Federal Education Funding: Allocation to State and Local Agencies for 10
Programs (Letter Report, 09/30/1999, GAO/HEHS-99-180).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on 10
major Department of Education programs for (FY) 1996, focusing on: (1)
the percentage of federal funding spent at the federal level and the
uses of these funds; (2) the percentage of federal funding spent at the
state level and the uses of these funds; and (3) the amount of time
school personnel spent fulfilling federal administrative requirements
for those programs for which the districts received funds.

GAO noted that: (1) in FY 1996, Education distributed over 99 percent of
the appropriations for the 10 programs to the states; (2) the states, in
turn, collectively distributed 94 percent of the funds they received to
local agencies; (3) 92 percent of the original appropriations was
allocated primarily to local agencies; (4) at both the federal and state
levels, the funds that were not distributed supported such activities as
research and evaluation related to the programs and information
dissemination about them; (5) at the state level, the funds, as
authorized by law, may be spent on a wider range of activities, such as
developing student performance standards and professional development
training for teachers; (6) Education spent less than 1 percent of all
appropriated program funds, distributing the rest primarily to the
states in FY 1996; (7) only for the School-to-Work program did Education
spend more than 1 percent, spending 7 percent of the funds for this
program; (8) Education spent the funds on such services as research,
evaluation, and information dissemination; (9) Education paid for other
costs of running the programs, such as the salaries and benefits of
staff issuing grants and administering the programs, from an
appropriation it receives for overall management, and not from funds
appropriated for the agency's programs; (10) in FY 1996, Education
received $327 millions to administer all of its programs; (11) Education
estimates that it spent about $23 million to administer the 10 programs
GAO reviewed; (12) for 9 of the 10 programs, the states spent an average
of from 1 to 17 percent of the funding; (13) for the remaining program
(Bilingual Education state grants), all the funds GAO reviewed were
intended to be used at the state level; (14) collectively, states
distributed 94 percent of the billion Title I program, the overall
percentage of funds states allocated to local agencies by the remaining
9 programs was 86 percent; (15) the states, like Education, spent the
funds for technical assistance and program evaluation; (16) the states
are also authorized to spend the funds for a wide range of activities;
and (17) that GAO visited 9 of the nation's 16,000 school districts and
found that school level staff spent very little time administering the
programs and district office staff also generally spent little time
administering them.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-180
     TITLE:  Federal Education Funding: Allocation to State and Local
	     Agencies for 10 Programs
      DATE:  09/30/1999
   SUBJECT:  Education or training
	     Funds management
	     Aid for education
	     State-administered programs
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  Dept. of Education Title I Program
	     Even Start Program
	     Dept. of Education Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional
	     Development Program
	     Dept. of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
	     Communities Program
	     Dept. of Education Innovative Education Program Strategies
	     Program
	     Dept. of Education Bilingual Education Program
	     HHS Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Program
	     Goals 2000
	     Dept. of Education Perkins Vocational and Applied
	     Technology Act Program
	     Dept. of Education School to Work 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 Congressional Requesters

September 1999

FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING -
ALLOCATION TO STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES FOR 10 PROGRAMS

GAO/HEHS-99-180

Federal Education Funding

(104893)

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

  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
  IDEA - Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

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

B-278482

September 30, 1999

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

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Education and
 the Workforce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael N.  Castle
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
 Childhood, Youth and Families
Committee on Education and
 the Workforce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Joseph R.  Pitts
House of Representatives

The Honorable Lindsey O.  Graham
House of Representatives

Since the early 1990s, the Congress has appropriated over $30 billion
a year for preschool, elementary, and secondary education.  These
funds are targeted primarily to specific groups of children--such as
those who are poor or disabled or have limited English proficiencyï¿½to
help ensure their access to public education and to promote
educational excellence throughout the nation.  The Congress provides
some of these funds to the Department of Education (Education), which
then distributes the funds either directly to local agencies or to
the states.  States in turn distribute the funds to local agencies. 
Education and the states may spend some of the program funds for
administration and other activities allowed under each program's
statute. 

Although the federal investment in elementary and secondary education
is large, the Congress does not routinely receive information about
how much federal funding actually reaches students in the classroom. 
There are concerns that too much federal funding may be spent on
administration and that school personnel are incurring ï¿½hiddenï¿½
administrative costs as they spend time fulfilling administrative
requirements related to applying for, monitoring, and reporting on
federal funds.  But administrative activities are difficult to define
across programs because what is considered administration varies from
program to program.  For example, under the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), technical assistance is considered
an administrative activity, but under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities program (called the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program) it is considered nonadministrative. 

In this context, as the Congress prepares to consider reauthorization
of many of the elementary and secondary programs, you asked us to
determine, for 10 major Education programs for fiscal year 1996, (1)
the percentage of federal funding spent at the federal level and the
uses of these funds and (2) the percentage of federal funding spent
at the state level and the uses of these funds.  In addition, you
asked that we examineï¿½in a small number of school districtsï¿½the
amount of time school personnel spent fulfilling federal
administrative requirements for those programs for which the
districts received funds. 

To determine the percentage of funds spent\1 by federal and state
agencies from the 10 programs and how these funds were used, we
surveyed 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as
well as Education officials.  For this analysis, we examined funds
from these programs that Education distributed directly to the states
but not to local-level agencies (see table 1 for a description of the
10 programs and their authorizing legislation).  To determine how
much time school personnel spent fulfilling administrative
requirements, we gathered illustrative information from 9 of the
16,000 school districts nationwide in three statesï¿½California,
Maryland, and South Carolinaï¿½and surveyed district staff and staff
from selected schools in each of the 9 school districts (see app.  I
for a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology).  We
judgmentally selected these 9 school districts to ensure that the
districts were of varying sizes, were located in different parts of
the country, and represented a mix of urban, suburban, and rural
districts.  We conducted our work between July 1997 and August 1999
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

--------------------
\1 We asked the Department of Education and the states to report the
amounts of program funds they initially retained to spend on
federal-level or state-level activities, respectively.  Although
states may later reallocate some portion of the funds to local
agencies and other entities to spend, throughout the report, the term
ï¿½spentï¿½ refers to the funds that Education and the states reported
they initially retained for their expenses. 

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

In fiscal year 1996, Education distributed over 99 percent of the
appropriations for the 10 programs to the states; the states, in
turn, collectively distributed 94 percent of the funds they received
to local agencies such as school districts.  Of the original
appropriations, 92 percent was allocated primarily to local agencies. 
At both the federal and state levels, the funds that were not
distributed supported such activities as research and evaluation
related to the programs and information dissemination about them.  At
the state level, the funds, as authorized by law, may be spent on a
wider range of activities, such as developing student performance
standards and professional development training for teachers. 

Education spent less than 1 percent of all appropriated program
funds, distributing the rest primarily to the states in fiscal year
1996.  Only for the School-to-Work program did Education spend more
than 1 percent, spending 7 percent of the funds for this program. 
Education spent the funds on such services as research, evaluation,
and information dissemination.  For example, Education used $26
million of the School-to-Work program funds for program research and
to provide the states with technical assistance to help them plan and
implement the program.  Education paid for other costs of running the
programs, such as the salaries and benefits of staff issuing grants
and administering the programs, from an appropriation it receives for
overall agency management, and not from funds appropriated for the
agency's programs.  In fiscal year 1996, Education received $327
million to administer all of its programs.  Education estimates that
it spent about $23 million to administer the 10 programs we
reviewed.\2

For 9 of the 10 programs, the states spent an average of from 1 to 17
percent of the funding.  For the remaining program (Bilingual
Education state grants), all the funds we reviewed were intended to
be used at the state level.  Collectively, states distributed 94
percent of the federal funds they received mainly to local agencies. 
Excluding the $7.3 billion Title I program (one of the largest
elementary and secondary education programs), the overall percentage
of funds states allocated to local agencies by the remaining nine
programs was 86 percent.  The states, like Education, spent the funds
for activities such as technical assistance and program evaluation. 
The states also are authorized to spend the funds for a wider range
of activities, including designing curricula and demonstration
projects.  We visited 9 of the nation's 16,000 school districts and
found that school-level staff spent very little time administering
the programs and that district office staff also generally spent
little time administering them.  The time they spent varied by
district and by program. 

--------------------
\2 $4 million for Title I programs, $5.8 million for IDEA programs,
$4.2 million for Perkins programs, $1.3 million each for Eisenhower
and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, $900,000 for Goals 2000
programs, $1 million for School-to-Work programs, $1.1 million for
Innovative Education programs, $3.3 million for Bilingual Education
programs, and $300,000 for Even Start programs. 

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

The federal investment in preschool, elementary, and secondary
education of more than $30 billion was about 7 percent of all
education funding in academic year 1995-96; state and local
contributions were 47 and 46 percent, respectively.  As shown in
table 1, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the 10 programs we
reviewed varied widely, from $7.3 billion for the Title I program to
$102 million for Even Start.  These amounts reflect the total
appropriation for each program, including funds that Education
distributed directly to local education agencies as well as funds
Education distributed to state education agencies or other eligible
recipients. 

                                         Table 1
                         
                         Characteristics of the 10 Department of
                          Education Programs During Fiscal Year
                              1996, Listed by Funding Amount

                                                                 Maximum
                                                                 percentage     Maximum\b
                                                                 states may        amount
                                                                 spend and     states may
                                                       Funding   specific        spend on
                                            Target     (in       limits on     administra
            Authorizing                     populatio  millions  administrati    tion (in
Program     legislation     Purpose         n          )         on\a           millions)
----------  --------------  --------------  ---------  --------  ------------  ----------
Improving   Elementary and  To help local   Disadvant  $7,295    1.5%                 $73
Basic       Secondary       education       aged                 (including
Programs    Education Act   agencies and    students             1% for
Operated    of 1965, as     schools                              administrati
by Local    amended         improve the                          on)
Educationa  (ESEA), title   teaching and
l Agencies  I, part A       learning of
(Title I)                   children
                            failing, or
                            most at-risk

Assistance  IDEA, part B    To assist       Children   2,684\c   25%\d                134
for                         states in       and youth            (including
Education                   providing       with                 5% for
of All                      free,           disabilit            administrati
Children                    appropriate     ies                  on)
With                        public
Disabiliti                  education to
es (IDEA)                   all children
                            with
                            disabilities

Vocational  Carl D.         To help states  Secondary  963       14.5%                 48
Education   Perkins         improve         students             (including
Assistance  Vocational and  vocational      in                   5% for
to the      Applied         education       prevocati            administrati
States      Technology      programs and    onal                 on)
(Perkins)   Education Act,  provide         courses
            as amended,     special needs
            title II        populations
            (moved to       with equal
            title I in      access to such
            1998)           programs

State       ESEA, title     To support      Elementar  441       For state           14\e
Grants for  IV, part A,     programs to     y and      ($348     grants, 9%
Drug and    subpart 1       meet the        secondary  million   (including
Violence                    National        schools,   for       4% for
Prevention                  Education Goal  teachers,  state     administrati
Programs                    that every      and        grants    on)
(Safe and                   school will be  students   and $93
Drug-Free                   free of drugs              million
Schools)                    and violence               for
                            by the year                governor
                            2000                       's
                                                       programs
                                                       and
                                                       other
                                                       uses)

State and   Goals 2000:     To support      Elementar  340       10%                   14
Local       Educate         comprehensive   y and                (including
Education   America Act,    reform plans    secondary            4% for
Systemic    title III       at the state,   schools,             administrati
Improvemen                  local, and      teachers,            on)
t (Goals                    school levels   and
2000)                       to improve the  students
                            teaching and
                            learning of
                            all children

School-     School-to-      To establish a  All        350       No specific           35
to-Work     Work            national        students,            limits for
Opportunit  Opportunities   framework       including            development
ies System  Act of 1994,    within which    the                  grants; for
Developmen  title II        all states can  disadvant            implementati
t and                       create          aged,                on grants,
Implementa                  statewide       minoritie            30% for 1\st
tion                        school-to-      s, the               year of
Grants to                   work            disabled,            grant, 20%
States                      opportunities   those                for 2\nd,
(School-                    systems         with                 and 10% for
to-                                         limited              subsequent
Work)\f                                     English              years
                                            proficien            (including
                                            cy,                  10% each
                                            migrants,            year for
                                            and                  administrati
                                            school               on)
                                            dropouts

Dwight D.   ESEA, title     To provide      Teachers   275       10%                   14
Eisenhower  II, part B      high-quality    and other            (including
Profession                  professional    school               5% for
al                          development     staff                administrati
Developmen                  activities to                        on)
t Program                   teachers,
(Eisenhowe                  staff, and
r)                          administration

Innovative  ESEA, title VI  To assist       Elementar  275       15%                   10
Education                   state and       y and                (including
Program                     local           secondary            3.75% for
Strategies                  education       schools,             administrati
(Innovativ                  agencies in     teachers,            on)
e                           the reform of   and
Education)                  elementary and  students
                            secondary
                            education

Bilingual   ESEA, title     To help ensure  Children   128 ($7   For state         .365\h
Education\  VII,            that students   with       million   grants, 100%
g           part A          with limited    limited    for       (including
                            English         English    state     5% for
                            proficiency     proficien  grants    administrati
                            master English  cy         and $121  on)
                            and develop                million
                            high levels of             for
                            academic                   localiti
                            attainment in              es)
                            content areas

Even Start  ESEA, title I,  To help break   Parents    102       5%                     5
Family      part B          the cycle of    who lack             (including
Literacy                    poverty and     basic                administrati
Program                     illiteracy by   education            on)
(Even                       integrating     skills;
Start)                      early           have no
                            childhood       high
                            education,      school
                            adult literacy  diploma;
                            or adult basic  or are
                            education, and  unable to
                            parenting into  speak,
                            a unified       read, or
                            family          write the
                            literacy        English
                            program         language;
                                            and their
                                            children,
                                            aged 0-7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Many also may spend more than the percentage listed in this
column.  Many programs also provide for a minimum dollar amount.  In
the case of small states, where their total grant is relatively
small, the maximum percentage amount may be inadequate. 

\b The numbers in this column are based on total funding rather than
the amounts remaining after Education has taken any funds for its
use. 

\c Amount is actually for two separate grant programs under part B of
IDEA, one providing special education and related services to
school-aged children and one providing such services to preschoolers. 

\d The law was amended in 1998, changing this to 15 percent
(including 5 percent for administration). 

\e Estimate is based only on the $348 million allocated for state
grants. 

\f The Departments of Education and Labor jointly administer the
School-to-Work program.  For fiscal 1996, $180 million was included
in Education's appropriation and $170 million in Labor's. 

\g Under this program, funding for state-level activities is provided
through a separate state grant program, and other funds are allocated
directly to local agencies.  We only examined the state grant portion
of these funds. 

\h Estimate is based only on the $7.3 million allocated for state
grants. 

There is no common definition of ï¿½administrationï¿½ across the 10
programs.  For example, ESEA does not contain a general definition of
administrative expenditures that states can use for covered programs. 
Further, some individual program statutes describe as
nonadministrative activities what other programs consider
administrative activities.  For example, under the Title I program,
developing standards and assessments is considered an administrative
activity at the state level, but under the Eisenhower program it is
considered a nonadministrative activity.  Similarly, under the IDEA
program, technical assistance is considered an administrative
activity, but under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program it is
considered a nonadministrative activity.  Thus, the differences in
which activities are considered administrative expenses and the lack
of a distinction between administrative and nonadministrative
expenses make categorization of expenses difficult.\3

The Congress has been weighing how to balance accountability and
flexibility in education programs.\4 In its effort to strike a
balance between these sometimes competing goals, the Congress has
attempted to reduce state and local reporting requirements while at
the same time ensuring that sufficient information exists to hold
states and local agencies accountable.  Moreover, state and local
reporting requirements have not historically been uniform across
programs, state program accountability systems vary, and the
definitions used to categorize expenses and activities differ across
states and programs.  All of these factors represent challenges to
data collection. 

--------------------
\3 See Department of Education, The Use of Federal Education Funds
for Administrative Costs (Washington, D.C.:  Department of Education,
1998), which addressed the various ways administration is defined. 

\4 See Balancing Flexibility and Accountability:  Grant Program
Design in Education and Other Areas (GAO/T-GGD/HEHS-98-94, Feb.  11,
1998) and Grant Programs:  Design Features Shape Flexibility,
Accountability, and Performance Information (GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22,
1998). 

   EDUCATION DISTRIBUTED ALMOST
   ALL FEDERAL PROGRAM FUNDS TO
   STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Across all 10 programs we reviewed, Education typically spent a small
portion of the federal funds, distributing over 99 percent of the
funds to the states.\5 With the funds, Education supported a variety
of federal activities, including program research and evaluation and
information dissemination.  However, Education paid for other costs
of running the 10 programs, such as the salaries and benefits of the
staff issuing the grants and administering the programs, from a
separate appropriation it receives for overall agency management. 

Table 2 shows the amount Education spent from each of the 10
programs' funds.  Education spent nothing for the Innovative
Education and Perkins programs.  For the Title I program, one of the
largest elementary and secondary programs that support education for
disadvantaged students, Education spent $3.5 million of the funds,
which was less than 1 percent of the program's $7.3 billion
appropriation.  For the School-to-Work program, which is one of the
smaller programs, Education spent the largest percentage--7 percent
of the program's funds ($26 million)--for technical assistance and
research. 

                          Table 2
          
            Program Funding Spent at the Federal
                 Level in Fiscal Year 1996

                                                Percentage
                                                        of
                                  Funds used  appropriatio
Program                         by Education             n
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Title I                           $3,500,000   Less than 1
IDEA                                  50,000   Less than 1
Perkins                                    0             0
Safe and Drug-Free Schools           997,000   Less than 1
Goals 2000                           226,951   Less than 1
School-to-Work                    26,000,000             7
Eisenhower                           735,000   Less than 1
Innovative Education                       0             0
Bilingual Education                1,828,445           1\a
Even Start                         1,369,350             1
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This percentage is based on the total fiscal year 1996
appropriation of $128 million for the Bilingual Education program. 

Source:  Department of Education. 

Education used program funds for a number of activities, such as
research, program evaluation, information dissemination, and
technical assistance.  To illustrate, for three of the programsï¿½Even
Start, Bilingual Education, and School-to-Workï¿½Education used funds
for technical assistance to the states and information dissemination
to states, school districts, and the general public.  For Even Start,
Eisenhower, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Bilingual Education, and
School-to-Work, Education also spent funds on program evaluation and
research.  For the Title I program, Education officials reported that
the funds supported work by the Bureau of the Census to develop an
updated model to estimate the number of children aged 5 to 17 living
in poverty, as well as an evaluation of that estimate by the National
Academy of Sciences.  The poverty estimates are used to determine
states' Title I formula allocations.  For the Bilingual Education,
IDEA, and Goals 2000 programs, Education used a small percentage of
the funds for outside reviewers to assess grant proposals.  For
example, of the $128 million appropriated for the Bilingual Education
program, Education spent about $300,000 for outside reviewers. 
Education also used $200,000 of the $340 million appropriated for the
Goals 2000 program and $50,000 of the $2.6 billion appropriated for
the IDEA program for outside reviewers.  Other costs, such as
salaries and benefits for Education's employees involved in issuing
grants and administering the program, were funded from a separate
appropriation it receives for agency management.  In fiscal year
1996, Education received $327 million through this appropriation to
administer all the programs under its purview, and it estimates that
it spent about $23 million administering the 10 programs we reviewed. 

--------------------
\5 Education distributes funds to entities other than the states, but
for the programs we reviewed, Education allocated most of the funds
to the states. 

   THE STATES DISTRIBUTED MOST OF
   THE FUNDS TO LOCAL AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

States generally passed on to school districts most of the program
funds.  The one exception, in which states spent most of the funds,
was the Bilingual Education program, because Education only allocated
to the states the funds that were intended for state use (the state
grant program).  Education allocated directly to the localities the
Bilingual funds intended for local use.  For the other nine programs,
the states on average spent from 1 to 17 percent of the funds. 
States spent the funds on many of the same activities as Education,
such as research and evaluation.  States also were authorized to
spend funds on a wider range of support activities, such as
development of student performance standards, curricula design,
professional development training, and development of demonstration
projects. 

States varied from program to program with respect to the percentage
of funds they spent themselves and the percentage they distributed to
local agencies.  Figure 1 shows the average percentage of funds
states spent for each of the 10 programs.  There was considerable
variation in the percentage of a given program's funds that states
distributed to school districts.  Overall, 94 percent\6 of the
federal education funds received by the states for these 10 programs
was distributed to local agencies such as school districts.  If the
$7.3 billion appropriation for the Title I program is excluded, the
overall percentage of funds states allocated to local agencies drops
to 86 percent.  Of the original appropriations for all 10 programs,
92 percent was distributed to local agencies. 

   Figure 1:  Percentage of Funds
   Spent by State Education
   Agencies

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In addition, states varied in the percentage of each program's funds
they spent (see table 3).  For example, for the IDEA program, the
percentage of funds that states spent ranged from less than 2 percent
in 2 states to 21 percent or more in 16 states.  For School-to-Work,
the percentage of funds states spent ranged from about 2 percent in
five states to over 25 percent in eight states.  Most states spent
close to the maximum allowed by law (see table 1).  For example, the
Innovative Education program permits states to spend up to 15 percent
of program funds received.  Thirty-eight states (88 percent) used
between 11 and 15 percent of this program's funds.  See appendix II
for the percentage of funds each state spent. 

                                     Table 3
                     
                      Range in Percentage of Funds Spent by
                       State Education Agencies, by Program

                              Number of states reporting\a
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              16-20
           0-2      3-5     6-10     11-15   percen   21-24     25      Over 25
Program  percent  percent  percent  percent       t  percent  percent   percent
-------  -------  -------  -------  -------  ------  -------  -------  ---------
Title I    38        8        0        0          0     0        0         0
IDEA        2        5        4       13          4     6        9        1\b
Perkins     1        2        6       26          6     1        0         1
Safe        1        2       42        0          0     0        0         0
 and
 Drug-
 Free
 School
 s
Goals       3        0       37        0          0     0        0         0
 2000
Eisenho     0        7       37        0          0     0        0        1\c
 wer
Bilingu     0        0        0        0          0     0        0        40
 al
 Educat
 ion\d
Innovat     0        0        1       38          3     0        0        1\e
 ive
 Educat
 ion
School-     5        2       10        2          8     2        0        8\f
 to-
 Work
Even        8       35        2        0          0     0        0         0
 Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  In addition to a maximum percentage that states may spend
and/or use for administration, many programs provide for a minimum
dollar amount as well.  As a result, states that benefit from such a
provision may end up spending more than the percentage listed in this
table. 

\a Numbers are based only on those states that responded to our
survey. 

\b Puerto Rico's state education agency is also the local education
agency (there is only one school district in Puerto Rico). 
Therefore, it is allowed to keep and spend all of the funds. 

\c Hawaii's state education agency is also the local education
agency.  Therefore, it spent all of the funds. 

\d For this part of the analysis, we only examined the funds
Education distributed to the states--about 5 percent of total program
dollars--and all of those funds were intended to be spent at the
state level. 

\e Hawaii, where the state's education agency is also the local
education agency, spent 26 percent of the funds on state-related
activities and 74 percent on local-level-related activities. 

\f For School-to-Work development grant funds, there are no
restrictions on the amount of funds that states can spend at the
state level. 

States spent the funds on many of the same activities as Education,
such as research and evaluation and technical assistance.  States
also spent their funds on the salaries and benefits of personnel
involved in such activities as compliance monitoring and data
collection.  Moreover, states are authorized to spend some of their
funds on activities specific to each program.  Following are some
examples: 

  -- Under the Eisenhower program, states may spend funds reviewing
     and reforming state requirements for teacher and administrator
     licensure, developing performance assessments and peer review
     procedures for licensing teachers and administrators, and
     encouraging teacher professional development training. 

  -- Under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, states may spend
     the funds to make cost-effective programs for youth violence and
     drug abuse prevention available to local education agencies,
     demonstration projects in drug and violence prevention, and
     financial assistance to enhance resources available for drug and
     violence prevention in areas serving large numbers of
     economically disadvantaged children. 

  -- Under the Goals 2000 program, states may spend their funds
     supporting the development or adoption of state content
     standards and state student performance standards; supporting
     innovative and proven methods of enhancing a teacher's ability
     to identify student learning needs; and promoting public magnet
     schools, public charter schools, and other mechanisms for
     increasing choice among public schools. 

  -- Under the School-to-Work program, states may spend funds
     identifying or establishing appropriate state structures to
     administer the statewide school-to-work system and designing
     challenging curricula in cooperation with representatives of
     local partnerships. 

Schools and school districts used federal funds for classroom
services and support services and to meet federal administrative
requirements.  Fulfilling the federal requirements necessitates some
commitment of staff resources at both the school district and school
levels.  We reviewed the extent to which local staff spent time
responding to federal program administrative requirements in 9 of the
nation's 16,000 school districts (see app.  III for detailed
information about the time spent on these activities).  We found that
the amount of time district office staff spent administering these
programs varied by district and by program.  Of the 10 programs
reviewed, school district staff reported more involvement in
administrative activities related to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program than for other programs.  Most district staff had
responsibility for only one program each.  Staff told us that their
administrative duties included requesting and reviewing grant
applications, monitoring how programs are implemented, and reporting
on programs.  About 70 percent of personnel in the 15 schools we
visited, primarily teachers, did not have administrative
responsibilities for the 10 programs reviewed.  When they did,
however, the majority of them had administrative responsibilities for
the Title I program.  The amount of time school staff spent
administering the Title I program was usually a day or less out of
the school year for each administrative duty assigned them. 

--------------------
\6 This is the weighted average of funds distributed to the local
level for these programs.  This figure is based on funds that states'
education agencies distributed to a range of entities.  Thus,
although funds were distributed primarily to local education
agencies, state education agencies also distributed funds to other
entities.  These entities include local partnerships; regional and
local organizations; nonprofit organizations; programs for single
parents, displaced homemakers, and criminal offenders; and other
state agencies. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Education provided technical comments on a draft of this report,
which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Copies of this report are being sent to the Honorable Richard W. 
Riley, Secretary of Education; the Honorable Alexis M.  Herman,
Secretary of Labor; and interested congressional committees.  We will
also make copies available to others upon request. 

If you have questions about this report, please call me on (202)
512-7215.  Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix IV. 

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

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

This appendix discusses in detail our scope and methodology for
determining the percentage of federal funds spent at the federal and
state levels and the uses of funds at each level, as well as the
amount of time school and district staff spent fulfilling federal
administrative requirements. 

   SCOPE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

We collected financial information for fiscal year 1996 from 10
Department of Education programs.  Six programs were authorized under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA):  title I, part A--Title I program; title 1, part B--Even
Start; title II--Dwight D.  Eisenhower Professional Development
program; title IV--Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; title
VI--Innovative Education Program Strategies; and title VII--Bilingual
Education.  We also collected funding information for programs under
four other acts:  the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), part B--IDEA program; the Carl D.  Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act, as amended--Perkins; Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act, title III--Goals 2000; and School-to-Work.  (See
table I.1.) We focused on collecting financial information and did
not evaluate program effectiveness or impact. 

                               Table I.1
                
                           Programs Reviewed

Act                                 Program
----------------------------------  ----------------------------------
ESEA                                Title I, part A: Improving Basic
                                    Programs Operated by Local
                                    Educational Agencies

                                    Title I, part B: Even Start Family
                                    Literacy Programs

                                    Title II, part B: Dwight D.
                                    Eisenhower Professional
                                    Development Program

                                    Title IV (also known as the Safe
                                    and Drug-Free Schools and
                                    Communities Act of 1994), part A,
                                    subpart 1: State Grants for Drug
                                    and Violence Prevention Programs

                                    Title VI: Innovative Education
                                    Program Strategies

                                    Title VII, part A (also known as
                                    the Bilingual Education Act):
                                    Bilingual Education

Goals 2000: Educate America Act     Title III: State and Local
                                    Education Systemic Improvement

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and      Title II: Vocational Education
Applied Technology Education Act,   Assistance to the States
as amended

IDEA                                Part B: Assistance for Education
                                    of All Children With Disabilities

School-to-Work Opportunities Act    Title II: School-to-Work
of 1994                             Opportunities
                                    System Development and
                                    Implementation Grants to States
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   METHODOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

To determine the percentage of funds spent at the federal level and
distributed to the states, we asked officials at the Department of
Education to provide us with the amount of funds it spent, how these
funds were used, and the amount of funds distributed to the states
for each program. 

To obtain information on how much states received, spent, and
distributed to local agencies, in November 1998 we surveyed state
officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.  The surveys were mailed to officials at the state
level--typically, officials in the state Department of Education. 
For each program, we asked respondents to provide us with the total
federal funding their state received in fiscal year 1996, instructing
them not to include funds that were carried over from previous years. 
For two statesï¿½Oregon and Pennsylvania--respondents were not able to
remove carryover funds from the total.  Therefore, we included all
funds reported by these states as funds received in fiscal year 1996. 
In addition, we asked respondents to tell us the total amount of
federal funds their state education agency spent and how much they
passed on to the localities.  Response rates are shown in table I.2. 

                               Table I.2
                
                 Number of States Responding to Survey,
                               by Program

                                                Number
                                                    of
                                                states
                                                    \a
                                                receiv  Number  Respon
                                                   ing      of      se
                                                progra  states    rate
                                                     m  respon  (perce
Program                                          funds    ding     nt)
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Title I                                             52      46      88
IDEA                                                52      44      85
Perkins                                             52      43      83
Safe and Drug-Free Schools                          52      45      87
Goals 2000                                        48\b      40      83
School-to-Work                                      52      37      71
Eisenhower                                          52      45      87
Innovative Education                                52      43      83
Bilingual Education                                 48      40      83
Even Start                                          52      45      87
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

\b Montana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma are not included in this
total because funds were allocated directly to the local education
agencies.  California is also excluded because it reported that it
did not receive funds until the end of fiscal year 1996 because no
state plan was in place. 

To obtain information about the time district- and school-level staff
spent on activities associated with administering federal programs,
we gathered illustrative information from 9 of the nation's 16,000
school districts--3 districts each in California, Maryland, and South
Carolina.  We selected the states, districts, and schools to be a mix
from different sized districts, parts of the country, types of
districts (rural, urban, and suburban), and types of schools
(elementary and secondary).  We also ensured that in each district we
gathered information from staff working on many of the 10 programs
reviewed. 

For each selected school district, we gathered information from
officials at the school level and the district level.  In total, we
interviewed and/or surveyed officials in 15 schools within the nine
districts to ascertain how much time they spent fulfilling
administrative requirements related to the 10 programs (see table
I.3). 

                                         Table I.3
                          
                                 School Districts Reviewed

                                                              Programs reviewed
                                                    --------------------------------------
              Type of          No. of       No. of
Place         district       students     teachers   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10
------------  ----------  -----------  -----------  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
California
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres         Suburban          9,458          408   X   X       X   X   X   X       X
San Diego     Urban           133,687        6,024   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
Shandon       Rural               337           20   X   X       X   X   X

Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore     Urban           108,759        6,259   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X
 City
Baltimore     Suburban        104,073        6,442   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X       X
 County
Kent          Rural             2,898          179   X   X   X   X   X   X   X       X   X

South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbeville     Rural             3,821          262   X   X   X   X   X   X       X
Charleston    Urban            43,457        2,798   X   X   X   X   X   X   X           X
Dorchester    Suburban         15,367          878   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X       X
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
1 = Title I
2 = Eisenhower
3 = IDEA
4 = Perkins
5 = Safe and Drug-Free Schools
6 = Innovative Education
7 = Goals 2000
8 = Even Start
9 = Bilingual Education
10 = School-to-Work

We defined "administrative responsibilities" as engaging in
activities related to applying for, monitoring, or reporting on the
use of federal program funds.  Specifically, these activities include
the following: 

  -- Application/planning process activities refer to those related
     to preparing an application or plan for submission to the state
     education agency and/or federal agencies for federal funds for
     one or more of the education programs of interest.  Examples
     include completing an application or proposal entirely or in
     part, collaborating with others to complete an application or
     proposal, and reviewing school or district grant applications. 

  -- Monitoring of federal funds or program activities refer to
     tracking program expenditures and activities.  Examples include
     tracking participant enrollments and overseeing the program
     budget to ensure compliance with program requirements and
     approved plans. 

  -- Reporting of federal funds or program activities refer to
     reporting program expenditures and/or activities to state and/or
     federal authorities.  Examples include gathering data for
     federal reports, completing a report on program expenditures
     and/or activities entirely or in part, and collaborating with
     others to complete a report on program expenditures and/or
     activities. 

We surveyed or interviewed over 1,000 school- and district-level
staff, but our school- and district-level information is not
generalizable.  For practical reasons, we could not interview or
survey all school and district staff, but we were able to gather
information from the majority of teachers and the principal in each
school and the majority of district-level staff.  Through interviews
or questionnaires, we asked the staff to indicate whether they had
administrative responsibilities and, if so, to estimate the amount of
time spent on administrative activities. 

At the school level, we interviewed and surveyed 697 staff.  Of
these, 78 percent were teachers; 10 percent were specialists; and 7
percent were school administrators, such as principals.  At the
district level, we spoke with 319 officials, including budget and
finance officials as well as personnel responsible for program
evaluation and compliance.  The information from these 9 school
districts is illustrative, and, as such, is not necessarily
indicative of the nearly 16,000 school districts nationwide. 
Detailed data from the nine school districts on time spent on
administrative activities are in appendix III. 

      BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
      FUNDS POSE REPORTING
      CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

The Bilingual Education program has two funding streams.  A small
percentage of the fundsï¿½approximately 5 percentï¿½is allocated to the
states and is intended to be used at the state level.  Conversely,
the remaining 95 percent generally bypasses the states and is
allocated directly to localities.  For the other nine programs we
reviewed, funds generally flow through the states and then to the
localities.  Thus, our state survey only captured the 5 percent of
the Bilingual Education funds that the Department of Education
allocated to the states.  Our local school district review examined
the administrative responsibilities associated with the 95 percent of
the Bilingual funds that flowed directly to the localities. 

      NONSAMPLING ERRORS AND DATA
      IMPUTATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

All surveys are vulnerable to some nonsampling errors, including
measurement errors caused by respondent misinterpretation of the
questions or errors that resulted from a lack of response.  These
errors may affect our survey to some unknown degree.  We took several
steps to minimize the effect of these problems.  For example, we
examined responses for extreme values and checked the data for errors
in logic.  When we could not resolve the questions, we called survey
respondents for clarification.  In some cases, respondents had
reported numbers incorrectly; in these cases, we corrected the data. 
For each program, to develop our estimate of the percentage of
federal funds that was distributed to the localities, we calculated
the percentage distributed by the states that completed the survey
and applied that percentage to the total amount of federal funds
received by states that did not complete the survey. 

We conducted our work between July 1997 and August 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM FUNDS SPENT BY STATE
EDUCATION AGENCIES
========================================================== Appendix II

The amount of program funds spent by the states for support services
varied from state to state.  The range and median for each program
are shown in table II.1.  Table II.2 shows the percentage spent from
each program, by state. 

                               Table II.1
                
                Range and Median Percentage of Education
                 Program Funds Spent by State Education
                                Agencies

                                                        Range
                                                ----------------------
Program                                           High     Low  Median
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Title I (N=46)                                       4       0       1
IDEA (N=44)                                       25\a       0      13
Perkins (N=43)                                      31       0      13
Safe and Drug-Free Schools (N=45)                    9       0       9
Goals 2000 (N=40)                                   10       0      10
Eisenhower (N=45)                                 10\b       4      10
Bilingual Education\c (N=40)                       100    90\d     100
Innovative Education (N=43)                       17\e      10      15
School-to-Work (N=37)                            100\f       0      13
Even Start (N=45)                                    7       0       5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Puerto Rico spent all of its funds, but it is an anomaly because
the state is also the local education agency. 

\b Hawaii spent all of its funds, but it is an anomaly because the
state is also the local education agency. 

\c Almost all Bilingual Education program funds ($121 million of $128
million) are distributed to local education agencies directly by the
Department of Education.  About 5 percent of the funds go to the
states.  This table reflects only information on the state grants. 

\d Although all of the Bilingual Education funds we looked at are
intended to be used at the state level, two states allocated a
portion of their funds to local agencies. 

\e Hawaii, where the state education agency is also the local
education agency, spent 26 percent of the funds on state-related
activities and 74 percent on local-level-related activities. 

\f Several states spent all of their School-to-Work development grant
funds for state-level activities, as permitted by law. 

                                        Table II.2
                         
                          Percentage of Education Program Funds
                            Spent by State Education Agencies

                                     Safe
                                      and
                                    Drug-  Innova  Biling
                                     Free    tive     ual                          School
           Titl    Even  Eisenhow  School  Educat  Educat   Goals          Perkin    -to-
            e I   Start        er       s     ion     ion    2000    IDEA       s    Work
---------  ----  ------  --------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Alabama      \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \a      \a    23.1      \a      \a
Alaska      3.4     4.6      10.0     9.0      \a   100.0    10.0    11.4    14.3    20.2
Arizona     1.4     3.0       5.0     9.0    15.0      \a    10.0      \a    14.5    10.0
Arkansas     \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a
Californi   1.2     5.0       5.0     9.0    13.6   100.0      \b     5.0     8.1      \a
 a
Colorado     \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a
Connectic   1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    22.7    13.3    19.4
 ut
Delaware    2.5     5.0      10.0     7.8    15.0   100.0    10.0    24.0    11.6      \a
District      0     0.0       4.2     0.0    15.0   100.0     0.0     0.0    16.2     9.4
 of
 Columbia
Florida     1.5     5.0       8.4     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    24.4    31.0     3.5
Georgia     1.0      \a      10.0     9.0    17.0   100.0     9.3      \a    13.8      \a
Hawaii      3.1     5.0     100.0     9.0    26.1   100.0     8.1    25.0     0.0    20.0
Idaho       2.3     5.0        \a     9.0      \a   100.0    10.0      \a    13.3      \a
Illinois    1.5     6.7      10.0     9.0    14.9   100.0     1.0    21.5     9.6     0.5
Indiana     1.5     5.0       9.8     9.0    15.0   100.0     5.6    13.3      \a      \a
Iowa        1.5     1.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    24.9    13.3     6.9
Kansas      1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    18.4    21.4    23.8
Kentucky    1.5     5.0       9.8     9.0    15.0      \b    10.0    16.3    16.9     7.1
Louisiana   1.5     1.8      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    13.0    13.7    16.5
Maine       2.1     5.0      10.0     2.8      \a   100.0      \a    21.5    13.7     6.0
Maryland    1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0     7.8    18.4     9.1
Massachus   1.4     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0      \a    12.7     9.3    18.4
 etts
Michigan    1.0     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    12.5     4.9      \a
Minnesota   1.0     5.0       5.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    17.2    13.3    21.4
Mississip   1.5     0.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0     8.0    15.0    13.5   100.0
 pi
Missouri    1.6     0.0      10.0     9.0    16.5   100.0    10.0     3.6    17.4    19.5
Montana     2.3     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0      \b    10.8     8.4    39.8
Nebraska     \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a
Nevada      2.9     5.0       7.5     9.0    13.7   100.0    10.0     5.0    13.7    28.1
New         3.7     1.9      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0      \b    25.0    17.9    20.0
 Hampshire
New         1.5     5.0      10.0     6.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    12.1    17.8     8.6
 Jersey
New         1.5     5.3      10.0     7.9    15.0   100.0    10.0     5.1      \a      \a
 Mexico
New York    0.9     4.4       5.0     4.8    15.0   100.0    10.0    25.0    13.4     1.4
North       1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    10.0   100.0    10.0     3.6     4.9     0.0
 Carolina
North       3.5     5.0       5.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    10.9    10.7   100.0
 Dakota
Ohio        1.5     4.6       8.3      \a    15.0      \a    10.0    11.5    13.5    12.8
Oklahoma    1.5     0.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0      \b    11.7    13.5      \a
Oregon      1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    25\c    13.5    10.0
Pennsylva   1.5     5.0       6.4     9.0    15.0      \b     9.0    25\c      \a     2.0
 nia
Puerto      1.0     5.0       7.6     8.8    16.4   100.0    10.0   100.0     6.0   100.0
 Rico
Rhode        \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \b      \a      \a      \a      \a
 Island
South       1.5     5.9       9.2     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0     5.7    13.3    31.5
 Carolina
South       3.1     5.0       5.0     9.0    15.0   100.0     7.6    13.7    14.1      \a
 Dakota
Tennessee   1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    20.0    13.5    30.0
Texas       1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    25.0    13.4      \a
Utah        1.8     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0    91.9     8.1     0.0    13.5     8.0
Vermont      \a      \a        \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a      \a     3.3
Virginia    1.0     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0      \b     0.0     9.2    11.5    11.1
Washingto   1.5     3.6      10.0     9.0    12.6   100.0    10.0    12.5    11.6     2.1
 n
West        1.3     5.0       9.6     9.0    15.0      \b    10.0    25.0    13.5    20.0
 Virginia
Wisconsin   1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    25.0    15.1     6.7
Wyoming     3.8     0.9       6.6     9.0    12.1    90.3    10.1    10.1     6.5   100.0
Percentag   1.4     4.5       8.8     8.5    14.8    99.7     8.7    16.8    12.4    10.4
 e spent
 nationwi
 de
Median      1.5     5.0      10.0     9.0    15.0   100.0    10.0    13.5    13.5    12.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a State did not respond to our survey for this program. 

\b State received no funding for this program. 

\c In Oregon and Pennsylvania, officials were unable to separate
carryover funds. 

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES FROM
DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS
========================================================= Appendix III

This appendix contains information from interviews with and surveys
of 319 school district staff and 697 school-level staff in the nine
districts we visited.  We asked them to tell us about their
involvement in administering the 10 programs reviewed in school year
1996-97.  Specifically, we asked them whether they had application,
monitoring, and/or reporting administrative duties.  The tables in
this appendix reflect only those staff who indicated that they had
administrative duties--210 district-level staff and 201 school-level
staff, 66 and 29 percent, respectively, of those we interviewed or
surveyed. 

By administration, we mean those activities related to applying for,
monitoring, or reporting on federal funds (see app.  I). 

Tables III.1 through III.3 provide information on district-level
staff involvement in the administration of the 10 programs reviewed
in academic year 1996-97: 

  -- the number of programs for which each district staff member was
     responsible (table III.1);

  -- the number of district staff members reporting responsibilities
     for application, monitoring, and/or reporting administrative
     activities (table III.2); and

  -- the amount of time district staff members reported they spent in
     fulfilling administrative requirements for each program (table
     III.3). 

Tables III.4 through III.6 provide information on school-level staff
involvement in the 10 programs reviewed in school year 1996-97: 

  -- the number of programs for which each school-level staff member
     was responsible (table III.4);

  -- the number of school staff members reporting responsibilities
     for application, monitoring, and/or reporting administrative
     activities (table III.5); and

  -- the amount of time school staff members reported spending
     fulfilling administrative requirements for each program (table
     III.6). 

   DISTRICT-LEVEL STAFF
   ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Of the district staff who had administrative responsibilities,
two-thirds reported administrative responsibilities for only 1 of the
10 programs reviewed; few staff had responsibility for more than 3
programs.  (See table III.1.)

                              Table III.1
                
                 Number of Programs for Which District
                    Staff Members Had Administrative
                 Responsibilities, School Year 1996-97

                                  Number of district staff members who
Number of programs          reported having responsibility for program
--------------------------  ------------------------------------------
1                                                                  137
2                                                                   44
3                                                                   10
4                                                                    4
5                                                                    2
6                                                                    7
7                                                                    3
8                                                                    0
9                                                                    1
10                                                                   2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest number of district staff reported having application,
monitoring, or reporting responsibilities for the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools program, followed by the Title I program.  (See table III.2.)

                              Table III.2
                
                Number of School District Staff Members
                     Reporting Responsibilities for
                    Application, Monitoring, and/or
                Reporting Activities, by Program, School
                              Year 1996-97

                               Number of staff who reported having
                                  responsibility for activity\a
                            ------------------------------------------
                            Applic                              Report
Program                      ation          Monitoring             ing
--------------------------  ------  --------------------------  ------
Safe and Drug-Free Schools      63              63                  61
Title I                         40              44                  33
Eisenhower                      25              30                  29
Perkins                         28              26                  26
IDEA                             8              22                  20
Goals 2000                      20              23                  19
Innovative Education            18              20                  18
School-to-Work                  11              12                  11
Even Start                      10              12                  11
Bilingual Education              4              2                    3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a District staff could report having responsibility for one or more
types of administrative activities. 

No patterns emerged with respect to the amount of time district staff
reported spending on different types of administrative duties or the
amount of time they reported spending in performing administrative
activities for a given program.  (See table III.3.)

                                        Table III.3
                          
                             School District Staff Members Who
                          Reported Spending Time on Administrative
                          Activities and Amount of Time Spent, by
                                Program, School Year 1996-97

                                  (Hours per school year)

                   Application                Monitoring                  Reporting
            -------------------------  -------------------------  -------------------------
                 8                 40       8                 40       8                 40
             hours              hours   hours              hours   hours              hours
                or    9 to 40      or      or    9 to 40      or      or    9 to 40      or
Program       less      hours    more    less      hours    more    less      hours    more
----------  ------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ------
Bilingual        3          1       0       0          2       0       2          1       0
 Education
Even Start       1          3       6       1          6       5       5          2       4
School-          4          6       1       1          5       6       6          4       1
 to-Work
IDEA             4          3       1       4          5      13       7          8       5
Innovative       9          8       1       7         10       3      11          6       1
 Education
Eisenhower       9         11       5       9         11      10      12         12       5
Perkins         10         16       2       9          8       9      11         12       3
Goals 2000       5         12       3       7          9       7      13          4       2
Safe and        29         23      11      20         25      18      35         19       7
 Drug-
 Free
 Schools
Title I          4         12      24       7          8      29       7         12      14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   SCHOOL-LEVEL STAFF
   ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Of the school-level staff who had administrative responsibilities,
about 70 percent reported having administrative responsibilities for
1 of the 10 programs reviewed; few school-level staff had
responsibility for more than 3 programs.  (See table III.4.)

                        Table III.4
          
            Number of Programs for Which School-
           Level Staff Members Had Administrative
           Responsibilities, School Year 1996-97

                    Number of school-level staff reporting
Number of programs           administrative responsibility
------------------  --------------------------------------
1                                                      144
2                                                       33
3                                                       14
4                                                        7
5                                                        0
6                                                        1
7                                                        1
8                                                        0
9                                                        0
10                                                       0
----------------------------------------------------------
The largest number of school-level staff reported having application,
monitoring, and/or reporting responsibilities for the Title I
program, followed by IDEA, for which monitoring responsibilities were
more often cited.  (See table III.5.)

                              Table III.5
                
                  Number of School-Level Staff Members
                     Reporting Responsibilities for
                 Application, Monitoring, or Reporting
                  Activities, by Program, School Year
                                1996-97

                                                   Number of staff
                                                     involved in
                                                    administrative
                                                      activity\a
                                                ----------------------
                                                Applic  Monito  Report
Program                                          ation    ring     ing
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Title I                                             87      74      53
IDEA                                                 2      39      17
Safe and Drug-Free Schools                          12       8       8
Perkins                                              2       2       1
Eisenhower                                          11       2       1
Innovative Education                                 7       1       1
School-to-Work                                       3       8       9
Even Start                                           1       0       0
Bilingual Education                                  0       1       0
Goals 2000                                           0       1       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a School-level staff could report having responsibility for one or
more types of administrative activities. 

As table III.5 also showed, the largest number of school-level staff
had responsibilities for the Title I program, followed by the IDEA
program.  Table III.6 shows that staff with administrative
responsibilities for the Title I program tended to spend 8 hours or
less per year on each of the administrative activities to which they
were assigned.  For the IDEA program, for which staff had more
monitoring responsibilities, the amount of time school-level staff
spent monitoring was split between staff who reported that they spent
9 to 40 hours and staff who spent 40 hours or more in a school year
on monitoring activities.

                                        Table III.6
                          
                              Number of School-Level Staff Who
                          Reported Spending Time on Administrative
                            Activities and Amount of Time Spent,
                                    School Year 1996-97

                                  (Hours per school year)

                   Application                Monitoring                  Reporting
            -------------------------  -------------------------  -------------------------
                 8                 40       8                 40       8                 40
             hours              hours   hours              hours   hours              hours
                or    9 to 40      or      or    9 to 40      or      or    9 to 40      or
              less      hours    more    less      hours    more    less      hours    more
----------  ------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ------
Title I         69         15       3      51         17       6      36         15       2
IDEA             1          1       0       3         18      18       2          8       7
Safe and        10          2       0       3          4       1       6          2       0
 Drug-
 Free
 Schools
Eisenhower       9          2       0       1          1       0       0          1       0
Innovative       7          0       0       0          1       0       1          0       0
 Education
School-          2          0       1       3          2       3       5          2       2
 to-Work
Perkins          1          1       0       0          2       0       0          1       0
Goals 2000       0          0       0       0          1       0       0          0       0
Bilingual        0          0       0       1          0       0       0          0       0
 Education
Even Start       1          0       0       0          0       0       0          0       0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Sherri K.  Doughty, Project Manager, (202) 512-7273

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, Sandra Baxter, Patricia Bundy,
Kimberly Campbell, Tamara Lumpkin, Ellen K.  Schwartz, Edward
Tuchman, Craig Winslow, and Elizabeth T.  Morrison made key
contributions to this report. 

*** End of document. ***