to improve the  quality of the data Education collects about elementary and secondary  education in terms of accuracy, consistency, and timeliness; to reduce the  burden that states incur in reporting data to the department; to improve  the focus of data analysis on program performance; and to improve  Education’s data-sharing relationship with the states. PBDMI Officials Have Worked Extensively with States on Data Preparation and Submissions, but Most States Cannot Produce the Requested Data

PBDMI officials have conducted extensive outreach to the states to help  unify their data definitions and upgrade their collection and submission  systems. State data providers responding to our survey expressed general  satisfaction with the department’s outreach. Despite the extensive  outreach, the states were not able to produce enough data during test  submissions in 2002-2003 and again in 2003-2004 for the department to  validate its quality and consider phasing out its standing collection  systems. Education officials said they also made  $50,000 grants to all 52 states to offset costs of overhauling information  systems or obtaining additional staff. The lack of state data is particularly acute in some programmatic  areas. States have also noted  competing demands for their time and resources stemming from NCLBA. For example, states  that submit data to PBDMI that are also currently collected through the  Consolidated State Report—one of many data collections required under  the NCLBA—would not have to submit the same data under this data  collection. Despite the many obstacles confronting the PBDMI, Education officials  said they expect to proceed with implementation of the initiative, albeit  with some activities postponed. However, this strategy has not been  finalized, and Education has not developed a specific plan of action for  how they might (1) help states that are deficient, (2) deal with state  expectations for phasing out the multiple data collections, or (3) meet the  expectations of their own program offices. In order for PBDMI to be successful, the department must rely on states to  provide new information at a time when they are busy implementing large  new federal initiatives, such as the No Child Left Behind Act. While some  states have been able to provide significant amounts of data, others  continue to lag far behind. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The objective of our review of the Performance Based Data Management  Initiative (PBDMI) was to assess the progress Education has made in its  implementation of the initiative, particularly with regard to (1) defining  what performance-related data it will collect from states on behalf of the  program offices, (2) assisting states in their efforts to submit quality  information, and (3) utilizing performance-related data to provide  enhanced analytic capacity within the program offices.
Why GAO Did This Study

As a condition of receiving federal funding for elementary and secondary education programs, states each year provide vast amounts of data to Education. While the need for information that informs evaluation is important (particularly with the No Child Left Behind Act), Education's data gathering has heretofore presented some problems. It has been burdensome to states because there are multiple and redundant requests administered by a number of offices. In addition, the resulting data supplied by states has not been accurate, timely, or conducive to assessing program performance. To improve the information by which it evaluates such programs and also to ease states' reporting burden, Education in 2002 initiated an ambitious, multiyear plan to consolidate elementary and secondary data collections into a single, department-wide system focused on performance. Given its importance, we prepared a study, under the authority of the Comptroller General, to provide Congress with information on its progress.

What GAO Found

Through its Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI), Education has consolidated and defined much of the data it anticipates collecting under a unified system. Education reports that many data definitions have been agreed-to and data redundancies eliminated. PBDMI officials also said that to date, however, it has not been able to resolve all remaining differences among the program offices that manage many of the different data collections. PBDMI officials have conducted extensive outreach to the states to advance the initiative. The outreach to states involved regional conferences, two rounds of site visits, and according to officials, $100,000 in grants to most states to help offset their costs. State data providers responding to our survey expressed general satisfaction with the department's outreach, but some were not optimistic that the initiative would ease their reporting burden or enhance their own analytic capacity. The states were not able to produce enough data during test submissions in 2003 and 2004 to enable data quality verification or phasing out the department's multiple data collections. With regard to the lack of sufficient data from many states, Education officials said some lack the technical capacity needed to produce new performance data requirements. State data providers reported having competing demands for their time and resources, given other federal initiatives. Education officials have decided to proceed with the undertaking and have developed a draft interim strategy for moving forward. But they currently have no formal plan for how they would overcome obstacles such as the lack of state data and other technical and training delays to the initiative.