    School Facilities: Profiles of School Condition by State (Letter Report,
    06/20/96, GAO/HEHS-96-148).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the condition of
    America's schools, focusing on state-specific information about school
    buildings, environmental conditions, needed maintenance and costs, and
    financial burdens to meet federal mandates on correcting environmental
    hazards and providing access to the disabled.

    GAO found that: (1) the data obtained from its survey of 10,000 schools
    was based on school officials' estimates and was not independently
    verified; and (2) each state includes information on the state's general
    education context, the state's role in school facilities, the extent of
    facility needs, and the amounts the state has spent or needs to spend to
    meet federal mandates.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-148
         TITLE:  School Facilities: Profiles of School Condition by State
          DATE:  06/20/96
       SUBJECT:  Public schools
                 Facility repairs
                 Intergovernmental fiscal relations
                 Data collection operations
                 Facility maintenance
                 Maintenance costs
                 Hazardous substances
                 Disadvantaged persons
                 Educational facilities
                 Surveys

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
    ** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
    ** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
    ** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
    ** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
    ** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
    ** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
    ** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

    Cover
    ================================================================ COVER

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    June 1996

    SCHOOL FACILITIES - PROFILES OF
    SCHOOL CONDITION BY STATE

    GAO/HEHS-96-148

    School Facilities:  State Profiles

    (104821)

    Abbreviations
    =============================================================== ABBREV

      ADA - Americans With Disabilities Act
      EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
      FTE - full-time equivalent
      HVAC - heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
      LEA - local education agency
      NCES - National Center for Education Statistics
      SASS - School and Staffing Survey
      SEA - state education agency
      VCR - videocassette recorder
      TV - television
      XL -
      XLI -
      XLII -
      XLIII -
      XLIV -
      XLV -
      XLVI -
      XLVII -
      XLVIII -
      XLIX -
      L -
      LI -
      LII -
      LIII -
      LIV -
      LV -

    Letter
    =============================================================== LETTER

    B-272038

    June 24, 1996

    The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
    The Honorable Edward M.  Kennedy
    The Honorable John F.  Kerry
    The Honorable Claiborne Pell
    The Honorable Paul Simon
    The Honorable Paul Wellstone
    United States Senate

    This report is the last in a series\1 addressing your request for a
    comprehensive review of the condition of America's school facilities.
    The report organizes state-level information gathered from our work
    on school facilities into individual profiles for the 50 states and
    the District of Columbia.

    This report presents new information on the roles individual states
    play in support of school facilities.  Each profile describes the
    financial and technical assistance provided by each state as well as
    the facilities information collected and maintained by that state.

    Each profile also presents the following state-specific results from
    our 1994 survey of school facilities previously not available in a
    state-by-state format\2

      -- the condition of school buildings and building features;

      -- the adequacy of environmental conditions;

      -- the extent to which facilities are meeting the functional
         requirements of education reform and technology;

      -- the reported range of amounts needed to bring schools into good
         overall condition; and

      -- the money needed to address federal mandates for managing and
         correcting environmental hazards and providing access to
         programs for the disabled.

    In creating these profiles, we had to omit much contextual and
    explanatory information presented in the other reports in this
    series.  Therefore, we have included three appendixes to assist the
    reader in understanding the state profiles.  Appendix I provides a
    guide to reading the profiles, including definitions of terms and
    sources of the data shown.  To show exactly what our survey of school
    facilities asked and how it was asked, appendix II presents a copy of
    the school survey.  To help readers understand the many technical
    choices that were made in the design and analysis of the data,
    appendix III details the methodology.

    Information for this report was gathered through two separate data
    collection efforts.  Information on the condition of school
    facilities was gathered from our survey of school building conditions
    conducted in 1994.  The survey was sent to a nationally
    representative sample of about 10,000 schools and included questions
    on the physical condition of buildings and the estimated costs to
    make needed repairs.  The survey also included questions on spending
    needs to address federal mandates.  These data were self-reported by
    school-level officials and not independently verified.  All data for
    federal mandates are from estimates made by school officials on the
    basis of their understanding of these mandates.  We did not attempt
    to verify the self-reported data nor did we attempt to assess the
    accuracy of officials' understanding of the mandates.

    Information on state involvement in school facilities was obtained
    from telephone interviews we conducted in 1995 with state education
    agency (SEA) officials responsible for school facilities in all 50
    states.  These interviews focused on the financial and technical
    assistance states provided to local education agencies (LEA) and on
    the data states collected on the condition of their facilities.
    Although we did not independently verify the information reported to
    us by state officials, we provided the officials with a draft of the
    narrative section describing their state's program for their review.
    We incorporated their comments and included information they provided
    on recent changes to state programs as appropriate.

    We administered our survey of school facility conditions from May to
    October 1994.  We conducted our study of state involvement in school
    facilities from October 1994 to September 1995.  Using information
    from these studies, we compiled this report from March to May 1996
    and conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    --------------------
    \1 School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
    (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995); School Facilities:  America's
    Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95,
    Apr.  4, 1995); Technology:  America's Schools Not Designed or
    Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/T-HEHS-95-127, Apr.  4, 1995); School
    Facilities:  States' Financial and Technical Support Varies
    (GAO/HEHS-96-27, Nov.  28, 1995); School Facilities:  Accessibility
    for the Disabled Still an Issue (GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec.  29, 1995); and
    School Facilities:  America's Schools Report Differing Conditions
    (GAO/HEHS-96-103, June 14, 1996).

    \2 The state-level results from our 1994 survey of school facilities
    have been presented in prior reports in this series:  GAO/HEHS-95-95,
    Apr.  4, 1995; GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec.  29, 1995; GAO/HEHS-96-103, June
    14, 1996.

    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.1

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
    from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
    appropriate congressional committees and all members of the Congress,
    the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.

    Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant
    Director, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions.
    GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix LV.

    Carlotta C.  Joyner
    Director, Education and
     Employment Issues

    GUIDE TO STATE PROFILES
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    Appendixes IV through LIV contain profiles for each of the 50 states
    and the District of Columbia.  The information in the profiles is
    taken from our 1994 survey of school building conditions (see app.
    II) and from interviews we conducted in 1995 with officials in each
    state education agency (SEA).  For a detailed discussion of the
    methodology used in these studies, see appendix III.

    Each state profile provides information on the (1) general education
    context for the state, (2) state's role in school facilities, (3)
    extent of facilities needs reported by schools, and (4) amounts
    schools reported spending and needing to spend to address federal
    mandates for managing/correcting hazardous substances and providing
    access to programs for the disabled.  The following information is a
    guide to the data presented in each state profile.

       GENERAL CONTEXT
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

    This section presents background information obtained from a variety
    of sources.  Because different information sources often produce
    slightly different definitions of common terms and different
    statistics on the same item, the following are definitions of the
    terms as we use them and a brief description of how we obtained the
    data.

          NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

    This is the number of public elementary and secondary schools located
    in each state.  We obtained data for the 50 states from interviews
    with state officials.  Data for the District of Columbia were
    obtained from the U.S.  Department of Education, National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES).\3

    --------------------
    \3 Digest of Education Statistics 1995, U.S.  Department of
    Education, NCES (Washington, D.C.:  Oct.  1995), p.  105.

          TOTAL ENROLLMENT ON OR ABOUT
          OCTOBER 1, 1993
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

    This enrollment figure is the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    students enrolled in public schools in the state on or about October
    1, 1993.  We obtained these data from interviews conducted with state
    officials.  Data for the District of Columbia were obtained from NCES
    and represent fall 1993 enrollment in public elementary and secondary
    schools.\4 All enrollment numbers are rounded to the nearest
    thousand.

    --------------------
    \4 Digest of Education Statistics 1995, p.  53.

          STATE REVENUES FOR
          KINDERGARTEN THROUGH TWELFTH
          GRADE EDUCATION, 1993-94
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3

    These revenues are revenues from state sources available for
    expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools for school
    year 1993-94.  They include revenues for capital outlay and debt
    service and revenues for the SEA.  These data were obtained from the
    National Education Association.\5 We calculated revenues per student
    by dividing the total state revenues by the total enrollment.  The
    actual (not rounded) figure for total enrollment was used for this
    calculation.

    --------------------
    \5 National Education Association, 1994-95 Estimates of School
    Statistics (Washington, D.C.:  Apr.  1995), p.  38.

          STATE FUNDING FOR FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.4

    This refers to the amount of financial assistance provided by the
    state to LEAs for school facilities construction in state fiscal year
    1994.  We obtained these data from interviews with state officials.
    Amounts include both grants and loans to LEAs for capital outlay or
    debt service for school facilities construction, renovation, or major
    maintenance.  The amounts do not include funding for maintenance and
    operations provided through basic education support programs and are
    not adjusted for any differences in construction costs among states.
    Ten states had no regular, ongoing program to assist LEAs with
    capital construction costs in state fiscal year 1994; these are noted
    by the phrase "no assistance provided."\6 Officials in two states
    reported that the amount of financial assistance provided for
    facilities could not be determined; these are marked "unknown." One
    state did not report the amount of assistance it provided; this is
    noted by "data not provided."

    --------------------
    \6 Officials in two of these states (Missouri and Texas) told us that
    recent legislation had passed authorizing state financial assistance
    for facilities beginning after state fiscal year 1994.  We provide
    details of these new programs in the section "State's Role in School
    Facilities."

          NUMBER OF SEA
          FACILITIES-RELATED STAFF
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.5

    This item gives the number of FTE staff in the SEA with
    responsibilities for school facilities.  We obtained these data from
    interviews conducted with state officials.  In two states (South
    Dakota and West Virginia), the FTEs shown are not situated in the SEA
    but are in other state agencies that have the primary responsibility
    for school facilities.  In three states (California, Hawaii, and
    Maryland), FTEs in other state agencies with significant numbers of
    staff carrying out facilities activities are shown in addition to
    those located in the SEA.

          OTHER STATE AGENCIES
          INVOLVED IN SCHOOL
          FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.6

    This item lists the state agencies outside the SEA that are involved
    at least to some extent in school facilities activities.  This
    information was obtained from interviews with state officials.

          PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING
          AT LEAST ONE ON-SITE
          BUILDING IN INADEQUATE
          CONDITION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.7

    We obtained these data from our nationwide survey of school building
    conditions.  School officials were asked to rate the overall
    condition of buildings on an adequacy scale of excellent, good,
    adequate, fair, poor, or replace.  The response categories fair,
    poor, and replace have been combined into a single category labeled
    inadequate.  See survey question 10 in appendix II for the full text
    of this question and definitions of adequacy ratings.

          PERCENT OF SCHOOLS REPORTING
          A NEED TO UPGRADE OR REPAIR
          ON-SITE BUILDINGS TO GOOD
          OVERALL CONDITION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.8

    We obtained these data from our nationwide survey of school building
    conditions.  The overall condition includes both the physical
    condition and the ability of the buildings to meet the functional
    requirements of instructional programs.  See question 11 of the
    survey (app.  II).

          REPORTED RANGE OF AMOUNTS
          NEEDED TO UPGRADE OR REPAIR
          A SCHOOL TO GOOD OVERALL
          CONDITION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.9

    Our survey asked school officials to report the total cost of all
    repairs/renovations/modernizations needed to put their schools'
    on-site buildings into good overall condition.  These figures show
    the range of the amounts reported by school officials.  See question
    11 of the survey (app.  II).

       STATE'S ROLE IN SCHOOL
       FACILITIES
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

    We obtained the information in this section entirely from interviews
    conducted in 1995 with SEA and other state officials with significant
    involvement in school facilities.

          FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

    This section discusses state financial assistance programs for school
    facilities.  It includes state grant and loan programs to provide
    districts with capital outlay or debt service for school facilities
    construction, renovation, or major maintenance.

          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

    This section discusses the information and guidance states provide to
    LEAs on funding, construction requirements, planning and
    architectural matters, education specifications,\7 and other
    facilities-related issues.  It also refers to compliance review
    activities carried out by states, including reviewing architectural
    plans and other documents for conformance with fire and building
    codes, education program specifications, or other state requirements.

    --------------------
    \7 Education program specifications provide detailed requirements for
    school facilities needs such as large- and small-group instruction
    and properly constructed and outfitted science laboratories.

          FACILITIES INFORMATION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3

    This section discusses the data states collect on the physical
    condition of school buildings as well as other types of
    facilities-related information they may maintain, such as building
    inventories.  It includes data states collect on a regular, ongoing
    basis or information collected as part of a one-time study of school
    facilities.

       EXTENT OF FACILITIES NEEDS
       REPORTED BY SCHOOLS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

    This section presents data obtained from ratings given by school
    officials to various aspects of school condition on our survey of
    school facilities.

          PERCENT OF SCHOOLS WITH
          INADEQUATE FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

    This table shows the percent of schools in the state with at least
    one (1) inadequate building of any type, (2) inadequate building
    feature, (3) unsatisfactory environmental factor,\8 and (4)
    inadequate building and one inadequate building feature.  The latter
    is a proxy measure for the percent of schools in the state with the
    most serious facilities needs.  The following describes the scales
    used and how we reported out responses.

    --------------------
    \8 The data for this analysis may differ slightly from data shown in
    other reports in this series.  For the state profiles, we considered
    a total of eight environmental factors--lighting, heating,
    ventilation, indoor air quality, acoustics for noise control,
    flexibility of instructional space, energy efficiency, and physical
    security of buildings.  Our report, School Facilities:  America's
    Schools Report Differing Conditions, does not include flexibility of
    instructional space in its analysis of environmental factors; our
    report, School Facilities:  America's Schools Not Designed or
    Equipped for 21st Century, does not include energy efficiency in its
    analysis of environmental factors.

          BUILDING FEATURES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

    To rate the condition of buildings and building features, respondents
    were asked to use a scale of excellent, good, adequate, fair, poor,
    or replace.  Responses of fair, poor, or replace were combined into a
    single category labeled inadequate.  The list of building features
    included one item--life safety codes--that is not a feature in the
    conventional sense.  However, school officials we consulted with
    during the survey design concurred that a major focus of facilities
    maintenance concerns and expenses was the school's meeting local
    codes to ensure the preservation of life and safety of those using
    the school facilities.  These codes vary widely by jurisdiction, but
    all schools are required to conform to such codes.  The section on
    building features was the most logical place to include this
    information in the survey.

          ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.3

    To rate the condition of environmental factors, respondents were
    asked to use a scale of very satisfactory, satisfactory,
    unsatisfactory, and very unsatisfactory.  Responses of unsatisfactory
    and very unsatisfactory were reported as unsatisfactory.  We also
    reported in this section the percent of schools in the state
    reporting air conditioning in classrooms.

          FACILITIES NEEDS FOR
          EDUCATIONAL REFORM
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.4

    Some activities associated with educational reform have implications
    for the facilities in which they occur.  For example, certain
    instructional programs or techniques may require that schools have
    space for small-group instruction.  To rate how well school buildings
    met the functional requirements of specified activities related to
    educational reform, respondents were asked to use a scale of very
    well, moderately well, somewhat well, and not well at all.  The data
    reported are for those rating "not well at all."

          TECHNOLOGY
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.5

    To rate the sufficiency of technology elements, respondents were
    asked to use a scale of very sufficient, moderately sufficient,
    somewhat sufficient, and not sufficient.  The data reported are for
    those rating not sufficient.  We also reported the average number of
    students per computer in the state.

    Table I.1 references the survey question corresponding to each
    aforementioned item.  The full text of each question appears in
    appendix II.

                             Table I.1

                Survey Questions About Condition of
                   Buildings, Building Features,
               Environmental Factors, Facility Needs
               for Educational Reform, and Technology

                                                        Survey
                                                      question
    Item                                                number
    ------------------------------------------  --------------
    Schools with at least one inadequate                    10
     building of any type (original, addition,
     or temporary)
    Schools with at least one inadequate                    16
     building feature
    Schools with at least one unsatisfactory                20
     environmental factor
    Building features                                       16
    Environmental factors                                   20
    Percent of schools with air conditioning                21
     in classrooms
    Facility needs for educational reform                   19
    Technology                                              17
    Average number of students per computer           4 and 18
    ----------------------------------------------------------

       FEDERAL MANDATES
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

    This section presents data obtained from our survey of school
    facilities and shows the percent of schools reporting needing to
    spend money on federal mandates in the last 3 and the next 3 years.

          MONEY REPORTED NEEDED AND
          SPENT ON FEDERAL MANDATES IN
          THE LAST 3 YEARS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

    Data for the last 3 years are presented for the percent of schools
    indicating that money was spent on federal mandates (presented
    relative to the national average), those indicating that spending was
    not needed, and those indicating that no money was spent.  The four
    categories in the table are mutually exclusive.  We asked about
    spending in the last 3 years to grasp the amount being spent on these
    items within the context of actual budgets.

          MONEY ESTIMATED NEEDED FOR
          FEDERAL MANDATES IN THE NEXT
          3 YEARS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2

    The table for the next 3 years is similar to the table for the last 3
    years described above, except that "no money spent" is replaced by a
    category labeled "unknown." As noted above, the four categories shown
    are mutually exclusive.  We asked these questions to grasp the amount
    of money needed to address these needs given what was already spent.
    We particularly phrased this question in terms of money needed rather
    than money "planned" to be spent, to grasp the magnitude of the need
    in this area without the constraints of budget realities.

    Table I.2 references the survey question corresponding to each item.
    The full text of each question appears in appendix II.

                             Table I.2

              Survey Questions About Federal Mandates

                                               Survey question
    Item                                                number
    --------------------------------------  ------------------
    Money reported needed and spent on                      13
     federal mandates in the last 3 years
    Money estimated needed for federal                      14
     mandates in the next 3 years
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    A more detailed discussion of the technical choices made in the
    analysis of the data on federal mandates appears in appendix III.

       GAO REPORTS PROVIDING FURTHER
       INFORMATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

    More detailed information on each topic presented in the profiles,
    including sampling errors, appears in the reports shown in table I.3.

                             Table I.3

                   Guide to GAO Reports on School
                             Facilities

    Topic                         GAO report
    ----------------------------  ----------------------------
    Overall condition of          School Facilities: Condition
    buildings                     of America's Schools (GAO/
                                  HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1, 1995)
    Condition of building         and School Facilities:
    features                      America's Schools Report
                                  Differing Conditions (GAO/
    Estimated costs to bring      HEHS-96-103, June 14, 1996)
    schools into
    good overall condition

    Environmental conditions      School Facilities: America's
                                  Schools Not Designed or
                                  Equipped for 21st Century
                                  (GAO/HEHS-95-95, Apr. 4,
                                  1995); School Facilities:
                                  Condition of America's
                                  Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61,
                                  Feb. 1, 1995); and School
                                  Facilities: America's
                                  Schools Report Differing
                                  Conditions (GAO/HEHS-96-
                                  103, June 14, 1996)

    Functional requirements for   School Facilities: America's
    education                     Schools Not Designed or
    reform                        Equipped for 21st Century
                                  (GAO/HEHS-95-95, Apr. 4,
    Technology                    1995)

    Federal mandates              School Facilities: Condition
                                  of America's Schools (GAO/
                                  HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1, 1995);
                                  School Facilities: America's
                                  Schools Report Differing
                                  Conditions (GAO/HEHS-96-
                                  103, June 14, 1996); and
                                  School Facilities:
                                  Accessibility for the
                                  Disabled Still an Issue
                                  (GAO/HEHS-96-73, Dec. 29,
                                  1995)

    State role in school          School Facilities: States'
    facilities                    Financial and Technical
                                  Support Varies (GAO/HEHS-
                                  96-27, Nov. 28, 1995)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    All percentages in the profiles have been rounded to whole numbers
    and may differ from those in the original reports.  For the same
    reason, percentages in the tables on federal mandates may not always
    add to 100 percent.  Sampling errors associated with the data in the
    profiles are not shown but may be found in the original reports.  A
    discussion of sampling errors appears in appendix III.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
    QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LOCAL EDUCATION
    AGENCIES
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    TECHNICAL APPENDIX
    ========================================================= Appendix III

       SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

    We obtained the information presented in this report primarily
    through two data collection efforts.  The first of these was our
    survey of school building conditions conducted in 1994.  This survey
    was sent to a nationally representative sample of about 10,000
    schools and included questions on the physical condition of
    buildings, the estimated cost to make needed repairs, the extent to
    which schools were able to meet facility requirements of education
    reform, and whether schools had sufficient technology capability.  In
    addition to the school survey, in 1995 we conducted telephone
    interviews with SEA officials in all 50 states to gather information
    on state-level involvement in school facilities.  These interviews
    focused on the amount and type of financial assistance states
    provided to LEAs, the technical assistance and compliance activities
    they performed, and the data they collected on the condition of
    facilities.

    This appendix describes the methodology used in the school survey,
    including considerations made in the analysis of the data from this
    technically complex study.  It also describes the methodology used to
    interview SEA officials.

       NATIONAL SURVEY OF SCHOOL
       FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

    To determine the physical condition of America's 80,000 schools,
    including the extent to which they have the capacity to support 21st
    century technology and education reform for all students, we surveyed
    a national sample of public schools and their associated districts
    and augmented the surveys with visits to selected schools districts.
    We consulted with various experts on the design and analysis of this
    project.\9

    We sent surveys to a nationally representative sample of about 10,000
    public schools in over 5,000 associated school districts.  For our
    sample, we used the public school sample for the Department of
    Education's 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which is a
    multifaceted, nationally representative survey sponsored by NCES and
    administered by the Bureau of the Census.

    We asked about (1) the physical condition of buildings and major
    building features, such as roofs, framing, floors, and foundations;
    (2) the status of environmental conditions, such as lighting,
    heating, and ventilation; (3) how well schools could meet selected
    functional requirements of education reforms, such as having space
    for small- and large-group instruction; (4) the sufficiency of data,
    voice, and video technologies and the infrastructure to support these
    technologies; (5) the amount of money schools spent in the last 3
    years or planned to spend in the next 3 years on selected federal
    mandates; and (6) an estimate of the total cost of needed repairs,
    renovations, and modernizations to put all buildings in good overall
    condition.  (See app.  II for a copy of the survey.)

    We directed the survey to those officials who are most knowledgeable
    about facilities--such as facilities directors and other central
    office administrators of the districts that housed our sampled
    schools.  Our analyses are based on responses from 78 percent of the
    schools sampled.  Analyses of nonrespondent characteristics showed
    them to be similar to respondents.  Findings from the survey have
    been statistically adjusted (weighted) to produce estimates that are
    representative at national and state levels.  All data are
    self-reported, and we did not independently verify their accuracy.
    We administered the survey between May and October 1994 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    --------------------
    \9 See School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
    (GAO/HEHS-96-61, Feb.  1, 1995), app.  III, for a full list.

          SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

    For our review of the physical condition of America's schools, we
    wanted to determine physical condition and spending as perceived by
    the most knowledgeable school district personnel.  To accomplish
    this, we mailed questionnaires to superintendents of school districts
    associated with a nationally representative sample of public schools.
    We asked the superintendents to have district personnel, such as
    facilities directors who were very familiar with school facilities,
    answer the questionnaires.  The questionnaires gathered information
    about a variety of school facility issues, including spending
    associated with federal mandates.  For our school sample, we used the
    sample for the 1993-94 SASS.

          SAMPLING STRATEGY
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

    The 1993-94 SASS sample is designed to give several types of
    estimates, including both national and state-level estimates.  It is
    necessarily a very complex sample.  Essentially, however, it is
    stratified by state and grade level (elementary, secondary, and
    combined).  It also has separate strata for schools with large Native
    American populations and for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.  A
    detailed description of the sample and discussion of the sampling
    issues are contained in NCES' technical report on the 1993-94 SASS
    sample.\10

    --------------------
    \10 Robert Abramson and others, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey:
    Sample Design and Estimation, NCES.

          SURVEY RESPONSE
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

    We mailed our questionnaires to 9,956 sampled schools in 5,459
    associated districts across the country in May 1994.  We did a
    follow-up mailing in July 1994 and again in October 1994.  After each
    mailing, we telephoned nonresponding districts to encourage their
    responses.  We accepted returned questionnaires through early January
    1995.

    Of the 9,956 schools in the original sample, 393 were found to be
    ineligible for our survey.\11 Subtracting these ineligible schools
    from our original sample yielded an adjusted sample of 9,563 schools.
    The number of completed, usable school questionnaires returned was
    7,478.  Dividing the number of completed, usable returns by the
    adjusted sample yielded a school response rate of 78 percent.

    We compared nonrespondents with respondents by urbanicity, location,
    state, race and ethnicity, and poverty and found few notable
    differences between the two groups.  On the basis of this
    information, we assumed that our respondents did not differ
    significantly from the nonrespondents.\12

    Therefore, we weighted the respondent data to adjust for nonresponse
    and yield representative national estimates.

    --------------------
    \11 Reasons for ineligibility included school was no longer in
    operation, entity was not a school, entity was a private rather than
    public school, and entity was a postsecondary school only.

    \12 Detailed sample and response information for each sample stratum
    is available upon request from GAO.  See appendix LV for appropriate
    staff contacts.

          ANALYTIC DECISIONS ON
          SPENDING DATA
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4

    The analyses of school spending on facilities in this report are
    based on data from three survey questions:  11, 13, and 14 (see app.
    II).  The dollar amounts reported by schools for each of these
    questions varied greatly.  Table III.1, for example, shows the
    extreme variation in the amounts schools reported needing to repair
    or upgrade schools to good overall condition (survey question 11), by
    school level.

                            Table III.1

                 Frequency Distribution of Amounts
                Reported Needed to Repair or Upgrade
                 Schools to Good Overall Condition

                        Elementa  Secondar               Total
    Amount reported           ry         y            (percent
    needed               schools   schools  Combined       )\a
    ------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
    $0                     9,290     3,056       597    12,943
                                                          (16)
    $1 to less than           22                        22 (0)
     $100
    $100 to less than        643       213        24   879 (1)
     $1,000
    $1,000 to less        10,179     3,276       500    13,955
     than $100,000                                        (18)
    $100,000 to less      18,882     5,477       952    25,311
     than                                                 (32)
     $1 million
    $1 million to less    15,760     6,048       689    22,497
     than                                                 (28)
     $6 million
    $6 million to less     1,394     1,379        92     2,865
     than                                                  (4)
     $15 million
    $15 million to           312       588        42   943 (1)
     less than
     $50 million
    $50 million to                      12         4    16 (0)
     less than
     $100 million
    $100 million or           19         5              23 (0)
     more
    ==========================================================
    Total (percent) \a    56,500    20,053     2,900    79,454
                            (71)      (25)       (4)     (100)
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    \a Slight discrepancies in row and column totals are due to rounding.

    Except in one case, our examination of those cases reporting extreme
    amounts did not produce convincing evidence that the information
    reported was inaccurate.  For example, in the case of the amounts
    needed to repair or upgrade schools to good overall condition, the
    average school construction cost in 1994 was $6 million for an
    elementary school and $15 million for a high school.  However, our
    site visits revealed one new school that cost more than $151 million
    to build.  We also know that, in some cases, costs of repair can be
    greater than cost of replacement.  For these reasons, we did not
    exclude as outliers any reported amounts, except as discussed below.

    Our initial analyses published in our first report on school
    facilities produced estimates at a national level.  Upon examining
    the data for reporting state-level estimates, we found an amount
    reported in one state appeared to be out of range for a realistic
    estimate of the specific item in question.  Because sample surveys
    use weights to produce population estimates and this particular
    respondent carried a large weight, this extreme amount greatly
    affected survey results for this item.  Therefore, we adjusted this
    response to equal the median of the amounts reported for this item by
    other respondents in the same state.  Unless otherwise noted,
    national averages in this report that involve this item in the
    computation use this adjusted amount.

          SAMPLING ERRORS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.5

    All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent
    to which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole
    population had received the questionnaire.  Since the whole
    population does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the
    true size of the sampling error cannot be known.  It can be
    estimated, however, from the responses to the survey.  The estimate
    of sampling error depends largely on the number of respondents and
    the amount of variability in the data.

    Variability in the data was particularly relevant to analyses of
    school spending on facilities.  The wide range of dollar amounts
    reported reduced the precision with which we could produce dollar
    estimates.  For this reason, reported amounts needed to repair or
    upgrade schools to good overall condition are limited to the range of
    actual dollar amounts reported in the sample and do not include
    state-level estimates.  For similar reasons, estimates on spending
    for federal mandates are limited to the national average and median
    dollar amounts spent and needed per school and the percent of schools
    in each state spending or needing to spend above and below the
    national average.

          NONSAMPLING ERRORS
    ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.6

    In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other
    types of systematic error or bias that can affect results.  This is
    especially true when respondents are asked to answer questions of a
    sensitive nature or that are inherently subject to error.  Lack of
    understanding of these issues can also result in systematic error.
    Bias can affect both response rates and the way respondents answer
    particular questions.  It is not possible to assess the magnitude of
    the effect of bias, if any, on survey results.  Rather, possibilities
    of bias can only be identified and accounted for when interpreting
    results.  This survey had three major possible sources of bias:  (1)
    bias inherent in all self-ratings or self-reports (2) bias due to the
    complexity of this particular subject matter, and (3) sensitivity of
    compliance issues.

    Bias inherent in self-rating may impact survey results because the
    integrity of the data depends upon respondents' providing honest and
    accurate answers to survey questions.  The results of this report are
    affected by the extent to which respondents accurately reported
    expenditures and the extent to which they provided accurate estimates
    for projected spending.  When, as in this case, responses are not
    verified, the possibility of this kind of bias always exists.\13

    Such bias may impact the survey results concerning technology in
    three ways.  First, the self-ratings or self-reports of technological
    sufficiency may be overly optimistic for several reasons.  In our
    analyses, we included as "sufficient" responses that indicated
    moderate and somewhat sufficient capability as well as very
    sufficient capability.  This could indicate a wide range of
    sufficiency, including some responses that are very close to "not
    sufficient." In addition, our analyses showed that without any
    objective standards with which to anchor their responses, schools
    indicating "sufficient" computers had computer/student ratios from
    1:1 to 1:292 (a median of 1:11) for those schools that had computers.
    About 300 schools that indicated they had no computers for
    instructional use said that was sufficient.  Finally, technology
    experts who regularly consult with school systems report that the
    level of knowledge among school administrators and staff of possible
    use and application of technology in schools is low--further
    increasing the likelihood that these sufficiency estimates are overly
    optimistic.

    Second, assessing the physical condition of buildings is also a very
    complex and technical undertaking.  Moreover, many facilities
    problems, particularly the most serious and dangerous, are not
    visible to the naked eye.  Further, any dollar estimates made of the
    cost to repair, retrofit, upgrade, or renovate are just
    that--estimates--unless the school has recently completed such work.
    The only way school officials actually know what such work costs is
    to put it out for bid.  Even then, cost changes may occur before the
    contracted work is completed.  Therefore, estimates and evaluations
    reported are subject to inaccuracies.

    A third kind of bias that may occur results from the sensitivity of
    compliance issues.  Our interest in securing information on
    compliance with federal mandates put us in a highly sensitive area.
    For example, respondents may have perceived that accurately reporting
    problems in providing access for disabled students would make the
    school vulnerable to lawsuits, despite assurances of confidentiality.
    Consequently, in such sensitive areas, schools may have tended toward
    underreporting or made conservative estimates.

    --------------------
    \13 Respondents' misunderstanding of certain legal requirements also
    may occur.  For example, in a study of implementation of the
    Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), we found that 28 to 35 percent
    of the barrier removal efforts to comply with legal requirements
    planned by owners and managers of establishments covered by ADA were
    not necessary.  See Americans With Disabilities Act:  Effects of the
    Law on Access to Goods and Services (GAO/PEMD-94-14, June 21, 1994).

       INTERVIEWS WITH STATE OFFICIALS
       RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHOOL
       FACILITIES
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

    To determine the extent to which states provided funding and
    technical assistance and compliance review for school facilities and
    maintained information on the condition of school buildings, we
    conducted telephone interviews with state officials responsible for
    school facilities in all 50 states.  In nearly all cases, we spoke
    with SEA staff responsible for school facilities.  In a few states,
    we also spoke with officials in other state agencies extensively
    involved in school facilities.  We supplemented this information with
    supporting documentation provided by state officials.  We conducted
    this study from October 1994 to September 1995 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.  All data were
    self-reported by state officials.  We did not independently verify
    this information, although, where necessary for clarification, we
    conducted follow-up telephone interviews.  The focus of our study was
    state fiscal year 1994.  Typically, this covered the period from July
    1, 1993, to June 30, 1994.

    STATE PROFILE:  ALABAMA
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

       Figure IV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure IV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure IV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  ALASKA
    =========================================================== Appendix V

       Figure V.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure V.2:  Extent of Reported
       Facilities

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure V.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  ARIZONA
    ========================================================== Appendix VI

       Figure VI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  ARKANSAS
    ========================================================= Appendix VII

       Figure VII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VII.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  CALIFORNIA
    ======================================================== Appendix VIII

       Figure VIII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure VIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  COLORADO
    ========================================================== Appendix IX

       Figure IX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure IX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure IX.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  CONNECTICUT
    =========================================================== Appendix X

       Figure X.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure X.2:  Extent of Reported
       Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure X.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  DELAWARE
    ========================================================== Appendix XI

       Figure XI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  DISTRICT OF
    COLUMBIA
    ========================================================= Appendix XII

       Figure XII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XII.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  FLORIDA
    ======================================================== Appendix XIII

       Figure XIII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  GEORGIA
    ========================================================= Appendix XIV

       Figure XIV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  HAWAII
    ========================================================== Appendix XV

       Figure XV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  IDAHO
    ========================================================= Appendix XVI

       Figure XVI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  ILLINOIS
    ======================================================== Appendix XVII

       Figure XVII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  INDIANA
    ======================================================= Appendix XVIII

       Figure XVIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XVIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  IOWA
    ========================================================= Appendix XIX

       Figure XIX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XIX.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  KANSAS
    ========================================================== Appendix XX

       Figure XX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XX.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  KENTUCKY
    ========================================================= Appendix XXI

       Figure XXI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  LOUISIANA
    ======================================================== Appendix XXII

       Figure XXII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MAINE
    ======================================================= Appendix XXIII

       Figure XXIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MARYLAND
    ======================================================== Appendix XXIV

       Figure XXIV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIV.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MASSACHUSETTS
    ========================================================= Appendix XXV

       Figure XXV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MICHIGAN
    ======================================================== Appendix XXVI

       Figure XXVI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVI.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MINNESOTA
    ======================================================= Appendix XXVII

       Figure XXVII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MISSISSIPPI
    ====================================================== Appendix XXVIII

       Figure XXVIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXVIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MISSOURI
    ======================================================== Appendix XXIX

       Figure XXIX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXIX.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  MONTANA
    ========================================================= Appendix XXX

       Figure XXX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXX.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEBRASKA
    ======================================================== Appendix XXXI

       Figure XXXI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXI.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEVADA
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXII

       Figure XXXII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW HAMPSHIRE
    ====================================================== Appendix XXXIII

       Figure XXXIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW JERSEY
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXIV

       Figure XXXIV.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIV.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW MEXICO
    ======================================================== Appendix XXXV

       Figure XXXV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXV.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NEW YORK
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXVI

       Figure XXXVI.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVI.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NORTH CAROLINA
    ====================================================== Appendix XXXVII

       Figure XXXVII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  NORTH DAKOTA
    ===================================================== Appendix XXXVIII

       Figure XXXVIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXVIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  OHIO
    ======================================================= Appendix XXXIX

       Figure XXXIX.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XXXIX.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  OKLAHOMA
    ========================================================== Appendix XL

       Figure XL.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XL.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XL.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  OREGON
    ========================================================= Appendix XLI

       Figure XLI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  PENNSYLVANIA
    ======================================================== Appendix XLII

       Figure XLII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  RHODE ISLAND
    ======================================================= Appendix XLIII

       Figure XLIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH CAROLINA
    ======================================================== Appendix XLIV

       Figure XLIV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIV.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  SOUTH DAKOTA
    ========================================================= Appendix XLV

       Figure XLV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  TENNESSEE
    ======================================================== Appendix XLVI

       Figure XLVI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVI.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  TEXAS
    ======================================================= Appendix XLVII

       Figure XLVII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  UTAH
    ====================================================== Appendix XLVIII

       Figure XLVIII.1:  General
       Context and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLVIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  VERMONT
    ======================================================== Appendix XLIX

       Figure XLIX.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIX.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure XLIX.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  VIRGINIA
    =========================================================== Appendix L

       Figure L.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure L.2:  Extent of Reported
       Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure L.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  WASHINGTON
    ========================================================== Appendix LI

       Figure LI.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LI.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LI.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  WEST VIRGINIA
    ========================================================= Appendix LII

       Figure LII.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LII.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  WISCONSIN
    ======================================================== Appendix LIII

       Figure LIII.1:  General Context
       and State Roles

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LIII.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LIII.3:  Reported
       Federal Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    STATE PROFILE:  WYOMING
    ========================================================= Appendix LIV

       Figure LIV.1:  General Context
       and State Role

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LIV.2:  Extent of
       Reported Facilities Needs

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure LIV.3:  Reported Federal
       Mandates Spending

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    ========================================================== Appendix LV

    GAO CONTACTS

    Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
    Linda Y.  McIver, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4821

    STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    Susan J.  Lawless, Senior Evaluator
    Stanley H.  Stenersen, Senior Evaluator

    *** End of document. ***