Telecommunications Technology: Federal Funding for Schools and Libraries
(Letter Report, 08/20/1999, GAO/HEHS-99-133).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed federally created or
facilitated programs for helping schools and libraries with their
telecommunications and information technology efforts.

GAO noted that: (1) GAO identified 35 federal programs in 8 agencies
that could be used as a source of support for telecommunications and
information technology by libraries or elementary and secondary schools
in fiscal year (FY) 1998; (2) 10 programs specifically targeted
technology, while the remaining 25 included technology as one of many
possible uses of funds; (3) the 10 technology-targeted programs provided
about $650 million in FY 1998 and about $1.7 billion in discounts from
the universal service fund for January 1998 to June 1999; in 1997, 9
programs provided about $343 million; and in 1996, 8 programs provided
about $102 million; (4) for the 25 programs not primarily targeted to
technology, expenditures for technology cannot be precisely determined
because programs do not track how much they spend specifically for
technology, according to program officials; (5) with respect to funding
award procedures, 22 programs use a competitive process, while 12
distribute funding on the basis of formulas and 1 program uses both
methods; (6) estimates of administrative expenses for the 35 programs in
FY 1998 ranged from less than 1 percent to 15 percent and estimates of
the number of federal and nonfederal full-time equivalent positions
established to administer the programs ranged from less than 1 to nearly
200, depending on the program; (7) while multiple agencies have
responsibilities for managing programs in this area, based on GAO's
review, GAO did not identify instances where two individual programs
were providing identical services to identical populations--that is, had
the same goals, the same activities or strategies to achieve them, and
the same targeted recipients; (8) programs typically shared some
characteristics and differed in others; (9) while focusing their efforts
in different ways, both the Department of Education's Office of
Education Technology (OET) and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) have worked to coordinate federal education
technology programs; (10) OET's mission is to create policy and provide
oversight for technology issues within Education and to participate in
coordination activities and policy initiatives associated with education
technology across the federal government and within the education
community; (11) in contrast, OSTP focuses on broad national science and
technology goals, and facilitates the development and implementation of
federal policies associated with these goals, including coordinating
interagency efforts to develop and implement technology policies,
programs, and budgets; and (12) GAO did not identify information that
indicates that fraud, waste, and abuse are systemic or widespread
problems.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-133
     TITLE:  Telecommunications Technology: Federal Funding for Schools
	     and Libraries
      DATE:  08/20/1999
   SUBJECT:  Aid for education
	     Public schools
	     Libraries
	     Educational grants
	     Education or training
	     Information technology
	     Telecommunication
	     Redundancy
	     Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER:  Dept. of Commerce Telecommunications and Information
	     Infrastructure Assistance Program
	     Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications
	     Facilities Program

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

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

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, and the Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives

August 1999

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY -
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND
LIBRARIES

GAO/HEHS-99-133

Telecommunications Technology Funding

(104974)

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

  AIR - American Institutes for Research
  CFDA - Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
  FCC - Federal Communications Commission
  FTE - full-time equivalent
  IERI - Interagency Education Research Initiative
  IMLS - Institute of Museum and Library Services
  LEA - local education agency
  NEH - National Endowment for the Humanities
  NIH - National Institutes of Health
  NSF - National Science Foundation
  NTIA - National Telecommunications and Information Administration
  NSTC - National Science and Technology Council
  OBEMLA - Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language
     Affairs
  OEAM - Department of Commerce Office of Executive Assistance
     Management
  OET - Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology
  OIG - Office of the Inspector General
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  OSTP - White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
  PTFP - Public Telecommunications Facilities Program
  SEA - state education agency
  SLD - Schools and Libraries Division
  TIIAP - Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
     Assistance Program
  USAC - Universal Service Administrative Company

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

B-281492

August 20, 1999

The Honorable Tom Bliley
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

The Honorable William F.  Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education
 and the Workforce
House of Representatives

The nation's schools and libraries face a large bill for acquiring
telecommunications and information technology.  A 1996 study by the
RAND Corporation estimated that providing a technology-rich
learning environment in every school would cost $10 billion to $20
billion per year.\1 Another organization has estimated that U.S. 
schools are already spending more than $5 billion a year on such
efforts.\2 In recent years, the Congress has provided increasing
support, through a number of programs, for school and library efforts
to acquire information technology, including computer hardware and
software, wiring, Internet access, and teacher training.  As the
number of federal programs providing such aid has risen, questions
have been raised about the potential for duplication, which can waste
scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit
overall program effectiveness. 

You asked that we review federally created or facilitated programs
for helping schools and libraries with their telecommunications and
information technology efforts.  In September 1998, we testified
before your Committees on the work we had conducted up to that
time.\3 As agreed with your offices, we have continued our work to
compile a more complete response.  The specific questions you asked
us to address are shown in table 1.  We are presenting brief answers
to these questions in the body of this report and more detail in the
appendixes. 

                          Table 1
          
            Research Questions Addressed in This
                           Report

Topic               Specific question
------------------  --------------------------------------
Program             What are the characteristics of each
characteristics     program created or facilitated by the
                    federal government that can be used to
                    provide federal and private (such as
                    the E-rate\a program) funding for
                    public and private K -12 schools and
                    libraries for telecommunications
                    services, internal connections,
                    information services, computer
                    hardware, computer software, other
                    related technologies, and teacher
                    training, including

                    --the administrative costs, measured
                    in dollars and as a percentage of
                    overall program funding for fiscal
                    year 1998 (where available by program
                    at the federal level);
                    --the number of federal and nonfederal
                    full-time equivalents (FTE) allocated
                    to each program by function;
                    --the procedures that are used to
                    award funds;
                    --the total funding available for
                    fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998; and
                    --the actual funding levels for
                    technology for fiscal years 1996,
                    1997, and 1998?

Potential for       What is the potential for duplication
duplication         of programs for K -12 schools and
                    libraries as seen in the targeted
                    activities and recipients of each
                    program?

Coordination        What efforts have been made to
efforts             coordinate federal education and
                    technology programs? Specifically,

                    --What are the missions, activities,
                    and staffing levels of the Department
                    of Education (Education) Office of
                    Educational Technology (OET) and the
                    White House Office of Science and
                    Technology Policy (OSTP)?
                    --What efforts are being made by these
                    offices to coordinate federal
                    education and technology programs?
                    --How can the Government Performance
                    and Results Act (the Results Act) be
                    used to coordinate and reduce
                    duplication in these programs?

Available           What information, if any, is available
information on      about each program's potential
fraud, waste, and   problems regarding fraud, waste,
abuse               abuse, and efforts to eliminate the
                    problems?
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The Federal Communications Commission's universal service
fund--known as the E-rate--provides discounts of 20 to 90 percent on
telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
connections to eligible schools and libraries.  The program is funded
by mandatory contributions from interstate telecommunications and
other service providers.  The first discounts were funded for the
18-month period beginning January 1998. 

--------------------
\1 Thomas K.  Glennan and Arthur Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Educational Technology:  Elements of a National Strategy (Santa
Monica, Calif.:  RAND Corporation, 1996). 

\2 Quality Education Data, 1997-98 Technology Purchasing Forecast
(Denver, Colo.:  1997). 

\3 Telecommunications and Information Technology:  Federal Programs
That Can Be Used to Fund Technology for Schools and Libraries
(GAO/T-HEHS-98-246, Sept.  16, 1998). 

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels have
increasingly recognized that technology is becoming a central
component of many jobs, changing the skills and knowledge needed to
be successful in the workplace.  The concern about the academic
competitiveness of U.S.  students, coupled with these changes in
needed work skills, has heightened interest in integrating technology
into the elementary and secondary curriculum in an effort to address
both sets of needs.  Schools have used a variety of funding sources
to establish and support their technology programs.  Some rely on
state funding, while others use local tax moneys.  Some private
funding is also available, and federal funding sources also play a
role in supporting technology.  Our 1998 report on five school
districts found that each used a combination of sources to fund its
technology program.\4

In our previous work we determined that multiple federal agencies
provide funds that schools or libraries can use to obtain technology. 
When more than one federal agency is involved in the same broad area
of national need, this is referred to as mission fragmentation. 
While mission fragmentation and program overlap are relatively
straightforward to identify, determining whether overlapping programs
are actually duplicative requires an analysis of program goals, the
means to achieve them, and the targeted recipients.  This kind of
analysis is consistent with the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993.\5

--------------------
\4 School Technology:  Five School Districts' Experiences in Funding
Technology Programs (GAO/HEHS-98-35, Jan.  29, 1998). 

\5 Managing for Results:  Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug.  29,1997);
and Managing for Results:  An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of
Agencies' Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, Sept.  8,
1998). 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

To respond to your request, we examined four areas, with the
following results: 

  -- Program characteristics.  We identified 35 federal programs in 8
     agencies that could be used as a source of support for
     telecommunications and information technology by libraries or
     elementary and secondary schools in fiscal year 1998.  Ten
     programs specifically targeted technology, while the remaining
     25 included technology as one of many possible uses of funds. 
     The 10 technology-targeted programs provided about $650 million
     in fiscal year 1998 and about $1.7 billion in discounts from the
     universal service fund for January 1998 to June 1999; in 1997,
     they provided about $343 million; in 1996, about $102 million.\6
     For the 25 programs not primarily targeted to technology,
     expenditures for technology cannot be precisely determined
     because programs do not track how much they spend specifically
     for technology, according to program officials.  However, 9 of
     the 25 programs not targeted to technology were able to provide
     estimates totaling about $108 million for technology in 1998. 
     In addition to the nine programs that provided estimates, a
     recent report on Education's Title I program estimates that in
     1997, about $240 million of the $7.3 billion in Title I funding
     was spent on technology.\7 Also, in previous work we estimated
     that for Education's Goals 2000 program in 1997, about $43
     million of nearly $471 million was spent on technology.\8

With respect to funding award procedures, 22 programs use a
competitive process, while 12 distribute funding on the basis of
formulas and 1 program uses both methods.\9

Estimates of administrative expenses for the 35 programs in fiscal
year 1998 ranged from less than 1 percent to 15 percent and estimates
of the number of federal and nonfederal FTE positions established to
administer the programs ranged from less than 1 to nearly 200,\10
depending on the program.  Because program characteristics differ,
administrative costs could vary significantly across programs.  For
example, programs that distribute funding through a competitive
process may have proportionately higher administrative costs than
those that distribute funding through a formula because they must
carry out a grant proposal selection process that may include outside
reviewers to read and score grant applications.  Appendix I presents
more detailed information on these program characteristics. 

  -- Potential for duplication.  Funding aimed at enhancing
     telecommunications and information technology in schools and
     libraries can be delivered through 35 separate federal programs
     administered by 8 different agencies.  While multiple agencies
     have responsibilities for managing programs in this area, based
     on our review, we did not identify instances where two
     individual programs were providing identical services to
     identical populations--that is, had the same goals, the same
     activities or strategies to achieve them, and the same targeted
     recipients.  Programs typically shared some characteristics and
     differed in others.  An example of two programs that share
     similar strategies--distance learning technologies--but differ
     in their goals and targeted recipients is Education's Star
     Schools and the Department of Agriculture's Distance Learning
     and Telemedicine grants.  The Star Schools program's goal is to
     improve instruction for elementary and secondary students in
     underserved areas.  In contrast, Distance Learning and
     Telemedicine grants are intended to enhance health care and
     learning opportunities for all individuals living in rural
     areas.  Our analysis of the potential for duplication among the
     35 programs relied on agency program documents and interviews
     with agency officials--we did not examine the implementation of
     each program or individual grantee awards.  Appendix II provides
     a more detailed discussion of our comparisons of the programs
     and the factors that affect the potential for duplication. 

  -- Coordination efforts.  While focusing their efforts in different
     ways, both Education's OET and the White House OSTP have worked
     to coordinate federal education technology programs.  OET's
     mission is to create policy and provide oversight for technology
     issues within Education and to participate in coordination
     activities and policy initiatives associated with education
     technology across the federal government and within the
     education community.  For example, OET worked with the American
     Institutes for Research and the states to develop an educator's
     guide for evaluating the use of technology in schools and
     classrooms.  In contrast, OSTP focuses on broad national science
     and technology goals, and facilitates the development and
     implementation of federal policies associated with these goals,
     including coordinating interagency efforts to develop and
     implement technology policies, programs, and budgets.  For
     example, OSTP was involved in discussions with Education
     officials when the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund was being
     developed.  Once the legislation was passed, implementation of
     the program and coordination with other involved parties were
     the responsibilities of Education and OSTP was no longer
     involved with the program on a day-to-day basis, according to an
     OSTP associate director.  In addition, the Results Act can be
     used to coordinate technology efforts and reduce duplication by
     providing the structure needed to study programs' goals, the
     activities and strategies used to achieve them, and their
     targeted recipients.  Appendix III provides more detail on the
     coordination efforts of these two offices. 

  -- Available information on fraud, waste, and abuse.  Reports from
     agency offices of the inspector general (OIG) are one source of
     information on potential problems of fraud, waste, and abuse. 
     Based on our review of 17 of these reports, we did not identify
     information that indicates that fraud, waste, and abuse are
     systemic or widespread problems.  However, some reports contain
     examples of such problems for individual grantees.  Ten of the
     17 reports concerned Commerce's Telecommunications and
     Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP).  However,
     officials from the Department of Commerce's OIG recently
     testified before the Congress that these audits did not identify
     any major or systemic problems.  Of the remaining seven reports,
     only two had significant findings regarding questioned costs or
     unapproved spending.  Each of these two reports addresses an
     individual grant projectan Education Star Schools grant and a
     Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities Program grant. 
     Both agencies report taking actions to protect against such
     problems occurring in the future.  Appendix IV presents--for
     each of the 17 reports--more detailed information on the
     findings, recommendations, and agency efforts to eliminate
     problems. 

--------------------
\6 Nine of these programs were operating in 1997, eight in 1996. 

\7 U.S.  Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges:  The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I
(1999). 

\8 Goals 2000:  Flexible Funding Supports State and Local Education
Reform (GAO/HEHS-99-10, Nov.  1998). 

\9 The Institute of Museum and Library Service's Native American
Library Services Grants program provides competitive grant funding
through its Enhancement grants and formula grant funding through its
Basic Library Services and Technical Assistance grants. 

\10 The Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service
Administrative Company contracts for customer support and application
processing for the E-rate.  The contractor reported that it used
199.6 FTEs in fiscal year 1998.

   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To identify programs, we reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA),\11

Education documents, Congressional Research Service publications, and
our previous work.  To obtain more detailed information about the
characteristics of each program, we conducted interviews with program
officials and reviewed pertinent documents such as program
application packages, regulations, and budget information.  We did
not independently verify the information we obtained from officials
on administrative costs, numbers of FTEs, and the percentage of
funding used for technology, and we have not used that information as
support for findings or recommendations in this report.  To assess
the potential for duplication among the programs, we developed a
framework based on standards set out in the Results Act and used it
to analyze data we had gathered on program goals, activities, and
targeted recipients.  We limited our analysis to information provided
in agency documents and by agency officials and did not examine the
implementation of each program or individual grantees.  To determine
existing efforts to coordinate funding sources across program and
agency lines, we conducted interviews with officials from Education's
OET and the White House OSTP and reviewed agency documents including
reports and performance plans.  To identify available information on
potential fraud, waste, and abuse and efforts to eliminate them, we
interviewed program officials and officials from agencies' OIGs and
reviewed OIG audit and investigations reports and semiannual reports
to the Congress.  We included reports and studies issued from October
1995 to March 1999.  Additionally, we held discussions with Education
officials in the Offices of the General Council and the Chief
Financial Officer; we did not examine individual grantees.  We
conducted our work from August 1998 to May 1999 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

--------------------
\11 The CFDA is a governmentwide compendium of federal programs,
projects, services, and activities that provide assistance and
benefits.  Coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and compiled by the General Services Administration, the CFDA
contains information, both financial and nonfinancial, about programs
administered by federal departments and agencies. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We provided a draft of this report to Education, Commerce, and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  We provided relevant
portions of the draft report to Agriculture, the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Institute
of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH), and the White House OSTP. 

In its comments, Education suggested that we expand our discussion
about mission fragmentation to capture broader program design issues. 
It pointed out that, in previous GAO work on the Results Act, we have
said that multiple programs providing the same or similar services
can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part of a management
strategy.  While we focus our discussion in this report on
duplication of program goals, activities, and targeted recipients, a
more detailed discussion about duplication in general can be found in
Managing for Results:  Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug.  29, 1997). 
Education also expressed concerns about our discussion of OSTP,
Education, and NSF and their roles in the Interagency Education
Research Initiative.  It said that readers could get the impression
that the interaction between NSF and Education is new and that NSF
has not been willing to provide such information.  We revised the
wording for clarification. 

Commerce, Agriculture, and NEH expressed concerns about the potential
for misinterpretation of administrative cost information.  Commerce
said that comparison of administrative costs across programs is
unfair and would not be meaningful because (1) program administrative
costs are dependent upon the nature of the program and (2) the range
of activities included under administrative costs varies from program
to program.  To address these concerns, we revised the report to
alert the reader that differences in program characteristics can
cause differences in administrative costs.  Commerce also expressed
concerns that our reporting on the number of reports dealing with
fraud, waste, and abuse was potentially misleading because Commerce's
OIG issued a report for each grant audited while other agencies' OIGs
issued reports that combine audits of multiple grants.  Commerce
pointed out that the 10 reports on a single Commerce program were not
comparable to the 7 reports on other programs.  We did not base our
conclusions on the number of reports.  We focused instead on whether
the reports had identified major or systemic problems.  In addition,
we stated that Commerce OIG officials had reported that none of the
studies identified major or systemic problems.  NEH emphasized that
their programs do not provide funding to acquire information
technology per se, but rather to support projects and programs that
help teachers access and use humanities materials in digital form. 
However, we included in our list of programs that can fund technology
those that train teachers to integrate technology into the school
curriculum.  Comments from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
and Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities appear in
appendixes V through VIII. 

The FCC, OSTP, IMLS, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, and NEH
provided technical comments, which we addressed as appropriate.  NIH
and NSF did not provide comments on the report. 

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

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Richard W. 
Riley, Secretary of Education, and the heads of the other agencies
responsible for information technology programs.  We will also make
copies available to others upon request. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me on
(202) 512-7014 or Nancy Purvine on (206) 287-4800.  Other
contributors to this report are Lise Levie, Susan Lawless, and Stan
Stenersen. 

Marnie S.  Shaul
Associate Director, Education, Workforce, and
 Income Security Issues

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
=========================================================== Appendix I

What are the characteristics of each program created or facilitated
by the federal government that can be used to provide federal and
private (such as the E-rate program) funding for public and private K
- 12 schools and libraries for telecommunications services, internal
connections, information services, computer hardware, computer
software, other related technologies, and teacher training, including

  -- the administrative costs, measured in dollars and as a
     percentage of overall program funding for fiscal year 1998
     (where available by program at the federal level);

  -- the number of federal and nonfederal FTEs allocated to each
     program by function;

  -- the procedures that are used to award funds;

  -- the total funding available for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
     1998; and

  -- the actual funding levels for technology for fiscal years 1996,
     1997, and 1998? 

   CHARACTERISTICS FOR 35 PROGRAMS
   THAT CAN FUND TECHNOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

Table I.1 shows, for fiscal year 1998, the estimated program
administrative costs, the estimated federal administrative costs as a
percentage of total program costs,\12 and total program funding. 
Administrative costs may vary among programs because some distribute
funding through a competitive process and some through a formula. 
The competitive grant process involves reviewing and scoring grant
applications as part of selection procedures, while the formula grant
process does not.  Additionally, the cost of this review process can
vary widely for a number of reasons.  The number of grant
applications to be reviewed varied among the programs in our study
and, while most competitive grant programs hired outside experts to
perform this task, one program used volunteers and one used only
agency staff.  Further, the Department of Education considered the
cost of these reviewers a program expense and other agencies
considered reviewers an administrative expense. 

Table I.2 shows estimates of the total number of federal
full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff for each program, the number of FTEs
assigned to technology activities, the portion of total FTEs
allocated to implementing and awarding grants, and the portion
allocated to oversight.  Table I.2 also shows estimates of the
portion of total FTEs that are professional staff and the portion
that are support staff.  Regarding nonfederal or contract FTEs, just
three programs reported contracting for activities in addition to
hiring grant readers during the competitive grant selection process. 
The Universal Service Administrative Company\13

(USAC) contracts for E-rate customer support and application
processing (199.6 FTEs).  The Department of Commerce's
Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program
(TIIAP) and Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP)
contract for data system redesign, professional consultants, and
temporary administrative support, but do not track the number of FTEs
under these contracts.  In addition, USAC's Schools and Libraries
Division (SLD) employs about 15 FTEs for a variety of activities
associated with E-rate administration including outreach and
education, office management, and technology planning. 

Table I.3 shows which programs award funding through a competitive
process and which award funding using a formula.  Table I.4 shows
program funding, estimates of the amount spent on technology, and the
estimated percentage of program funding spent on technology for
fiscal years 1996 through 1998. 

                                        Table I.1
                         
                           Fiscal Year 1998 Administrative Cost
                          Estimates by Program for Programs That
                           Could Fund Technology for Schools or
                                        Libraries

                                  1998 estimated             Federal
                                         program      administrative
                                  administrative          costs as a         1998 program
                                     costs\a (in       percentage of        funding\c (in
                                    thousands of       total program         thousands of
Programs                                dollars)             costs\b             dollars)
----------------------------  ------------------  ------------------  -------------------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education Technology                $786                 2.3              $34,023
 and Media Services for
 Individuals With
 Disabilities
Star Schools                               1,175                 3.3               34,000
Technology Innovation                        740                 0.7              106,000
 Challenge Grants
Technology Literacy                           71                <0.1              425,000
 Challenge Fund

Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and                      2,010                13.9               12,500
 Telemedicine Grants

Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Telecommunications                  1,823                 8.4               21,767
 Facilities Program                 (included in
                                program funding)
Telecommunications and                     3,271                15.0               21,782
 Information Infrastructure         (included in
 Assistance Program             program funding)

Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service Discount              26,909\e               2.4\f       1,108,982\f in
 for Schools and Libraries                                              discounts for the
 (E-rate)\d                                                             12 mos. beginning
                                                                                   1/1/98

National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Systems and                       97                 5.9                1,550
 Grants

National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to the Internet                    4                 2.6                  147

Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Student                         35                 3.7                  905
 Enrichment Program
Bilingual Education Capacity               1,996                 1.2              160,000
 and Demonstration Grants
Emergency Immigrant                           25                0.02              150,000
 Education Assistance
 Program
Foreign Language Assistance                  102                 2.0                5,000
Eisenhower Professional                      752                 3.1               23,300
 Development Federal
 Activities
Eisenhower Professional                    1,788                 0.5              335,000
 Development State Grants
Fund for the Improvement of                  588                 0.5              108,100
 Education
Goals 2000 State and Local                 1,590                 0.3              466,000
 Education Systemic
 Improvement Grants
Javits Gifted and Talented                   364                 5.3                6,500
 Students Education Program
Innovative Education Program               1,265                 0.4              350,000
 Strategies
Migrant Education Basic                    1,958                 0.7              299,475
 State Grant Program
Migrant Education                             31                 0.5                5,998
 Coordination Program
Magnet Schools Assistance                  1,422                 1.4              101,000
Perkins Act Tech-Prep                        158                 0.2              103,000
 Education
Perkins Act Vocational                     5,292                 0.5            1,009,852
 Education Basic Grants to
 States
Perkins Act Vocational                       315                 2.4               13,013
 Education Indians Set-
 Aside
Special Education Grants to                6,913                 0.2            3,807,700
 States
Title I Grants to Local                    7,028                 0.1            7,375,232
 Education Agencies
Twenty-first Century                         353                 0.9               40,000
 Community Learning Centers
Women's Educational Equity                   167                 5.3                3,000
 Act Program

Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Leadership Grants               2,805\g                 2\g                5,488
Native American and Native                    \g                  \g                2,561
 Hawaiian Library Services
 Grants
State Grants                                  \g                  \g              135,486

National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the Humanities                  655                12.4                4,649
 Education, Development, and
 Demonstration Grants
Promotion of the Humanities                  617                 9.2                6,107
 Summer Seminars and
 Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Administrative costs are in addition to program funding except
where noted.  In those cases, administrative costs are included in
program funding. 

\b Administrative cost as a percentage of total program costs is
calculated by dividing the 1998 administrative costs by the sum of
1998 program funding plus 1998 administrative costs, except for
programs that pay administrative costs out of program funds.  In
those cases, administrative cost as a percentage of program funding
is calculated by dividing the 1998 administrative cost by the 1998
program funding. 

\c Program funding includes all funding available as grants and
includes--but may not be limited to--funds spent on technology. 

\d The E-rate is a discount; no direct funding is involved. 

\e This includes both FCC and SLD administrative costs. 

\f The E-rate was funded for the 18-month period from January 1,
1998, through June 30, 1999, and the administrative costs are for the
12-month period from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.  In
order to calculate administrative costs as a percentage of total
program costs on an annual basis, the 18-month figure of $1.66
billion was reduced by one-third to $1.1 billion.  Even though
funding commitments were not made until late 1998 and early 1999,
applicants are being reimbursed the discounted portion of bills they
paid in full as early as January 1998.  Therefore, the one-third
reduction is a reasonably accurate estimate.  The administrative
costs in 1998 included substantial startup costs for system
development and a procedure design audit. 

\g Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) officials said
they could not break out individual programs' administrative costs. 
The total estimated administrative cost for all three programs is
$2,805,000.  The administrative cost as a percentage of total costs
was calculated using the total funding for all three IMLS programs. 

                                        Table I.2
                         
                          Federal Full-Time-Equivalent Staff by
                                  Program1998 Estimates

                                                Federal FTEs
                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Allocated to  Allocate
                                           implementing      d to
                              Assigned to  and awarding  oversigh  Profession     Support
Programs              Total    technology        grants         t          al  (clerical)
-----------------  --------  ------------  ------------  --------  ----------  ----------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education         8             8            \a        \a           7           1
 Technology and
 Media Services
 for Individuals
 With
 Disabilities
Star Schools             10            10            \a        \a          \a          \a
Technology                6             6            \a        \a           5           1
 Innovation
 Challenge Grants
Technology                1             1            \a        \a           1           0
 Literacy
 Challenge Fund

Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning        12            12             5         7          10           2
 and Telemedicine
 Grants

Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public                   12            12           7.5       4.5           9           3
 Telecommunicatio
 ns Facilities
 Program\b
Telecommunication        24            24          15.5       8.5          21           3
 s and
 Information
 Infrastructure
 Assistance
 Program\b

Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service         2             0             0         2           2           0
 Discount for
 Schools and
 Libraries (E-
 rate) \b,c

National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information               1             1           0.5       0.5         0.8         0.2
 Systems and
 Access Grants

National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to          0.1           0.1            \a        \a         0.1           0
 the Internet

Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native           0.3             0            \a        \a         0.3           0
 Student
 Enrichment
 Program
Bilingual                20             0            \a        \a          18           2
 Education
 Capacity and
 Demonstration
 Grants
Emergency               0.3             0            \a        \a         0.3           0
 Immigrant
 Education
 Assistance
 Program
Foreign Language          1             0            \a        \a           1           0
 Assistance
Eisenhower                6             0            \a        \a          \a          \a
 Professional
 Development
 Federal
 Activities
Eisenhower               17             0            \a        \a          15           2
 Professional
 Development
 State Grants
Fund for the              5             0            \a        \a          \a          \a
 Improvement of
 Education
Goals 2000 State         15             6            \a        \a          12           3
 and Local
 Education
 Systemic
 Improvement
 Grants
Javits Gifted and         3             0            \a        \a           3           0
 Talented
 Students
 Education
 Program
Innovative               12             0            \a        \a          10           2
 Education
 Program
 Strategies
Migrant Education        19             0            \a        \a          17           2
 Basic State
 Grant Program
Migrant Education       0.3             0            \a        \a         0.3           0
 Coordination
 Program
Magnet Schools           14             0            \a        \a          13           1
 Assistance
Perkins Act Tech-         2             2            \a        \a           2           0
 Prep Education
Perkins Act              50             0            \a        \a          40          10
 Vocational
 Education Basic
 Grants to States
Perkins Act               3             0            \a        \a           3           0
 Vocational
 Education
 Indians Set-
 Aside
Special Education        66             0            \a        \a          58           8
 Grants to States
Title I Grants to        67             0            \a        \a          58           9
 Local Education
 Agencies
Twenty-First              3             0            \a        \a           3           0
 Century
 Community
 Learning Centers
Women's                   2             0            \a        \a           2           0
 Educational
 Equity Act
 Program

Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National                3.6             0           2.6         1         3.4         0.2
 Leadership
 Grants
Native American         3.2             0           0.7       2.5           3         0.2
 and Native
 Hawaiian Library
 Services Grants
State Grants            4.9             0           0.9         4         4.9           0

National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the          7             0             7         0           7           0
 Humanities
 Education,
 Development, and
 Demonstration
 Grants
Promotion of the          7             0             7         0           7           0
 Humanities
 Seminars and
 Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This information is not tracked. 

\b Three programs reported contracting for activities in addition to
grant readers for competitive awards.  The USAC awarded contracts for
E-rate customer support and application processing (199.6 FTEs); the
TIIAP and the PTFP contract for data system redesign, professional
consultants, and temporary administrative support, but do not track
the number of FTEs under these contracts. 

\c USAC's SLD employs about 15 FTEs for a variety of activities
associated with E-rate administration including outreach and
education, office management, and technology planning.  The USAC is a
private, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing states
and territories with access to affordable telecommunications services
through the universal service fund. 

--------------------
\12 We define total program costs as program funding plus program
administrative costs, which could either come from the program funds
or the department's administrative budget. 

\13 USAC is a private, not-for-profit organization that administers
the universal service fund for the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).  The universal service fund was established to provide
residential customers with affordable access to basic telephone
service. 

      PROCESSES FOR AWARDING
      FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Funding is awarded through one of two processes. 

The competitive grant process typically begins with an announcement
in the Federal Register.  Most programs also post information and
application packages on their Web sites and mail information to
potential applicants.  Applicants--which could include schools,
libraries, nonprofit organizations, and local government
entities--generally have between 1 and 4 months to complete the
application paperwork, depending on the program.  During this time,
program officials are available to provide information and, in some
cases, guidance on preparing grant proposals.  When the application
period closes, program officials assemble a group of grant readers to
review the proposals.  According to program officials, grant readers
typically have expertise in some aspect of the grant subject.  For
example, according to a program official, the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant program uses three types of grant readers:  teachers,
school administrators, and educational technology experts from
outside the school system.  Grant readers typically score the
proposals using established criteria.  For example, Commerce's TIIAP
application package lists review criteria that include project
purpose, feasibility, and significance; community involvement; and
evaluation, documentation, and dissemination.  Often, proposals are
rank ordered according to their scores as part of the process to
determine which will be funded. 

The formula grant programs distribute their funds to eligible
recipients--usually state agencies--using formulas established by
legislation or regulation that determine the amount each receives. 
For example, the formula that determines the amount of funding each
state receives from the Perkins Act Vocational Education Basic Grants
to States program is based on each state's per capita income and its
population of three specific age groups--with emphasis on ages 15 to
19.  Many of the formula grant programs we identified included a
formula factor that gives priority to low-income populations.  For
example, for Education's Eisenhower Professional Development State
Grant Program, the formula is based on each state's population of
children aged 5 through 17 and children from low-income families. 
Most formula programs we identified required potential recipients to
submit a multiyear plan describing how the funding will be used.  For
example, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund program requires each
state education agency that applies for funding to submit a state
technology plan that includes a description of long-term strategies
for financing education technology in the state. 

                         Table I.3
          
               Processes for Awarding Funding

                            Competitive     Formula award
Program                     award process   process
--------------------------  --------------  --------------
Programs that target technology
----------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------
Special Education           x
Technology and Media
Services for Individuals
With Disabilities

Star Schools                x

Technology Innovation       x
Challenge Grants

Technology Literacy                         x
Challenge Fund

Department of Agriculture

Distance Learning and       x
Telemedicine Grants

Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------
Public Telecommunications   x
Facilities Program

Telecommunications and      x
Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program

Federal Communications Commission
----------------------------------------------------------
Universal Service Discount                  x
for Schools and Libraries
(E-rate)\a

National Institutes of Health
----------------------------------------------------------
Information Systems and     x
Access Grants

National Science Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------
Connections to the          x
Internet

Programs that do not target technology
----------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Student       x
Enrichment Program

Bilingual Education         x
Capacity and Demonstration
Grants

Emergency Immigrant                         x
Education Assistance
Program

Foreign Language            x
Assistance

Eisenhower Professional     x
Development Federal
Activities

Eisenhower Professional                     x
Development State Grants

Fund for the Improvement    x
of Education

Goals 2000 State and Local                  x
Education Systemic
Improvement Grants

Javits Gifted and Talented  x
Students Education Program

Innovative Education                        x
Program Strategies

Migrant Education Basic                     x
State Grant Program

Migrant Education           x
Coordination Program

Magnet Schools Assistance   x

Perkins Act Tech-Prep                       x
Education

Perkins Act Vocational                      x
Education Basic Grants to
States

Perkins Act Vocational      x
Education Indians Set-
Aside

Special Education Grants                    x
to States

Title I Grants to Local                     x
Education Agencies

Twenty-First Century        x
Community Learning Centers

Women's Educational Equity  x
Act Program

Institute of Museum and Library Services
----------------------------------------------------------
National Leadership Grants  x

Native American and Native  x               x
Hawaiian Library Services
Grants

State Grants                                x

National Endowment for the Humanities
----------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the            x
Humanities Education,
Development, and
Demonstration Grants

Promotion of the            x
Humanities Seminars and
Institutes
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The E-rate provides discounts; no direct funding is involved. 

                                                                      Table I.4
                                                       
                                                       Program Funding and Estimates of Amounts
                                                       and Percentages for Technology, FY 1996-
                                                                          98

                                  FY 1996                                     FY 1997                                       FY 1998
                  ----------------------------------------  --------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------
                                   Estimated
                                  amount for                                     Estimated                                    Estimated
                       Program    technology                       Program      amount for                      Program      amount for
                   funding (in           (in    Percentage     funding (in  technology (in    Percentage    funding (in  technology (in    Percentage
                  thousands of  thousands of           for    thousands of    thousands of           for   thousands of    thousands of           for
Program               dollars)      dollars)    technology        dollars)        dollars)    technology       dollars)        dollars)    technology
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  --------------  --------------  ------------  -------------  --------------  ------------
Programs that target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special               $9,993\a        $9,993           100       $10,255\a         $10,255           100        $34,023         $34,023           100
 Education
 Technology and
 Media Services
 for Individuals
 With
 Disabilities
Star Schools            23,000        23,000           100          30,000          30,000           100         34,000          34,000           100
Technology              38,000        38,000           100          56,965          56,965           100        106,000         106,000           100
 Innovation
 Challenge
 Grants
Technology                  \b            \b            \b       200,000\c         200,000           100      425,000\d         425,000           100
 Literacy
 Challenge Fund

Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance                 7,500         7,500           100           8,597           8,597           100         12,500          12,500           100
 Learning and
 Telemedicine
 Grants

Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public                  16,425        14,303          87\e          16,461          14,623          89\e         21,767          19,944          92\e
 Telecommunicati
 ons Facilities
 Program
Telecommunicatio        24,530        22,228          91\e          23,953          20,902          87\e         21,782          18,511          85\e
 ns and
 Information
 Infrastructure
 Assistance
 Program

Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal                   \g            \g            \g              \g              \g            \g   1,665,138 in    1,665,138 in           100
 Service                                                                                                   discounts in    discounts in
 Discount for                                                                                               the 18 mos.     the 18 mos.
 Schools and                                                                                               beginning 1/    beginning 1/
 Libraries (E-                                                                                                     1/98            1/98
 rate)\f

National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information              1,863         1,863           100           1,701           1,701           100          1,550           1,550           100
 Systems and
 Access Grants

National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections to             596           596           100             467             467           100            147             147           100
 the Internet

Programs that do not target technology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native               \b            \b            \b             905              \h            \h            905              \h            \h
 Student
 Enrichment
 Program
Bilingual              117,200            \h            \h         141,650              \h            \h        160,000              \h            \h
 Education
 Capacity and
 Demonstration
 Grants
Emergency               50,000            \h            \h         150,000              \h            \h        150,000              \h            \h
 Immigrant
 Education
 Assistance
 Program
Foreign Language        10,039            \h            \h           5,000              \h            \h          5,000              \h            \h
 Assistance
Eisenhower              17,984      360 -900          2 -5          13,342        267 -667          2 -5         23,300      466 -1,165          2 -5
 Professional
 Development
 Federal
 Activities
Eisenhower             274,265            \h            \h         310,000              \h            \h        335,000              \h            \h
 Professional
 Development
 State Grants
Fund for the            37,611            \h            \h          40,000              \h            \h        108,100              \h            \h
 Improvement of
 Education
Goals 2000 State       340,000        34,997            10         476,000          42,854             9        466,000              \h            \h
 and Local
 Education
 Systemic
 Improvement
 Grants
Javits Gifted            3,000           300            10           5,000             500            10          6,500             650            10
 and Talented
 Students
 Education
 Program
Innovative             275,000            \h            \h         310,000              \h            \h        350,000              \h            \h
 Education
 Program
 Strategies
Migrant                299,475            \h            \h         299,473              \h            \h        299,475              \h            \h
 Education Basic
 State Grant
 Program
Migrant                     \b            \b            \b           5,998           3,300            59          5,998           3,300            59
 Education
 Coordination
 Program
Magnet Schools          91,959        17,104            19          92,000              26            29        101,000          26,462            26
 Assistance
 Program
Perkins Act            100,000            \h            \i         100,000              \h            \i        103,000              \h            \i
 Tech-Prep
 Education
Perkins Act            962,976            \h            \h       1,004,904              \h            \h      1,009,852              \h            \h
 Vocational
 Education Basic
 Grants to
 States
Perkins Act             12,387            \h            \h          12,592              \h            \h         13,013              \h            \h
 Vocational
 Education
 Indians Set-
 Aside
Special              2,323,837            \h            \h       3,107,522              \h            \h    3,807,700\j              \h            \h
 Education
 Grants to
 States
Title I Grants       6,730,348            \h            \h       7,295,232         240,000             3      7,375,232              \h            \h
 to Local
 Education
 Agencies
Twenty-First               750            \h            \h           1,000              \h            \h         40,000              \h            \h
 Century
 Community
 Learning
 Centers
Women's                      0             0             0           2,000              \h            \h          3,000              \h            \h
 Educational
 Equity Act
 Program

Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National                    \g            \g            \g              \g              \g            \g          5,488           4,116            75
 Leadership
 Grants
Native American             \k            \k            \k              \k              \k            \k          2,561             896            35
 and Native
 Hawaiian
 Library
 Services Grants
State Grants                \k            \k            \k              \k              \k            \k        135,486          67,734            50

National Endowment for the Humanities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the         3,645         1,700            47           3,988           2,302            58          4,649           3,130            67
 Humanities
 Education,
 Development,
 and
 Demonstration
 Grants
Promotion of the        10,018          <100            <1           6,329             <63            <1          6,107             <61            <1
 Humanities
 Seminars and
 Institutes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Technology Services program and the Media Services and
Captioning program were separate programs in 1996 and 1997. 
According to a program official, this funding amount represents the
funding level for the Technology Services Program only.  The Media
Services and Captioning program did not provide funding to schools or
libraries. 

\b Not applicable--this program was new in 1997. 

\c Includes $750,000 program evaluation set-aside. 

\d Includes $2 million program evaluation set-aside. 

\e We consider programs that target technology to be 100 percent for
technology, with the exception of the two Commerce programs that pay
administrative costs out of their program appropriation.  (The
remaining programs pay administrative costs from separate
administrative budgets.)

\f The E-rate is a discount; no direct funding is involved. 

\g Not applicable--this program was new in 1998. 

\h Program officials said they were unable to provide an estimate of
the percentage or amount spent on technology. 

\i According to the program director, this program is considered 100
percent for technology, but includes other types of technology in
addition to information and telecommunications technology. 

\j Includes $6.7 million program evaluation set-aside. 

\k According to an IMLS official, changes were made to the Native
American and Native Hawaiian Library Services program and the State
Grant program, when they were moved from the Department of Education,
that would make comparisons of 1998 data with 1996 and 1997 data
invalid. 

POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATION
========================================================== Appendix II

What is the potential for duplication of programs for K - 12 schools
and libraries as seen in the targeted activities and recipients of
each program? 

   POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATION IS
   LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

We analyzed the 35 programs that could fund technology for schools or
libraries, using a framework we developed during our work on the
Government Performance and Results Act.\14 While we found that there
are similarities among the programs, we did not identify instances
where two programs were designed to provide identical services to
identical recipients.  We relied on agency program documents and
interviews with agency officials to ascertain the similarity of
goals, strategies, and recipients.  From that review, we found that
programs varied in at least one of the three factors.  Due to the
number of programs and individual recipients, we did not examine the
implementation of each program or individual grantee awards to
ascertain the similarity of goals, strategies, and recipients. 

To more easily examine the three factors, we grouped the programs on
the basis of activities--whether technology is the only activity to
which a program's funds can be applied, and recipients--whether
schools or libraries are the only targeted recipients.  As table II.1
shows, this produces four groups of programs.  The first group
focuses on the programs that are most similar to each other because
they specifically target schools or libraries as the recipients and
technology as the strategy or activity to achieve program goals.  In
contrast, the fourth group is the most varied.  These programs target
neither technology nor schools and libraries, but permit spending on
many activities besides technology and provide money to recipients in
addition to schools or libraries. 

                               Table II.1
                
                Matrix for Grouping Programs That Can Be
                          Used for Technology

                                     Types of recipients
                        ----------------------------------------------
                                                Schools or libraries
                        Schools or libraries    allowed but not
Program purpose         targeted                exclusively targeted
----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Technology targeted     Category I: targets     Category III: targets
                        schools or libraries    technology but not
                        and technology (4       schools or libraries
                        programs)               (6 programs)

Technology allowed but  Category II: targets    Category IV: does not
not exclusively         schools or libraries    target schools,
targeted                but not technology (22  libraries, or
                        programs)               technology (3
                                                programs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\14 Managing for Results:  Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug.  29, 1997). 

      CATEGORY I:  PROGRAMS THAT
      TARGET SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
      AND TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

Four of the 35 programs fall into the category of targeting funds
exclusively to schools or libraries and technology.  Education
administers three of the programs (Star Schools, Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants, and Technology Literacy Challenge Fund),
and the FCC administers the fourth (the E-rate).  Table II.2 shows
the goals, activities, and recipients for these four programs.  When
these programs are analyzed in terms of their goals, activities, and
targeted recipients, all four are found to be similar in one
aspect--they target school districts with a high percentage of
children from low-income families.  In other respects, they vary; for
example: 

  -- Education's Technology Innovation Challenge Grants program and
     the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund program are the most
     similar.  Both are aimed at using technology in the classroom,
     both fund the same types of technology-related activities, and
     both provide funding exclusively to schools.  However, there is
     a distinction between these programs:  the Innovation Challenge
     grants focus more on identifying innovative uses of technology
     in the classroom, while the Literacy Challenge Fund grants focus
     more on increasing the use of established technology and
     integrating technology into the school curriculum. 

  -- The goals of the two remaining programs differ both from the
     first two programs and from each other.  The Star Schools
     program focuses on improving student instruction through
     distance learning technologies such as satellites and fiber
     optics,\15

while the E-rate focuses on improving schools' and libraries' access
to telecommunications services.  The Star Schools program provides
project grants, while the E-rate program provides discounts to
schools and libraries for specific kinds of technology--internal
connections, Internet access, and other commercial telecommunications
services. 

                                        Table II.2
                         
                           Programs That Target Technology for
                                   Schools or Libraries

Program        Program goals             Program activities        Targeted recipients
-------------  ------------------------  ------------------------  ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Schools   To use distance learning  General projects that     Priority to LEAs with
               to (1) improve            (1) develop, construct,   a high percentage of
               instruction in            acquire, and maintain     children from low-
               mathematics, science,     telecommunications        income families
               foreign languages, and    facilities and
               other subjects, such as   equipment; (2) develop
               literacy skills and       and acquire live
               vocational education;     interactive educational
               (2) serve underserved     and instructional
               populations, including    programming; (3) obtain
               the disadvantaged,        technical assistance for
               illiterate, limited-      the use of such
               English proficient, and   facilities and
               individuals with          instructional
               disabilities              programming;
                                         Dissemination projects
                                         designed to provide
                                         dissemination and
                                         technical assistance to
                                         help state education
                                         agencies (SEA) and local
                                         education agencies (LEA)
                                         plan and implement
                                         technology-based
                                         distance learning
                                         systems

Technology     To implement, evaluate,   Activities such as        Priority to LEAs with
Innovation     and document innovative   software development;     a high percentage of
Challenge      applications of           extending learning by     children from low-
Grants         information and computer  connecting schools to     income families
               technologies to support   other schools for
               systemic educational      collaborative learning
               reform                    and to libraries,
                                         businesses, and other
                                         organizations;
                                         professional development
                                         that leads to effective
                                         integration of
                                         technology into the
                                         curriculum; strategies
                                         that use technology to
                                         help at-risk students
                                         achieve

Technology     To implement state        Apply technology to       Priority to LEAs with
Literacy       strategies designed to    support school reform,    a high percentage of
Challenge      enable all schools to     acquire hardware and      children from low-
Fund           integrate technology      software to improve       income families and
               into school curriculum    student learning,         that demonstrate a
               so that all students      provide connections to    great need for
               become technologically    telecommunications        technology
               literate in reading,      networks to obtain
               math, science, and other  access to resources and
               core academic skills      services, provide
               essential for their       ongoing professional
               success in the 21\st      development in
               century                   integrating technology
                                         into the school
                                         curriculum, and provide
                                         education services for
                                         adults and families

Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal      To improve schools' and   Internal connections,     K -12 and vocational
Service        libraries' access to      Internet access, and      education students and
Discount for   modern                    other telecommunications  library users; largest
Schools and    telecommunications        services                  discounts are given to
Libraries (E-  services                                            schools and libraries
rate)                                                              in districts with a
                                                                   high percentage of
                                                                   children from low-
                                                                   income families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\15 Distance learning provides underserved populations, such as those
in rural areas, access to education and other services through
telecommunications technologies.  For example, a teacher in one
location can teach students in another. 

      CATEGORY II:  PROGRAMS THAT
      TARGET SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
      BUT NOT TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2

The largest of the four categories includes programs that target
schools or libraries but do not target technology.  Twenty-two of the
35 programs are in this category.  These programs allow schools or
libraries to use funds for technology, but in many of the programs,
technology is only one of many activities to which the funding can be
applied.  Education administers 19 of the programs, while the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which supports all
types of libraries through grants and discretionary programs,
administers the three others.\16 Table II.  3 shows the goals,
activities, and recipients for these programs. 

--------------------
\16 The Congress established this independent agency in 1996 to
improve museum, library, and other information services. 

      EDUCATION PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3

Many of the 19 Education programs in this category share a similar
goal of improving student achievement or providing equal access to
education.  Some are targeted to specific groups of students, such as
those with limited English proficiency, Native American students,
gifted students, disabled students, and students at risk of failing
to meet their state's academic standards.  Others target aid to the
nation's schools in general.  Here are examples that show the
differences between programs in this regard: 

  -- An example of a school-targeted program with a broad range of
     activities is Education's Title I, Part A, Grants to Local
     Education Agencies program, commonly known as Title I.  Title I
     funds are used to provide supplemental academic programs to
     students at risk of failure and to support activities as varied
     as paying for teachers, developing new curricula, and buying
     instructional materials--including technology.  Program
     officials said that they do not keep track of how much of the
     funding is spent specifically on technology, nor do they know
     specifically what kinds of technology schools purchase. 
     However, a recent Education study estimated that technology
     expenditures from Title I funding totaled about $240 million in
     1997, or about 3 percent of the year's Title I funding.\17

  -- An example of a more narrowly focused program is the Alaska
     Native Student Enrichment program.  The goal of this program is
     to provide enrichment programs and family support services for
     Alaska Native students from rural areas who are preparing to
     enter village high schools so that they can excel in science and
     mathematics.  The activities used to meet the goal of this
     program are broad in that they can include any activity that
     will provide qualified students the services needed to help them
     excel in science and mathematics.  In 1997, three multiyear
     grants were awarded; none of the grants were awarded to
     elementary or secondary schools. 

--------------------
\17 U.S.  Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing
Challenges:  The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I
(1999). 

      IMLS PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.4

The three programs administered by the IMLS--National Leadership
Grants, State Grants, and Native American and Native Hawaiian Library
Services Grants--are all targeted to libraries or museums; in one
case, grantees are limited to organizations that serve Indian tribes,
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.  While the goals of these
programs are similar, there are distinctions that limit the potential
for duplication; for example: 

  -- The State Grants program is the only program that allocates
     funds to all 50 states.  This program establishes or enhances
     electronic linkages between libraries to promote access to
     learning and provide access to people of diverse backgrounds,
     including those with disabilities or with limited functional
     literacy or information skills. 

  -- The National Leadership Grants program provides grants for
     specific activities such as educating and training library
     professionals, enhancing library services through technology,
     developing model programs of cooperation between libraries and
     museums, and preserving unique library services.  In 1998, this
     program awarded 41 grants to organizations such as universities
     and public library systems. 

  -- The Native American and Native Hawaiian Library Services Grants
     program supports projects that establish or enhance library
     services to federally recognized Indian tribes or organizations
     that serve and represent Native Hawaiians.  In 1998, 287 grants
     were awarded. 

                                        Table II.3
                         
                             Programs That Target Schools or
                          Libraries but Do Not Target Technology

Program        Program goals             Program activities        Targeted recipients
-------------  ------------------------  ------------------------  ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native  To provide enrichment     Activities (1) prepare    Alaska Native students
Student        programs and family       qualified students who    in rural areas
Enrichment     support services for      are preparing to enter    preparing to enter a
Program        Alaska Native students    village high schools to   village high school
               from rural areas who are  excel in science and
               preparing to enter        mathematics and (2)
               village high schools so   provide support services
               they may excel in         to the families of such
               science and mathematics   students

Bilingual      To develop and enhance    Programs that provide     Students with limited
Education      high-quality instruction  direct services to        English proficiency
Capacity and   through bilingual         students with limited
Demonstration  education or special      English proficiency
Grants         alternative instruction   through the school
               to children and youth of  system, family
               limited English           education, or early
               proficiency to (1)        childhood programs
               develop proficiency in
               English, and to the
               extent possible, their
               native language, and (2)
               meet the state
               achievement standards
               expected for all
               students

Emergency      To assist SEAs and LEAs   Funds are used to         SEAs, LEAs, and
Immigrant      that experience           provide (1)               immigrant children
Education      unexpectedly large        supplementary             enrolled in public and
Assistance     increases in their        educational services,     nonpublic schools
Program        student population due    (2) additional basic
               to immigration in         instructional services,
               providing supplementary   and (3) inservice
               educational services and  training for personnel
               offsetting costs for      instructing immigrant
               migrant children          children

Foreign        To support innovative     Projects that support     K -12 students
Language       model programs of         innovative model
Assistance     foreign language study    programs of foreign
               in public schools         language study in K -12
                                         schools

Eisenhower     To develop and implement  Projects that focus on    K -12 teachers
Professional   high-quality              developing and
Development    professional development  implementing high-
Federal        for K -12 teachers in     quality professional
Activities     the core academic         development for K -12
               subjects and stimulate    teachers in the core
               reform in professional    academic subjects
               development nationally
               in areas that are likely
               to generate findings of
               national significance

Eisenhower     To provide high-quality   Activities ensure that    K -12 teachers
Professional   professional development  teachers and other staff
Development    activities primarily in   have access to
State Grants   science and mathematics   professional development
               but may also include      that (1) is tied to
               other core academic       challenging state
               subjects                  standards, (2) reflects
                                         recent research on
                                         teaching and learning,
                                         (3) includes strong
                                         academic content and
                                         pedagogical components,
                                         (4) incorporates
                                         strategies for meeting
                                         the needs of diverse
                                         populations, (5) is of
                                         sufficient intensity and
                                         duration to have an
                                         impact on teacher
                                         performance in the
                                         classroom, and (6) is
                                         part of everyday life
                                         and continuous
                                         improvement

Fund for the   To support nationally     Funds may be used for a   K -12 students
Improvement    significant and           wide range of projects
of Education   innovative programs for   under the authority of
               improving education       the program. Examples of
                                         projects include (1)
                                         Competitions for State
                                         Partnerships for
                                         Character Education to
                                         teach caring,
                                         citizenship, justice and
                                         fairness, respect,
                                         responsibility, and
                                         trustworthiness; (2)
                                         Blue Ribbon Schools
                                         program to identify and
                                         recognize outstanding
                                         schools; (3) Christa
                                         McAuliffe Fellowship
                                         program to identify
                                         outstanding teachers

Goals 2000,    To provide grants to      The program supports      K -12 students and
State and      state education agencies  teacher preservice and    teachers
Local          to support comprehensive  inservice training,
Education      state and local           development of standards
Systemic       education reform tied to  and assessments, local
Improvement    high standards for all    education reform
Grants         students                  activities, technology,
                                         and other crosscutting
                                         activities

Javits Gifted  To provide financial      Projects must (1)         Teachers and gifted
and Talented   assistance to improve     incorporate high-level    and talented students;
Students       the teaching and          content and performance   priority is given to
Education      learning of gifted and    standards in one or more  projects that (1)
Program        talented students         of the core subject       serve students who are
               through research,         areas, (2) provide        economically
               demonstration projects,   professional              disadvantaged, have
               personnel training, and   development, (3) provide  limited English
               other activities of       training for parents to   skills, are disabled,
               national significance     support their children's  or are at risk of
                                         educational progress,     being unrecognized and
                                         (4) include an            underserved; and (2)
                                         evaluation of the         operate in Empowerment
                                         project's activities,     Zones and Enterprise
                                         and (5) include           Communities
                                         innovative teaching
                                         strategies

Innovative     To assist education       Technology to increase    All K -12 students;
Education      agencies in the reform    student learning,         funds are distributed
Program        of elementary and         teacher training,         to LEAs according to
Strategies     secondary education       acquisition and use of    the relative
                                         instructional and         enrollments in public
                                         educational materials,    and private, nonprofit
                                         education reform          schools within the
                                         projects, programs to     school districts and
                                         improve higher-order      are adjusted to
                                         thinking skills of        provide higher per-
                                         disadvantaged K -12       pupil funding to
                                         students and to prevent   districts with high
                                         student drop-out,         numbers of children
                                         literacy programs for     from low-income
                                         students and adults,      families or in
                                         programs for gifted and   sparsely populated
                                         talented students, and    areas
                                         school improvement and
                                         reform activities

Magnet         To provide grants to      Programs for magnet       LEAs and students that
Schools        LEAs for use in magnet    schools that (1)          attend magnet schools
Assistance     schools that are part of  eliminate, reduce, or
               an approved               prevent minority group
               desegregation plan and    isolation in public K -
               designed to bring         12 schools with
               together students from    substantial proportions
               different social,         of minority group
               economic, racial, and     children; (2) develop
               ethnic backgrounds        and implement projects
                                         that will assist
                                         systemic reform and
                                         provide all children the
                                         opportunity to meet
                                         challenging state
                                         content standards and
                                         student performance
                                         standards; (3) develop
                                         and design innovative
                                         education methods and
                                         practices; and (4)
                                         provide courses of
                                         instruction that will
                                         strengthen the knowledge
                                         of academic subjects and
                                         the grasp of tangible
                                         and marketable
                                         vocational skills of
                                         students

Migrant        To assist states to       Activities that identify  Migrant students with
Education      ensure that migrant       eligible children and     priority to children
Basic State    children meet the same    their needs and provide   at risk of failing to
Grant Program  state content and         educational and support   meet state content and
               performance standards     services, teacher         performance standards
               all children are          training, advocacy and
               expected to meet          outreach, parental
                                         involvement activities,
                                         and equipment
                                         acquisition that address
                                         the needs of eligible
                                         children

Migrant        To encourage interstate   Works with (1) programs   Migrant students
Education      and intrastate            in federal agencies that
Coordination   coordination of migrant   improve coordination
Program        education and reduce the  services to migrant
               administrative costs of   workers and families to
               SEAs receiving Title I,   develop programs that
               Migrant Education         encourage states to work
               Program funds             together by coordinating
                                         identification and
                                         recruitment efforts,
                                         administer out-of-state
                                         testing, utilize
                                         distance learning
                                         technology, and develop
                                         multistate assessment
                                         instruments; and (2)
                                         programs that explore
                                         the use of technology to
                                         improve teaching and
                                         learning for highly
                                         mobile migrant students

Perkins Act    To develop and operate    Activities that provide   Individuals who want
Tech-Prep      4-year programs designed  a 4-year curriculum with  to participate in a
Education      to provide an education   a common core in math,    combined secondary/
               program leading to a 2-   science, communications,  postsecondary program
               year associate degree or  and technologies          leading to an
               certificate and to        designed to lead to an    associate degree or 2-
               provide, in a systematic  associate degree or       year certificate with
               manner, comprehensive     certificate in a          technical preparation
               links between secondary   specific field,           in at least one field
               schools and               including training for    of engineering,
               postsecondary             teachers and counselors   applied science,
               educational institutions                            mechanical,
                                                                   industrial, or
                                                                   practical art or
                                                                   trade; or agriculture,
                                                                   health, or business

Perkins Act    To assist states and      Funds may be used for     Ranges from high
Vocational     outlying areas to expand  any purpose or student    school students to
Education      and improve their         so long as the larger     adults who need
Basic Grants   vocational education      goal is to enhance        retraining to adapt to
to States      programs and provide      vocational education in   changing technological
               special needs             the school or program     and labor market
               populations equal access                            conditions
               to vocational education

Perkins Act    To provide financial      Funds may be used for     Federally recognized
Vocational     assistance to Indian      (1) remedial education,   Indian tribes, Alaska
Education      tribes or tribal          only to the extent that   Natives, and Bureau of
Indians Set-   organizations and Bureau  it is necessary for a     Indian Affairs-funded
Aside          of Indian Affairs-        vocational education      schools
               funded schools to plan,   student to benefit from
               conduct, and administer   vocational instruction;
               vocational education      and (2) the integration
               programs                  of academic and
                                         vocational education
                                         through coherent
                                         sequences of courses so
                                         that students achieve
                                         both academic and
                                         occupational
                                         competencies

Special        To improve results for    Federal funds are         Children and youth
Education      children with             combined with state and   with disabilities
Grants to      disabilities by helping   local funds to provide    (aged 3-21)
States         SEAs and LEAs provide     all children with
               children with             disabilities an
               disabilities access to    appropriate education,
               high-quality education    including special
               that will help them meet  education and related
               challenging standards     services; funds are used
               and prepare them for      for teachers and other
               employment and            personnel salaries,
               independent living        education materials,
                                         related services such as
                                         special transportation
                                         or occupational therapy
                                         that allow children with
                                         disabilities to access
                                         education services, and
                                         other education-related
                                         costs

Title          To provide supplemental   Instruction and           Students who are
I,Grants to    academic support to help  instructional support,    failing or at risk of
Local          students at risk of       which includes hiring     failing to meet state
Education      failure to meet           teachers and teacher      academic standards
Agencies       challenging academic      aides, and purchasing
Agencies       standards                 instructional materials

Twenty-First   To provide grants to      Activities must include   Residents of all ages
Century        inner-city and rural K -  at least four of the      within the communities
Community      12 public schools, or     following kinds of        served by the learning
Learning       consortia of such         programs: (1) literacy    centers
Centers        schools, to enable them   education; (2) senior
               to plan, implement, or    citizen programs; (3)
               expand projects that      children's day care
               benefit the educational,  services; (4) integrated
               health, social services,  education, health,
               cultural, and             social service,
               recreational needs of     recreational, or
               their communities         cultural activities; (5)
                                         summer and weekend
                                         school programs in
                                         conjunction with
                                         recreation; (6)
                                         nutrition and health;
                                         (7) expanded library
                                         service hours to serve
                                         community needs; (8)
                                         telecommunications and
                                         technology education for
                                         all ages; (9) parenting
                                         skills education; (10)
                                         support and training for
                                         child day care
                                         providers; (11)
                                         employment counseling,
                                         training, and placement;
                                         (12) services for
                                         individuals who leave
                                         school before graduating
                                         from secondary school;
                                         and (13) services for
                                         individuals with
                                         disabilities

Institute of Museum and Library Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National       To enhance the quality    Projects include (1)      Libraries and museums
Leadership     of library services       training and education
Grants         nationwide and provide    in library and
               coordination between      information science,
               libraries and museums     including graduate
                                         fellowships,
                                         traineeships,
                                         institutes, and other
                                         programs; (2) applied
                                         research and
                                         demonstration efforts
                                         that emphasize access to
                                         improved library and
                                         information resources;
                                         (3) preserving unique
                                         library resources or
                                         addressing the
                                         challenges of preserving
                                         and archiving digital
                                         media; (4) developing,
                                         documenting, and
                                         disseminating both the
                                         processes and products
                                         of model programs of
                                         cooperation between
                                         libraries and museums
                                         with emphasis on how the
                                         community is served,
                                         technology is used, or
                                         education is enhanced

Native         To support Indian         Funds may be used to      Indian tribal
American and   tribes, Alaska Native     provide library services  libraries, Alaska
Native         villages, and             to the Native American    Native villages, and
Hawaiian       organizations that serve  and Native Hawaiian       organizations that
Library        and represent Native      communities for ongoing   serve Native Hawaiians
Services       Hawaiians in providing    library services
Grants         library services to       provided by an
               their communities         established library, to
                                         improve existing library
                                         services, or to
                                         implement new library
                                         services as part of an
                                         established library

State Grants   To (1) consolidate        Activities that           Users of libraries and
               federal library           establish or enhance      information services
               programs; (2) promote     electronic linkages
               access to learning and    among or between
               information in all types  libraries; and/or
               of libraries; (3)         electronically link
               promote electronic        libraries with
               networks; (4) provide     educational, school, or
               linkages among and        information services
               between libraries; and
               (5) target people of
               diverse backgrounds,
               individuals with
               disabilities, and those
               with limited functional
               literacy or information
               skills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      CATEGORY III:  PROGRAMS
      TARGETING TECHNOLOGY BUT NOT
      SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.5

Six programs have goals and activities targeted to technology but not
to schools or libraries.  These six programs, shown in table II.4,
vary greatly in their goals, activities, and recipients.  Some have a
broad focus, while others are relatively narrow; for example: 

  -- The TIIAP, administered by Commerce, provides funding for a
     broad range of technology-related activities and for a wide
     range of recipients.  Its goal is to promote the development,
     widespread availability, and use of advanced telecommunications
     and information technology that serves the public interest.  In
     1998, libraries and K - 12 schools received or were
     beneficiaries of slightly more than one-fourth of the 46 grants
     awarded.  The rest went to such organizations as police and fire
     departments, health care providers, universities and community
     colleges, and other community organizations. 

  -- The Special Education Technology and Media Services for
     Individuals With Disabilities program has a much narrower set of
     goals, activities, and recipients.  This program promotes the
     research, development, and demonstration of innovative and
     emerging technologies for disabled children.  A program official
     said that grants from this program are awarded primarily to
     universities and research organizations that specialize in
     research activities for the disabled.  Of the 36 grants awarded
     in 1998, 1 went to a school district, 1 to a state education
     agency, and none to libraries.\18

                                        Table II.4
                         
                          Programs That Target Technology but Do
                             Not Target Schools or Libraries

Program        Program goals             Program activities        Targeted recipients
-------------  ------------------------  ------------------------  ----------------------
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special        To promote the            Research, development,    Children and other
Education      development,              and demonstration of      persons with
Technology     demonstration, and        innovative and emerging   disabilities and their
and Media      utilization of            technologies for          families
Services for   technology; and support   children with
Individuals    education media           disabilities
With           activities for children
Disabilities   with disabilities

Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public         To extend                 Grants for the planning   General public and
Telecommunica  telecommunications        and construction of       students, with special
tions          services, including       telecommunications        consideration to
Facilities     public broadcasting       facilities; matching      projects that increase
Program        services and              grants for apparatus      minority and women's
               nonbroadcast              necessary for the         participation in and
               technologies; increase    production,               ownership of public
               public broadcasting       dissemination,            telecommunications
               services and facilities   interconnection,          entities
               available to, operated    captioning, broadcast,
               by, and owned by          or other distribution of
               minorities and women;     programming and
               strengthen the            reception of
               capability of existing    noncommercial
               public television and     educational, and
               radio stations; and       cultural radio and
               facilitate development    television programs, and
               of a variety of           related noncommercial
               technology-oriented       instructional or
               distance learning         informational material
               projects

Telecommunica  Promote the development,  Projects that improve     General public
tions and      widespread availability,  the quality of, and the
Information    and use of advanced       public's access to,
Infrastructur  telecommunications and    cultural, educational,
e Assistance   information technologies  and training resources;
Program        to serve the public       reduce the cost, improve
               interest                  the quality, and/or
                                         increase the
                                         accessibility of health
                                         care and public health
                                         services; promote
                                         responsive public
                                         safety; improve the
                                         effectiveness and
                                         efficiency of government
                                         services; and foster
                                         communication, resource-
                                         sharing, and economic
                                         development within
                                         communities, both rural
                                         and urban

Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance       To enhance learning and   Telecommunications,       Individuals living in
Learning and   health care               computer networks, and    rural areas
Telemedicine   opportunities for rural   related technologies
Grants         residents                 that provide educational
                                         and/or medical benefits
                                         to students, teachers,
                                         medical professionals,
                                         and rural residents

National Institutes of Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information    To foster the use of      Projects that promote     Health education
Systems and    computer and              sharing of information    information providers
Access Grants  telecommunications        resources, particularly
               technologies to           those that (1)
               coordinate and            incorporate online
               disseminate health        access to National
               information               Library of Medicine
                                         databases and (2)
                                         improve information
                                         availability in
                                         underserved rural and
                                         inner-city health
                                         facilities and provide
                                         AIDS information

National Science Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connections    Encourage Internet        The acquisition and       K -12 schools,
to the         connections for highly    maintenance of hardware   libraries, and museums
Internet       innovative strategies     and software to
               with potential for        establish institutional
               accelerating network      access to the Internet
               development               as well as the
                                         installation and
                                         recurring charges for a
                                         communication channel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\18 For the entire Technology and Media Services program, 85 grants
were awarded in 1998; 36 of the grants were awarded in the categories
that support the kinds of technology that could be used in the
classroom.  The remaining 49 grants were primarily for captioning
services for the deaf. 

      CATEGORY IV:  PROGRAMS THAT
      DO NOT TARGET SCHOOLS OR
      LIBRARIES OR TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.6

The three remaining programs that could be used by schools and
libraries as a technology funding source do not target schools or
libraries and also do not target technology.  Two of the
programs--the Promotion of the Humanities Education, Development, and
Demonstration Grants and the Promotion of the Humanities Seminars and
Institutes--are administered by the National Endowment for the
Humanities.  These two programs have similar goals and targeted
recipients in that both promote programs to improve teaching in the
humanities.  However, there are differences.  The former supports
projects that can strengthen teachers' abilities to engage their
students in the study of the humanities and determine how specific
topics are best taught and learned.  The latter awards grants for
summer seminars and institutes to promote better teaching and
research in the humanities.  The third program--the Women's
Educational Equity Act Program, which is administered by
Education--promotes equity in education for women and girls.  See
table II.5 for more detail about these programs. 

                                    Table II.5
                     
                      Programs That Do Not Target Schools or
                             Libraries or Technology

Program             Program goals       Program activities  Targeted recipients
------------------  ------------------  ------------------  --------------------
Department of Education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women's             To promote gender   Activities that     Female students
Educational Equity  equity in           implement gender
Act Program         education for       equity programs in
                    women and girls in  schools and
                    the United States   develop model
                                        equity programs
                                        through research
                                        and development,
                                        including
                                        development of
                                        training for
                                        teachers,
                                        leadership
                                        training for women
                                        and girls,
                                        programs that
                                        enhance education
                                        and career
                                        opportunities,
                                        assistance to
                                        pregnant students
                                        and students with
                                        children to
                                        complete secondary
                                        school,
                                        development of
                                        educational
                                        materials designed
                                        to achieve equity,
                                        and programs that
                                        address sexual
                                        harassment and
                                        violence

National Endowment for the Humanities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotion of the    To support          Projects that       Teachers of
Humanities          teachers and        strengthen the      humanities and their
Education,          educational         capacity of         students
Development, and    institutions at     teachers to engage
Demonstration       all levels to       their students in
Grants              engage students in  the substantive
                    the study of the    study of the
                    humanities          humanities and
                                        address how
                                        specific
                                        humanities topics
                                        are best taught
                                        and learned

Promotion of the    Promote better      Projects for        K -12 and college
Humanities Summer   teaching and        summer seminars     teachers, their
Seminars and        research in the     and national        colleagues, and
Institutes          humanities through  institutes;         students
                    faculty             project awards
                    development         support direct
                                        costs, including
                                        salaries,
                                        participant
                                        stipends,
                                        selection costs,
                                        travel, and
                                        supplies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COORDINATION EFFORTS
========================================================= Appendix III

What efforts have been made to coordinate federal education and
technology programs?  Specifically,

  -- What are the missions, activities, and staffing levels of the
     Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (OET)
     and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
     (OSTP)? 

  -- What efforts are being made by these offices to coordinate
     federal education and technology programs? 

  -- How can the Results Act be used to coordinate and reduce
     duplication in these programs? 

   MISSIONS, ACTIVITIES, AND
   STAFFING OF THE OET AND THE
   WHITE HOUSE OSTP
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Education's OET and the White House OSTP have different missions
relative to technology.  OET creates policy and provides oversight
specifically for educational technology within Education and
participates in coordination activities and policy initiatives
associated with education technology across the federal government
and within the education community.  OSTP focuses on broad national
science and technology goals, and facilitates the development and
implementation of federal policies associated with these goals,
including coordinating interagency efforts to develop and implement
technology policies, programs, and budgets. 

      OET FOCUSES ON USING
      TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1

OET's mission is to provide leadership in creating policy and
providing oversight for Education's educational technology
initiatives, according to the OET Director.  OET also advises the
Secretary of Education and is involved in strategic planning
regarding educational technology, according to the OET Director.  An
example of OET's activities was the office's collaboration with the
White House, in 1998, to host a meeting that brought together more
than 150 state and local educators, business and industry leaders,
and education association representatives to discuss and exchange
ideas for technology training for teachers.  One result of this
meeting was a set of recommendations for a new teacher training
initiative--Technology Training for Teachers--to ensure that teachers
are proficient in using technology for teaching and learning. 

OET, which is under the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Education,
is staffed by four professionals.  In addition, the office generally
has one or two detailees--one from a school district or state
department of education whose salary is paid by Education under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and one from another principal
office within Education, according to the OET Director. 

      OSTP PROMOTES THE
      DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
      OF TECHNOLOGY FOR THE NATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2

OSTP provides the president with scientific and technological
analysis and judgment with respect to major policies, plans, and
programs of the federal government.  OSTP's Technology Division is
concerned with federal policies for developing technology to serve
broad national goals such as global economic competitiveness,
environmental quality, and national security.  In developing national
policies, OSTP works with the president's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology, which is co-chaired by the president's
Advisor for Science and Technology, who also is the Director of OSTP. 
This committee of national experts in science and technology provides
independent advice to the president on science- and
technology-related matters, including educational technology.  For
example, in 1995, a panel of academic and private sector experts was
convened to address the administration's concern about issues related
to educational technology.  The result of this effort was a report
that made specific recommendations in a number of areas, including
how technology should be used in the classroom, professional
development for teachers, and education research.\19 A direct result
of the recommendations of this report was an OSTP-led interagency
initiative for education research, including educational
technology.\20

OSTP had 32 federal FTEs in fiscal year 1998; staff were responsible
for all OSTP activities.  Of these, 22.5 were professional staff and
9.5 were support staff.  Additional staff, such as fellows and agency
representatives, were paid through their respective organizations or
agencies.  However, only half of one professional staff year is
devoted specifically to educational technology issues (about a
quarter of two staff members' time). 

--------------------
\19 President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel
on Educational Technology, Report to the President on the Use of
Technology to Strengthen K - 12 Education in the United States (Mar. 
1997). 

\20 Agencies involved in this initiative are the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Education, and the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development. 

   BOTH OFFICES PLAY A ROLE IN
   COORDINATING FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY
   PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

   OET
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Education's OET has a major role in coordinating educational
technology programs within the Department, across federal agencies,
and within the education community; for example: 

  -- Within Education, the OET Director meets regularly with
     technology program officials and officials from various
     department offices to share information on grant project best
     practices and to discuss and resolve current issues, according
     to an OET official.  Information from these meetings is also
     shared with grantees across the country.  The OET Director meets
     bimonthly with the representatives of Education's technology
     programs, including the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants,
     the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Star Schools, Technology
     for Tomorrow's Teachers, Learning Anytime-Anywhere Partnerships,
     and Community Technology Centers.  The Director also attends
     meetings with officials from various Education offices,
     including Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Higher
     Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Vocational and
     Adult Education, and Educational Research and Improvement. 

  -- OET represents Education on various interagency committees to
     identify mutual interests and determine ways that federal
     departments and agencies can share expertise and resources to
     avoid duplication of effort, according to an OET official.  For
     example, the director represents Education on OSTP committees
     such as the National Science and Technology Council.  The
     director also leads an Education working group that addresses
     issues related to the E-rate.  Other participants include
     representatives from Commerce, Agriculture, and the Office of
     the Vice President. 

  -- Within the education and research community, OET brings parties
     together to leverage resources.  For example, when the state of
     Nebraska created a curriculum of 50 on-line high school distance
     learning courses as part of its Star Schools program, OET
     suggested that the program's creators host an Internet
     conference to share their experience with educators nationwide,
     according to OET officials.  In another project, the American
     Institutes for Research (AIR) proposed to OET that AIR develop a
     how-to guide for evaluating technology programs and tracking
     results.  After reviewing the draft, OET asked AIR to share its
     work with the state directors of the Technology Literacy
     Program.  State officials provided input and the result was An
     Educator's Guide to Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools
     and Classrooms, published in 1998. 

   OSTP
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

OSTP's role in coordinating among federal agencies is to help bridge
the differences in agencies' cultures so that they can work together,
according to the Technology Division associate director.  OSTP works
with the National Science and Technology Council, a Cabinet-level
council that coordinates the diverse elements of federal science and
technology research and development.  The Council comprises
interagency committees and work groups.  Each major committee is
co-chaired by a senior official from a federal agency or department
and is co-chaired by an OSTP associate director.  Through the Council
and other, more informal means, OSTP provides leadership in
coordinating science and technology-related activities across the
federal government.  OSTP has a broad role in coordinating education
policy and education technology as part of that effort, according to
OSTP officials.  For example,

  -- OSTP participated in the discussions with Education officials
     when the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund was being developed. 
     Education officials said that the purpose of the fund was to
     provide an incentive to states.  To receive a share of the fund,
     states were required to develop a plan for getting technology
     into K - 12 schools and integrating it into the school
     curriculum.  States could then use the funds to purchase
     technology.  Once the legislation passed, implementation of the
     program was the responsibility of Education and OSTP was no
     longer involved. 

  -- OSTP is currently coordinating the Interagency Education
     Research Initiative (IERI), a joint education research program
     created to develop new ways of improving the core of K - 12
     education.  Education technology is a central element of the
     research.  Participants include Education's Office of
     Educational Research and Improvement, the National Science
     Foundation, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human
     Development at the National Institutes of Health.  This
     interagency effort specifically links the best science in
     teaching and learning to the development, evaluation, and
     widespread dissemination of technology-based tools for teachers
     and students to raise student achievement, according to an OSTP
     associate director. 

   THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDES A
   FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATING AND
   REDUCING DUPLICATION AMONG
   FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

The Results Act's emphasis on outcomes implies that federal programs
contributing to the same or similar results should be closely
coordinated to ensure that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. 
The act requires agencies to develop strategic plans and annual
performance plans that clearly specify goals, objectives, and
measures for their programs.  Agency performance plans can provide
the basis for recognizing crosscutting efforts because they provide
information on programs that cut across agency lines and share common
goals.  Agencies should identify multiple programs within or outside
the agency that contribute to the same or similar goals and describe
their efforts to coordinate with them, according to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.  However, because of the
iterative nature of performance-based management, more than one cycle
of performance plans will probably be required to resolve duplication
in programs. 

In earlier work on the Results Act, we reviewed agencies' strategic
and performance plans.\21 In most plans we found that one of the most
challenging issues for agencies was recognizing the importance of
coordinating crosscutting programs.  In our review of Education's
2000 Performance Plan, we found that the Department included a
discussion of the need for coordination with other federal agencies
for almost all objectives and, in general terms, the issues or
efforts that require this coordination.  However, the plan did not
identify or describe common or complementary performance goals and
measures elsewhere in the federal government that relate to
Education's goals and measures. 

--------------------
\21 Managing for Results:  Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Can
Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan.  30,
1998). 

INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND
ABUSE
========================================================== Appendix IV

What, if any, information is available about each program's potential
problems regarding fraud, waste, abuse, and efforts to eliminate the
problems? 

   NO EVIDENCE IN OIG REPORTS OF
   SYSTEMIC OR WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

We limited our review to reports issued by the Education, Commerce,
and Agriculture Offices of Inspector General (OIG) between October
1995 and March 1999 and did not review individual grantees.  We did
not find that fraud, waste, and abuse are systemic or widespread
problems for the programs that could fund information technology for
schools and libraries, although some OIGs identified instances of
such problems with individual grantees.  Table IV.1 includes
information on each of the 17 OIG reports we identified.  The OIGs
used different reporting styles--some issued single reports to cover
audits of multiple grants and some issued a single report for each
grant audited.  Ten of the reports concerned a single
program--Commerce's TIIAP.  However, OIG officials stated, in
testimony to the Congress in May 1999, that none of the TIIAP studies
identified major or systemic problems with grant recipients. 

Just two of the remaining seven reports we identified--an Education
Star Schools project and a Commerce PTFP project--reported
significant questioned costs or unapproved grantee spending.  The
Star Schools report found significantly deficient management
practices, including $1.7 million of unsupported expenditures--such
as nearly $700,000 in personnel and fringe benefits for which there
were no personnel activity records.  Education's activities to
eliminate the reported problems include efforts to prosecute the
grantee organization criminally and to debar it from further federal
funding.  The PTFP report found that project officials had misused
grant funds by paying for project operating expenses rather than
equipment for colleges, as intended.  Commerce pursued prosecution of
the grantee and program officials report they are monitoring grant
applications to preclude the grantee from obtaining further federal
funding.  Table IV.1 presents, for each of the 17 reports, more
detailed information on findings, recommendations, and agency efforts
to eliminate identified problems. 

                                                                                      Table IV.1
                                                                       
                                                                                  Reports Identified

Program, reporting
organization, and
report date         Objective of study  Findings                                           Recommendations                              Resolution
------------------  ------------------  -------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------  --------------------------------------------
Programs that target technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Schools        To determine        The grantee was not in compliance with grant       Education should initiate action to debar    In February 1998, Education issued a Program
Education OIG       whether the         requirements and its management of the project     the grantee and its principal employees      Determination Letter to the grantee
September 1997      grantee complied    was seriously deficient. The grantee failed to     from further participation in federal        sustaining all OIG findings and seeking
                    with the terms and  establish an adequate financial management         programs.                                    recovery of $1.6 million. The organization
                    conditions of its   system, demonstrate fiscal responsibility, and                                                  that comprises the grantee filed for
                    grant               provide sufficient services to the four partner    Education should require the grantee to      bankruptcy in March 1996. In June 1998,
                                        cities through which the grant was administered.   make the appropriate refund for any funds    Education filed a claim for $1.6 million
                                        Auditors reviewed $2.8 million of the total $4.5   received for which proper matching cannot    with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, but payment
                                        million awarded and found more than $316,000 used  be established, refund $317,000 identified   is not expected.
                                        for unallowable purposes, including $5,200 in      as used for unallowable purposes, provide
                                        overdrafts and returned check charges; $1.7        proper documentation to support the costs    The OIG Investigations Office conducted an
                                        million in unsupported costs such as $693,440 in   identified as unsupported and inadequately   investigation and presented the case to
                                        personnel and fringe benefits; and about $344,000  supported, and obtain the required           criminally prosecute the grantee
                                        in inadequately supported costs. Additionally,     independent audit.                           organization and related individuals, but in
                                        the grantee did not provide the required                                                        November 1998 an Assistant U.S. Attorney
                                        financial and performance reports, including                                                    declined prosecution.
                                        documentation supporting its 25 percent matching
                                        expenditures, and did not obtain an independent                                                 According to an Education official, the
                                        audit.                                                                                          Office of the General Counsel is planning to
                                                                                                                                        send a letter of debarment to the grantee.

                                                                                                                                        The OIG 1999-2000 Work Plan includes a
                                                                                                                                        proposal for an evaluation of the process
                                                                                                                                        used by various program offices to monitor
                                                                                                                                        grantees.

Department of Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTFP                Audit of the        The program criteria, procedures, and practices    The Assistant Secretary should direct the    NTIA concurred with the finding and
Commerce OIG        program's fiscal    for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting awards    PTFP staff to ensure that independent        recommendations and stated that it has
March 1999          year 1997           generally complied with statutory, departmental,   reviewers' scores are not adjusted by        implemented the recommendations, starting
                    procedures and      and National Telecommunications and Information    program staff during the review process and  with the fiscal year 1998 grant competition.
                    practices for       Administration (NTIA) requirements and appeared    require adequate documentation of the basis
                    soliciting,         designed to result in merit-based awards.          for making awards that deviate from the
                    reviewing, and      However, for fiscal year 1997, program staff       program director's recommendations.
                    selecting           deviated from requirements by adjusting
                    applications for    application evaluation scores. Additionally, the
                    financial           selection official added three applications to
                    assistance; part    the program director's list of recommended
                    of a Commerce-      grantees without documenting the reasons for the
                    wide review of      specific selections.
                    discretionary
                    financial
                    assistance
                    programs initiated
                    at the request of
                    the Chairman of
                    the Senate
                    Commerce, Science,
                    and Transportation
                    Committee

PTFP                To determine if     The grantee did not use all the $458,700 in grant  None                                         Commerce officials met with the U.S.
Commerce OIG,       the grantee had     funds for the intended purpose of purchasing and                                                Attorney's Office to discuss both criminal
Investigations      misused grant       installing telecommunications equipment at                                                      and civil prosecution but the case was
Division            funds awarded by    several colleges. Instead, the grantee used the                                                 declined. According to an official, the
Memorandum of       NTIA                grant funds for daily operating expenses and                                                    program monitors grant applications to
Investigative                           never fully paid the vendors that supplied                                                      ensure that the same organization or any of
Findings                                $300,000 in equipment and installation.                                                         its key officials do not obtain further
February 1999                                                                                                                           grant funds. The agency received a
                                                                                                                                        settlement of about $3,000 after the grantee
                                                                                                                                        declared bankruptcy.

TIIAP               Audit of program's  Program procedures and practices for soliciting,   The Assistant Secretary should ensure that   NTIA concurred with the finding and
Commerce OIG        fiscal year 1997    reviewing, and selecting awards generally          the basis for making awards that deviate     recommendation and stated that it has
March 1999          procedures and      complied with statutory, departmental, and NTIA    from the program director's recommendations  implemented the recommendation, starting
                    practices for       requirements and appeared designed to result in    are adequately documented.                   with the fiscal year 1998 grant competition.
                    soliciting,         merit-based awards. However, the selection
                    reviewing, and      official added nine and deleted seven
                    selecting           applications from the program director's list of
                    applications for    recommended grantees and did not provide written
                    financial           documentation of the reasons for the deleted
                    assistance; part    applications.
                    of a
                    departmentwide
                    review of
                    discretionary
                    financial
                    assistance
                    programs initiated
                    at the request of
                    the Chairman of
                    the Senate
                    Commerce, Science,
                    and Transportation
                    Committee

TIIAP               To determine        Auditors questioned $298,203 in project costs      Commerce Director of the Office of           According to a Commerce official, Commerce
Commerce OIG        whether (1) costs   including $273,107 in contractual costs, $22,748   Executive Assistance Management (OEAM)       and the OIG have not yet agreed on a final
September 1998      incurred by the     in indirect costs, $1,495 in equipment costs, and  should disallow $298,203 in questioned       resolution of the audit.
                    grantee were        $853 in travel costs.                              costs and recover the resulting $106,107 in
                    allowable, and (2)                                                     excessive grant disbursements.
                    the grantee
                    complied with OMB
                    circulars, grant
                    terms and
                    conditions, NTIA
                    guidelines, and
                    other applicable
                    laws and
                    regulations

TIIAP               To determine        The grantee generally met the goals of the grant   The OEAM Director should assess the effect   After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG        whether the         and performed many of the required tasks.          of the two grant tasks that were not         Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
November 1997       grantee had         However, without NTIA approval, it did not         implemented and either issue a grant         all costs associated with the findings as
                    properly            complete two minor tasks: (1) the grantee          modification eliminating the two tasks or    part of the grant.
                    administered the    discontinued use of an information storage and     require the grantee to complete the tasks.
                    grant--             retrieval tool proposed in the grant, and (2) the  Also, the OEAM Director should recover
                    specifically, (1)   grantee did not establish the cooperative          $138,155 in questioned costs and disallow
                    had made progress   agreements with local governments proposed in the  $64,864 in excess grant disbursements as
                    in meeting          grant agreement. Additionally, it incurred         well as require the grantee to use
                    objectives; (2)     $138,155 in questioned costs.                      appropriate accounting cost categories.
                    had claimed costs
                    which were
                    allowable,
                    allocable, and
                    reasonable; and
                    (3) had complied
                    with the financial
                    terms and
                    conditions of the
                    award and
                    applicable laws
                    and regulations

TIIAP               To perform a        The grantee's procurement system did not comply    The OEAM Director should require the         After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG        financial           with federal standards. The grantee failed to      grantee to implement and follow procurement  Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
September 1997      compliance review   follow and implement required procedures and       procedures that meet federal standards for   all questioned costs as part of the grant.
                    to determine (1)    improperly incurred and charged $227,564 to the    all contracts involving federal funds.       Commerce will require a written
                    the allowability    grant.                                                                                          certification from the grantee that all
                    of costs incurred                                                                                                   future contract modifications will be
                    by the grantee,                                                                                                     formalized with the appropriate paperwork in
                    (2) whether the                                                                                                     accordance with federal procurement
                    grantee had                                                                                                         standards.
                    complied with
                    applicable
                    guidance and the
                    grant terms, and
                    (3) whether the
                    project was
                    meeting its
                    intended goals

TIIAP               To determine        The grantee did not achieve two key goals--it      The grants officer should evaluate the       Commerce disallowed $77,496 in questioned
Commerce OIG        whether the         fell short of its goal to attract the number of    feasibility of requiring the grantee to      costs. These costs will be removed from the
August 1997         grantee had (1)     proposed subscribers and it established only two   complete all grant goals, require the        final project costs and the grantee's
                    properly            branch offices, rather than five as stated in the  grantee to submit supporting documentation   accounting records will be reconciled.
                    administered the    proposal. Additionally, the grantee did not have   for all matching share contributions, and    According to a Commerce official, the
                    grant--             all nonfederal matching funds on hand when         disallow $297,329 in questioned costs.       grantee is in the process of closing the
                    specifically, had   federal funds were released, did not provide them  Additionally, the grants officer should      project and Commerce's Grants Office is
                    made progress in    at the same rate government funds were expended,   recover $94,336 in excess disbursements      waiting for final financial reports to
                    meeting its goals;  and could not adequately support $266,306 of       resulting from questioned costs and recover  determine if funds need to be recovered.
                    (2) complied with   claimed matching funds. Finally, the grantee       the appropriate portion of any disallowed
                    the terms and       incurred questioned project costs of $297,329.     matching share contributions.
                    conditions of the
                    grant; and (3)
                    recorded costs for
                    the grant in
                    accordance with
                    OMB guidance

TIIAP               To perform a        $32,943 in project costs had been improperly       For future grants to grantee, OEAM should    Commerce upheld $22,553 in disallowed costs
Commerce OIG        financial           claimed including $27,843 of in-kind               include in the agreement a requirement that  and, according to a Commerce official, the
August 1997         compliance review   contributions and $5,100 in inadequately           support documentation for all claimed in-    organization's financial records were
                    of the award;       supported costs. The federal share of the          kind contributions be provided to the        adjusted at the closeout of the project to
                    specifically, to    questioned costs was $24,346. The alleged misuse   grants officer with each request for         remove the disallowed costs. In any future
                    determine (1) the   of funds was unsubstantiated.                      reimbursement. OEAM should also disallow     grants to the organization, Commerce will
                    allowability of                                                        $32,943 in questioned costs and recover      require support documentation for all
                    costs incurred by                                                      $24,346 in excess grant disbursements.       claimed in-kind contributions.
                    the grantee, and
                    (2) whether the
                    grantee has
                    complied with the
                    applicable OMB
                    circulars, NTIA
                    guidelines, and
                    the grant terms
                    and conditions;
                    additionally, to
                    follow up on a
                    complaint alleging
                    fraud and misuse
                    of federal funds
                    by an organization
                    connected with the
                    award

TIIAP               To determine        The grantee improperly valued about $1.5 million   NTIA should (1) disallow about $1.5 million  The grantee generally agreed with the draft
Commerce OIG        whether the         in matching costs. The costs include improperly    in improperly claimed in-kind                audit findings and resolved some issues, as
February1997        grantee complied    valued and inadequately supported third-party in-  contributions, (2) recover almost $195,000   reflected in the final report. According to
                    with the terms and  kind contributions, including computer equipment   in excess grant disbursements, and (3)       a program official, after further review of
                    conditions of the   and other items.                                   require the grantee to develop a verifiable  information submitted by the grantee in
                    grant agreement,                                                       basis to value the use of the in-kind        response to the final audit report, the OIG
                    OMB cost                                                               contributions.                               rescinded its recommendation and all costs
                    principles, and                                                                                                     were reinstated as part of the grant.
                    administrative
                    requirements

TIIAP               To determine the    The grantee's records were inadequate to verify    Commerce should suspend payments or          After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG        grantee's           about $639,000 of the $831,000 in claimed          reimbursements to the grantee until the      Commerce Grants Office, $591,121 of the
September 1996      compliance with     matching costs. Additionally, the state is not     state auditor certifies that the state can   questioned costs were reinstated. According
                    the conditions of   inventorying equipment contributed to the project  verify the value of in-kind contributions    to a Commerce official, the grantee had
                    the grant           for its in-kind grant match in state accounting    and that the state has inventoried the       excess funds to draw from the grant and the
                    agreement and       records.                                           equipment contributed to the project for     remaining $47,414 in disallowed costs were
                    other requirements                                                     its in-kind match. The department should     not included as part of the final closeout
                    and to evaluate                                                        also disallow about $639,000 in questioned   of the project.
                    the project's                                                          costs and recover about $74,000 in
                    progress and                                                           resulting excess grant disbursements.
                    ability to meet
                    its objectives

TIIAP               To determine the    After more than a year and having drawn down more  NTIA should (1) decide within 30 days        According to a Commerce official, the
Commerce OIG        allowability of     than half the grant funds, the grantee did not     whether the project can be salvaged at no    project was suspended and subsequently
September 1996      costs incurred by   have the computer software program needed to       additional cost to the government, (2)       allowed to expire. Commerce established a
                    the grantee to      operate the project. The grantee cannot account    continue the suspension of payments or       payment plan for the grantee to return funds
                    determine whether   for or support $407,000 of its in-kind             reimbursement to the grantee until claimed   associated with the disallowed costs, and
                    it had complied     contribution claims for the grant award.           in-kind contributions are adequately         the grantee is current with scheduled
                    with applicable                                                        supported, (3) amend the grant's special     payments.
                    guidance and grant                                                     terms and conditions to include
                    terms and                                                              requirements that will protect the
                    conditions, and to                                                     government's interest, and (4) disallow
                    perform a program                                                      $471,818 in questioned costs and recover
                    results review of                                                      $165,973 in excess grant disbursements.
                    the project

TIIAP               To perform an       The grantee improperly spent $41,000 to upgrade    NTIA should reject the grantee's request to  After further review by NTIA and the
Commerce OIG        interim cost audit  its own computer system, which was not within the  expand the project's budget and include      Commerce Grants Office, Commerce reinstated
October 1995        and to determine    project's approved budget, and violated several    upgrading its own computer system, and       all questioned costs as part of the grant.
                    whether the         federal procurement standards in awarding a        should withdraw the agency's approval of     The grantee was cautioned that future sole-
                    grantee complied    $50,000 sole-source contract.                      the sole-source contract and disallow all    source contracting must be clearly justified
                    with applicable                                                        costs charged to the project under that      and documented.
                    OMB circulars,                                                         contract.
                    NTIA guidelines,
                    and the grant
                    agreement's terms
                    and conditions

Department of Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning   Study of four       Grantees were eligible, funds were used properly,  Rural Utilities Service should (1) monitor   Agriculture officials agreed to develop
and Telemedicine    program grant       and the matching requirements were met. The        grantees' disbursement of grant funds to     procedures to monitor grantees' disbursement
Grants              projects            program appears successful in funding projects as  assure timely disbursements, (2) develop     of grant funds, ensure grantees comply with
Agriculture OIG     evaluating the      intended by legislation. However, two grantees     policies and procedures to ensure grantees   reporting requirements, and ensure grantees
March 1999          effectiveness of    did not disburse funds to vendors in a timely      comply with reporting and oversight          account for equipment purchased grant funds
                    the programs,       manner, resulting in increased interest costs      requirements, and (3) develop policies and   in accordance with federal standards.
                    eligibility of the  totaling about $17,000. Additionally, the four     procedures to ensure that grantees comply
                    grantees, proper    projects had not filed all required financial      with federal property management standards.
                    uses of funds, and  status and performance activity reports. Finally,
                    adequacy of         equipment was not properly accounted for and
                    oversight           grantees were not aware of federal property
                    activities          management standards for equipment purchased with
                                        grant funds.

Programs that do not target technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilingual           To determine how    Of the seven grants reviewed, none had been        The Director of OBEMLA should work with      OBEMLA did not agree with the recommendation
Education Capacity  officials ensure    reviewed by the Office of Bilingual Education and  appropriate officials to (1) revise its      to clarify the legislation regarding federal
and Demonstration   that bilingual      Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA) or the state    legislation to clarify the need and          monitoring but indicated that it better
Grants              program objectives  education agency (SEA), and three of the seven     requirement for federal monitoring reviews,  serves grantees through technical assistance
Education OIG       are being met;      were not being implemented appropriately. Because  and (2) develop and implement a monitoring   conferences because of the numbers that can
June 1997           to determine if     of the lack of monitoring, the inappropriate       program to provide for thorough on-site      be reached compared with on-site reviews of
                    the students'       implementation continued undetected. On the other  grant reviews and documentation of the       grants. OBEMLA did concur with the
                    native languages    hand, students' native languages were not being    results.                                     recommendation to develop and implement a
                    were being used     used excessively in the projects and controls                                                   monitoring program and has taken steps in
                    excessively in the  over language use appear adequate.                                                              that direction.
                    projects and
                    whether controls
                    over language use
                    appear adequate

Title I Grants to   To determine what   In the 36 LEAs visited (in 6 states), an average   None.                                        The OIG issued a separate Action Memorandum
Local Education     percentage of       of 92 percent of the dollars for the two programs                                               to Education regarding the two LEAs that
Agencies and        Title I, Part A     reached the schools during the 1996-97 school                                                   used more than 3 percent of their Vocational
Perkins Act         and Secondary       year. Types of expenditures were categorized as                                                 Education dollars on administration costs.
Vocational          School Vocational   salaries and benefits (Title I, 82%; Vocational                                                 The memorandum recommended that the Office
Education Basic     Education program   Education, 52%); materials and equipment (Title                                                 of Adult and Vocational Education review the
Grants to States    dollars were spent  I, 9%; Vocational Education, 39%); professional                                                 regulations and guidance associated with
Education OIG       on school-level     development (Title I, 2%; Vocational Education,                                                 administration costs and revise them as
June 1998           activities, and to  5%); support services (Title I, 5%; Vocational                                                  necessary, as well as review the 1996 to
                    identify the types  Education, 3%), and indirect costs (Title I, 2%;                                                1997 expenditures of the two grantees.
                    of expenditures     Vocational Education, 1%).
                    for these two
                    programs at the     All six SEAs complied with the established caps
                    LEA and school      on administration expenses. Two LEAs used a
                    levels;             significantly larger amount of Vocational
                    additionally, to    Education dollars to cover administration costs
                    determine whether   than the average of 3 percent.
                    the SEA had
                    complied with the
                    established caps
                    for using federal
                    dollars to cover
                    administration
                    costs

Title I Grants to   To determine (1)    The Chapter 1 program is closely monitored by      The state department should review the city  According to the report, both the city board
Local Education     the extent of       both the state department and the city board, has  board of education's Chapter 1 reward and    of education and the state education
Agencies (formerly  monitoring          placed heavy emphasis on identifying and           recognition systems to ensure that these     department agreed with the finding and
Chapter 1)          performed of        rewarding exemplary programs, and strongly         systems better reflect the actual success    stated in their response that action has
Education OIG       Chapter 1 (Title    encourages less successful programs to emulate     of the city's schools in enabling students   been taken to improve the Title I
February 1996       I) by a state       them. However, the current recognition program,    to reach grade level proficiency and/or to   recognition process. The recognition program
                    department of       which is based solely on annual changes in         meet state-developed standards.              is no longer based solely on annual changes
                    education and a     standardized test scores, does not consider other                                               in standardized test scores.
                    city board of       performance factors and may be rewarding schools
                    education, (2) the  whose students are still failing to reach grade
                    availability of     level proficiency or to meet state standards,
                    data supporting     despite improvements in test scores.
                    school and student
                    performance to
                    permit
                    identification and
                    recognition of
                    exemplary
                    programs, and (3)
                    whether systems
                    were in place to
                    permit the
                    replication of
                    programs in lower-
                    performing schools
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
========================================================== Appendix IV

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
========================================================== Appendix IV

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix IV

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
========================================================== Appendix IV

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

*** End of document. ***