School Facilities: Accessibility for the Disabled Still an Issue (Letter
Report, 12/29/95, GAO/HEHS-96-73).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
accessibility of public schools to the disabled.

GAO found that: (1) while schools receiving federal financial assistance
have been required to be accessible to the disabled since 1970, schools'
accessibility to the disabled has not been comprehensively evaluated;
(2) the Americans with Disabilities Act has further highlighted the need
to improve schools' accessibility; (3) while over half of the schools
nationwide have spent a total of $1.5 billion in the last 3 years to
improve accessibility, about 20 percent of schools reported that such
spending is not needed; (4) 56 percent of schools estimated that they
would need an additional $5.2 billion for accessibility in the next 3
years; and (5) school districts are not required by law to make each
facility fully accessible to the disabled, as funding may not be
available to make necessary improvements.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-73
     TITLE:  School Facilities: Accessibility for the Disabled Still an 
             Issue
      DATE:  12/29/95
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             Educational facilities
             Handicapped persons
             Educational facility construction
             Repair costs
             Federal aid to localities
             Facility repairs

             
**************************************************************************
* 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


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


Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1995

SCHOOL FACILITIES - ACCESSIBILITY
FOR THE DISABLED STILL AN ISSUE

GAO/HEHS-96-73

Accessibility for Disabled

(104818)


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

  A&TBCB - Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
  ADA - Americans With Disabilities Act
  ADAAG - ADA Accessibility Guidelines
  NCES - National Center for Educational Statistics
  SASS - Schools and Staffing Survey
  SMSA - standard metropolitan statistical area
  UFAS - Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards

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


B-261623

December 29, 1995

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

To meet the educational needs of America's disabled children, schools
must provide access to programs and services.  Accessibility to
programs and activities in public school facilities has been required
by federal law since 1973,\1 and new schools are designed to comply
with current codes, including accessibility requirements.  Little is
known, however, about the accessibility of existing schools
nationwide. 

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are both applicable to accessibility in
schools.  The ADA applies to all programs or services provided by
state and local governments, and section 504 applies to all schools
receiving federal financial assistance.  Accessibility requirements,
which are the same under these two laws, differ according to whether
the facility is existing or new.  For existing buildings, school
districts are required to operate their programs and activities so
that when viewed in their entirety the programs are accessible to
individuals with disabilities.  The law does not require a school
district to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a
facility accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 
The second and more stringent standard applies to new construction
and certain renovations to existing facilities.  Buildings initiated
after 1979 under section 504 and after 1992 for the ADA must be
readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities and
must comply with design standards.  In this report, we use
accessibility to indicate standards for both existing buildings and
for new construction or alterations. 

To obtain information on the condition of America's schools,
including accessibility to individuals with disabilities, we surveyed
a national sample of schools and augmented the survey with visits to
selected school districts.\2 Because this was part of a larger survey
of school facilities, however, our questions on accessibility were
limited.  We used school officials' reports of the amount spent in
the last 3 years and the amount they need to spend in the next 3
years to provide access for the disabled to evaluate the degree to
which accessibility was still a problem.  Since we do not know
whether officials reported all of what needs to be done or only a
small portion, or perhaps more than what needs to be done, these
figures should be viewed cautiously.  Also, these estimates were
based on school officials' understanding of accessibility
requirements.  See appendix I for relevant survey items and appendix
II for a full discussion of methodology. 

We conducted our analyses at both national and state levels. 
Furthermore, we looked at spending patterns according to several
school characteristics, for example, location (region of the country
and type of community), school size (enrollment) and type (level),
and student characteristic (economic level and minority status).  We
did not attempt to verify self-reported data. 

This report, one in a series of reports\3 responding to your request
for information on the physical condition of the nation's public
schools, addresses the accessibility of today's schools.  School
Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools, the first of these
reports, reported that accessibility for the disabled accounted for
the largest share of the estimated $11 billion needed to be spent on
federal mandates in the next 3 years, supplanting asbestos as the
largest share of spending on such mandates.  (See fig.  1.) This
report provides a more detailed analysis of that information. 

   Figure 1:  Schools Estimate
   That Spending on Accessibility
   Will Supplant Spending on
   Asbestos Abatement as the
   Largest Share of Spending on
   Federal Mandates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  "Other" includes lead in water/paint, underground storage
tanks, radon, and other mandated requirements, such as those
governing pesticides and chemicals. 


--------------------
\1 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

\2 In these site visits, we were looking at the general condition of
each school, including its physical accessibility.  We did not
attempt to determine whether these schools legally complied with
federal mandates. 

\3 See School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
(GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995) and School Facilities:  America's
Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95,
Apr.  4, 1995). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The requirement that programs and activities of schools receiving
federal financial assistance be accessible to the disabled has been
in force for two decades.  Yet no comprehensive nationwide study has
been done or is currently planned to evaluate schools' accessibility
to the disabled (hereafter referred to as "accessibility"). 
Meanwhile, the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA)--although not changing the accessibility requirements for
schools from the earlier law--has highlighted the need to improve
accessibility. 

Over half--53 percent--of schools nationwide reported having spent a
total of $1.5 billion in the last 3 years on accessibility.  Only
about 20 percent of schools reported that such spending was not
needed.  A total of 56 percent of all schools estimated that they
will need a total of $5.2 billion more for accessibility in the next
3 years.  Only about 26 percent of schools reported that such
spending will not be needed. 

At the district level, the situation is quite complex.  As we saw in
our site visits, just because one district school is fully accessible
does not mean that other district schools are as well.  However, the
law does not require a school district to make each of its existing
facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.  Lack of funding was cited by many as
the chief reason for not making schools accessible. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Accessibility for the disabled to schools receiving federal financial
assistance was first required by law in section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Another section of the act established
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(A&TBCB), whose purpose in part was to determine the adequacy of
measures by federal, state, and local governments and other public or
nonprofit agencies to eliminate such barriers.  The most recent law,
title II of the ADA, did not change the requirement of accessibility
to disabled individuals as originally set forth in section 504. 

For existing buildings, school districts are required to operate
their programs and activities so that when viewed in their entirety
the programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities.  A
school may not be required to make structural changes in existing
buildings where other methods are effective in achieving
accessibility, such as moving a program to an accessible floor.  For
new construction and certain renovations to existing buildings,
regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA and section 504, the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), specify the technical requirements
for schools' accessibility to disabled individuals.  These
regulations require public school facilities to provide parking
spaces, access to different floors through elevators (platform lifts
instead of elevators may be used in some circumstances) or ramps,
public telephones, and automatic and power-assisted doors, among
other features. 

Besides requirements in the law, accessibility to school facilities
also affects the degree to which schools can successfully implement
education reform.  At the heart of education reform is the tenet that
all children have access to high-quality education--regardless of
where they live, their family income, their ethnic background, or if
they have disabilities.  Also, school building accessibility has
implications for disabled parents' and other community members'
involvement in education and other community activities and services
that take place in schools. 

Even though federal law has required schools to be accessible to
disabled individuals since 1973, recent studies and the media have
reported that accessibility continues to challenge schools. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3


      SCOPE OF ACCESSIBILITY
      PROBLEM UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental
Disabilities Amendments of 1978 amended the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and required the A&TBCB to determine the costs to state and
local governments of affording people with disabilities full access
to all programs and activities receiving federal assistance. 
However, this cost study was never conducted because the Board lacked
the resources.\4 Officials from the Departments of Education and
Justice and the A&TBCB told us that, to their knowledge, no national
survey of school accessibility has been done or is being planned. 
Even the biennial school survey by the Department of Education's
Office for Civil Rights has not included questions on facilities'
accessibility since the late 1970s, according to one official.\5


--------------------
\4 Summary of Existing Legislation Affecting People With
Disabilities, U.S.  Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (Washington, D.C.:  June 1992),
pp.  138-139. 

\5 It has, however, asked about "program" accessibility.  In 1993,
the survey had one question that asked about the number of disabled
students enrolled in gifted and talented programs. 


      HALF THE SCHOOLS REPORTED
      SPENDING $1.5 BILLION IN THE
      LAST 3 YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Nationwide, 53 percent of schools reported spending a total of $1.5
billion during the last 3 years on accessibility.  About 27 percent
of schools reported that they had spent no money in the last 3 years
on accessibility, while an additional 20 percent of schools reported
that no money was needed for this purpose (see app.  III).  Our site
visits illustrated this:  officials in Chicago and New Orleans said
that most schools were not accessible. 

Although all types of communities spent money for accessibility,
schools in central cities were less likely than schools in the urban
fringe and large towns or rural areas and small towns to report
having spent money on accessibility.  However, schools in rural areas
and small towns were more likely to report that spending was not
needed (see fig.  2).  Regionally, only 44 percent of schools in the
Northeast reported spending on accessibility, while over half the
schools in other regions reported such spending.  (See app.  III,
table III.3.) However, a greater proportion of the amount of spending
reported by northeastern schools was above the average for all
schools.  (See app.  III, table III.4.)

   Figure 2:  Money Reported
   Needed, Not Needed, and Spent
   for Improving School
   Accessibility in Various Types
   of Communities in the Last 3
   Years

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The average amount reportedly spent on accessibility was $40,000 per
school, although amounts varied widely.\6 About 80 percent of schools
nationwide that reported spending for accessibility spent less than
$40,000.  The average amount spent by this group was about $8,000 per
school.  While only about 20 percent of schools reported spending
more than $40,000, spending by this group accounted for about 84
percent of all funds spent.  These above average spenders were
frequently large schools and those that tend to be located in the
Northeast (see fig.  3). 

Virtually every state reported spending money for accessibility
during the last 3 years.  However, the proportion of a state's
schools spending money ranged from 7 percent in the District of
Columbia to 69 percent in New Mexico.  Forty percent of schools in
New York reported that spending was not needed, compared with 1
percent in the District of Columbia that reported that spending was
not needed.  In four states (Nevada, Arkansas, Maryland, and
Oklahoma) and the District of Columbia, over 95 percent of schools
that spent money on accessibility were in the below average spender
group.  Only California, New Jersey, and Hawaii reported that, of
their schools' spending on accessibility in the last 3 years, more
than one-third were in the above average group, with Hawaii reporting
over 60 percent of its schools in this group.  (See app.  III, table
III.2.)

We could not project information on the dollar amounts that states
spent on accessibility.\7 However, by region, the Northeast reported
more above average spending than others.  (See fig.  3 and app.  III,
table III.3.)

   Figure 3:  More Northeastern
   Schools Reported Above Average
   Spending on Accessibility Than
   Schools in Other Regions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  Last 3 years, average reported per school expenditure on
disabled accessibility = $40,000.

Next 3 years, estimated average per school expenditure on disabled
accessibility = $124,000. 

When we looked at spending patterns according to school
characteristics, we found that spending was not confined to schools
of particular locations, sizes, or demographic characteristics. 
However, some notable differences are shown in table 1.  (See app. 
III, table III.4 for details.)



                                Table 1
                
                 Characteristics of Schools Most Likely
                  to Report Above Average Spending to
                  Improve Accessibility in the Last 3
                                 Years

                                    Characteristics of schools most
Characteristics (mutually           likely to report above average
exclusive)                          spending
----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
Location

Community type                      Central city and urban fringe/
                                    large town
Geographic region
                                    Northeast

School characteristics

Size                                Large

Level                               Secondary

Student characteristics

Proportion of students approved     Less than 20 percent
for free or reduced lunch

Proportion of minority students     Greater than 50.5 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\6 Individual respondents reported as low as $1 to as high as $16.5
million spent for a single school.  The median amount reported was
$6,500. 

\7 Because of the wide range of amounts reported, we could not report
sufficiently precise state-level estimates on dollars spent on
accessibility.  See appendix II for a discussion of sampling errors. 


      OVER HALF OF SCHOOLS
      REPORTED NEEDING $5.2
      BILLION TO IMPROVE
      ACCESSIBILITY NATIONWIDE IN
      THE NEXT 3 YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

About 56 percent of all schools estimated that they will need to
spend money in the next 3 years to improve accessibility.  About 26
percent of schools estimated that no money will be needed to improve
accessibility in the next 3 years, while an additional 19 percent
reported that accessibility requirements were "unknown."

Schools nationwide reported that they will probably need to spend
about three times more in the next 3 years to improve accessibility
than they spent in the last 3 years, for a total of $5.2 billion. 
About 79 percent of schools that expect to spend money on
accessibility in the next 3 years estimated that they will spend less
than the average of $124,000.\8 The average amount estimated for
these below average spenders was about $34,000 per school.  The
remaining 21 percent of schools--the above average
spenders--accounted for 78 percent of all funds estimated to be
spent. 

States varied widely in the proportion of schools that reported
needing to spend money on accessibility in the next 3 years, from 93
percent in the District of Columbia to 34 percent in New York and
Hawaii (see app.  IV, table IV.1).  In contrast to spending on
accessibility reported for the past 3 years, over twice as many
states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia estimated
that over a third of their schools' spending on accessibility will be
above the average.  Only one state--Mississippi--
estimated that more than 95 percent of its schools' spending money on
accessibility will be below the average.  Maryland, Connecticut, and
the District of Columbia estimated that more than 50 percent of their
schools' spending on accessibility will be more than $124,000 or
above the average.  (See app.  IV, tables IV.2 and IV.3.)

Characteristics of schools most likely to report planning to spend
money on improving accessibility in the next 3 years appear in table
2.  (See also app.  IV, table IV.4.)



                                Table 2
                
                 Characteristics of Schools Most Likely
                  to Report Above Average Spending to
                  Improve Accessibility in the Next 3
                                 Years

                                    Characteristics of schools most
Characteristics (mutually           likely to report above average
exclusive)                          spending
----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
Location

Community type                      Central city/urban
                                    fringe/large town

Geographic region                   Northeast

School characteristics

Size                                Large

Level                               Secondary

Student characteristics

Proportion of students approved     No notable difference among
for free or reduced lunch           schools

Proportion of minority students
                                    50.5 percent or more
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\8 The median amount was $39,500. 


      SCHOOLS' PHYSICAL
      ACCESSIBILITY VARIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

During our site visits, we observed that schools' physical
accessibility varied enormously.  The schools we visited ranged from
being fully physically accessible--all classrooms and other areas--to
being partly inaccessible--allowing access to the front door but
little else in the school--to being even totally inaccessible.  For
example, we visited a new school in Pomona, California, that is fully
accessible--even its auditorium stage has an elevator.  In contrast,
also in Pomona, we visited a two-story school that was accessible on
the ground floor but had no elevator, although it had plans to
install one.  In Chicago, we visited schools that were totally
inaccessible.  Accessibility to bathrooms was a problem in many
schools.  The law, however, does not require a school district to
make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 


      LACK OF FUNDING CITED AS
      REASON FOR VARIABLE
      ACCESSIBILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

Although our survey did not ask the reasons why districts have been
unable to meet facility requirements of federal mandates, many survey
respondents addressed the issue in their comments and we explored the
issue in our site visits.  School officials told us that they could
not make schools accessible because of lack of funding.  For example,
because of the expense of installing elevators and other needed
changes, we were told, few of the schools in Chicago were accessible. 

Officials also reported that money spent on accessibility may be
"unreasonable" or at the expense of other areas.  Following are
typical comments: 

"In my district, we no longer have a curriculum department, but we
have a handicapped elevator that just cost $250,000 to build--for a
student who is no longer in that building and who used a stair
climber successfully when he was there."

"The ADA requirements were a major reason we had to replace two older
schools.  These costs, when added to other costs for renovations and
modifications, resulted in overall costs for repairs which exceeded
the costs for new facilities."

The first example likely illustrates a confusion about what the law
requires for program accessibility.  Accessibility experts have
observed that local officials sometimes misunderstand section 504 and
ADA requirements and that some decisions leading to accessibility
expenditures by local schools may not, in fact, be mandated by
section 504 or the ADA. 


   CONCLUSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Accessibility is clearly an important, complicated, and expensive
issue for schools.  It was beyond the scope of this study to
comprehensively assess schools' compliance with accessibility laws
and the amount of money it would cost to make schools fully
accessible.  However, the answers to our two survey questions and our
site visits suggest the magnitude of the problem:  schools report
that they have already spent a lot to improve accessibility and that
they need to spend much more. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate
committees and all members, the Secretary of Education, and other
interested parties. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Eleanor
L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7209.  A list of major
contributors to this report appears in appendix V. 

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
============================================================== Letter 


TECHNICAL APPENDIX
========================================================== Appendix II


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

To determine the condition of America's schools and extent to which
America's 80,000 schools have the physical 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 visited selected schools districts.  Various experts advised us
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 of the Department of
Education's 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which is a
multifaceted, nationally representative survey sponsored by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and administered by
the Bureau of the Census. 

In addition to asking about the physical condition of schools, we
asked how much money schools had spent during the last 3 years on
selected federal mandates, including accessibility for disabled
students.  Likewise, we asked about anticipated spending on federal
mandates during the next 3 years.  A list of relevant survey items
appears in appendix I.  A copy of the full survey is included in
School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools. 

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 housing our sampled schools. 
Our analyses were based on responses from 78 percent of the schools
sampled.  Analyses of nonrespondent characteristics showed them to be
similar to respondent characteristics.  Survey findings have been
statistically adjusted (weighted) to produce estimates representative
at national and state levels.  All data were self-reported, and we
did not independently verify their accuracy. 

In addition, we visited 41 schools in 10 selected school districts
varying in location, size, and minority composition to augment and
illustrate our survey results.  We also reviewed the literature on
education reform.  We conducted our study between January 1994 and
March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. 


--------------------
\9 See School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
(GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.  1, 1995), appendix III, for a full list. 


      SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

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 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 II:1.2

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 appear in NCES' technical report on the 1993-94 SASS
sample.\10


--------------------
\10 Robert Abramson et al., 1993-84 Schools and Staffing Survey: 
Sample Design and Estimation, NCES (available July 1995). 


      SURVEY RESPONSE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3

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.  Few notable differences
existed among the 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 no longer in operation,
entity not a school, private rather than public school, and
postsecondary school only. 

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


      MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY
      AND OTHER ANALYTIC DECISIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.4

All analyses in this report are based on data from two multiresponse
questions about spending (see app.  I).  In both cases, the resulting
distributions were severely skewed, making no single measure of
central tendency adequate to describe the distribution.  In cases
where kurtosis makes statistical description difficult, analysts
sometimes use the median as the preferred measure of central
tendency.  However, in this case, both distributions divided
naturally into a low-spending group and a high-spending group, with
the mean providing a convenient reference point for this division. 
Our visits to school districts confirmed that spending for
accessibility improvement often fell into categories of minor
improvements or major improvements.  Therefore, we chose to divide
the distribution for further analyses at a point that separated it
into low-spending schools and high-spending schools, a point that
corresponded to the mean.  We felt that analyses of these categories
both presented an honest treatment of the data and provided
practical, useful information. 


      SAMPLING ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.5

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.  However, we can
estimate it 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 is particularly relevant to this report. 
Analyses are based on the dollar amount reported by schools in
response to questions about past and future spending on
accessibility.  The wide range of dollar amounts reported reduced the
amount of precision with which we could produce dollar estimates. 
For this reason, we limited our dollar estimates to a national level
estimate of average and total dollars spent and to totals and
averages of those schools' spending above and below specified
amounts.  We then looked at proportions of schools that reported
spending in these categories by a number of variables. 

Sampling errors for estimates appearing in the text are equal to or
less than ï¿½ 5 percent unless listed in tables II.1 and II.2 at the
end of this appendix. 


      NONSAMPLING ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.6

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 when questions 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 biases, if any, on the results of a
survey.  Rather, possibilities of bias can only be identified and
accounted for when interpreting results.  This survey had two major
possible sources of bias:  (1) bias inherent in all self-ratings or
self-reports and (2) sensitivity of compliance issues. 

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

A second kind of bias that may occur results from the sensitivity of
compliance issues.  In this case, our interest in securing
information on compliance with federal mandates put the survey in a
highly sensitive area.  For example, respondents may have perceived
that accurately reporting accessibility problems could make school
districts vulnerable to lawsuits, despite assurances of
confidentiality.  Consequently, in such sensitive areas, schools may
have underreported or made conservative estimates. 

In general, survey results confirmed our site visit observations. 


--------------------
\13 Misunderstanding of the accessibility legal requirements also may
come into play.  In a study of ADA implementation, GAO 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). 


   SITE VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

To illustrate and augment our survey results, we visited 10
districts:  Chicago, Illinois; Grandview, Washington; Montgomery
County, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Pomona,
California; Ramona, California; Raymond, Washington; Richmond,
Virginia; and Washington, D.C.  Selected to represent key variables,
they varied in location, size, and ethnic composition. 

During these site visits, we interviewed central office staff, such
as district superintendents, facilities directors, and business
managers; and school staff, such as principals and teachers.  We
asked the central office staff about their district demographics,
biggest facilities issues, facilities financing, assessment,
maintenance programs, resources, and barriers to reaching facilities
goals. 

In addition, in each district we asked district officials to show us
examples of "typical," "best," and "worst" schools and verified
reliability of these designations with others.  In some small
districts, we visited all schools.  We spoke with administration and
staff in the schools we toured.  We asked the school staff about
their school's condition, repair and renovation programs, and
facilities needs for educational programs. 


   CLASSIFICATION VARIABLES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

The following define the classification variables used for this
study:  community type, school level, school size, minority
enrollment, geographic region, and proportion of students receiving a
free or reduced lunch. 


      COMMUNITY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.1


         CENTRAL CITY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.1.1

A large central city (a central city of a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA)) with population greater than or equal to
400,000 or a population density greater than or equal to 6,000 per
square mile) or a mid-size central city (a central city of an SMSA,
but not designated a large central city). 


         URBAN FRINGE/LARGE TOWN
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.1.2

Urban fringe of a large or mid-size central city (a place within an
SMSA of a large or mid-size central city and defined as urban by the
U.S.  Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not within an
SMSA but with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and
defined as urban by the Bureau of the Census). 


         RURAL/SMALL TOWN
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.1.3

Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined
as rural by the Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not
within an SMSA, with a population of less than 25,000 but greater
than or equal to 2,500 and defined as urban by the Bureau of the
Census). 


      SCHOOL LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.2


         ELEMENTARY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.2.1

A school that had grade six or lower or "ungraded" and no grade
higher than eighth. 


         SECONDARY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.2.2

A school that had no grade lower than the seventh or "ungraded" and
had grade seven or higher. 


         COMBINED
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.2.3

A school that had grades higher than the eighth and lower than the
seventh. 


      SCHOOL SIZE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.3


         SMALL
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.3.1

A school with fewer than 300 students. 


         MEDIUM
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.3.2

A school with more than 299 but fewer than 600 students. 


         LARGE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.3.3

A school with 600 students or more. 


      MINORITY ENROLLMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.4

The percentage of students defined as minority using the following
definition for minority:  American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or
Pacific Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other culture or origin);
black (not of Hispanic origin). 


      GEOGRAPHIC REGION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.5


         NORTHEAST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.5.1

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 


         MIDWEST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.5.2

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. 


         SOUTH
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.5.3

Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas. 


         WEST
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3.5.4

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada,
Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. 


      PROPORTION OF STUDENTS
      RECEIVING FREE OR REDUCED
      LUNCH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.6

The calculation is based on survey question 4 ("What was the total
number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) students enrolled in this school
around the first of October 1993?") and survey question 25 ("Around
the first of October 1993, how many applicants in this school were
approved for the National School Lunch Program?"). 



                         Table II.1
          
           Sampling Errors Greater Than 5 Percent

Page of                                         95-percent
first                                           confidence
occurren                                          interval
ce        Description of estimate                (percent)
--------  ----------------------------------  ------------
3         Total accessibility dollars spent-        ï¿½ 19.5
           -$1.5 billion
2         Pie chart--last 3 years                    ï¿½ 5.1
           Accessibility
2         Pie chart--next 3 years
           Accessibility                            ï¿½ 13.6
           Asbestos                                  ï¿½ 6.5
           Other                                    ï¿½ 19.4
3         Total accessibility dollars               ï¿½ 14.9
           needed--$5.2 billion
5         Average spent for below average            ï¿½ 5.8
           spenders--$8,000
5         Average last 3 years--$40,000             ï¿½ 19.3
6         Proportion of schools' spending in         ï¿½ 5.8
           District of Columbia--7 percent
6         Proportion of schools' spending in         ï¿½ 9.2
           New Mexico--69 percent
6         Proportion spending not needed,           ï¿½ 10.0
           New York--40 percent
6         Hawaii--60 percent above average          ï¿½ 17.3
6         California--one-third above               ï¿½ 10.9
           average
6         New Jersey--one-third above               ï¿½ 15.1
           average
6         Northeast, above average spending          ï¿½ 6.4
8         Next 3 years, 93 percent                   ï¿½ 6.6
8         Next 3 years, 34 percent                   ï¿½ 9.4
8         Average needed to spend--$124,000         ï¿½ 14.6
8         Average for below average--                ï¿½ 5.1
           $34,000
8         One-third above average
8         Connecticut                               ï¿½ 18.9
8         Hawaii                                    ï¿½ 18.9
8         Maryland                                  ï¿½ 15.7
8         Massachusetts                             ï¿½ 15.9
8         New Jersey                                ï¿½ 13.1
8         Pennsylvania                              ï¿½ 17.6
8         Wisconsin                                 ï¿½ 12.6
----------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.2
                
                    Sampling Errors for State Tables


State         III.1         III.2         IV.1          IV.2
------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  --------------
Alabama       B             B             B             B

Alaska        B             C             B             B

Arizona       B             B             B             B

Arkansas      B             A             B             B

California    B             C             B             B

Colorado      C             C             B             D

Connecticut   C             D             C             D

Delaware      D             C             C             C

District of   B             A             B             C
Columbia

Florida       C             C             C             B

Georgia       B             B             C             C

Hawaii        C             D             C             D

Idaho         B             B             B             B

Illinois      B             C             B             B

Indiana       B             B             B             C

Iowa          C             B             B             C

Kansas        B             B             B             B

Kentucky      C             B             C             C

Louisiana     B             B             B             B

Maine         C             B             C             C

Maryland      C             A             C             D

Massachusett  C             E             C             D
s

Michigan      C             C             C             B

Minnesota     C             C             B             C

Mississippi   B             B             B             A

Missouri      B             B             C             B

Montana       C             B             B             C

Nebraska      C             B             C             B

Nevada        B             A             B             B

New           C             D             C             E
Hampshire

New Jersey    C             D             C             C

New Mexico    B             B             B             B

New York      C             C             B             C

North         B             B             B             B
Carolina

North Dakota  B             B             B             B

Ohio          C             C             B             B

Oklahoma      B             A             B             A

Oregon        B             A             B             B

Pennsylvania  C             C             C             D

Rhode Island  C             C             C             D

South         B             B             B             C
Carolina

South Dakota  B             C             B             B

Tennessee     B             C             B             C

Texas         B             B             B             B

Utah          B             B             B             B

Vermont       C             D             B             C

Virginia      B             B             C             B

Washington    B             B             B             B

West          B             C             B             C
Virginia

Wisconsin     C             C             C             C

Wyoming       C             C             C             B
----------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY
A = 5 percent or less
B = greater than 5 percent to 10 percent
C = greater than 10 percent to 15 percent
D = greater than 15 percent to 20 percent
E = greater than 20 percent to 25 percent


SCHOOLS' REPORTED SPENDING ON
ACCESSIBILITY IN THE LAST 3 YEARS
========================================================= Appendix III



                              Table III.1
                
                   Money Reported Needed and Spent on
                Accessibility in the Last 3 Years, State
                                Analyses


                                                Below\   Above
                                Number          averag  averag
                                    of      No     e\a       e      No
                                school   money  spendi  spendi   money
State                                s   spent      ng      ng  needed
------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama                          1,116    24.4    47.9     2.7    25.0
Alaska                             435    34.3    37.1     9.3    19.4
Arizona                            956    32.5    44.5    11.9    11.1
Arkansas                           998    18.6    58.6     2.0    20.7
California                       6,662    33.7    34.6    18.3    13.4
Colorado                         1,321    40.9    36.4    10.7    12.0
Connecticut                        839    40.0    23.6    11.6    24.7
Delaware                           136    26.2    59.5     7.1     7.2
District of Columbia               148    91.8     6.9     0.0     1.3
Florida                          1,791    32.1    39.1    17.8    11.0
Georgia                          1,577    12.9    57.0    10.8    19.3
Hawaii                             207    34.9    16.2    25.3    23.7
Idaho                              548    27.4    38.6     4.7    29.4
Illinois                         3,504    20.0    36.5    10.3    33.3
Indiana                          1,728    25.0    48.3    16.4    10.3
Iowa                             1,324    28.4    44.8     6.3    20.5
Kansas                           1,399    27.4    50.3     7.9    14.4
Kentucky                         1,099    30.4    37.1     7.0    25.5
Louisiana                        1,304    29.6    50.4    10.2     9.7
Maine                              672    17.0    57.4     5.0    20.7
Maryland                           887    50.1    41.5     1.9     6.5
Massachusetts                    1,472    48.8    18.1     8.8    24.4
Michigan                         2,735    21.3    45.3    14.1    19.4
Minnesota                        1,339    25.3    39.3    18.9    16.5
Mississippi                        896    16.9    57.3     4.1    21.7
Missouri                         1,824    18.1    59.2     6.9    15.8
Montana                            736    28.3    36.5     4.8    30.3
Nebraska                         1,220    29.1    40.2    12.4    18.3
Nevada                             343    42.1    48.0     1.0     8.9
New Hampshire                      392    27.5    29.4     8.1    35.1
New Jersey                       1,963    20.9    34.4    18.8    25.9
New Mexico                         633    17.8    58.9    10.2    13.1
New York                         3,575    15.2    30.9    13.5    40.4
North Carolina                   1,776    15.6    59.7     8.0    16.7
North Dakota                       531    31.9    38.9     4.2    25.0
Ohio                             3,198    53.1    37.4     5.3     4.2
Oklahoma                         1,616    22.7    56.9     2.9    17.6
Oregon                           1,149    32.5    60.7     3.5     3.3
Pennsylvania                     2,486    32.0    33.1    10.5    24.4
Rhode Island                       287    17.4    38.5    14.7    29.4
South Carolina                     958    29.2    35.9     4.6    30.3
South Dakota                       524    23.0    33.6     7.7    35.7
Tennessee                        1,358    38.6    28.5     7.4    25.5
Texas                            5,300    14.2    51.9     8.1    25.9
Utah                               625    20.0    63.9     4.2    11.9
Vermont                            293    29.2    28.3     8.4    34.1
Virginia                         1,613    27.3    54.7     5.2    12.8
Washington                       1,644    25.2    43.4     7.2    24.2
West Virginia                      798    36.5    27.2     7.1    29.2
Wisconsin                        1,565    24.5    47.8    12.2    15.5
Wyoming                            393    28.9    34.6     6.6    30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $40,000 per school. 



                        Table III.2
          
               Schools' Reported Spending on
          Accessibility in the Last 3 Years, State
                          Analyses


                       Below average\a       Above average
State                         spending            spending
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
District of                      100.0                 0.0
 Columbia
Nevada                            98.0                 2.0
Arkansas                          96.6                 3.4
Maryland                          95.5                 4.5
Oklahoma                          95.2                 4.8
Alabama                           94.7                 5.3
Oregon                            94.6                 5.4
Utah                              93.8                 6.2
Mississippi                       93.4                 6.6
Maine                             92.0                 8.0
Virginia                          91.3                 8.7
North Dakota                      90.2                 9.8
Missouri                          89.6                10.4
Delaware                          89.3                10.7
Idaho                             89.1                10.9
South Carolina                    88.7                11.3
Montana                           88.4                11.6
North Carolina                    88.2                11.8
Iowa                              87.7                12.3
Ohio                              87.6                12.4
Kansas                            86.5                13.5
Texas                             86.5                13.5
Washington                        85.9                14.1
New Mexico                        85.3                14.7
Georgia                           84.1                15.9
Kentucky                          84.1                15.9
Wyoming                           84.0                16.0
Louisiana                         83.1                16.9
South Dakota                      81.4                18.6
==========================================================
Nationwide average                80.8                19.2
Alaska                            79.9                20.1
Wisconsin                         79.6                20.4
Tennessee                         79.5                20.5
West Virginia                     79.4                20.6
Arizona                           78.9                21.1
New Hampshire                     78.4                21.6
Illinois                          77.9                22.1
Colorado                          77.2                22.8
Vermont                           77.1                22.9
Nebraska                          76.5                23.5
Michigan                          76.3                23.7
Pennsylvania                      76.0                24.0
Indiana                           74.7                25.3
Rhode Island                      72.4                27.6
New York                          69.6                30.4
Florida                           68.7                31.3
Minnesota                         67.5                32.5
Massachusetts                     67.3                32.7
Connecticut                       67.0                33.0
California                        65.4                34.6
New Jersey                        64.6                35.4
Hawaii                            38.9                61.1
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $40,000 per school. 



                              Table III.3
                
                   Money Reported Needed and Spent on
                   Accessibility in the Last 3 Years


                                                 Below   Above
                                Number          averag  averag
                                    of      No     e\a       e      No
                                school   money  spendi  spendi   money
Characteristic                       s   spent      ng      ng  needed
------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Community type
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Central city                    20,605    35.1    36.5    10.6    17.8
Urban fringe/large town         19,043    27.0    42.7    12.4    17.9
Rural/small town                32,167    22.6    46.1     8.4    22.9

Geographic region
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast                       11,980    26.4    31.4    12.3    30.0
Midwest                         20,893    28.1    43.4    10.4    18.1
South                           23,371    24.2    48.4     7.3    20.1
West                            15,653    31.7    40.7    12.2    15.4

School size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small (1-299 students)          19,401    30.5    39.7     5.9    23.9
Medium (300-599 students)       30,274    27.8    44.4     9.0    18.8
Large (600+ students)           22,222    23.9    42.2    15.3    18.6

School level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary                      51,004    28.2    42.1     8.8    20.9
Secondary                       18,319    24.6    44.2    14.0    17.2
Combined                         2,574    28.9    36.4     8.6    26.1

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 percent            15,969    26.9    42.2    13.5    17.3
20 to less than 40 percent      15,283    25.7    46.4     8.5    19.4
40 to less than 70 percent      15,346    29.3    41.5     9.4    19.8
70 percent or more              13,941    25.2    43.7     8.8    22.3

Proportion of minority students
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5.5 percent           27,430    27.4    44.0     8.1    20.5
5.5 percent to less than 20.5   15,660    24.8    45.3    10.4    19.5
 percent
20.5 percent to less than 50.5  13,736    27.2    45.0    10.9    16.9
 percent
50.5 percent or more            14,860    29.8    34.6    12.8    22.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $40,000 per school. 



                              Table III.4
                
                 Other Characteristics of Schools That
                 Reported Spending on Accessibility in
                            the Last 3 Years


                                                         Below   Above
                                                Number  averag  averag
                                                    of     e\a       e
                                                school  spendi  spendi
Characteristic                                       s      ng      ng
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Community type
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Central city                                     9,702    77.5    22.5
Urban fringe/large town                         10,499    77.4    22.6
Rural/small town                                17,534    84.5    15.5

Geographic region
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast                                        5,232    71.9    28.1
Midwest                                         11,247    80.7    19.3
South                                           13,029    86.8    13.2
West                                             8,275    76.9    23.1

School size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small (1-299 students)                           8,845    87.1    12.9
Medium (300-599 students)                       16,152    83.1    16.9
Large (600+ students)                           12,785    73.4    26.6

School level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary                                      25,966    82.7    17.3
Secondary                                       10,659    75.9    24.1
Combined                                         1,157    80.9    19.1

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 percent                             8,904    75.7    24.3
20 to less than 40 percent                       8,393    84.4    15.6
40 to less than 70 percent                       7,809    81.6    18.4
70 percent or more                               7,323    83.2    16.8

Proportion of minority students
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5.5 percent                           14,286    84.5    15.5
5.5 percent to less than 20.5 percent            8,725    81.3    18.7
20.5 percent to less than 50.5 percent           7,674    80.5    19.5
50.5 percent or more                             7,049    73.0    27.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $40,000 per school. 


SCHOOLS' ESTIMATED ACCESSIBILITY
SPENDING NEEDS IN THE NEXT 3 YEARS
========================================================== Appendix IV



                               Table IV.1
                
                Money Estimated Needed for Accessibility
                  in the Next 3 Years, State Analyses


                                                 Below   Above
                                Number          averag  averag  Amount
                                    of      No     e\a       e  needed
                                school   money  spendi  spendi  unknow
State                                s  needed      ng      ng       n
------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama                          1,184    26.9    38.6     3.8    30.7
Alaska                             428    23.3    41.1    13.1    22.5
Arizona                          1,030    14.0    61.2    12.1    12.7
Arkansas                           998    39.2    41.9     2.8    16.1
California                       7,024    21.9    42.2    12.1    23.7
Colorado                         1,329    18.1    52.1    17.3    12.6
Connecticut                        903    35.4    17.4    21.9    25.4
Delaware                           153    15.7    60.4    13.5    10.3
District of Columbia               143     4.4    37.8    55.6     2.2
Florida                          1,917    19.2    42.1     5.6    33.0
Georgia                          1,485    35.3    35.1     7.1    22.5
Hawaii                             220    21.6    19.8    14.2    44.4
Idaho                              565    24.0    46.2     7.1    22.8
Illinois                         3,682    22.7    54.5    10.5    12.3
Indiana                          1,750    21.3    52.9    16.7     9.2
Iowa                             1,407    22.2    44.0    14.2    19.6
Kansas                           1,437    23.3    47.5    13.4    15.7
Kentucky                         1,150    37.2    30.6    11.1    21.1
Louisiana                        1,326    18.8    55.5    12.1    13.6
Maine                              693    36.7    43.4     7.8    12.1
Maryland                           911    14.6    28.2    29.8    27.3
Massachusetts                    1,668    29.5    27.9    23.9    18.6
Michigan                         2,975    23.8    49.6     5.5    21.1
Minnesota                        1,397    20.8    48.6    23.0     7.6
Mississippi                        935    24.8    55.0     0.5    19.7
Missouri                         1,941    21.7    55.8     6.1    16.5
Montana                            800    37.2    29.1     7.4    26.3
Nebraska                         1,189    22.2    48.8    14.0    14.9
Nevada                             339    19.2    66.4     6.1     8.2
New Hampshire                      406    41.0    28.8    12.7    17.6
New Jersey                       2,242    20.7    44.8    25.3     9.2
New Mexico                         658    11.7    59.5    16.0    12.9
New York                         3,712    46.1    25.7     8.6    19.7
North Carolina                   1,823    23.7    53.5    14.5     8.3
North Dakota                       543    31.1    39.0     5.3    24.6
Ohio                             3,427    10.8    57.9    11.9    19.3
Oklahoma                         1,672    28.8    56.1     4.4    10.7
Oregon                           1,167     4.6    67.5    15.2    12.6
Pennsylvania                     2,369    38.1    25.2    13.7    23.1
Rhode Island                       295    40.3    27.7    12.1    20.0
South Carolina                     976    37.4    35.0     6.1    21.5
South Dakota                       526    22.8    35.5     7.5    34.2
Tennessee                        1,476    33.3    22.9    10.2    33.7
Texas                            5,448    27.2    43.6     7.4    21.9
Utah                               666    13.4    71.6    11.1     3.8
Vermont                            291    52.1    35.9     3.2     8.7
Virginia                         1,675    21.3    50.3    11.0    17.4
Washington                       1,689    32.4    46.2    11.2    10.2
West Virginia                      836    31.2    33.8     7.9    27.1
Wisconsin                        1,650    24.3    36.7    19.6    19.3
Wyoming                            392    17.8    60.1     6.7    15.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $124,000 per school. 



                         Table IV.2
          
               Schools' Estimated Spending on
          Accessibility in the Next 3 Years, State
                          Analyses


                       Below average\a       Above average
State                         spending            spending
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Mississippi                       99.2                 0.8
Arkansas                          93.7                 6.3
Oklahoma                          92.7                 7.3
Vermont                           91.7                 8.3
Nevada                            91.5                 8.5
Alabama                           91.1                 8.9
Missouri                          90.2                 9.8
Michigan                          90.0                10.0
Wyoming                           89.9                10.1
Florida                           88.2                11.8
North Dakota                      88.1                11.9
Idaho                             86.7                13.3
Utah                              86.5                13.5
Texas                             85.5                14.5
South Carolina                    85.0                15.0
Maine                             84.7                15.3
Illinois                          83.8                16.2
Arizona                           83.6                16.4
Georgia                           83.2                16.8
Ohio                              82.9                17.1
South Dakota                      82.7                17.3
Louisiana                         82.2                17.8
Virginia                          82.0                18.0
Delaware                          81.7                18.3
Oregon                            81.6                18.4
West Virginia                     81.1                18.9
Washington                        80.5                19.5
Montana                           79.7                20.3
==========================================================
Nationwide average                79.1                20.9
New Mexico                        78.8                21.2
North Carolina                    78.7                21.3
Kansas                            78.0                22.0
California                        77.7                22.3
Nebraska                          77.7                22.3
Indiana                           76.0                24.0
Alaska                            75.9                24.1
Iowa                              75.6                24.4
Colorado                          75.1                24.9
New York                          75.0                25.0
Kentucky                          73.4                26.6
Rhode Island                      69.7                30.3
New Hampshire                     69.5                30.5
Tennessee                         69.2                30.8
Minnesota                         67.9                32.1
Wisconsin                         65.2                34.8
Pennsylvania                      64.8                35.2
New Jersey                        63.9                36.1
Hawaii                            58.2                41.8
Massachusetts                     53.9                46.1
Maryland                          48.6                51.4
Connecticut                       44.3                55.7
District of                       40.5                59.5
 Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $124,000 per school. 



                         Table IV.3
          
          Money Estimated Needed on Accessibility
                    in the Next 3 Years


                                 Below   Above
                Number          averag  averag  Accessibil
                    of      No     e\a       e         ity
                school   money  spendi  spendi  requiremen
Characteristic       s  needed      ng      ng  ts unknown
--------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----------
Community type
----------------------------------------------------------
Central city    21,663    21.6    44.5    14.1        19.8
Urban fringe/   19,698    20.1    46.1    14.5        19.2
 large town
Rural/small     33,463    31.3    42.6     8.3        17.7
 town

Geographic region
----------------------------------------------------------
Northeast       12,577    36.4    30.1    15.5        18.0
Midwest         21,924    21.0    50.4    12.0        16.6
South           24,110    27.1    42.7     8.9        21.2
West            16,307    20.9    48.4    12.2        18.5

School size
----------------------------------------------------------
Small (1-299    20,457    29.5    42.6     8.6        19.3
 students)
Medium (300-    31,679    25.2    45.8    10.1        18.9
 599 students)
Large (600+     22,782    22.4    43.0    16.6        18.0
 students)

School level
----------------------------------------------------------
Elementary      53,375    25.9    44.5    10.6        18.9
Secondary       18,890    23.9    43.5    15.0        17.6
Combined         2,654    29.1    38.8     9.0        23.0

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
----------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20    16,516    25.1    45.8    12.5        16.5
 percent
20 to less      15,686    26.1    44.0     9.7        20.2
 than 40
 percent
40 to less      15,921    23.6    45.9    12.0        18.5
 than 70
 percent
70 percent or   14,570    25.7    44.8    11.0        18.4
 more

Proportion of minority students
----------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5.5   28,456    28.2    43.9     9.9        18.1
 percent
5.5 percent to  16,138    26.8    44.8    11.4        16.9
 less than
 20.5 percent
20.5 percent    14,308    20.3    46.5    12.6        20.6
 to less than
 50.5 percent
50.5 percent    15,794    24.1    41.5    14.4        19.8
 or more
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $124,000 per school. 



                               Table IV.4
                
                 Other Characteristics of Schools That
                   Reported Spending on Accessibility


                                                         Below   Above
                                                Number  averag  averag
                                                    of     e\a       e
                                                school  spendi  spendi
Characteristic                                       s      ng      ng
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Community type
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Central city                                    12,694    75.9    24.1
Urban fringe/large town                         11,940    76.1    23.9
Rural/small town                                17,049    83.6    16.4

Geographic region
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast                                        5,735    65.9    34.1
Midwest                                         13,683    80.7    19.3
South                                           12,454    82.7    17.3
West                                             9,882    79.9    20.1

School size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small (1-299 students)                          10,473    83.3    16.7
Medium (300-599 students)                       17,701    81.9    18.1
Large (600+ students)                           13,580    72.2    27.8

School level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary                                      29,436    80.8    19.2
Secondary                                       11,050    74.4    25.6
Combined                                         1,269    81.2    18.8

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 percent                             9,645    78.5    21.5
20 to less than 40 percent                       8,422    81.9    18.1
40 to less than 70 percent                       9,217    79.3    20.7
70 percent or more                               8,134    80.2    19.8

Proportion of minority students
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 5.5 percent                           15,301    81.6    18.4
5.5 percent to less than 20.5 percent            9,071    79.8    20.2
20.5 percent to less than 50.5 percent           8,456    78.7    21.3
50.5 percent or more                             8,867    74.3    25.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Average = $124,000 per school. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix V

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D.  Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Ella Cleveland, Senior Evaluator
Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Evaluator
Deborah L.  McCormick, Senior Social Science Analyst
Edna M.  Saltzman, Subproject Manager
Kathleen Ward, Senior Analyst


*** End of document. ***