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. ***