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