3). The 1994 reauthorization of BEA created the four bilingual education grant programs—Program Development and Implementation Grants (PDI), Program Enhancement Projects (Enhancement), Comprehensive School Grants (Comprehensive), and Systemwide Improvement Grants (Systemwide)—to distribute funds directly to school districts serving children with limited English proficiency. Although the application forms and the selection criteria for all four programs are very similar, school districts and schools use the application to describe projects tailored to their specific local needs. No Enhancement grants were awarded in fiscal year 2000. The Four Bilingual Education Programs Are Similar in Many Important Respects

All four federal bilingual education programs share the same performance goals and measures, possess similar eligibility criteria, and allow similar uses of program funds (see table 1). The Four Programs Served Similar Grantees and Funded Comparable Services, but Individual Schools Typically Did Not Receive Funding From More Than One Program

OBEMLA officials awarded grants to school districts with similar characteristics that provided similar services; however, individual schools typically did not receive funding from more than one bilingual education program. 4). Effectiveness of Bilingual Programs on National Level is Unknown

The effectiveness of the four bilingual education programs on a national level is unknown because locally collected data are not comparable. One study prepared for Education found that it was difficult to aggregate data to provide a national picture of program effectiveness for these reasons, and also because of the variability in the quality and amount of data reported by school districts. Even if Education were able to obtain uniform data across local programs, it would still be difficult to isolate the effects of BEA funding. Because services provided to students with limited English proficiency are funded through multiple federal, state, and local sources, it would be difficult to isolate the effects of the four bilingual education program funds from other funding effects. Consolidation of Bilingual Education Programs Offers Little Federal Cost Savings but May Improve Efficiency

Because all four bilingual education programs share the same goals, target the same types of children, and provide similar services, these programs lend themselves to consolidation. Federal Cost Savings From Program Consolidation Would Likely Be Small

While opportunities exist for consolidating the four bilingual education programs, federal cost savings, if any, from this action would likely be small for two reasons.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2000, the federal government funded four bilingual education programs--Program Development and Implementation Grants, Program Enhancement Projects, Comprehensive School Grants, and Systemwide Improvement Grants--that award grants to school districts to serve children with limited English proficiency. This report reviews (1) how similar the performance goals and measures, eligibility criteria, and allowable services are among the four bilingual education programs; (2) to what extent the different kinds of grants were made to the same types of schools or school districts and were used to provide the same services; (3) what is known about these programs' effectiveness; and (4) whether these programs can be better coordinated or if opportunities exist for program coordination and cost savings.

What GAO Found

GAO found that all four federal bilingual education programs share the same performance goals and measures, use similar eligibility criteria, and allow for similar uses of program funds. In fiscal year 2000, the four bilingual programs made grants to school districts that shared some characteristics and provided similar services; however, individual schools typically did not receive funding from more than one program. The services provided with program funds are similar, but are tailored by school districts and schools to meet local needs. Currently, the effectiveness of the four bilingual programs on a national level is not known. The authorizing legislation requires the use of local evaluations to assess students' progress in meeting state standards. The variation in local assessment tests complicates the task of providing a national picture of program effectiveness. Even if the Department of Education were able to obtain uniform information on local projects, it faces challenges in trying to isolate the funding effects of the four bilingual programs from funding effects of other programs that support students with limited English proficiency. Finally, these four bilingual programs lend themselves to consolidation. Although cost savings from consolidation would likely be small, there may be advantages to consolidation, such as freeing up staff for other important activities and reducing the administrative burden associated with redundant federal programs.