oversight

OIG's Independent Report on the Department's Performance Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2014

Published by the Department of Education, Office of Inspector General on 2015-02-13.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

U.S. Department of Education 





   Performance Summary Report 


             Fiscal Year 2014 





                In Support of the

       National Drug Control Strategy




               February 11, 2015


   400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
                     www.ed.gov
                      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                           OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION




February 11, 2015

Kathleen S.Tighe
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202-1510

Dear Ms. Tighe:

As required by Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Circular Accounting of
Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, enclosed please find detailed
information about performance-related measures for key drug control programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Education, in accordance with the guidelines in
the circular dated January 18, 2013. This information covers the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities program, which is the Drug Control Budget Decision Unit
under wh ich the 2014 budgetary resources for the Department of Education are
displayed in the Fiscal Year 2015 National Drug Control Budget and Performance
Summary.

Consistent with the instructions in the ONDCP Circular, please provide your
authentication to me in writing and I will transmit it to ONDCP along with the enclosed
Performance Summary Report. ONDCP requests these documents by February 18,
2015. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the
enclosed information.

                                  Sincerely,


                               ~c,_~ 

                                  David Esquith
                                  Director, Office of Safe and Healthy Students




                    400 MARYLAND AVE.. S.W.. WASHINGTO . D.C. 20202
                                        www.ed.gov
                FY 2014 Performance Summary Information

                            Safe and Supportive Schools

In FY 2010 the Department awarded the first round of awards under the Safe and
Supportive Schools (S3) grant program. No subsequent cohorts of grants were
awarded under the program. Awards were made to State educational agencies
to support statewide measurement of, and targeted programmatic interventions
to improve, conditions for learning in order to help schools improve safety and
reduce substance use. Projects had to take a systematic approach to improving
conditions for learning in eligible schools through improved measurement
systems that assess conditions for learning, including school safety, and the
implementation of programmatic interventions at the school level that address
problems identified by data.

Measure 1: Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic
interventions funded by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease
in the percentage of students who report current (30-day) alcohol use.

Table 1

Cohort    FY2010   FY2011    FY2012    FY2013     FY2014    FY2014    FY2015
          Actual   Actual    Actual    Actual     Target    Actual    Target

2010      n/a       n/a      58.0      73.9       77.6      TBD      nla

The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of Safe and Supportive Schools grants. Four
measures were related to addressing the goals of the National Drug Control
Strategy. This measure was one of the four selected for that purpose.

FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, and will provide that information as part of their final reports
which are due January 1, 2016.

NOTE: The data from two grants in the FY 2010 cohort were excluded from both
the FY 2012 and FY 2013 actual percentages, as those data were deemed
invalid and not comparable to the data from the other grants in the cohort.
Grantees were advised in the Safe and Supportive Schools GPRA guidance to
include only schools that had fully implemented programmatic interventions with
fidelity. The data for the two grantees that were excluded included a significant
number of schools that were at varying stages of program implementation and
did not meet this criterion. The two grantees received additional technical
assistance related to performance data collection.


                                          2

FY 2015 Performance Targets. A performance target will not be set for FY 2015
as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, with varying project period lengths and differing project scope
and objectives.

Methodology. These measures constituted the Department's indicators of
success for the Safe and Supportive Schools grant program. Consequently, we
advised applicants for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to
these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed
program. Each grantee was required to provide, in its annual performance and
final reports , data about its progress in meeting these measures.

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award, grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.

Authorized representatives for the grant site signed the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certified that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included. Generally, the Department relied on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and did not conduct further
reviews.

The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, the techn ical
assistance contractor for the S3 grant program, provided training on data
collection. They reviewed data submitted, and worked with grantees to seek
clarifying information and provide technical assistance if grantees were having
difficulty in collecting or reporting data for this measure.

For measures related to 30-day alcohol use, States calculated the percentage of
eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experienced either
an increase or decrease in the percentage of students who reported each
behavior or experience between year 1 and year 2, and this became the basis for
the formulation of the baseline (FY 2012 actual) on which subsequent targets
were set.

Measure 2: Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic
interventions funded by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience an
increase in the percentage of students who report current (30-day) alcohol use.




                                         3

Table 2

Cohort    FY2010    FY2011    FY2012 FY2013       FY2014    FY2014 FY2015
          Actual    Actual    Actual Actual       Target    Actual Target

2010      n/a       n/a      37.0      22.6       21.5      TBD       n/a

The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of Safe and Supportive Schools grants. Four
measures were related to addressing the goals of the National Drug Control
Strategy. This measure was one of the four selected for that purpose.

FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, and will provide that information as part of their final reports
which are due January 1, 2016.

NOTE: The data from two grants in the FY 2010 cohort were excluded from both
the FY 2012 and FY 2013 actual percentages, as those data were deemed
invalid and not comparable to the data from the other grants in the cohort.
Grantees were advised in the Safe and Supportive Schools GPRA guidance to
include only schools that had fully implemented programmatic interventions with
fidelity. The data for the two grantees that were excluded included a significant
number of schools that were at varying stages of program implementation and
did not meet this criterion. The two grantees received additional technical
assistance related to performance data collection.

FY 2015 Performance Targets. A performance target will not be set for FY 2015
as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, with varying project period lengths and differing project scope
and objectives.

Methodology. These measures constituted the Department's indicators of
success for the Safe and Supportive Schools grant program. Consequently, we
advised applicants for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to
these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed
program. Each grantee was required to provide, in its annual performance and
final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award, grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.




                                         4

Authorized representatives for the grant site signed the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certified that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included. Generally, the Department relied on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and did. not conduct further
reviews.

The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, the technical
assistance contractor for the S3 grant program, provided training on data
collection. They reviewed data submitted, and worked with grantees to seek
clarifying information and provide technical assistance if grantees were having
difficulty in collecting or reporting data for this measure.

For measures related to 30-day alcohol use, States calculated the percentage of
eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experienced either
an increase or decrease in the percentage of students who reported each
behavior or experience between year 1 and year 2, and this became the basis for
the formulation of the baseline (FY 2012 actual) on which subsequent targets
were set.

Measure 3: Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic
interventions funded by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience an
improvement in their school safety score.

Table 3


Cohort    FY2010 FY2011      FY2012 FY2013        FY2014 FY2014 FY2015
          Actual Actual      Actual Actual        Target Actual Target

2010      n/a      n/a       59.0      72.9       76.5     TBD        n/a


The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of Safe and Supportive Schools grants. Four
measures were related to addressing the goals of the National Drug Control
Strategy. This measure was one of the four selected for that purpose.

NOTE: The school safety score is an index of school safety that may include the
presence and use of illegal drugs (including alcohol and marijuana).

FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, and will provide that information as part of their final reports
which are due January 1, 2016.


                                          5

NOTE: The data from two grants in the FY 2010 cohort were excluded from both
the FY 2012 and FY 2013 actual percentages, as those data were deemed
invalid and not comparable to the data from the other grants in the cohort.
Grantees were advised in the Safe and Supportive Schools GPRA guidance to
include only schools that had.fully implemented programmatic interventions with
fidelity. The data for the two grantees that were excluded included a significant
number of schools that were at varying stages of program implementation and
did not meet this criterion. The two grantees received additional technical
assistance related to performance data collection.

FY 2015 Performance Targets. A performance target will not be set for FY 2015
as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, with varying project period lengths and differing project scope
and objectives.

Methodology. These measures constituted the Department's indicators of
success for the Safe and Supportive Schools grant program. Consequently, we
advised applicants for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to
these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed
program. Each grantee was required to provide, in its annual performance and
final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award, grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.

Authorized representatives for the grant site signed the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certified that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included . Generally, the Department relied on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and did not conduct further
reviews.

The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, the technical
assistance contractor for the S3 grant program, provided training on data
collection. They reviewed data submitted, and worked with grantees to seek
clarifying information and provide technical assistance if grantees were having
difficulty in collecting or reporting data for this measure.

For measures related to school safety scores, the improvement or worsening of
scores were calculated between the year 1 and Year 2, and this became the
basis for the formulation of the baseline (FY 2012 actual) on which subsequent
targets were set.


                                         6

Measure 4: Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic
interventions funded by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience a
worsen ing in their school safety score.

Table 4


Cohort    FY2010    FY2011    FY2012    FY2013     FY2014    FY2014    FY2015
          Actual    Actual    Actual    Actual     Target    Actual    Target

2010      n/a       n/a       30.0      20.8       19.8     TBD        n/a

The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of Safe and Supportive Schools grants. Four
measures were related to addressing the goals of the National Drug Control
Strategy. This measure was one of the four selected for that purpose.

NOTE: The school safety score is an index of school safety that may include the
presence and use of illegal drugs (including alcohol and marijuana).

FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period , and will provide that information as part of their final reports
which are due January 1, 2016.

NOTE: The data from two grants in the FY 2010 cohort were excluded from both
the FY 2012 and FY 2013 actual percentages, as those data were deemed
invalid and not comparable to the data from the other grants in the cohort.
Grantees were advised in the Safe and Supportive Schools GPRA guidance to
include only schools that had fully implemented programmatic interventions with
fidelity. The data for the two grantees that were excluded included a significant
number of schools that were at varying stages of program implementation and
did not meet this criterion. The two grantees received additional technical
assistance related to performance data collection.

FY 2015 Performance Targets. A performance target will not be set for FY 2015
as most grantees are completing unfinished grant activities in a no-cost
extension period, with varying project period lengths and differing project scope
and objectives.

Methodology. T hese measures constituted the Department's indicators of
success for the Safe and Supportive Schools grant program. Consequently, we
advised applicants for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to
these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed
program. Each grantee was required to provide, in its annual performance and
final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

                                          7

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award, grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.

Authorized representatives for the grant site signed the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certified that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included. Generally, the Department relied on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and did not conduct further
reviews.

The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, the technical
assistance contractor for the S3 grant program, provided training on data
collection. They reviewed data submitted, and worked with grantees to seek
clarifying information and provide technical assistance if grantees were having
difficulty in collecting or reporting data for th is measure.

For measures related to school safety scores, the improvement or worsening of
scores were calculated between the year 1 and Year 2, and this became the
basis for the formulation of the baseline (FY 2012 actual) on which subsequent
targets were set.

                    School Climate Transformation Grant ­
                   Local Educational Agency Grants Program 


In FY 2014 the Department awarded the first round of awards under the School
Climate Transformation Grant - Local Educational Agency (LEA) Grants
program. These FY 2014 grants awards provided more than $35.8 million to 71
school districts in 23 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The
funds will be used to develop, enhance, or expand systems of support for
implementing evidence-based, multi-tiered behavioral frameworks for improving
behavioral outcomes and learning conditions for students. The goals of the
program are to connect children, youths, and families to appropriate services and
supports; improve conditions for learning and behavioral outcomes for school­
aged youths; and increase awareness of and the ability to respond to mental­
health issues among school-aged youths. School districts also will use funds to
implement models for reform and evidence-based practices that address the
school-to-prison pipeline-the unfortunate and often unintentional policies and
practices that push our nation's schoolchildren, especially those who are most at­
risk, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The
grants provide funding for up to five years, for a total of nearly $180 million.



                                         8

Drug prevention is an allowable activity. Indeed, grantees are encouraged, as
part of their local needs assessment, to measure student drug use along with
other relevant issues and problems. This local needs assessment will also be
used by grantees to help identify and select the most appropriate evidence­
based programs and practices. If the needs assessment indicates that drug
abuse is an issue for students, drug abuse prevention should be addressed by a
multi-tiered behavioral framework.

The Department has developed a variety of measures to assess the performance
of the School Olimate Transformation Grants, including (1) measures related to
increasing the capacity of LEAs to implement a multi-tiered decision-making
framework to improve behavioral and learning outcomes and (2) measures to
demonstrate the progress of LEAs in achieving those outcomes as evidence by
decreasing student disciplinary actions and increased student attendance.
Among those measures, the two discussed below are the most directly related to
the drug prevention function of this program.

Measure 1: Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease
in suspensions and expulsions, including those related to possession or use of
drugs or alcohol.

Table 5


Cohort    FY2010   FY2011    FY2012    FY2013    FY2014    FY2014   FY2015
          Actual   Actual    Actual    Actual    Target    Actual   Target

2010      n/a      nla       n/a       n/a       n/a       n/a      n/a
The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of the School Climate Transformation Grant - Local
Educational Agency Grants program. Two measures were related to addressing
the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy. This measure was one of the
two selected for that purpose.

It is expected that grantees may show progress in meeting this measure due to
improvement in school climate that results in a decrease in actual student use of
drugs or alcohol, and as a result these students do not face disciplinary action for
such use. Alternatively, grantees may show progress because they change their
disciplinary approach to student drug or alcohol use, and take a more supportive
disciplinary approach to addressing the behavior, rather than relying on
suspensions and expulsions.

To better understand the nature of substance-related discipline rules and
guidelines that may be in use around the country, the ED Institute of Education
Sciences (IES) commissioned a study to examine the features of the written


                                         9

substance-related policies for the 100 largest school districts. 1 The resulting
report indicated that districts may refer students to counseling, classes, and
community services to help students with substance use issues. In addition, in
2014, ED released a "School Discipline Guidance Package" which included a
letter describing how schools can meet their obligations under federal law to
administer student discipline without discriminating on the basis of race, color, or
national origin. 2 It also included a guidance document which draws from
emerging research and best practices to describe three key principles and
related action steps that can help guide State- and locally-controlled efforts to
improve school climate and school discipline.
FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as grantees were not required to report baseline data as part of their
applications.

FY 2015 Performance Target. A performance target has not been set for FY
2015 because baseline data are not available against which to set a FY 2015
target. FY 2017 and later targets will be set in 2016 once baseline data are
available for the FY 2014 grant cohort, based on FY 2015 and FY 2016 actual
performance data.

Methodology. These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success
for the School Climate Transformation Grant - Local Educational Agency Grants
program. Consequently, we advised applicants for a grant under this program to
give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach
and evaluation for its proposed program. Each grantee will be required to
provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in
meeting these measures.

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award, grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.

Grantees are not required to collect and report to the Department disaggregated
data corresponding to such suspensions and expulsions that are related to
possession or use of alcohol or drugs only, but a sizeable majority of grantees
already do so; and the Department will encourage the remaining grantees to do
so. Accordingly, beginning in 2016 with the baseline data for this performance
measure, the Department will also report on the number and percentage of
schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to
possession or use of alcohol (only) and on the number and percentage of


1 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124022/pdf/20124022.pdf, accessed January 16, 2015

2 www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/ index.html, accessed January 16, 2015

                                                  10 

schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to
possession or use of other drugs (only), for the grantees that provide that more
detailed data.

Authorized representatives for the grant site will sign the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certify that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included. Generally, the Department will rely on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and will not conduct further
reviews, unless data quality concerns arise. The ED-funded Technical
Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(www.pbis.org) will provide training on data collection.

Measure 2: Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing
the multi-tiered behavioral framework with fidelity.

Table 6


Cohort    FY2010 FY2011      FY2012 FY2013       FY2014 FY2014 FY2015
          Actual   Actual    Actual   Actual     Target   Actual    Target

2010      n/a      n/a       n/a      n/a        n/a      n/a       n/a

The Measure. ED established several GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of the School Climate Transformation Grant- Local
Educational Agency Grants program. Two measures were related to addressing
the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy. This measure was one of the
two selected for that purpose.

Although schools have long attempted to address issues of student disruptive
and problem behavior (including substance use, violence, and bullying), the vast
majority of our Nation's schools have not implemented comprehensive, effective
supports that address the full range of students' social, emotional, and behavioral
needs. Research demonstrates that the implementation of an evidence-based,
multi-tiered behavioral framework, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS), can help improve overall school climate and safety. A key
aspect of this multi-tiered approach is providing differing levels of support and
interventions to students based on their needs. Certain supports involve the
whole school (e.g., consistent rules, consequences, and reinforcement of
appropriate behavior), with more intensive supports for groups of students
exhibiting at-risk behavior and individualized services for students who continue
to exhibit troubling behavior.

This second measure supports the drug prevention function of this program
because a school that is implementing a multi-tiered behavioral framework with

                                        11 

fidelity can be expected to be a school where any prevention program(s) ­
including drug prevention program(s) - selected for implementation is (1) an
evidence-based program and (2) has an improved chance of being implemented
more effectively. This measure is designed to inform whether the LEA School
Climate Transformation Grants result in such increased capacity.

FY 2014 Performance Results. There are no FY 2014 performance data to
report as grantees were not required to report baseline data as part of their
applications.

FY 2015 Performance Target. A performance target has not been set for FY
2015 because baseline data are not available against which to set a FY 2015
target. FY 2016 and later targets will be set in 2016 once baseline data are
available for the FY 2014 grant cohort.

Methodology. These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success
for the School Climate Transformation Grant - Local Educational Agency Grants
program. Consequently, we advised applicants for a grant under this program to
give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach
and evaluation for its proposed program. Each grantee will be required to
provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in
meeting these measures.

To receive funds after the initial year of a multiyear award , grantees must
submit an annual continuation performance report that describes the progress
the project has made toward meeting the predefined benchmarks and
milestones. This performance report also provides program staff with data
related to the GPRA measures established for the program.

Authorized representatives for the grant site will sign the annual performance
report and, in doing so, certify that to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief, all data in the performance report were true and correct and that the report
fully disclosed all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and
completeness of the data included. Generally, the Department will rely on the
certification concerning data supplied by grantees and will not conduct further
reviews, unless data quality concerns arise.

The ED-funded Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (www.pbis.org) will provide training on data collection.




                                         12 

Assertions
                          Performance Reporting System

The Department of Education has a system in place to capture performance
information accurately and that system was properly applied to generate the
performance data in this report. In instances in which data are supplied by
grantees as part of required periodic performance reports, the data that are
supplied are accurately reflected in this report.

Data related to the drug control programs included in this Performance Summary
Report for Fiscal Year 2014 are recorded in the Department of Education's
software for recording performance data and are an integral part of our budget
and management processes.

               Explanations for Not Meeting Performance Targets

The explanations provided in the Performance Summary report for Fiscal Year
2014 for not meeting performance targets and for recommendations for plans to
revise performance targets are reasonable given past experience, available
information, and available resources.

               Methodology for Establishing Performance Targets

The methodology described in the Performance Summary Report for Fiscal Year
2014 to establish performance targets for the current year is reasonable given
past performance and available resources.

          Performance Measures for Significant Drug Control Activities

The Department of Education has established at least one acceptable
performance measure for each Drug Control Decision Unit identified in its
Detailed Accounting of Fiscal Year 2014 Drug Control Funds.

Criteria for Assertions


No workload or participant data support the assertions provided in this report.
Sources of quantitative data used in the report are well documented. These data
are the most recently available and are identified by the year in which the data
was collected.

                           Other Estimation Methods

No estimation methods other than professional judgment were used to make the
required assertions. When professional judgment was used, the objectivity and
strength of those judgments were explained and documented. Professional


                                       13 

judgment was used to establish targets for programs until data from at least one
grant cohort were available to provide additional information needed to set more
accurate targets. We routinely re-evaluate targets set using professional
judgment as additional information about actual performance on measures
becomes available.

                               Reporting Systems

Reporting systems that support the above assertions are current, reliable, and an
integral part of the Department of Education's budget and management
processes. Data collected and reported for the measures discussed in this report
are stored, or will be stored , in the Department of Education's Visual
Performance System (VPS). Data from the VPS are used in developing annual
budget requests and justifications, and in preparing reports required under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended by the GPRA
Modernization Act of 2010.




                                       14 

                              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
                                              OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                                                                                              AUDIT SERVICES



February 13, 2015


TO:           David Esquith
              Director, Office of Safe and Healthy Students
              Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

FROM:         Patrick J. Howard /s/
              Assistant Inspector General for Audit

SUBJECT:      Office of Inspector General’s Independent Report on the U.S. Department of
              Education’s Performance Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2014, dated
              February 11, 2015

Attached is our authentication of management’s assertions contained in the U.S. Department of
Education’s Performance Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2014, dated February 11, 2015, as
required by section 705(d) of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (21 U.S.C. § 1704(d)).

Our authentication was conducted in accordance with the guidelines stated in the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Circular: Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance
Summary, dated January 18, 2013.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the contents of this authentication, please contact
Michele Weaver-Dugan, Director, Operations Internal Audit Team, at (202) 245-6941.

Attachment




                              400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510

              Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
                          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
                                          OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                                                                                             AUDIT SERVICES




Office of Inspector General’s Independent Report on the U.S. Department of Education’s
Performance Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2014, dated February 11, 2015

We have reviewed management’s assertions contained in the accompanying Performance

Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2014, dated February 11, 2015 (Performance Summary Report).

The U.S. Department of Education’s management is responsible for the Performance Summary

Report and the assertions contained therein.


Our review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards for attestation review engagements. A review is substantially less in scope than an

examination, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on management’s

assertions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.


We performed review procedures on the “Performance Summary Information,” “Assertions,”

and “Criteria for Assertions” contained in the accompanying Performance Summary Report. In

general, our review procedures were limited to inquiries and analytical procedures appropriate

for our review engagement. We did not perform procedures related to controls over the

reporting system noted in the attached report.


Based on our review, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that

management’s assertions, contained in the accompanying Performance Summary Report, are

not fairly stated in all material respects, based upon the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Circular: Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated 

January 18, 2013.




Patrick J. Howard /s/

Assistant Inspector General for Audit





                              400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510

              Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.