Summary: GAO testified on a review of validation in the Pell Grant Program, and the concerns of: (1) giving aid to those who have the need; (2) basing awards on accurate data of need; and (3) minimizing the administrative costs and burdens for students and schools in meeting the objectives of the program. GAO found that: (1) the expanded validation process had an impact on both institutions and students, but the burdens were not as great as expected; (2) the benefits of the validation process were not as great as expected because sizable errors continued; (3) underawards as well as overawards were frequent and sizable, which signified that program funds were misallocated to some degree and that aid was not accurately targeted on financial need; (4) the Department of Education had centered its action on student errors leading to overawards despite the fact that institutional errors caused twice as many errors and little had been done to reduce these errors; and (5) Education's approach to Pell grant error had been unsystematic, lacked clear goals, and was hampered by partial strategies and uncoordinated management which resulted in data gaps and unsuccessful error-solving. GAO suggested that Congress give Education further guidance concerning the priority that should be placed on the error problem and that Education refrain from adopting further technical solutions to error problems until underlying issues of information availability have been clarified.
