Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo

Government Operations: [Comments on S. 1840]

  Premium   Download PDF Now (3 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date Dec. 11, 1979
Report No. B-148513
Subject
Summary:

Comments are provided on two proposed bills cited as the Education Amendments of 1979 and the Education Amendments of 1980. Concern has been expressed over the provisions which would require GAO to make annual audits of financial accounts maintained by the proposed Government Student Loan Association. It is recommended that this requirement for an annual audit be deleted and that the section be revised to require auditing every 3 years so as to be consistent with legislation providing that wholly owned Government corporations be audited once in every 3 years. It is also recommended that the sections dealing with the proposed Government Student Loan Association be revised to require that its accounts be audited every 3 years. The proposed bills also present criteria for determining whether a higher education institution should be considered a developing institution under the higher Education Act of 1965. In a previous report, it was shown that the operating problems and the adequacy of defining a "developing institution" rendered the program, as structured, largely unworkable. It was recommended that the Congress determine whether or not the program should be continued. If it is determined that the program should be continued, Congress should clarify the purpose of the Strengthening Developing Institutions Program by providing specific additional guidance concerning the types of institutions that the program should serve and the ultimate goals that should be achieved by these institutions. The definition of a developing institution in the proposed legislation is likely to result in those institutions that are most in need of and which can benefit from the types of services provided by the program being identified as eligible for the program. However, it is believed that a further distinction needs to be made in the funding process. Congress should provide the specific guidance now lacking on how the Office of Education should decide which of those eligible institutions are most in need and could benefit most from funding.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports