oversight

Need To Improve Policies and Procedures for Approving Grants Under the Emergency School Assistance Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-03-05.

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

REPORT TO THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON EQUAL
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY




    ed
  rocedu                         rowing Grants 3r
                                 cy School ’
  ssistan                         8  -764031(I)

                           /f
Department of Health,   Education,
  and Welfare  -




BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
               COMPTROLLER      GENERAL     OF    THE       UNITED   STATES
                              WASHINGTON     DC         20548




B-164031(1)




Dear    Mr    Chairman

         This    1s our report      on the need to improve        pollcles     and
procedures        for approving        grants under    the Emergency        School
Assistance       Program       administered      by the Department         of
Health,     Education,      and Welfare,      Our review     was made
pursuant      to your    request     of November      24, 1970

                                                 Sincerely           yours,




                                                 Comptroller              General
                                                 of the United            States

The Honorable           Walter     F. Mondale
Chairman,        Select     Committee      on
    Equal   Educataonal        Opportunity
United    States     Senate




              50TH ANNIVERSARY             1921- 1971
3MPTROLLERGENERAL'SREPOFTTO                                         NEED TO IMPROVEPOLICIES AND
ZfLECTCOMMITTEEON E&uRI;                        *a   *c             PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER
332U'IONAL OPPORTVNITY                                              THE EMERGENCY SCHOOLASSISTANCE
XTED STATESSENATE                                                   PROGRAM
                                                                    Department of Health,       Education,    and
                                                                    Welfare B-164031(1)


   ;GEST
------

3Y THE REVIEWWASMADE
     At the request of the Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational           Opportu-
     nity, the General Accounting       Off1 ce (GAO) revlewed the pol lcles and procedures of the
     Department of Health,     Education,    and Welfare (HEW) for approving  grants of Federal
     funds to school districts      to defray the costs of meeting special    problems arising    from
     school desegregation

     To meet the emergency needs of school districts       that were desegregatig$,       the President,
     on May 25, 1970, requested that the Congress appropriate,          under SIX existing    legisla-
     tive authontles,    $150 mllllon  to be made available     immediately   to these school dls-
     tricts    On August 18, 1970, the Congress appropriated        one half of this amount and
     thereby established   the Emergency School Assistance      Program

     In accordance with the Committee's           request,  GAO selected  grants made to 50 school dls-
     tracts for its review of approval procedures              The 50 grants$    hlch were made by five
     of the HEW regional      offices,    totaled    about $14 million,  or abou% 25 percent of the ap-
     proximately  $55 mllllon       in grants made to 793 school districts       as oKNovember  13, 1970

     This review was conducted at HEW headquarters,     Washington,    D C , and at five HEW re-
     glonal offlces     No work was done at the grantee school districts         Consequently, this
     report does not contain comments on the procedures     and expenditures     of the school dls-
     tncts   relating to these grants     As a follow on to this review, GAO plans to make re-
     views at the school districts    to examine into the expenditures     of the grant funds

     The Office of Education  and HEW have not been given an opportunity   to formally examine
     and comment on this report,  although most of the matters were discussed with agency
     officials


?INDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
     Procedural Weaknesses
     GAO believes    that,  in many cases, school districts       did not submit with their            appllca-
     tlons,   nor did HEW reglonal    offices obtain,  sufficient     information to enable            a proper
     determtnat-ron    that the grants were made in accordance with program regulations                  or that
     the grants were in line with the purpose of the program.

     Most of the appllcatlons       did not contain        comprehensive     statements    of the problems
     faced in achieving       and malntalnlng      desegregated    school systems, nor did they contain
     adequate descrlptlons       of the proposed actlvltles         deslgned to comprehensively         and effec-
     tively    meet such problems         Particularly,     there was a lack of documentation         in the re-
     gional files      as to how the proposed act.lvltles         would meet the special        needs of the
      children   incident   to the ellmlnatlon        of racial   segregation      and dlscnmlnatlon     in the
     schools       (See pp 26, 45, and 55 )

     Therefore   GAO believes that the applications      in many cases did not provide HEW with                 an
     adequate means for determining   that proJect approvals      were based upon consideration                 of
     such required   factors as the applicants'     needs for assistance,   the relative  potential



                                                          1
of the proJects,     or the extent to which the proJects    dealt   with   the problems   faced   by
the school districts      In desegregating their schools

The flies   supportlng    most of the grants   revlewed did not evidence full compliance by
the school dlstncts       with the regulations concerning the formation of biracial     and stu-
dent advisory committees        Also most of the applications   did not contalng contrary to
the regulations,      adequate descnptlons    of the methods, procedures, or ObJective cnte-
na that could be used by an independent organization         to evaluate the effectiveness   of
each proJect       (See pp 38, 39, 47, 51, 58, 61, 67, and 69 )

Officials   in HEW's Atlanta Reglonal Office which made 28 of the 50 grants reviewed,
told GAO that they generally did not have detailed information beyond that 1r-1the
proJect files concerning the program activities      set forth in the applications    Some
said that they did not have time, prior to grant approval, to seek addltlonal      informa.
tion and had to rely on school district    officials   to identify the maJor problems which
the dlstncts    faced in desegregating their schools and to propose programs to deal
with those problems

Ofhclals    In HEW's Dallas Regional Office, which made 12 of the grants agreed, in gen-
eral, that many of the applications      did not contain adequate statements of the problems
or descriptions of the activities      designed to meet these problems    Officials   in both
the Dallas and Phlladelphla Regional Offices --the Philadelphia office made seven of the
grants revlewed--told     GAO that they had satisfied   themselves ~7th respect to the merits
of the proJects, prior to proJect approval, on the basis of their knowledge of the
school dlstncts'     problems and of their contacts with school offlclals     to obtain addl-
tlonal information    as consldered necessary      There was an almost complete lack of docu-
mentatlon 1t-1the flies with respect to the addltlonal      lnformatlon that was known to, or
obtalned by these regional officials      on the basis of which they had determlned that the
proJ ects merited approval
In the Kansas City and San Francisco Regional Offlces which approved a total of three
applications,    the appllcatlons seemed to have provided sufficient   lnformatlon to enable
regional officials    to determine that the proposed actlvltles   were In line with the pur-
poses of the program

!lhmsfer   of property   zn Louzszma

GAO noted that Lou?siana law requires that school districts       furnish school books and
school supplies to students in private schools and provides that transportation           may
be furnished to students attending parochial schools        HEWregional offlclals      con-
tacted 14 Louisiana school districts    prior to grant approval and determined that the
maJonty had transferred    property or had provided transportation       to private schools
under the State law     For the two Louisiana dlstrtcts    included In GAO's review, HEW
determined that neither district    had transferred  property or had provided transporta-
tion to private schools     HEWdecided to certify    that the Louisiana school dlstncts
were ellglble  for program funding lf it had no lndlcatlons      of ctvll   rights vlolatlons
other than the transfers allowed by Louisiana law

QuestwnabZe Sztuatzons

GAO belleves that HEWshould have questioned,       prior   to grant approval,     the following
situations  noted during GAO's review

  --One school dlstnct     appeared to have been ineligible   to participate in the program,
     because it had entered the terminal phase of its desegregation plan prior to the
     time period specified in the regulations for eliglblllty        After GAO brought the
     situation  to the attention  of HEWofficials,   payments under the grant were sus-
     pended, pendIng a flnal determ?natlon of ellglbil7ty       (See p 20 )

  --Information    pertaining   to another school district  indicated that      program funds may
     have been used, contrary to regulations,     to supplant non-Federal       funds available
     to the district    prior to approval of its grant     (See p 37 )


                                             2
         --Information        in the regional    files   at the time that one dlstrlct's       appllcatlon  was
             reviewed     showed that the rat?o of mlnonty          to nonminority  faculty    ln each school
             wlthln    the dlstnct      was not substantially     the same as the ratio     for the entlre
             school system,      contrary   to the regulatTons         (See p. 59 )

       GAO noted another       case where 1nformatlon   that had become avaIlable   after    the grant                was
       made indicated      that program funds may have been used to supplant      non-Federal    funds
       otherwIse    avallable     to the school dlstnct      (See p 37 )

       Reasons for      Weaknesses
       GAO believes     that the weaknesses         In the HEW procedures       and practices  were due, to a
       large degree,      to HEW's policy      of emphaslzlng        the emergency nature of the program and to
       its desire   for expedltlous       funding,       at the expense of a more thorough      review  and evalu-
       ation of school dlstncts'           appllcatlons,       particularly    as to the adequacy of described
       program actlvltles      In satlsfylng        program requirements

       GAO believes    that,   to overcome the weaknesses         in    the HEW grant approval     procedures,      HEW
       should undertake      a strong   monltonng    program to        help ensure that the grant funds al-
       ready made avallable        to the school dlstncts       are     being used solely    for program purposes
       and not for educatlonal        assistance  in general           GAO recognizes   that postgrant     reviews
       at certain   grantee    school dlstncts      are currently         being made by HEW regional      offlclals

                                                                                                               .
RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS

       GAO belleves    that,  in the event addltlonal       Federal       fundlng    IS authorized      for slml lar
       assistance   to school districts      to defray   the costs        of meeting special       problems    ar 'ising
       from the desegregation      of elementary     and secondary        schools,    HEW should strengthen          1 ts
       procedures   for approval    of grants    to school districts              Such action    should

         --Provide      sufficient    time for reglonal   olf~c~als    to make a thorough      review and eval-
            uation     of each appllcatlon      received so that approval      will be based on an under-
            standlng      of the problems    faced in achlevlng     and malntatmng     a desegregated      school
            system     and on an adequate determination        that the proposed    actlvltles      are designed
            to meet      such problems

          --Require     that all lnformatlon        relied    upon in approving    school district      applications,
             whether    obtained   orally   or in writing,         be made a matter of record      so that the ba-
             sis upon     which grant approvals        are made ~111 be readily       avallable    to HEW program
             managers     or to others    authorized       to review   the conduct of the program

          --Provide     for an effective      monitoring     system to help ensure that (1) grant funds
             made available        to the school    dlstncts      are being used for the purposes    specified
             In their     applications    and (2) the school dlstncts          are complying  with HEW regula-
             tions    on nondlscnmlnatlon        as well as with the other assurances        given in their    ap-
             plications




Tear    Sheet
                                       Cont.ents
                                                                                              Page
DIGEST                                                                                          1
CHAPTER

   1      INTRODUCTION
              Establishment      of program
              Descrlptlon     of program
              Allotment     of funds to States
              Program statrstlcs
              Basis for selection       of grants         to be reviewed

   2      MAJOR PROGRAMREQUIREMENTS                                                            11
              Priorities   In approval     of appllcatlons                                     11
              Authorized  actlvltles      under program                                        11
              ProJect application      requirements                                            12
              Community and student partlclpatlon          In program                          12

   3      CONCLUSIONS ON REVIEW OF HEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
            APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP                                                        14
              Need to strengthen grant approval procedures                                     16
   4      COMMENTSON HEW ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES FOR
            APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP                                                        17
              Ellglblllty         and fundlng        of school dlstrlcts                       19
                     Apparently       Inel-Lglble      dlstrlct      approved   for ESAP
                         grant                                                                 20
                     Complaint       agaxnst grantee          school dlstrxt        on
                         teacher     dlscrlmlnatlon         upheld by Department         of
                         Justice                                                               21
                     Inquiry      concerning      downgradlng        of black prlncl-
                         pals                                                                  21
                     Indication       of dlscrlmlnatlon           in assignment      of
                          students                                                             22
              ProJect potential            and content                                         26
              Supplementxng          and supplanting          of funds                         37
              Adequacy of procedures               for evaluation        of proJect
                  effectiveness                                                                38
              Transfer        of property       to nonpubllc        segregated    schools      38
              Teacher and staff            assignment       and segregated       classes       38
              Establishment          of advisory        committees                             39
              Publication          of proJect      terms                                       40

   5      COMMENTSON HEW DALLAS REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES FOR
            APPROVING GRANTS UNDEX ESAP                                                        41
              Ellglblllty      and funding   of school districts                               42
              ProJect potential       and content                                              45
              Supplementing      and supplanting    of funds                                   47
              Adequacy of procedures       for evaluation     of proJect
                 effectiveness                                                                 47
CHAPTER                                                                                   Page

                Transfer    of property     to nonpubllc     segregated   schools          49
                     Transfer   of property      under LouxsxaI>a lax                      49
                Teacher and staff       assignment    and segregated    classes            50
                Establxhment      of advisory      committees                              51
                Publxatlon     of proJect     terms                                        52

       6   COMMENTSON HEW PHILADELPHIA REKIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES
             FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP                                               53
               Ellglblllty         and fundlng      of school dlstrxts                     54
               ProJect potential           and content                                     55
               Supplementing          and supplantlng        of funds                      58
               Adequacy of procedures             for evaluation       of proJect
                  effectiveness                                                            58
               Transfer       of property      to nonpublic       segregated   schools     58
               Teacher and staff           assignment      and employment of con-
                  sultants                                                                 59
                      Dlsparlty       In the ratlo       of mlnorlty    to nonmlnorlty
                          faculty     In certain      schools                              59
               Segregated         classes                                                  61
               Establishment          of advisory      committees                          61
               Publlcatlon         of proJect     terms                                    62

       7   COMMENTS ON HEW SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES
             FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP                                               63

       8   COMMENTS ON HEW KANSAS CITY REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES
             FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP                                               71

       9   SCOPE OF REVIEW                                                                 78

APPENDIX

       I   Statlstlcs   relating   to partlclpatxon          ln Emergency School
             Assistance    Program In HEW regions          included   in GAO's
              review                                                                       81

   1-C     Breakdown by State of number and amount of grants made un-
              der the Emergency School Assistance Program as of Novem-
             ber 13, 1970                                                                  82

 III       Grants under     the Emergency      School   Assistance     Program     se-
             lected for     GAO review                                                     84

   IV      Letter   dated November 24, 1970, from the Chairman,                  Senate
              Select Committee on Equal Educational  Opportunity,                  to
              the Comptroller   General                                                    86

                                        ABBREVIATIONS

ESAP       Emergency School Assistance        Program
GAO        General Accounting    Office
HEW        DeDartment of Health,      Education,    and Welfare
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REPORT TO                                          NEED TO IMPROVE POLlCIES AND
SELECT COMMITTEE ON EQUAL                                                PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY                                                  THE EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE                                                     PROGRAM
                                                                         Department     of Health, Education, and
                                                                         Welfare    B-164031(1)


 DIGEST
------


WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

      At the request    of the ChaIrman,     Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational       Opportu-
      nity,  the General Accounting     Office    (GAO) reviewed   the policies  and procedures   of the
      Department  of Health,   Education,      and Welfare   (HEW) for approving  grants  of Federal
      funds to school dlstncts      to defray the costs of meeting special        problems anslng      from
      school desegregation

      To meet the emergency needs of school dlstncts           that were desegregating,       the President,
      on May 25, 1970, requested      that the Congress appropriate,        under SIX existing    leglsla-
      tlve authorities,    $150 mllllon    to be made available     lmmedlately   to these school dls-
      tncts     On August 18, 1970, the Congress       appropriated     one half of this amount and
      thereby  establlshed   the Emergency School Assistance        Program

      In accordance    with the Committee's          request,  GAO selected  grants made to 50 school dls-
      tncts    for Its review of approval           procedures    The 50 grants,   which were made by five
      of the HEW regional      offices,     totaled     about $14 million,  or about 25 percent   of the ap-
      proximately    $55 mllllon      in grants made to 793 school districts        as of November 13, 1970

      This review was conducted     at HEW        headquarters,   Washington,    D C , and at five HEW re-
      gional offices     No work was done          at the grantee   school districts        Consequently, this
      report  does not contain    comments        on the procedures    and expenditures     of the school dls-
      tncts   relating to these grants             As a follow   on to this review,     GAO plans to make re-
      views at the school districts     to        examine into the expenditures       of the grant funds.

      The Office of Education   and HEW have not been given an opportunity   to formally  examine
      and comment on this report,   although most of the matters were discussed    with agency
      offlclals


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

      PmceduraZ     Weaknesses
      GAO belleves     that,    in many cases, school dlstncts           did not submit with their             appllca-
      tions,   nor did HEW      regional   offices   obtain, suffic-rent     information to enable             a proper
      detennlnation      that   the grants     were made In accordance      with program regulations             or that
      the grants    were in     line with the purpose of the program

      Most of the applications      did not contain            comprehensive       statements     of the problems
      faced in achieving      and maintaining       desegregated        school systems,        nor did they contain
      adequate descrlptlons      of the proposed         activities      designed       to comprehensively      and effec-
      tively   meet such problems        Particularly,           there was a lack of documentation            in the re-
      glonal files     as to how the proposed         activities       would meet the special           needs of the
      children   Incident   to the elimlnatlon         of racial       segregation        and dlscrlmlnatlon     in the
      schools      (See pp 26, 45, and 55 )

      Therefore   GAO believes  that the applications      In many cases did not provide   HEW with                     an
      adequate means for determining    that proJect      approvals were based upon conslderatlon                       of
      such required   factors  as the applicants'     needs for assistance,   the relative  potential
of the proJects,    or the extent to which the proJects                dealt   with   the problems    faced by
the school dlstr?cts     In desegregating their schools

The    flies     support-rng most of the grants revlewed did not evidence full compliance              by
the    school dlstrlcts        with the regulations     concerning  the formation   of biracial     and stu-
dent      advisory committees         Also most of the applications      did not contain,    contrary to
the    regulations,        adequate descriptions    of the methods, procedures,     or ObJective cnte-
na     that could be used by an Independent           organlzatlon    to evaluate the effectiveness       of
each     proJect.      (See pp 38, 39, 47, 51, 58, 61, 67, and 69 )

Offlclals     ln HEW's Atlanta    Regional Ofhce which made 28 of the 50 grants reviewed,
told GAO that they generally        did not have detalled       lnformat~on     beyond that in the
proJect files     concerning   the program activities      set forth in the applications           Some
said that they did not have time, prior to grant approval,                 to seek additional   informa-
tion and had to rely on school district          officials    to identify     the maJor problems which
the districts     faced in desegregating    their schools and to propose programs to deal
with those problems

Officials      in HEW's Dallas Regional Office,           which made 12 of the grants agreed, in gen-
eral, that many of the applications               did not contain adequate statements             of the problems
or descriptions        of the actlvlties        designed to meet these problems.           Officials     in both
the Dallas and Philadelphia            Regional Offices--the     Phlladelphla      offlce made seven of the
grants revlewed--told          GAO that they had satisfied        themselves with respect to the merits
of the proJects,        prior to proJect approval , on the basis of their knowledge of the
school dlstncts'         problems and of their contacts with school officials                   to obtain addl-
tlonal    lnfortnatlon     as considered       necessary    There was an almost complete lack of docu-
mentatlon      in the hles with respect to the additional              information      that was known to, or
obtained     by these regional       officials      on the basis of which they had determlned              that the
proJects merited        approval
In the Kansas City and San Francisco Regional           Offices which approved a total of three
applications,         the appllcatlons  seemed to have provided sufficient    information  to enable
regional      officials    to determine  that the proposed actlvltles    were in line with the pur-
poses of the program

Transfer    of pl~opsrty   zn Louzszana
GAO noted that Louisiana         law requires     that school districts          turnlsh    school books and
school supplies      to students in private         schools and provides that transportatton               may
be furnished     to students attending        parochial    schools.       HEW regional      offlclals    con-
tacted 14 Louisiana       school districts       prior to grant approval and determined               that the
maJor-rty had transferred       property or had provided transportation                  to private   schools
under the State law          For the two Louisiana        dtstncts      included      in GAO's review, HEW
determined    that neither     district    had transferred       property or had provided transporta-
tion to private      schools      HEW decided to certify         that the Louisiana         school districts
were eligible     for program funding if it had no indications                 of civil     rights vlolatlons
other than the transfers        allowed by Louisiana         law

Questzonalde      S%tuatzons

GAO believes    that HEW should have questioned,            prior   to grant    approval,     the following
situations   noted during GAO's review

  --One school district     appeared to have been lnellglble           to participate     in the program,
     because 1-t had entered the terminal       phase of its desegregation           plan prior to the
     time period speclfled     in the regulations      for ellglbility         After GAO brought the
     situation  to the attention     of HEW officials,        payments under the grant were sus-
     pended, pending a finaT determination         of eligibility        (See p 20 )
  --Information     pertaining    to another school        district   indicated that        program funds may
    have been used, contrary        to regulations,        to supplant non-Federal          funds available
    to the district       prior to approval of its         grant     (See p 37 )


                                                     2
      --Information    In the reglonal  files at the time that one district's   appllcatTon was
          reviewed showed that the ratlo of mlnonty      to nonminority faculty in each school
          wlthln the dlstrlct  was not substantially   the same as the ratio for the entire
          school system, contrary to the regulations       (See p. 59 )
    GAO noted another case where information    that had become available after the grant was
    made indicated   that program funds may have been used to supplant non-Federal  funds
    otherwise available   to the school dlstnct      (See p 37 )
    Rmmms for Wealuzesses
    GAO believes     that the weaknesses in the HEW procedures and practices              were due, to a
    large degree, to HEW's policy of emphasizing                the emergency nature of the program and to
    its desire for expedltlous         funding,     at the expense of a more thorough review and evalu-
    ation of school dsstncts'          applscatlons,      particularly    as to the adequacy of described
    program activities      in satisfying       program requirements.

    GAO belleves    that, to overcome the weaknesses in the HEW grant approval procedures,             HEW
    should undertake     a strong monltor'lng    program to help ensure that the grant funds al-
    ready made available      to the school dlstncts       are being used solely for program purposes
    and not for educational      assistance   in general      GAO recognizes  that postgrant   reviews
    at certain   grantee school dlstncts        are currently   being made by HEW regional   ofhclals.


RECOMdENL'ATIONS
              ORSUGGESTIONS
    GAO believes   that,   in the event additional     Federal fundlng 1s authorized     for similar
    assistance   to school districts     to defray the costs of meeting special problems arising
    from the desegregation      of elementary   and secondary schools, HEW should strengthen         its
    procedures for approval of grants to school fllstncts             Such action should
      --Provide      sufficient   time for regional  officials    to make a thorough review and eval-
         uation     of each application    received so that approval will be based on an under-
         standing     of the problems faced in achieving       and malntalmng   a desegregated   school
         system     and on an adequate determination      that the proposed activities     are designed
         to meet     such problems
      --Require   that all information      relied    upon in approving   school dlstnct     appllcatlons,
         whether obtained orally     or III writing,      be made a matter of record so that the ba-
         sis upon which grant approvals are made will be readily            available    to HEW program
         managers or to others authorized          to review the conduct of the program

      --Provide     for an effective    monitoring system to help ensure that (1) grant funds
         made available    to the school dlstrlcts     are being used for the purposes speclfled
         in their applications       and (2) the school dtstncts    are complying with HEW regula-
         tions on nondsscnmlnation        as well as with the other assurances given in their ap-
         plications




                                                    3
                                         CHAPTER1

                                        INTRODUCTION

       In response to a request dated November 24, 1970 (see app. IV>, from
the Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational     Opportunity, we
reviewed the policies    and procedures of HEW for approving grants of Federal
funds to school distracts    to defray the costs of meeting special problems
arzslng from school desegregation.      Thus program is known as the Emergency
School Assistance Program (ESAP)
        Our review included an examination of the documentation In the HEW
files and discussions       with HEW officials   relating   to selected grants re-
ported by the Office of Educatzon as having been made to school districts
by the HEM regional offices         through November 13, 1970. All but one of the
reported grants were made by five of the RRWregional offices.               We made re-
views at these five regional offices but did not make reviews at the school
districts.       Consequently,   this report does not contain comments on the pro-
cedures and expenditures        of the school districts   relating    to these grants.
As a follow on to this review, we plan to make reviews at the school dls-
tricts     to examine Into the expenditures     of the grant funds.
ESTAl3LISHMfZNTOF PROGRAM
     On %rch 24, 1970, the President of the United States issued a state-
ment on school desegregation,       saying that he would recommend an expenditure
of $1.5 billion--$500     million   in fiscal   year 1971 and $1 billion    in fiscal
year 1972--to assist local school authorities         in therr efforts    to desegre-
gate   Proposed legislation       to authorize   these expenditures    was rncluded in
the President's     message to the Congress on May 21, 1970. This legislation
was not enacted by the Ninety-first         Congress.
        In his May 21, 1970, message to the Congress, the President anticipated
that final action on this legislation         would not be completed in time to deal
with the most pressing problems of school drstricts          that were in the pro-
cess of desegregating       and those that had to desegregate by the fall of 1970.
To meet the emergency needs of such school districts,           the President,    on
May 25, 1970, requested that the Congress approprrate,            under six existing
legislative    authorities,    $150 million   to be made available    immediately    to
school districts     undergoing desegregation.      In response, the Congress, on
August 18, 1970, appropriated        one half of the amount requested by the Presi-
dent, or $75 million,       and thereby established   ESAP
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
        ESAP provides financial assistance  in the form of grants to school
districts    to defray the costs of meeting special problems arising from the
desegregation of elementary and secondary schools.        Statutory authority to
carry out ESAP is contained in the following      separate acts.
      1. The Education    Professions     Development Act,   part D (20 U.S C.
         1119-1119a).
     2. The Cooperative      Research Act (20 U.S C. 331-332b).
     3. The &vi1    Rights    Act of 1964, title   IV (42 U.S.C.   2000c-2OOOc-9)
     4. The Elementary and Secondary Education        Act of 1965,sectlon   807
        (20 U.S.C. 887)
     5. The Elementary and Secondary Education        Amendments of 1967, section
        402 (20 U.S C. 1222).
     6. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, title II (42 U.S.C.
        2781-2837) (under authority delegated to the Secretary of Health,
        Education, and Welfare).
       The regulations  governing the administration   of ESAP by DEWwere pub-
lished in the Federal Register on August 22, 1970. The Commrssloner of Edu-
cation, who was vested with responsibility      for adminIsterIng     ESAP, delegated
this responsLbllity    to the Office of Education's   Dlvlslon of Equal Educa-
tlonal Opportunities.     The Office of Education's   representatives     in each
of the 10 HEW regional offices were given the responsibility          for renewing
and approving grant applications     received from the school districts
      Under ESAP, a school drstrlct    1s eligible    for financial  assistance if
(1) it 1s desegregating    its schools under a final State or Federal court
order or under a voluntary plan approved by HEW as meeting the nondlscrlrm-
nation requirements   of title  VI of the Cavil Rights Act of 1964 and (2) it
commenced the terminal phase of such plan or court order by the opening of
the 1970-71 academic year or had commenced such termrnal phase during the
1968-69 or 1969-70 academic year.      The regulations    define terminal phase
as that phase of a desegregation plan at which the school district           begins
operating a unitary school system-- one within which no person 1s effectively
excluded from any school because of race or color.
       Applications    for assistance under ESAP are submitted to HEW's regional
offices    for evaluation    and approval or disapproval.    According to HEW offl-
clals, applications       were to be reviewed by regional Office of Education per-
sonnel for adequacy of program content and adherence to the ESAP regulations
Also, personnel from HEW's Office for Civil Rights located in either the re-
gional or Washington offices were to review the applications          for compliance
with civil     rights matters.     Review for compliance with the legal aspects of
the regulations      was to be performed by personnel from the HEW Office of Gen-
eral Counsel.
      Funds under ESAF' may be used for such purposes as hiring additIona
teachers and teacher aides, provldlng gurdance and counseling and other dl-
rect servrces to school children,   revising school curriculums,   purchasing
special equipment, undertaking minor remodeling,    supporting community pro-
grams, and financing  other costs conszdered necessary to effectively     carry
out a desegregation plan.
ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS TO STATES

       The ESAP regulatrons      provide   that the CommissLoner of Education         dlstrib-
ute ESAR funds among the States by allotting             an amount to each State which
bears the same ratio       to the total amount of funds available         as does the total
number of minority     group children,       aged 5 to 17 inclusive,    Jn the eligible
school districts    XI that State to the total number of such minority              group
children   in all eligrble      school dlstrrcts     in all States,,   The regulations         re-
quire that a State in no event receive           more than 12.5 percent     of the total
funds allotted.     The regulations      provide    also that the number of minority
group children,    aged 5 to 17 rncluslve,        in the school districts     be determined
by the Commissioner      on the basis of the most recent satisfactory          data avall-
able to him.

       In late August 1970 HEW identified         1,319 school districts        that were con-
sidered to be potentially       eligible    for ESAP funds and used the number of ml-
norlty   group children    in these districts       as a basis for allotting        the funds
to the States.      Most of the statistics       on minority    group children      in the
school districts     were based on a 1969 Office        for Civil     Rights survey.       For
some school districts,      however,     a comblnatlon    of information     obtained    by
the Office    of Education   and the Department of Justice          which pertained      to 1968
was used because 1969 data was not available.

       Office    of Education     records showed that 25 States and one Territory                      had
been allotted      funds under the program.         The records       further       showed that the
allotment     for Texas, if computed on the basis of the prescribed                      formula,
would have been greater         than the 12.5-percent       limitation         because of the large
number of minority        group children      in the potentially        eligible       schooldrstricts
in that State.        Therefore     the allotment   for Texas was set at 12 5 percent of
the total funds available           for grants to school districts             within    the States,
the maximum amount allowable            under the regulations.

       DEW records showed also that the Office            of Education  had not applied
the prescribed     formula to determine        the allotment   for the Virgin    Islands but
had reserved     a $50,000 allotment       for the territory.      This amount was deter-
mined-to bereasonable        by the Office     of Education   on the basis of the pre-
scribed percentages       or stated maximums forterritorlescontained           in other
Office   of Education     program legislation.

      The amounts allotted         for school districts      within     the 24 States, exclu-
sive of Texas and the Virgin           Islands,    averaged  about $18.65 for each minor-
ity child In their      potentially       eligible    school districts.       The average
amount allotted      to Texas was about $17.70 for each minority                child;  and for
the Virgin    Islands,   the average amount for each minority              child was $3.93.

        The ESAP regulations       also state that the part of any State's        allotment
which is determined        by the Commissioner     as not needed may be reallotted        so
that each State receives         the same proportion       as that it received   of the
original    allotments     and that appropriate      adjustments   may be made to ensure
that no State receives        a portion    of the funds being reallotted       rn excess of
its needs.       Although no reallotment       of ESAP funds had been made at the time
of our review,       public notice was printed       in the Federal Register     on Janu-
ary 27, 1971, that a reallotment           would be made as of March 1, 1971,
PROGRAMSTATISTICS
      Office of Education statistics        show that 18,224 school districts      in the
United States were operating public schools in the fall of 1969. Of these
school drstricts,     8,611--located     in 26 States and the District     of Columbia--
were under the Jurisdiction        of the five HEW regional offices whose proce-
dures under ESAP were subJect to our review.            Of the 8,611 school districts,
1,271 were identified      by HEW as potentially     eligible  for assistance under
ESAP as of August 26, 1970, pending final review and determination             by HEW.
Of these school districts,        792 were reported by the Office of Education as
having received financial       grants through November 13, 1970. Detailed statis-
tics relating     to program participation     in the HEW regions included in our
review are shown m appendix I.
        Of the $75 million appropriated   for ESAP, $3.6 million    was reserved for
the costs of Federal administration      and evaluation   of the program.    Of the
remaining $71.4 million,    10 percent ($7.14 million)     was reserved for making
grants to private nonprofit     agencies and public agencies other than school
districts,    as required by the regulations,    and $64.26 mllllon   was reserved
for making grants to school districts.
         The first grant under ESAP--made to the Jackson, Mississippi,   school
dlstrlct     in the amount of $1.3 millron--was  approved by the Acting Commls-
sloner of Education on August 27, 1970. By November 13, 1970, 793 grants
totaling     over $55 million were reported by the Office of Education as having
been made. The following      table, prepared from HEW reports,   shows a break-
down by each regional office of the number and amount of these grants.         A
further breakdown by State of the number and amount of these grants 1s shown
in appendix II.
                                          Number
                                             of         Percent       Amount       Percent of
                                          grants       of total          of      total amount
               HEW region                  made         grants        grants        of grants

Region         I--Boston                                          $     -
  11
             II--New York                     1            0.1          45,000         0.1
  11
           III--Philadelphia                 59            7.5      4,696,253          8.5
  II
             IV--Atlanta                    530           66.8     36,194,038         65.2
  11
               V--Chicago
  II
             VI--Dallas-Fort      Worth     200           25.2     14,324,921         25.8
  II
           VII--Kansas       City             1            0.1          57,385         0.1
  II
          VIII--Denver
  II         IX--San Francisco                2            0.3         189,938         0.3
  11           X--Seattle
       Total                               5793          100.0    $55,507,535        100.0
      Most of the Federal funds provided have been for the purpose of carry-
ing out special curriculum   revisions and teacher-training     programs.  These
two actlvltles  account for nearly 50 percent of the funds granted.       The
table below shows a breakdown by program activity      of the funds granted as of
November 13, 1970, as reported by HEW.


                                                   8
                                                              lunount                 Percent
              Program   activity                             granted                 of total

Teacher   preparation      programs                        $13,340,250                   24.0
Special   curriculum     revisions                          12,603,730                   22.7
    II    pupil personnel        services                    9,708,309                   17.5
    II    comprehensive       planning                       8,360,524                   15.1
    II    community programs                                 6,022,536                   10.9
    II    student-to-student         programs                1,673,226                     3.0
Other                                                        3,798,960                 -6.8
      Total                                                $55,507,535                 100.0

BASIS FOR SELECTION OF GRANTS TO BE REVIEWED

      In accordance with the Committee's         request,  we selected     50 grants for
examination.     As a basis for distribution        of the 50 grants among the HEW re-
gions and the States within     these regions,       we considered   the ratlo of (1) the
number of grants in each HEW regional        office    to the total number of grants
in all regions    and (2) the number of grants in each State within            a region to
the total number of grants in all the States within             that region.

         Cur selection   then was made from an HEW report   showing the grants to
school districts       as of November 13, 1970, after having applied   the following
criteria.

      --All    grants   of $1 million      or more would   be selected.

      --At least two grants in each State would be selected.                (If   the State
         had received only one or two grants, we would select              all    grants.)

      --All    other grants would be selected at random.   (Within each State the
         grants were listed   from high to low dollar  amounts so that we would
         select a mix of both.)

       The 50 grants selected          totaled     about $14 milkon,     or about 25 percent
of the approximately         $55 million       that had been reported     as granted to 793
school districts        as of November 13, 1970.           The following   table shows, by
HEW regional     office,     the total number and amount of grants made and those
selected   for our review.        A further        breakdown by State and school district
of the 50 grants selected          for review is shown in appendix III.




                                                 9
                                            Total grants
                                          reported as of                      Grants selected
                                        Nov&ber 13, --1970                     for our review
              HEW region               &ber         --
                                                    AlilOUIYt                %mber       Amount
Region      I--Boston                                   $      -                      $       -
  II      II--New York                      la                45,000
  II    III--Phlladelphla                  59             4,696,253             7         1,103,821
  I?      IV--Atlanta                     530            36,194,038            28         7,323,346
  II        V--Chicago
  II      VI--Dallas-Fort      Worth      200               14,324,921         12         5,384,645
  II    VII--Kansas       City              1                    57,385         1             57,385
  If   VIII--Denver
  II
          IX--San Francisco                  2                 189,938          2           189,938
  II
            X--Seattle
      Total                               793           $55,507,535                   $14,059,135

aThzs grant made to the Virgin         Islands        was excluded        m making our selectlon.




                                                 10
                                           CHAPTER 2

                                 MAJOR PROGRAMREQUIREMRNTS
PRIORITIES IN APPRCVAL OF APPLICATIONS
        The ESAP regelatlons    provide that financial     assistance be made avail-
able to eligible      school districts     only to meet special needs resulting     from
the ellminatlon     of racial segregation and discrimination         among students and
 faculty in elementary and secondary schools by contributzng            to the costs of
new or expanded actlvlties        designed to achieve successful      desegregation and
to eliminate    discrlminatlon,        The regulations  require that the Comnnssloner
of Education,     in determining whether to provide assistance under ESAP or in
fixing    the amount thereof,     consider such criteria     as he deems pertinent,    in-
 cluding
      --the   applicant's      relative   need for assistance,
      --the relative        promise of the project     in carrying    out the purpose of
         ESAP,
      --the extent to which the proposed project deals comprehenszvely and
         effectively   with problems faced by the school district In achieving
         and malntalning    a desegregated school system, and
      --the amount available          for assistance   under ESAP in relation      to the ap-
         placations pending.
        The regulations   provide that the Commlssloner of Education not approve
an application      for assistance under ESAP without first     affording   the appro-
priate State educational        agency a reasonable opportunity    to review the ap-
pllcatlon    and to make recommendations on it,
AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES         UNDER PROGRAM
     The regulations   require that projects           assisted under ESAP be designed
to contribute  to achieving and maintaining            desegregated school systems and
emphasize thec$Wryingout      of such activities         as
      --special    community programs designed         to assist     school systems In im-
         plementing desegregation    plans,
      --specLa1    pupil personnel services desrgned to assist             in maintaining
         quality   education during the desegregation process9
      --spec-Lal curriculum        revision programs and special teacher preparation
         programs required        to meet the needs of a desegregated student body,
      --speczal  student-to-student programs designed to assist students in
         opening up channels of communrcation concerning problems resulting
         from desegregation,    and



                                                 11
        --special  comprehensive planning and logxstic      support designed   to as-
           sist in implementing a desegregation plan.
PROJECT APPLICATIOPJ RIQJIKWENTS
        The regulations  require that a school district's    application    for ESAP
funds set forth a comprehensive statement of the problems faced by the dis-
trxt     in achxeving and maintarning    a desegregated school system, including      a
comprehenslve assessment of the needs of the children in the system, and de-
scrsbe one or more activities      that are designed to comprehensively      and effec-
tively    meet such problems with the ESAP funds requested.       The application
also is to include a description       of the methods, procedures, and objective
criteria    to be used by an independent organization     to evaluate the effective-
ness of each program activity      for which funds are being requested.
        In addition,    the regulations  include requirements that a school dis-
trict     give formal   assurances, which are contained in the ESAP application
form,     that
        --it  will use the ESAP funds made available     only to supplement, not to
           supplant, funds which were available    to it from non-Federal sources
           for purposes which meet the reqmrements      of the program;
        --it will make a reasonable effort to utilize       other Federal   funds avaxl-
            able to meet the needs of children;
        --it has not engaged and ~111 not engage in the transfer    of property
            or services to any nonpublic school or school system which, at the
            time of such transfer, practices racial discrimination;
        --at will not discriminate    in the hiring, assigning,     promoting, paying,
           demoting, or dismissing   of teachers and other professional       staff who
           work directly with children or who work on the administrative          level
           on the basis of their being members of minority      groups;
        --it will ensure that       the assignment of teachers and other staff who
            work directly  with   children will be made so that the ratio of minor-
            ity to nonminorxty    teachers and staff in each school is substan-
            tially  the same as   the rat30 in the entire school system;
    \ --it will not employ any discriminatory     practices     or procedures, In-
          cluding testing, in the assignment of children       to classes or in car-
          rying out other school activities;  and
        --it will have published in a local newspaper of general circulation
            the terms and provisions of the approved project within 30 days of
            such approval.
COMMUNITYAND STUDENT
PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM
      The regulations provide for the interests    of the community to be con-
sidered by the school districts  in the formulation     and administration of



                                             12
their ESAP projects    by reqqrzng      that biracial    and student   advxsory   commlt-
tees participate    in ES@.
      Each school dxstrxt    recervxng an ESAF' grant is reqqred to establish
a biracial   advisory commlttee If no biracial   committee has been formed by
the district   pursuant to a Federal or State court desegregation     order.   If
a biracial   committee has been formed under a court order, the committee LS
to be geven a perlad of 5 days to review and comment to the school district
on Its ESAP supplication before the application     is submitted to the Office
of Education for approval
       If no biracial    committee has been formed pursuant to a court order,
the school distrxt       is to select at least five but not more than 15 organ%-
zations which, in the aggregate, are broadly representative              of the minority
and nonmlnority     communities to be served.         The names of the organizations
selected are to be submitted wxth the distrxt's             applrcation.    Each organi-
zation selected may appoint one member to an advisory committee, and the
school dxstrict     is then to appoint such additional        members from the commu-
nlty as may be needed to establish          a committee composed of equal numbers of
minority   and nonminority members, at least one half of whom are to be par-
ents whose children will be directly          affected by the district's      ESAP project.
The biracial    advrsory committee IS to be established          within 30 days of ap-
proval of the district's       appllcatron.
      The school district  is to make public the names of members appointed
to the biracral  advisory corrmxttee.   It also is to consult with the commrt-
tee with respect to policy   matters arising In the admlnlstratlon   and opera-
tion of the ESAB project and to give the committee a reasonable opportunity
to observe and comment on all project-related     actrvltres
       In addition to submxtting other assurances required by the regulations,
a school district     must submit with its applxation     an assurance that,
promptly following     the opening of the 1970-71 school year, a student advl-
sory committee will be formed xn each secondary school affected by the proj-
ect which has a student body composed of minority        and nonminority    group &xl-
dren.     The number of minority    and nonminority students serving on each such
commIttee is to be equal, and the members are to be selected by the student
body. The school district        is to consult with the student advxsory conmnt-
tee mth respect to carrying out the project and establishing           standards,
regulations,     and requirements regarding student activities     and affairs.




                                              13
                                             CHAPTER 3

                CONCLUSIONS ON REVIEW OF HEW POLICI&                AND PROCEDURES
           t
                               --FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDW ESAP
        We belleve     that, m nany cases, school drstrrcts          drd not submrt wrth
their    appllcatrons,      nor did HEW regronal  offrces    obtarn by other means, suf-
frcrent    lnformatlon      to enable a proper determination       that the grants were
made in accordance wrth the ESAP regulations            or that the grants were In line
wrth the purpose of the program,

        Most of the appllcatrons        did not contarn,    as required   by the regula-
tions,    comprehensive   statements       of the problems faced In achlevlng        and marn-
talnlng    desegregated   school systems , nor did they contain adequate descrrp-
trons of the proposed actlvrtles            deslgned to comprehensively       and effectrvely
meet such problems.       Particularly,       there was a lack of documentation          as to
how the proposed actlvltles          would meet the special needs of the chrldren             In-
cadent to the ellmlnatlon        of racial      segregation  and dascrlmlnatlon       in the
schools.

       Therefore   we belreve     that the appllcatlons    in many cases did not pro-
vide HEW with an adequate means for determlnlng            that project  approvals   were
based upon conslderatron        of such factors     as the applrcants'  needs for assrs-
tance, the relatrve      potentral     of the proJects,   or the extent to which the
proJects     dealt with the problems faced by the school dlstrlcts          In desegre-
gatlng therr schools

        The files    supporting     most of the grants revrewed           did not evidence full
compllanse      by the school drstrlcts         with the regulatrons         concerning    the for-
mation of brraclal        and student advisory        committees.       Also, most of the ap-
pllcatlons      did not contaln,      contrary     to the regulatrons,         adequate descrlp-
tlons of the methods, procedures,              or objective    crlterla      that could be used
by an Independent        organrzatron     to evaluate      the effectiveness        of each proJect.

       Offlcrals     in HEW's Atlanta Regional           Office,      which made 28 of the 50
grants that we revrewed,        told us that they generally                did not have detailed
lnformatlon      beyond that in the project          files      concerning    the program actlv-
rtres set forth        In the appllcatlons.         Some said that they did not have time,
prior    to grant approval,     to seek addltronal            lnformatron.       They said that
they had to rely on school district             offrcrals        to rdentrfy     the major prob-
lems which the dlstrlcts        faced in desegregating              their   schools and to pro-
pose programs which the offlclals           believed        would effectively        deal with those
problems.

       Offlclals      m HEW's Dallas Reglonal            Office,      whrch made 12 of the grants
reviewed,      agreed,  In general,      that   many     of   the    appllcatlons     did not con-
tain adequate statements          of the problems or descrlptlons                  of the actlvltles
desrgned to meet these problems.               Offlclals        In both the Dallas and Phlla-
delphia Regional       Offrces--     the Phlladelphla         office     made seven of the grants
reviewed--told       us that they had satlsfled             themselves        wrth respect to the
merits of the projects,          prior   to project       approval,        on the basis of their
knowledge of the school dlstrrcts'              problems and of therr contacts wrth



                                                 14
school     offlclals  to obtain addItIona   lnformatlon as consldered                      necessary
There     was an almost complete lack of documentation   In the flies                      with respect
to the     addltlonal   lnformatlon that was known to or obtained    by,                   these re-
gional     offlcLals  on the basis of whrch they had determlned    that                    the proJects
merited     approval

         In the Kansas City and San Francisco         RegIonal  Offlces  which approved a
total      of three appllcatlons,   the applacatlons       seemed to have provided    suffl-
clent ~nfo~.at~on       to enable regional   offlclals      to determlne  that the proposed
actlvltles       were in line with the purposes of ESAP

      We believe    that HEW should have questioned,               prior      to grant     approval,
the followrng    sltuatrons  noted during our review

      --One school dlstrlct       appeared to have been lnellglble                    to participate
         In ESAP because 1-t had entered the terminal       phase of                  Its desegrega-
         tion plan prior     to the time period   speclfled  in the                 regulations      for
         ellglblllty.     After we brought the sltuatlon     to the                 attention      of HEW
         offlclals,    payments under the grant were suspended,                     pending a final
         determlnatlon    of ellglbrflty      (See p. 20.)

          --Information      pertalnlng    to another school dlstrlct        indicated    that
              ESAP funds    may have been used, contrary        to regulations,       to supplant
              non-Federal    funds available    to the dlstrlct      prior   to Its grant.        (See
              p. 37.)
          --Information        in the reglonal    files    at the time that one dlstrlct's
              appllcatlon      was reviewed    showed that the ratio        of mlnorlty to non-
              minority     faculty   in each school wlthln       the dlstrlct    was not substan-
              tially    the same as the ratio        for the entire   school system, contrary
              to the regulations.         (See p 59.1

      We noted another case In which lnformatlon         that had become avallable
after   the grant was made lndlcated   that ESAP funds may have been used to
supplant non-Federal   funds otherwise    available    to the school district
For this case, as well as for the other noted above, we plan to examine Into
whether ESAP funds were used to supplant        non-Federal   funds    (See p, 37.)

       In our opinion,      the weaknesses that we observed   in the HEW procedures
and practices    were due, to a large degree, to HEW's policy        of emphaslzlng
the emergency nature of ESAP and to its desire for expedltlous            funding,   at
the expense of a morethoroughrevlew          and evaluation of the school dlstrlcts'
appllcatlons,    particularly     as to the adequacy of described   program actlvl-
ties In satlsfylng       ESAP requirements

        We believe    that, to overcome the weaknesses In                  the HEW grant approval
procedures,       HEW should undertake  a strong monltorlng                  program to help en-
sure that the grant funds already made available            to             the school dlstrlcts
are being used solely for ESAP purposes and not for                        educational      assistance
in general.        We recognize  that postgrant  reviews    at             certain    grantee     school
dlstrlcts      are being made by HEW regional    officials.




                                                   15
NEED TO STRENGTHEN GRANT APPROVAL PROCEDURES

       We belreve    that, in the event addltlonal       Federal funding     IS authorized
for slmllar     assrstance    to school dlstrrcts     to defray the costs of meeting
special problems arising        from the desegregatxon      of elementary    and secondary
schools, HEW should strengthen         its procedures    for approval     of grants to
school districts.         Such action should.

      --Provide      sufficient     time for regronal     offxlals        to make a thorough
         revrew and evaluation          of each applxatlon         recerved   so that approval
         will be based on an understandlng            of the problems faced In achrevlng
         and malntalnlng         a desegregated  school system and on an adequate de-
         termlnatlon        that the proposed activities         are designed to meet such
         problems.
      --Require     that all lnformatlon       relied   upon ln approving     school dls-
         trict    applications    , whether obtained     orally  or In wrltlng,     be made
         a matter of record so that the basis upon which grant approvals                  are
         made ~111 be readily        avarlable     to HEW program managers or to others
         authorized      to review the conduct of the program

      --Provide    for an effective  monltorlng  system to help ensure that (1)
         grant funds made avallable     to the school dlstrlcts      are being used
         for the purposes specified     In their appllcatlons     and (2) the school
         dlstrrcts    are complyrng wrth HEW regulations      on nondrscrlmlnatlon
         as well as wrth the other assurances given In therr applrcatlons



      The results    of our work at the five HEW reglonal   offrces, which served
as the basrs for     our overall conclusions , are discussed in the following
chapters.




                                             16
                  COMMENTSON HEW ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES

                                FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP

        HF,WRegion IV, with headquarters       in Atlanta,       Georgia,      encompasses tie
eight States af Alabama, Florida,        Georgza, Kentucky, Mississippi,               North
Carolma,      South Carol&t,    and Tennessee,     According        to Office      of Education
statistics,     1,110 school dxstrxts     were operating         public     schools in these
States zn the fall      of 1969.   As of August 26, 1970, 773 school districts
were identified      by HEW as being potentnally      eligible        for assrstance     under
ESAP. Of these 773 school districts,          530 had received           grants totaling      over
$36 million     as of November 13, 1970.      Our review       included      28 of these grants
totaling    about $7.3 million.      (See app. III     >

        We believe     that the HEW Atlanta           Regional     Office     did not require      the
school districts         to comply with several           pertinent      requirements      of the ESAP
regulations.        The applications         for grants generally           drd not contaLn suffi-
cient information          to enable HEW to properly            determine       whether proJect      ap-
provals     by HEW Region IV had been based upon consideration,                        as required     by
the regulations,         of such factors         as the applicants'         needs for assistance,
the relative       promise of the proJects,            and the actual problems faced by the
school dlstrxts          m desegregating          thexr schools.          Program officers      who re-
viewed the appllcatlons              told us that they generally             did not have detailed
lnformatxon      concerning        the subJect matter of the applications                and did not
have tune to seek additional              information.         They said that they had to rely
on school district           officzals    to identify      the maJor problems which the dis-
tracts    faced xn desegregating            their    schools and to propose programs which
they believed       would effectively          deal with those problems.

        A maJor factor       in the approval      of most of the applications          which we
reviewed      appeared to have been a prxority          ranking   of school districts           that
had been prepared          by the HEW headquarters       offxe.     (See p. 23.)        The prlor-
 ity ranking was used u1 the HEW regzonal              office   to establish      the funding
level     for each school district.          We were told by regional        officials       that
these funding       levels     were intended   for use only as control        devices to pre-
clude premature        depletion    of the funds allotted       to each State and that the
amounts of grants were based upon analyses of the needs documented by the
districts.       As previously      pointed   out, however,     we noted a general         lack of
such documentation          1~1 the regional   files.

       Many of the applications       reviewed   did not describe     the proposed pro-
gram activities      pn such ways as to provide       reasonably   clear mdicatlons          of
the purposes for which grant funds would be spent, and the reviewing                   pro-
gram officers     did not always have what we considered          adequate supplementary
information     in thus regard.     As a result,     a proper determination       could not
be made, UI our opznion,        on the basis of the information         available   within
HEW that these grants were for the purposes intended              by ESAP--especially
with regard to the use of program funds to meet special               needs incident       to
desegregation     of the schools.




                                                    17
        Most of the appllcatlons,     in our opinion,      did not contam,       contrary    to
the regulatrons,      adequate descrlptlons    of the methods, procedures,           and ob-
jective    crlterra   that could be used by an independent          organization     to evalu-
ate the effectiveness       of each program actlvaty.          Also the files    supporting
most of the 28 grants did not evidence         full    complrance by the districts          with
the regulations     concernung the formation        of biracial    and student advisory
committees and the publxatzon         of the terms and provisions          of the ESAP proj-
ects,

        Reglonal     offrcrals    told us that they had accepted,          In the absence of
 indxatlons        to the contrary,       the assurances     of the school dlstrzcts    that
they were not (1) drscrimLnating              on the basis of race in teacher and profes-
sional     staffing     patterns,     (2) assIgning    children    to classes on the basis of
their     being members of minority          groups,    or (3) engaging 111 the transfer     of
property      or servxes       to any nonpublic      school or school system which practiced
racial     dlscrrmmatlon.




                                              ‘18
    ELIGIBILITY       AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLDISTRICTS
    Elrgibilrty       of school districts
            In general, the procedures followed in Region IV for determining           the
    ellglbrlity       of applicant  school districts   were satisfactory.      For a few
    cases in which complaints had been received indicating             possible noncom-
    pllance wrth title        VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we were informed by
    Office for Civil Rights offlclals          in Washington that, pending final resolu-
    tion of such complaints,        the benefit of the doubt had been given to the ap-
    pllcant     distracts    In all cases and funding had not been held up
           To allot ESAP funds to the eight States in Region IV, HEW/Washington
    determined that there were a total of 773 potentially       eligible    school dis-
    tracts in the region as of August 26, 1970. On the basis of the 2,130,717
    minority    students m these 773 potentially    eligible  school districts,    the
    Office of Education, through the use of the formula prevxously described on
    page 7, allotted     over $39 million to school districts   in these States, as
    set forth below.
                                      Number of
                              potentially    eligible            Number of            State
              State              school dlstrlcts            mLj7ority
                                                             --        students   allotment
    Alabama                            110                         273,274        $ 5,095,008
    Florida                             64                         392,965          7,326,565
    Georgia                            168                         366,648          6,835,902
    Kentucky                             7                          15,021             280,057
    Mlsslsslppl                        149                         274,412          5,1X6,225
    North Carolina                     125                         371,247          6,921,648
    South Carolina                      92                         262,584          4,895,700
    Tennessee                           58                         174,566          3,254,665
              Total                    773                       2,130,717        $39,725,770

          The regulations    require that a school district, to be eligible  for
    ESAP assistance,    must have commenced the terminal phase of its voluntary  or
    court-ordered    desegregation plan during the 1968-69, 1969-70, or 1970-71
    school year       -

          Regional officials     told us that, at the beginning of ESAP, the Division
I   of Equal Educatlonal      Opportunities      Ln Washington had sent Region IV a list-
    ing of all potentially      eligible     school districts      in the region and had re-
    quested that the list be checked with the regional Office for Civil Rights
    to determine whether any of the distracts            were consxdered to be ineligible
    to participate   in ESAP These officials            said that no record had been kept
    in the region of the results of this work                An official     of the Divisxon of
    Equal Educatronal Opportunities          In Washington told us that a revised listing
    of potentially   eligible     schooldistrzctssubsequently            had been sent to the
    regions that took into consrderatlon           the lnformatlon       provided by Region IV
    This llstlng   showed, for each ellglble         district,     the total nmber of students,
    the number of minority      students, and a numerical priority             rating



                                                        19
       To lnltlate ESAP, a number of conferences were held in the various
States between representatives    of HEW, the State school offlces,  and the
school dlstrrcts     The HEW senior program officer   said that the State school
offices had selected the school districts    whose representatives  had at-
tended these conferences
        Determxnataons of school district     elLgiblllty   in Region IV were made
either by officials       of the regional Office for Civil Rights or by officials
of the HEW Office of General Counsel who were detailed to the region                Re-
gional officials      told us that Region IV, Office for Civil Rights determina-
tions had consisted of (1) verifying       that a copy of the court order or vol-
untary plan accompanied the application,         (2) checking against available      Of-
fice for Civil Rights records to determine whether the applicant              was con-
sidered to be in compliance with the nondlscrlmlnation          requirements     of
title     VI of the Clvll R&-&s Act of 1964 and had entered the terminal phase
of its desegregation       plan wlthln the time limitations    stated in the regula-
tions, and (3) revxewxng the assurances in the application            to verify that
they had been slgned and that they had not been altered             Of the 28 school
dlstrlcts     Included in our review, 19 were operating under court-ordered          de-
segregation plans and nine were operating under voluntary           desegregation
plans
      We reviewed the regional Office for Civil Rights files to determine
whether there were any records of complaints agarnst the school districts
included in our review that would indicate that the districts  were not in
compliance with title  VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
       We were told that the Office for Civil Rights was not responsible           for
investigating      complaints against school districts     which had desegregated
pursuant to court orders and that any complaints received against such dis-
tracts were forwarded to the Department of Justice for its consideratxon
We noted that the region had received complaints against two court-ordered
dsstrlcts     included In our review after the date of the most recent court
orders but before approval of the ESAP grants            These complaints had been
forwarded to the Department of Justice          In addition,    there were complalnts
against two other court-ordered      districts,   but neither the dates of receipt
of the complaints nor the dates of their transmissions            to the Department of
Justice were shown m the reglonal files
         Regional officials      told us that the Offlce for Civil Rights had respon-
slbility      for lnvestlgatlng      complaints against dlstrlcts   which were desegre-
gating under voluntary          plans    Regional files contained a record of com-
plaints against two of these districts            included in our review--Dillon    County
School District       No 2, South Carolina,       and Collrmbus County School Dlstrxt,
North Carolina
           Indications   of possible noncompliance by school districts     with   the ell-
gibrllty        requirements of ESAP are dlscussed below
       Apparently meligtble    district
       approved for ESAP grant
       The regional files did not contaln a copy of the desegregation plan for
Jefferson County School District,   Kentucky   Information In the file,


                                              20
                                                                                   .   *

however,     indicated    that Jefferson     County had completely   desegregakd           Its
schools in 1965 using geographic            attendance  zones and that the county            had
not made any subsequent changes in the district's             plan    According   to         ESAP
regulations,       school districts     which had entered the terminal      phase of         their
desegregation       plans prior     to the 1968-69 school year were not eligible               for
ESAP grants

        In 1968 HEW had questioned        the compliance     status of the drstrLet,     be-
cause the attendance        zones drawn by the district         produced one essentially
all-black     school     The district     Justified   the existence     of the all-black
school to the satisfaction          of HEW, and In February        1969 HEW wrote to the
school district      advising    it that "the present plan 119653 of desegregation
satisfies    the provisions      of Title    VI of the Civil     Rights Act of 1964 "

      After we brought this case to the attention         of HEW officials,       they
agreed that the information      available indicated    that the district        had en-
tered the terminal   phase of its desegregation      plan before the 1968-69 school
year and therefore    apparently   was not eligible   to partLcipate        -in ESAP Pay-
ments on the grant were suspended pending a final          determlnatron       of eligibil-
1tY
      Complaint  against   grantee      school    distract
      on teacher discrimination         upheld    by
      Department  of Justice

       Regional    Offrce    for Civil    Rights records pertaining    to Talladega     County,
Alabama, contained        notes indicating      that, on October 13, 1970, Department of
Justrce    advice was being obtained          on "an NEA INational   Education    Association]
teacher firing      motion,"     and that, on November 4, 1970, the county superin-
tendent of schools assured the region that there was no dzscrimination
against    teachers     In the county        The ESAP grant to Talladega     County was ap-
proved on November 5, 1970, in the amount of $168,247                 As of January 17,
1971, $48,338 in grant funds had been advanced to the Talladega                 County
School District

        Department     of Justice     officials       told us that in September 1970 they
had received       two complaints       (from sources other than HEW) concerning             the
firing    of teachers     in Talladega         County       Subsequent investigation    by the De-
partment of Justice         rndrcated       that the complarnts        were Justified,  and on
January 8, 1971, after          the ESAP grant was approved,             a court order was filed
requiring     reinstatement       of the dismissed          teachers     At the t&me of our re-
view, the regional        Office    for Civil       Rights had not made a postgrant        review
at the Talladega        County School District            to determine     whether the dzstrict
had complied with the court            order

      Inquiry  concerning      downgrading
      of black principals

         On August 24, 1970, HEW received       an unsigned    inquiry    from a student
concerning     the downgrading      of black principals    in Drllon     School District
No 2, South Carolina            HEW/Washington forwarded     the letter      to the Re-
gion IV Office     for Civil     Rights on August 28, 1970         The letter      was re-
ceived in the regron on September 2, 1970--l            day prior      to approval    of the
district's     ESAP application        There was no indlcatlon       in the regronal       files

                                                 21
that the letter   had been considered              during the review of the district's       ap-
plication  or that reglonal  officials              had been aware of the letter     at that
time.

       On September 24, 1970, regional          Office for Civil     Rights personnel
made a postgrant       v~srt to this school dbstrxct.          As a result   of the v~sxt,
the regional     Offrce for Crvll      Rights wrote to the superintendent          of the
Dillon    school district      on December 3, 1970, reminding        him that the dzstrict
had not submitted       to HEX the lob descrrptions        for the newly created posr-
tions of coprincrpals        In the school system,      Also the letter      stated that
the black coprrncipals         appeared to be subordinate       to the white coprlncrpals
Therefore     the school dlstrlct      was requested   to submrt the Job descriptions
of the coprlnclpals        so that a determlnatlon     could be made as to whether the
school dlstrlct      was rn compliance      with the Crvll     Rights Act of 1964.

        Indicat:lon  of dlscrimlnatlon
        in assignment   of students

       We noted a complaint            against Columbus County School District,                North
Carolina,      involvrng      the acceptance of students            from a neighboring        school
dis trrct        An HEW Office       of General Counsel offxial            informed      us that white
students      were leaving       certain      schools in the nerghboring          county, which was
under a Federal court order to desegregate,                    and attending       schools in Columbus
County which was operating               under a voluntary      desegregation       plan      On Octo-
ber 22, 1970, the regional               Office    for Crvrl Rights advised the superintendent
of Columbus County schools that this practice                    was not acceptable         because it
was contrary        to the nondiscrimination           requirements      of title    VI of the Civrl
Rights Act of 1964              The superintendent        was requested      to furnish     written     as-
surance that the practxe               would be discontinued.           On October 29, 1970, the
superintendent         advised Region IV that the students would be reassigned                       to
their     school district        of residence.




                                                   22
F'undlng   of school        dxstrrcts

        A major factor   in determlnxng   the amount of ESAP grants made to school
drstrxts      appeared to have been a prrorlty    rankrng of eligible dlstrrcts
that was establlshed       by HEW/Washington and used by Regxon IV to establrsh
fund&ng levels      for each dlstrrct.
        The Offxe     of Education,        Washlngton,      established        a system for deter-
mlnlng the prlorlty        ranklng     of school dlstrlcts           ellglble     to receive    ESAP
funds.     A letter    dated August 24, 1970, from the Drrector                     for Educatxon
Planning,    Offrce of Assistant           Secretary     for Planning         and Evaluation,    to
the Actrng Commrssioner of Education                 pointed out that In July 1970 the
Secretary    of HEW had clearly          stated that the purpose of ESAP was to fund
quality    desegregation      proJects      in the school dlstrlcts             where the need was
greatest    and where the chances of cooperation                 were best.         Thus letter    also
stated that two factors          would determine         the final       declslon     on whether or
not a dlstrlct      would receive        funds*
       --The    quality      of the comprehensive            desegregation     plan.

       --The prrorlty ranking  of the dlstrlct,  determrned    by factors                      whxh
          combined an estimate   of need and compliance   probablllty.

The letter   stated also that the Commlssroner,     meeting with the Advisory
Committee on Desegregation,      had decided on the following   four factors  as
the determinants    of each district's    priority ranking.

       1. Percent         of minority     enrollment.

       2. Effective         date   for   terminal       desegregation

       3. Assessment by the Offxefor   Civil                   Rights of the lxkellhood   of coop-
          eration  and success in the eligible                    district based on record of
          past compliance.

       4. Proportion   of students mthln                  a dlstrxt      reasslgned    as a result    of
          the desegregation    plan.

Under the prlorlty-ranking   system that was establrshed,   pornts were given
for each of the above factors --three   pornts being the highest     score and one
point being the lowest score for each factor.      Thus the highest    prlorlty
dlstrxts   would have scores of 12 and the lowest districts      scores of four
on the combined factors.

       Using this prlorlty        ranking,    regional      office    offlcrals      established    a
funding level     for each school dlstrlct           by multlplylng          the number of mlnor-
lty students in the dlstrrct             by $28, $18, or $10, depending upon the numer-
ical rating     assigned.       If the numerxal        rating      was between 10 and 12, the
school dlstrxt's        funding     level was computed on the basis of $28 for each
mlnorlty    student,    If the rating       was between 7 and 9, $18 was used, and if
the rating     was between 4 and 6, $10 was used.                  HEW offrclals      could not tell
US the source of the $28, $18, and $10 fxgures or how these fqures                              had
been determined.        The HEA regional        senior program officer           told us that the



                                                        23
fundlng  levels were Intended    to be used only as an Internal   control                   to en-
sure that no one dlstrrct    would materially   deplete the funds allotted                    to a
State
         The HEW sensor program officer        also sard that the amounts granted to
dlstrlcts     were determlned     by the program officers        on the basis of their
analyses of the needs documented by the dlstrlcts                   The flies       which we ex-
amlned, however,       did not, in our Judgrrc?t,       CJI~"~OI.~ either     ddeqctatel)      docu-
mented needs or evidence        of the type of analyses made by program officers
that would permit them to determlne            the applrcants'      needs for ESAP funds
Some program officers       told us that the time avallable             to them for revlewlng
appllcatlons      had not permltted     In-depth   revrews,    but others said that ap-
pllcatlons     and proposed programs had been dlscussed with school dlstrlct
offrclals     by telephone      In most cases, the program officers                had not made
records of these dlscusslons         and they could not recall            speclflcs     of the
dlscusslons        When records had been made, they generally               related     to changes
necessary to bring proposed programs in line with the established                         funding
levels

       The lnltlal      grants to 20 of the 28 school dlstrlcts            included     in our
review were within         5 percent   of the establlshed       funding  levels--wlthln
2 percent    In 16 cases         In 17 cases the grants were for lesser amounts than
those requested       in the appllcatlons,      and In 11 of those cases the grants
were within      1 percent of the establlshed         fundlng     levels    We noted no fund-
lng pattern      In relation     to the funding   levels      in the other eight grants we
reviewed

      A comparison of the established      fundlng  levels with the amounts re-
quested by the school dlstrlcts      and the amounts lnltlally     granted by Re-
gion IV for the 28 districts    Included     In our review follows




                                                24
                                  Funding level
                                  established   by                Amount requested    Amount of
    School   district             HEW ReELon IV                  by school district   ESAP grant
Alabama
       Phenrx City                     $      74,312                 $     215,588    $      74,312
       Sylacauga                              27,468                        54,500           27,468
       Talladega     County                  111,916                       168,247          168,247
 Florida.
       Dade County                         1,922,256                     2,966,606        1,921,905a
       Madison County                          57,596                        50,000           50,000
       Wakulla County                           9,414                       308,314            9,000
Georgia.
       Appllng     County                  17,946                         18,313           18,313b
       Atlanta                         1,266,228                      1,150,989        1,150,989
       Bacon County                         6,048                          6,000            6,000
       Carroll     County                  30,654                         16,000           28,800
       Crisp County                        68,292                         65,925           65,925
       Montgomery County                   12,690                         13,000           13,000
       Wllkenson County                    26,658                         18,000           22,000
Kentucky
       Jefferson     County                   32,710                        62,480           32,700
       Fulton County                           4,430                        46,595            4,430
M~~~issipp~
       Harrison     County                    43,830                        80,217           43,000
       Hinds County                          196,672                       190,000          190,000
       Houston                                14,976                       200,000           20,000
       Jackson Municrpal
           Separate                          330,858                  1,300,000       1,300,000
North Carolina.
       Columbus County                       118,944                       143,258          118,900
       Hoke County                            89,264                        90,240           89,240
       Tarboro                                44,212                        60,732           43,832
       Winston-Salem      City/
           Forsyth County                    250,938                       390,441          250,738
South Carolina.
       Dillon     County No. 2                71,000                       100,000           75,000
       Greenville      County                232,434                       696,076          232,188'
       Orangeburg County
          No. 7                               25,816                        39,068           25,568
Tennessee.
       Maury City                            1,484                        16,500              1,500
       Memphis                         2,083,564                      2,083,564             992,531
aGrant   subsequently      increased         to $2,121,905
bGrant   subsequently      increased         to $       38,313
'Grant   subsequently      increased         to $      359,998




                                                       25
PROJECT POTENTIAL AND CONTENT

        In our opinion,      25 of the 28 applicatrons          included       in our review did
not contain,      contrary     to the regulations,      comprehensive          statements     of the
problems faced in achieving           and malntainang       desegregated         school systems or
adequate descriptions          of the proposed activities          designed to effectively
meet such problems.          In addition,     the applications         did not adequaLeiy         ex-
plain how the proposed activrtles             would meet the special            needs of the
children    incident     to the elimination       of racial     segregation        and discrlmina-
tron in the schools,           In only a few cases did the applications                 show the
basis for the dollar         amounts requested      for the proposed activities.                 There-
fore we believe       that the appllcatlons,        in general,        did not provide       HEW with
an adequate means for determining             that ESAP funding          declslons     had been based
on a consideration         of the applicants'      needs for assistance,            the relative
potential     of the proJects,       or the extent to which the proJects                dealt with
the actual problems faced by the school districts                    in desegregating        their
schools.

        We discussed       the applications      with the program officers          who had re-
viewed them and recommended their               approval,     to determine     whether any addi-
tional     information       concerning     the subJect matter of the applications             was
available       to them that would support or Justify              their   approval   actions.       In
a few cases, the program officers               said that they had been familiar            with the
situations        in the districts      orthat   their    experience     had provided    them with
bases for Judging the appropriateness                  of the amounts requested.         In most
cases, however,         the program officers         said that they had no additional           infor-
mation concerning          the subJect matter of the applications              but that they had
to rely upon local school officials                to identify     the problems which they
were facing         in desegregating      their  schools and to propose programs which
would effectively          deal with those problems,

       The HEW senior program officer         told us that the Office         of Education
had instructed    the regional     offices,     during the early stages of the program,
to complete the review and either           approve or disapprove       the applications
within   36 hours of their     receipt.      Of the 28 applicatrons        which we reviewed,
15 had not been approved within          the specified     time period,     but there was
ample indication     that the processing        and approval   of applicatrons       had been
handled on a crash basis.
       Following     are some examples of applications       which, in our opinion,
contained      inadequate     information   as to (1) the existence   of special needs
incident     to desegregation        of the schools,  (2) the nature and scope of pro-
posed activities        designed to meet such needs, (3) the relationship        of the
proposed actlvitles         to the special    needs of the children,   or (4) the basis
for the amount of the grant,

Jackson Munlclpal    Separate        School   District
Jackson, Mlssissippl

      The Jackson Municipal    Separate School Distract               applied    for and recerved
an ESAP grant of $1.3 mllllon.       The budget outline              supporting     the grant
showed that funds were requested       for the following             general    program active-
tres.



                                                  26
                 Special        community     programs                       $     103,000
                 Special        curriculum     revision   programs                 676,400
                 Teacher        preparation      programs                          449,900
                 Other                                                              70,700

                        Total                                                $1,300,000

The application    did not contain a narrative      statement    Justifying      the
$70,700 under the category     "Other" but did contain narrative            statements
under two other categorles--    Special Student-to-Student        Programs and Special
Comprehensive   Planning  and Logistical    Support--for     which no funds were
shown in the budget outline,

      Although     the general types of programs listed             in the Jackson applica-
tion,   as indicated     above, are proper for funding           under ESAP, we believe       that
the application       dxd not contain     sufficient     mformation      to (1) show, in most
areas, the existence        of special    needs incident      to the elvninatlon      of racial
segregation     and discrimination       among students and faculty,          (2) permit a de-
termmation      that the proposed program actxvities             were related    to the prob-
lems identified       in the application,        and (3) provide      a basis for evaluating
the reasonableness       of the amount of the grant.

          The "special  curriculum    revision          programs"  section       of the Jackson appll-
cation,      shown below, is illustrative              of the inadequacies         in the application.


          "SPECIAL CURRICULUM REVISION PRQGRAMS

                "NEW AND VARIED INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALS TO SERVE
                CHILDREN FROM DIFFERENT ETHNIC AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS.

                        "Problems - Provldlng       each pupil with basic skills         of commu-
                nication     and computation     as a means of continued       learning.     (3R's)
                Assisting      pupils with skills     to compete effectively       and acceptably
                in a free enterprise        society    is a specific  problem.

                        "Needs      - Needs are the same as the problems.

                "NEW TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALS FOR IMPROVED EVALUATION OF STUDENT
                PROGRESS

                       "Problems    - Changing from a typical       lecture,    "say-and-do"
                type of instruction        to many techniques    that incorporate       self-
                evaluation,     discovery,    peer-to-peer,   etc.,    to redzrect     a reservoir
                of xnformatron      and materials.

                        "Needs - The needs for a change              m direction       to accomplish
                goals    of current everyday living.




                                                        27
             "SPECIAL DEMONSTRATIONPROJECTS TO INTRODUCE INNOVATIVE INSTRUC-
             TIONAL METHODOLOGIESFOR IMPROVING QUALITY
                   "Problems - To Introduce       newer technaques,        materials,    methods
             of accomplishment,
                       -           more effective      staff   utilxzatlon       in such tech-
             nlques as team teaching,    dafferentlated        schedulmg,       aides, flex-
             ible scheduling    modular schedulmg,        etc. begInning       rn selected
             schools as need is indicated       and moving to all schools through
             plan development.

                  "Needs - The needs are to redirect   instruction              to accomplish
             the above through varied staff approaches    and pupil             orientation."

       The only part of the proJect       description     which dealt with the proposed
program activity      is quoted in its entirety       below.    The remainder    of the
description    consisted    of statements   concerning     school desegregation      U-I gen-
eral,    fully one half of it quoting      a statement by the President         as recorded
in the Congressional      Record for March 24, 1970.

             "A program of education      redevelopment    is essential.    It is proposed
       that the program Include    five maJor areas of redevelopment.          The ini-
       tial  steps will be "action     programs"    accompanied by long-range    planning.
       The five maJor areas of redevelopment         are

             "(1) Professional   redevelopment       of the school system staff  to un-
       plement lrmnedlate innovations      and initiate    the planning  for a contmnu-
       ous program of professional      growth.

           "(2) Curriculum   redevelopment          to plan    and implement a broader,
      more relevant,   and more flexible         curriculum     that will meet the identl-
      fled needs of all pupils.

              "(3) Internal     management and support        redevelopment    of the school
      system operation        necessary for effectively         planning   and carrying out a
      defined     educational     program.

            "(4) Redevelopment       and utilization     of community resources    so that
      the improving     mstructional     program can more effectively      involve    the
      total   c ommunlty and more effxclently        accomplish  defined  performance
      ObJectives.

              "(5) Development  of a system for continued       development         and account-
      ability     of the total educational system so that lnnovatlon               can be eval-
      uated and change made economically      and efficiently."

       The program officer       told us that his work on the ESAP application                was
his first    experience     with the Jackson school dlstrlct.              He said that, most
of his work on the application,           aside from eliminating          hardware items, had
consisted    of rearranglng      the district's      earlier     proposal    so that It would be
compatible    with the ESAP applzcation         form,       In response to our questions        as
to what the specific        purposes of the proJect were and how those purposes
were related     to special     needs incident     to the elunlnatron         of racial   segrega-
tion and discrimination         among students and faculty,           the program officer
stated that the biggest problem facing             the school district         was keeping white

                                                                                      I
                                                28
children      m the public    schools,    that the prrmary       purpose of the proJect        was
to assist teachers       m dealing     wrth a wider range        of achievement levels,        that
the school district       needed any help it could get,           and that any help the        dis-
trxt     received  would be worthwhile.        He could not       supply more specific        an-
swers.
        Concerning    the approval    of the grant made to the Jackson school dxs-
tract,    we noted that the proJect        file  contained    a copy of a telegram    dated
August 27, 1970, from the Acting Commissioner              of Education    to the Superm-
tendent of the Jackson Public Schools advising              him that the application      for
$1.3 mllllon       had been approved.      The ESAP application,      however,   was not
formally     received    in Region IV until     August 31, 1970.      On that day the ap-
plicatlon     was reviewed    and approved.

      The proJect     file  also contained      reference    to a previous        application     for
$3,764,240.      In response to our questions          concerning      the previous      appllca-
tlon and the telegram       from Washrngton approving          the application        for $1.3 mll-
lion before it was received        in the HEW regional         office,    the program officer
for Mississippi.    related    to us essentially       the following       information.

      --Several     months before ESAP was approved,      Jackson school offxlals
         had prepared     and taken to Washington an application         for about
         $3.76 million      in emergency school assistance     funds.      After    funds for
         ESAP were approved at only one half of the amount requested                  by the
         President,    Jackson school officials    were informed      that their       appli-
         cation for $3.76 million       could not be approved because of limitations
         on available     funds, and the regional   program officer        was sent to
         Jackson to work with local officrals       to reduce their        application        to
         an amount more compatible       with the amount of ESAP funds available                for
         the State.

       --By eliminating      all proposed hardware purchases from the $3.76 million
          application,    the program was reduced to about $700,000,            and this in-
          formation    was telephoned     to the Deputy Director,      Divlslon   of Equal
          Educational    Opportunities,     Office  of Education,     Washmgton.      On Au-
          gust 26, 1970, the deputy director         telephoned    the program officer
          and told hrm that Jackson was to be funded for $1.3 mllllon               and that
          an ESAP application       should be prepared     for that amount.

        We also discussed this matter with the Director     and the Deputy Director,
Division     of Equal Educational  Opportunities, who provided    us with the fol-
lowxng additional      mformatlon.

       --After    the program officer    determined    that elimination      of hardware
          items would reduce the Jackson program to about $780,000,               the Dlrec-
          tor and Deputy Director      met with the then-Acting         Commlssloner   of Ed-
          ucation    and It was decided that, sxnce the oblective           of the Jackson
          program was to get the schools open without           violence,    Jackson should
          be funded for $1.3 millron      to relieve     racial   tension.    The clrcum-
          stances surrounding     this decision,     as related     to us, were




                                                  29
  1. The drstrlct      had received      four     desegregation     court     orders      III 13
     weeks.

  2. Even though the schools           were open,      more than 8,000         students     were
     boycottrng  classes,

  3. More and more whrte        students        were going    to private       schools.

  4. The superintendent       of schools         was reslgnlng.

  5. The biracial      commrttee      had decided      to drsband

  6. There    had been incidents        of violence       at Jackson       State   Unlverslty.

--The drfference         between the $1.3 mllllon     that was granted and the
   $700,000 that resulted            from elimination of hardware   Items from the
   xnltlal     proposal      (which they said was never formally      submitted    to
   HEW) was intended          to cover the cost of expanding     a computer-assisted
   lnstructlonal        program to a number of schools which were being deseg-
   regated for the first           tune.

--Jackson    was considered      to be a pivotal    dlstrxt    m the peaceful       de-
   segration    of Mrss~~srppl      schools,   and, to ensure peaceful      desegrega-
   tion of the schools m Jackson, HEW considered             lt essential     to dem-
   onstrate   that quality      education    was to be made avallable     in prevl-
   ously all-black     schools.




                                           30
Board of Education,           Memphls Cltv   Schools,
Memphis. Tennessee

       The Board of Educatxon,   Memphis City Schools, lnltlally        requested
$2,083,564,    whxch was the fundrng level   established      by Region IV for the
Memphis dlstrlct      The amount granted was $992,531.         The general   actxvl-
tzes and related    amounts covered by the lnltxal       request and the grant were
as follows'

                                                             Initial        AmOUnt

                              Activity                       recTuest       granted

               Special community programs                $    283,466      $189,161
               Special pup11 personnel
                 services                                     703,279       310,822
               Special curriculum     revlslon
                 programs                                     395,102       153,657
               Teacher preparation      programs              241,190        21,240
               Special student-to-student
                 program5                                     187,800        90,500
               Special comprehensive       planning           109,559       101,127
               Other                                          163.168       126,024

                    Total                                $2,083.564        $992,531

      The HEW program officer           for Tennessee told us that,        at the workshop
session prior     to the flllng       of the appllcatlon,     an HEW offlclal       assisted
the dlstrrct    In preparnng      an appllcatlon      whxh would approximate          the amount
of the establlshed       fundlng    level   for the district.     The HEW program offxer
said that she later had been told that Memphls'proJect                 could not be funded
for the amount requested,         that she had asslsted       the dlstrlct      1.n revlslng
the proJect    descrlptlon,      but that she had not been concerned with the
amount shown for each actlvlty.             She said that her only concern with the
budget had been to keep the total             amount wlthln   the revised     celling      and
that the revised      amounts requested        by Memphis for the various        actlvltles
had been established        by the school district

        The initial     appllcatlon was      received    In Region IV on September 25,
1970.       On September 28, 1970, it        was revlewed    by three program officers,
each of whom recommended funding             at $992,531      Final approval    was delayed
until      November 12, 1970, prlnclpally          because of a question     concerning  the
district's      compliance with title        VI of the Clvll     Rights Act of 1964.

         In our oplnlon,    the prolect     file   lacked lnformatlon      showing     how the
grant funds were to be used to meet special                needs lncldent    to the      ellmlna-
tlon of racial      segregation    and dlscrlmlnatlon         among students    and    faculty.
Illustrative      of such InadequacIes         are the following    excerpts    from     the ap-
placation
         Employment of
         secondary guidance counselors
         and secondary counselor      aides
               The dlstxlct      set forth     the following problem In the area of pro-
      vldlng     guidance      counselors    In the secondary schools.


                                                  31
             "There 1s In our lncreaslngly         complex society,     a great need
             for more Indavldual     counselrng     and guidance,     especially       as it
             relates  to vocatlonaf.   exploration,      long range educatIona
             planning   and human relations         The pupil-counselor        rat10 In
             the Memphis City Schools IS such that this rndlvldual                 at-
             tentlon  1s sometrmes dlfflcult        "

      To deal with thss          problem,    the drstrlct's      proJect     provides  for employ-
      rng 11 addltronal          counselors,      22 counselor-ardes,        and two "area spe-
      ciallsts"    --one to      supervise     the counselors      and the    other to oversee
      the actlvltles     of      the counselor-aides--at         a total     cost of $182,264

      Stafflnp      and malntalnrng       a mobile     zoo

           Under      the program      actlvlty    "Special    Curriculum      Revlslon    Programs,"
      the dlstrlct       set forth     the followrng     problem

             "The City of Memphis has a $14,000 Mobile Zoo trailer,           with both
             heatrng and air condltlonlng.      l'hls new trailer   arrived     in Memphrs
             at the end of this summer so as to serve only two days in the sum-
             mer park system programs       The only other vehicle      of this type was
             purchased at the same time for New York City          The Memphis Mobile
             Zoo 1s available    from the City of Memphis Park Conmnsslon with
             assistance   from the Memphis Zoo for use in the Memphis City
             Schools     The problem 1s the staffing    of the trailer,     and
             maintaining    It and a one ton truck to pull the trailer        "

      To deal with this problem,         the district   proposed to employ one area
      speclallst,        one aide, and one truck driver,      to purchase one truck with
      trailer     hitch,    to renovate  the main cage of the trailer,        to acquire
      domestic and wild animals,         and necessary equipment,      materials,    feed
      and supplies,        and to operate and maintarn     the mobile zoo, at a total
      cost of $14,979

     Using       the newspaper     as an lnstructronal        tool

           Also under the program            activity   "Special    Curriculum       Revlslon    Pro-
     grams," the district  stated            the follomng     problem
             "&ny disadvantaged     chrldren      are 'turned   off' by books and
             other school type materials.           On the other hand, teenagers
             and pre-teens   are Interested       In the world about them
             From past experiences,      teachers have discovered      that students
             are very much Interested       III reading    the dally newspaper
             Newspapers used this year met with tremendous enthusiasm
             on the part of students "

     To deal with       this problem the dlstrlct            proposed to purchase         "Newspaper
     Subscrlptlons        @ $0 05 each" at a total           cost of $25,000

      The program officer  told us that her work on the ESAP appllcatlon       was
her first   exposure to the Hemphls school system       She acknowledged  that
high student-to-counselor    ratios had been experrenced    by most school systems



                                                  32
and that this problem was not related             to elimination     of racial  segregation
and discrimination         She sard, however,        that the problem was more pronounced
in desegregated      schools --especially      those with high proportions       of minority
students      The  program   officer      said also    that  she did  not  know of  any partic-
ular problem faced by Memphis that was not common to other desegregated                     dis-
tracts having large numbers of minority              students      She stated that the mobile
zoo would permit black and white children                to be exposed to animals and that
the newspapers would help to alleviate              problems in instructional      programs

        In view of the kinds of problems described               in the Memphis application,
as shown above, and after          considering       the views of the program officer,       we
believe     that HEW had lnsuffrclent          information    upon which to base a decision
that the grant funds were to be used to meet special                   needs incident  to de-
segregation      of the district's       schools
Orangeburg   County School        District       No     7
Elloree,   South Carolina

      Orangeburg County School               District        No 7 applied       for   ESAP funds     in the
amount of $39,068 and received                a grant        of $25,568

          The budget outlines   submitted          by the district          in its     application     and
revised      by HEW were as follows

                           Activity                                 Submitted           Revised

               Special pupil personnel     ser-
                 vices                                                $12,000           $12,000
               Special curriculum  revision
                 programs                                              20,300                6,800
               Teacher preparation   programs                           6,768                6,768

                                                                      $39,068           $25,568

       Information in the project file showed that the application was re-
ceived In Region IV on September 4, 1970, and that the review and approval
process had been completed on the same date

          Under the activity     "Special       Curriculum Revision             Programs,"       the dls-
trxt       outllned a single     problem       and need as follows

          "Problem - There is no fully           equipped science center in the dls-
          trict    A regular  classroom         without  water or proper lab facilities
          1s all that is available

          "Need - A science laboratory     fully equipped for student use with
          a revised instructional   approach is needed to answer this dire
          need 'I

The application       did not contain any other description        of the program which
the district     proposed to pursue with the $20,300 requested           for curriculum
revision       The file   did not contain any indication        of the activity    to be
funded with the $6,800 provided        for curriculum    revlslon


                                                        33
       In our oplnlon,   the proJect      file contaIned  insufflclent       information    to
(1) show the existence      of a specral need rncsdent       to the ellmlnation          of
racial   segregation   and discrimination      among students      and faculty     and (2)
evaluate   the reasonableness     of the amounts requested        or granted.

       The uncertainty  of the purposes of the grant was demonstrated,     we be-
lieve,   In an exchange of correspondence    between the school district   superln-
tendent and reglonal    off%crals    On October 13, 1970, the superintendent
wrote to the Office    of Education   grants officer,  saying

      "Since you only app roved $6,500 for building   under Special Curric-
      ulum Revision,   I am asking you to please let me transfer   this
      amount to renovation   and repair  of existing buildings   "

On October    26, 1970,    the HEW senior     program    officer    responded   to the super-
lntendent's    request,    saying-

      "After   studying   thus request and the proposal       originally  approved,
      this offrce     is unable to grant approval.        As you know requests for
      building    changes have a low priority       in the ESA Program, and your
      request does not have sufficient        information    about the need for
      this change "

      Use of ESAP funds for new construction   or for              maJor structural    changes
to existing  buildings  is prohibited  by the general              terms and conditions     of
the grants.

       The Region IV program officer      who reviewed     the application       told us
that he thought that the science center could be related               to a special need
incident   to the ellmlnation   of racial    segregation      and discrimlnatlon,         be-
cause curriculum    revision  was always necessary in all desegregated                systems
to meet the needs of all students          In response to our question           as to the
purpose of the amount granted to the district           for curriculum      revision,      the
program officer   said that he had assumed that the funds would be spent to
improve the science curriculum



      The following     examples demonstrate         the apparent reliance      upon the fund-
rng levels    in establrsting    the amounts        granted to districts

Wmston-Salem   City/Forsyth     County
Board of Education
Winston-Salem,   North Carolina
       In the priority    ranking,    the Winston-Salem    City/Forsyth      County Board of
Education,    was assigned a numerical        rating  of 9, which meant that its fund-
rng level would be determined         by multiplying    the number of minority       students
rn the district      by $18     On this basis the established        funding   level  for
the district    was $250,938



                                               34
       On September 21, 1970, an application            was received     from the district
for $390,441 In ESAP funds              This amount equals the number of minority          stu-
dents in the district        multiplxed     by $28--the   amount used in establishing
funding    levels    for districts     with a numerical    rating    between 10 and 12 In
the priority      ranking

      There was a note in the file,      signed by one of the reviewing     officials,
showing that on September 25, 1970, the program officer          had called the
school district     superintendent  to explain   that it would be necessary to re-
duce the district's      budget to $250,938     The note showed also that the dls-
tract previously     had been given an incorrect     figure as to its funding      level

       The district    submitted a revised     budget outline     for $250,738, which
was received      in Region IV on October 8, 1970, and which was reviewed         and ap-
proved on October 9, 1970        In transmitting      the revised    budget the superin-
tendent   stated-

       "A reduction     of this amount ~111 necessarily     affect      the level of
      proJect    services       In fact, the reductxon  resulted      in the com-
      plete elimination       of Special Pupil Personnel     Services       While
      the other activities        described  m our proJect    narrative     are still
      intact,    they have been cut back appreciably          A comparison      of the
      original     budget with the enclosed revised     budget shows the degree
      by which each activity        was reduced "

     The narrative   in the grant application      did not indicate                   the nature   of
the changes intended   in the proJect   actrvltles

      In addition, we noted that the district's                  application  listed   a number
of problems in the areas of curriculum    revision                and teacher preparation,
such as

      --widely      divergent      levels   of student    academic     performance,

      --large      number of students        deflcrent    in reading     and other      communication
         SklllS,

      --instructional           and human relations,

      --inadequate   time         for teachers     to participate      in staff   development      work-
          shops and other         inservice   actlvrtles,      and

      --at the high        school level,  much of the teachers'             time must be spent          in
         supervlsron       of study halls

       In response to our inquiry       as to how these problems represented     special
needs lncldent     to the elrmlnatlon      of racral  segregation  among the students
and faculty,    the program officer      acknowledged   that these problems existed
apart from the desegregation        process but said that desegregation     made the
problems more pronounced




                                                     35
Fulton County Board of Education
Hickman, Kentucky
      The applrcatlon      of the Fulton County Board of Education for ESAP funds
and other documents U-I the flies rndrcated the existence of serious racial
tension m the Fulton County schools, which had culminated In a surt m the
Federal courts over the expulsion of eight black students from the hrgh
school      The drstrlct    attrrbuted      Its problems of racial tension to a number
of factors,    lncludlng overcrowdedfacrlltles          and Inadequate numbers of em-
ployees      The application      Indicated     that the crowded condrtlons and the dis-
sent between the races could be greatly reduced by the purchase of two mo-
brie classroom units and by the employment of two addltlonal               teacher-aides,
one additional     guidance counselor, and one reglstered          nurse
        The dlstrrct       requested   ESAP funds of $46,595 for the following   actlvl-
ties.
              Special pupil personnel
                services (guidance counselor        and nurse>         $18,479
              Teacher preparation  programs
                (teacher-aides)                                          4,716
              Special comprehensive planning
                (mobile classroom units)                                23,400
                   Total                                               $46,595

       The applrcatron   was received in Region IV on September 5, 1970, and
assigned on that date to three program officers         for review  Two program
officers    recommended that the appllcatlon     be funded for $4,430--$2,072 for
special pup11 personnel services and $2,358 for teacher preparation          programs
The third program officer     recommended funding for $4,500.-all     for teacher
preparation     programs   The established   fundlng level for the dlstrlct    was
$4,430
       On September 8, 1970, the superintendent     wrote to HEW that, in compll-
ante with suggestions made by the program officer        for Kentucky, the district
had revised Its budget outline to show special pup11 personnel services at
 $2,072 and teacher preparation     programs at $2,358, making a total of $4,430,
the amount of the establlshed      funding level    The review sheet,prepared    by
the program officer,     showed that employment of a guidance counselor and a
nurse was considered to be a long-range need but there was nothing In the
file to show what actlvztles     were intended to be accomplished with the
amount granted      The program officer    could not recall why she had thought
the guidance counselor,     the nurse, or the classrooms were not needed        She
sard that the intentron     was that the funds granted would be used to hire
teacher and counselor aides and that this lntentlon        had been communicated to
the dlstrlct   by telephone




                                               36
SUPPLEMENTING AND SUPPLANTING OF FUNDS

      All but one of the 28 appllcatlons                 Included     In our review contained,
as required     by the regulations,         slgned assurances that ESAP funds would be
used only to supplement,         not supplant,         funds which were avallable         to the
school drstrlct      from non-Federal         sources for purposes that met the requlre-
ments of the program           In addition,       the application         form requires   a state-
ment of the amount of non-Federal              funds available          to the school dlstrlct
both before and after        desegregation        and an explanation          of any decrease In
the amount after       desegregation          Regional      offlclals     told us that they had
accepted the signed assurances            at face value,           In the absence of an lndlca-
tlon that the assurances were not valid.

        In the appllcatlons     flied   by Hoke County, North Carolina,             Dade County,
Florida,     and Jackson, Mlssrsslppl,         the amounts of non-Federal         funds avall-‘
able before and after       desegregation       were not shown.      Also, the assurances
In the Hoke County appllcatlon          were not srgned.         The appllcatlons      flied    by
Houston, Mlss~~~lppl;       Tarboro,    North Carolina,        and Wlnston-Salem      City/
Forsyth County, North Carolinas           indicated    that there were no non-Federal
funds available      either  before or after        desegregation.

       The program officer        for Hoke County told us that the grant should not
have been approved without           the assurances       being signed and that he would
get them slgned as soon as possible                 The program offzers     for the other
school dlstrlcts      offered     no explanations      for approval   of the appllcatlons
lacking   of required      lnformatlon      but stated that they would follow       up on
this matter during their          postgrant    reviews to these dlstrlcts.

      The appllcatlon    filed    by Hinds County, Mlsslsslppl,        showed a decrease
of $629,000 In non-Federal        funds avallable     after  lmplementatlon     of the de-
segregation     plan but attributed      this decrease to a decline       In enrollment
and to the formatlon     of a new school dlstrrct           Also the Carroll     County,
Georgia,    application  showed a decrease of $189,150 In such funds and attrl-
buted it to a decline       in transportation     needs

       We noted one case In which lnformatlon        on the application      lndlcated
the posslblllty     that ESAP funds might be used to supplant         non-Federal      funds
available     to the school dlstrlct    before desegregation.      Crisp County,
Georgia,    applied   for and received   $55,125 to hire 21 teacher-aides.            The
application     showed p under the school dlstrlct's      planned program for the
1970-71 school year, that, wlthout         ESAP funds, eight teacher-aides         could
be hired but that, with ESAP funds, 21 aides could be hired.               Since ESAP
funds were provided       for all 21 teacher-aldes,    It appears that the non-
Federal funds available       for the eight aides who would have been hired in
the absence of ESAP may have been supplanted          with ESAP funds.

       We noted another case where lnformatlon            became available      after the
grant was made that lndlcated       that ESAP funds might have been used to sup-
plant non-Federal    funds otherwise     available      to the school district.        MadI-
son County, Florida,     applied  for $50,000 to purchase five relocatable
classroom units.     On September 10, 1970, the dlstrlct's             application    was
approved   for $50,000, but HEW changed the amount for the relocatable
classroom units to $48,000 and provided            $1,500 for teacher preparation



                                                37
programs and $500 for special         student-to-student        programs (with no detail
explanation     as to the specific      purpose of the funds provided          for these
other activltres)          On October 22, 1970, the district's          request for an ad-
vance of funds showed that a contract             for construction     of the relocatable
classroom units was awarded on August 7, 1970                 Since funds for ESAP were
not appropriated     until    Auest   18, 1970, and since the dlstrlct's           appllca-
tion was not approved until         September 10, 1970, it appears that 'F-SAP fJnds
may have been used to supplant         non Federal funds which would have been re-
quired to pay for the relocatable           units if the ESAP grant had not been
made.

      We intend, In our follow-on     vssit  to the Crisp County and Madison
County school districts,     to examine into the posslbllity    that ESAP funds
were used to supplant    non-Federal   funds

ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION
OF PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

        In our oplnlon,   the applications          for most of the 28 grants Included
in our review did not contain,            contrary     to the regulations,       adequate de-
scrlptions    of methods, procedures,            and ObJective   criteria     which would per-
mit an independent      evaluation      of the effectiveness         of the proJects     asslsted
We noted that certain       applications         showed goals of, or expected achleve-
ments from, planned evaluations             of program activities         but that they did not
show the methods or obdectlve           criteria      which could be used to measure the
success of the activities

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO
PUBLIC    SEGREGATEDSCHOOLS

       All but one of the 28 applications   included  In our review contalned,
as required   by the regulations,   signed assurances that the applicants        had
not engaged in, and would not engage in, the transfer       of property      or ser-
vices to any nonpublic     school or school system which practiced      racial   dls-
criminatlon.

      HEW officials       told us that the assurances were accepted at face value,
in the absence of information          to indicate      that they were not valid,        and
that no other information         concerning    possible     transfers    to nonpublic
schools had been sought in the review and approval                  of the applications.
As previously      mentioned,   the assurances      in the application       filed   by Hoke
County, North Carolina,        had not been signed.         None of the applications         we
examined showed the transfer          of property     to nonpublic     schools.

        Regional   offlclals   told us that transfers    of property        to nonpublic
schools would      be considered    during their postgrant   reviews        at the school
dlstrlcts.

TEACHER AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT
AND SEGREGATED CLASSE5j

     The regulations     require   assurances that (1) teachers and staff members
who work directly    with children     at a school will be assigned in a manner



                                              38
.   that will result     xn the ratlo   of mlnorlty to nonmlnorlty       teachers and to
    other staff    In each school that 1s substantxally      the same as the ratio        for
    the entire    school system and (2) no dlscrlmlnatory       practices     or procedures,
    lncludlng   testing,   will be employed In the assignment       of children     to
    classes or in carrying      out other school actlvltles.

            Program officers    told us that these assurances by school dlstrlct           of-
    flclals     were accepted at face value,        in the absence of an lndlcatlon     that
    they were not valid,       and that no other lnformatlon        on this point had been
    sought rn the review and approval          of the appllcatlons        As previously
    stated,     the assurances    in the appllcatlon      flied  by Hoke County, North
    Carolina,      had not been slgned

    ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

    Blraclal    advisory    committees
          The files     for three of the 28 school dlstrlcts               included    In our review
     (Dade County, Florida,        Atlanta,   Georgia,     and Jackson, Mlsslsslppi)          showed
    that the districts        had blraclal    commlttees formed pursuant             to a court
    order     The files     for these dlstrlcts        contained     evidence     that the biracial
    committees concurred         in the appllcatlons       submitted     by the dlstrlcts.

           The flies for 11 of the remaining       25 dlstrlcts     either (1) indicated
    that commlttees which met the requirements          of the regulations     had been
    formed or (2) listed      the names of five to 15 organlzatlons        which would be
    asked to appoint members to biracial        committees       Some of these dlstrlcts
    stated in their    appllcatlons    that appropriate      committees would be formed
    within   30 days after    approval   of the grant

            The appllcatlons      submitted     by the remalnlng       14 dlstrlcts     did not sat-
    lsfy the requirements         of the regulations       with respect to the formation              of
    brraclal     commlttees In that they (1) did not list                organlzatlons     from which
    members had been OL would be appointed,               (2) did not show the race of com-
    mittee members or did not meet requirements                 for equal representation           of
    mlnorlty     and nonmlnorlty      membership,     (3) did not show that at least 50 per-
    cent of committee membership were parents                of children      drrectly    affected      by
    the program, or (4) listed            committees which had been appointed            by local
    officials,      apparently    without    the benefit     of assistance        from organizations
    representative       of the communltles        to be served by the programs              Program
    officers     told us that they generally          assumed proper biracial          committees
    would be formed and that the formatlon               and functioning        of such committees
    would be followed         up on during their      postgrant     reviews

    Student    advisory    committees

           The appllcatlons     filed    by 21 of the 28 dlstrlcts     included    in our re-
    view did not contain,       contrary     to the regulations,   assurances    that a stu-
    dent advisory     committee would be formed In each secondary school affected
    by the proJect.        The proJect    proposed by one dlstrlct     (Tarboro,     North Car-
    olina)   did not involve       any secondary schools




                                                      39
        We believe     that the dlstrrcts    may not have furnished    these assurances
because the appllcatlon         form does not contain    this assurance Item and the
instructions       for completing    the form do not mention it

     The comments of program officers  concerning      student advisory   committees
were essentially the same as those concerning     biracial    advisory  committees.

PUBLICATION OF PROJECT TERMS

       The regulations           require     an assurance that the applicant          will, within
30 days after proJect              approval,    have published        In a local newspaper of gen-
eral circulation          either     the terms and provlslons           of the approved proJect    or
pertinent      information         as to where and how the terms and provisions             of the
approved proJect          are reasonably        available     to the public.     Program officers
told us that the assurances provided                    by the school districts      were accepted
at face value and that verifications                    of publlcatlon     would be made during
their    postgrant      reviews      at the school districts.




                                                40
                                             CHAPTER 5

                 COMMRNTSON HEW DALLAS REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES

                              FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP

      HEW Region VI , wrth headquarters        rn Dallas,  Texas, encompasses the five
States of Arkansas, Lourslana,         New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.        According
to Office   of Education   statistics,     2,432 school districts    were operating
publsc schools rn these States in the fall          of 1969.    As of August 26, 1970,
387 school districts     were identified      by HEW as being potentially      eligible
for assistance   under ESAP. Of these 387 school districts,             200 had received
grants totaling    over $14 million      as of November 13, 1970.       Our review      in-
cluded 12 of these grants totaling         about $5 4 million      (See app III.)

        We belleve    that the Dallas Regional           Office    did not require      the school
drstrrcts      to comply with several         pertinent     requrrements      of the ESAP regula-
tions.     In our opinion,      the maJorrty        of the appllcatlons        did not contain,
although     required    by regulations      , comprehensive       statements     of the problems
faced in achieving        and malntalnlng        desegregated      school systems, nor did they
contain    adequate descrrptions          of proposed activities         designed to effectively
meet such problems          Particularly,        there was a lack of documentation            as to
how the proposed activltles            would meet the children's          special needs result-
ing from the elimination          of racial      segregation      and drscrimznatron       rn the
schools

       Regional       offlcrals      rn general   agreed that the applications              did not con-
taln adequate statements               of the problems or descriptions            of the activities
designed to meet these problems.                 They told us, however,           that they had sat-
isfied    themselves         in these respects,      prior   to proJect       approval,     on the ba-
srs of their         knowledge of the school districts'              problems and their         contacts
with school offlclals              In obtaining   additional      information.         The additional
information        that was known or obtarned,            however, was not documented in the
proJect     files.        We were, therefore,       unable to determine         whether ESAP funding
decisions       were based on consideration            of the applicants'         needs for assis-
tance, the relative             potential     of the proJects , or the extent to which the
prolects       dealt with the problems faced by the school districts                      In desegregat-
ing their       schools.

       Most of the applications,        in our opinion,  did not contain,    although
required    by regulations,      an adequate descrlptlon    of the methods, procedures,
and obJective     criteria   , which could be used by an independent      organization
to evaluate    the effectiveness      of each program activity

        The files    supportrng  most of the 12 grants did not evidence   full                   com-
plrance    by the districts     with the regulations  concernrng the formation                    of
brracial    and student advisory      committees and publrcation of the terms                    and
provisions      of the ESAP proJects.

         We noted that Louisiana      law requires      that school districts    furnish
school books and supplies         to students rn private        schools and that transpor-
tation     may be furnished    to students     attending    parochial   schools,    Regional
officials      contacted   14 Louislana   school dlstrrcts       prior  to grant approval    and


                                                   41
determined      that the maJorlty    had transferred         property    or provided      transpor-
tation   to prrvate     schools under the State          law     HEW officials     advrsed us,
however,    that they had decided to certify             the Lourslana      school distracts        as
eligrble     for ESAP fundlng     if they had no       indlcatlons     of civrl    rrghts     vlo-
latrons    other than the transfers      allowed       by Loursrana      law

       We drd not note any rnformatlon    In the regional     office   files which
indicated    that the school dlstrlcts   (1) were dlscrrmlnating       on the basis
of race in teacher and professronal      staffing  patterns,      (2) were assrgning
children   to classes on the basis of their berng members ofmlnorrty           groups,
or (3) would use their ESAP grants to supplant        funds which were available
to them from non-Federal     sources for purposes of the program

ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING
OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

       To allot     ESAP funds to the five     States rn Region VI, HEW/Washington
determined      that there were a total of 387 potentially             elrglble       school dls-
tracts   in the region as of August 26, 1970             Because there were 911,852
minority    students    In these 387 potentially      ellglble       school dlstrlcts,        the
Offrce   of Education,      through use of the formula         previously       described    on
page 7, a llotted      over $16 mlllron   to school drstrlcts           in these States, as
set forth below
                           Number of
   State          potentially    eligible                   Number of                      State
(note a>             school districts                  minority - students             allotment

Arkansas                      126                             105,527                $ 1,967,479
Louisiana                      65                             338,765                  6,316,043
Oklahoma                       22                              14,312                     266,837
Texas                         174                             453,248                  8,026,875

     Total                                                    911,852                $16,577,234

aRegron VI also includes the State of New Mexico          However, since this State
 had no school districts  lmplementlng    court-ordered    or voluntary   desegrega-
 tion plans, rt could not qualify     for assistance    and did not receive    an al-
 lotment

        The regulations     require   that a school drstrrct,   to be ellglble  for ESAP
assistance,     must have commenced the terminal       phase of its voluntary   or
court-ordered       desegregation   plan during either    the 1968-69, 1969-70,   or
1970-71 school year.

      Region VI required       applrcants     to submit an assurance of           compliance
with this regulation        and a copy of their desegregation       plans.           Our review
of the 12 prolects       showed that the applicants       had submitted          data which ap-
peared to be satrsfactory        In this regard.       Of the 12 school          dlstrlcts,    nine
were operating     under voluntary       desegregatron   plans and three          were operating
under Federal-court-ordered         plans.




                                                42
      The Chief of the Education          Drvlslon,       Offlce    for Crvll  Rights,  told us
that the deflnrtlon        of the terminal      phase of a desegregatron          plan, as ap-
plred In Regson VI , meant the begrnnrng               of that phase of the plan where no
schools wlthrn     a school dlstrlct       were racially         ldentlflable,    1 e , where
there was no assignment         of students and teachers            to schools on the basis
of race, color,     rellglon    , or natlonal       orrgrn

       The offrclal       told us that, rn the case of a court-ordered             desegrega-
tion plan, his office           relred    strictly    on the date set by the court In de-
termlnlng    whether the applicant             was rn the termrnal    phase as defined      by
the regulations           He indicated        that there would be little,     If any, other
lnformatlon     available       since the Department        of Justice was responsible       for
monltorlng     a school drstrlct's           compliance   with court-ordered     desegregation
plans and that his offlce              had not been involved     with school dlstrlcts       which
were desegregating          under court order until         ESAP was implemented
       With respect to a voluntary        desegregation       plan,      the Chief of the Educa-
tron Dlvlslon    told us that his office        also relied        on    the date that the
school district     implemented    Its desegregation         plan in       determlnlng    whether
the applicant    was In the terminal       phase.     He explained,           however,   that, In
the case of a school district         under a voluntary         plan,      his offlce    would have
a fde     on the dlstrlct     whrch would contain       lnformatlon          on whether the volun-
tary plan had been approved by HEW and whether there                     was any lndlcatlon        of
noncomplrance    based on past onsrte reviews,            pregrant       audits,     or complaints
received    from the district

     HEW determined,      on the basis of the foregoing  factors,  that each of
the 12 school dlstrlcts       included In our review were in the terminal   phase
of desegregation    prior   to proJect approval

        After ESAP funds were allotted       by HEW/Washmgton to the States in
Region VI, reglonal     offlclals   established    maximum funding   levels    for ell-
gable school dlstrlcts       within each State using the prlorlty       ranking    system
established    by the Offrce of Education,       Washington     (See p 23 1
        The senior program officer              told us that the amounts so computed were
used as control        figures,     m that applicant          school dlstrlcts         could not be
approved for funding            rn excess of these amounts           He said that such a con-
trol was necessary          m the early stages of the program to ensure that avail-
able funding       would not be exhausted before all ellglble                   dlstrlcts    had an
opportunity      to participate,         because It was not known how many eligible
dlstrlcts    would submrt appllcatrons                  He told us also that, as the program
progressed,      it became evident           that not all school dlstrlcts             would be ell-
gable for assistance           and that others would not wish to partlcrpate                  In the
program.     As a result,         addrtlonal       funds were avallable       to supplement those
proJects    that had already          been approved and to increase             the funding     level,
where justified,         of proJects       pending approval

      Regional    offrclals       told us that school dlstrlcts            were not notlfred       of
the maximum fundlng         levels until         after    they had developed    their     proposed
programs      The officials         stated that, during         lnltlal   workshop conferences
and rn orlentatlon         conferences        held m each State prior         to the workshop
sessions,   school district          offlclals        were asked to identify      their most crlt-
lcal desegregatxon         problems and to develop program actlvltles                  that would


                                                  43
contribute    to solving    these problems         The sensor program officer       said that
the estrmated       costs of programs developed       by the school dlstrlcts,        In most
instances,   were in excess of their        establrshed     fundlng      levels and that dur-
lng the workshop sessions regional          offlclals    assrsted      the school dlstrlcts
In revlslng     therr proposals     downward to stay wlthln         their funding   levels
Generally,    the results     of these workshop sessions were not documented in
the proJect     files

        We compared the amounts established              as ~~XUIIUII funcrlng levels          with
the amounts of the grants Initially              received       by the 12 school dlstrlcts
 zncluded In our review and found that eight dlstrlcts                       received    grants that
were wlthln       3 percent of their establzshed             funding    levels        The other four
grants were substantially          above or below the school dlstrlcts'                  fundrng
levels       We noted also that four of the dlstrrcts,                  which were lnltlally
funded at less than their maximum funding                  levels,    later     received    supple-
mental grants which resulted            in their    total      grant amounts exceeding their
fundmg     levels       Generally,    t'he lnadequacles        , noted by us In the basic ap-
plications    , of the descriptions         of problems incident           to desegregation         and
needs of the school districts             were true of the requests for supplemental
funds      These lnadequacles       are discussed        In detail      rn the following        section
of this report.




                                                   44
PROJECT POTENTIAL AND CONTENT

        We belleve    that, of the 12 appllcatlons          included   In our review,       at
least seven had inadequate         lnformatlon      concerning     the problems faced by the
school dlstrlct       In achrevlng     and malntalnlng      a desegregated      school system,
particularly,      the assessments of the needs of the children               ln the school
systems appeared to be inadequate              We believe      also that 10 appllcatlons,
lncludlng      the seven above, did not, 1.n many areas, provide              sufficient     in-
formatlon      to establish   the existence     of special       needs lncldent      to desegre-
gatlon

       Regional   offlclals      In general       agreed that the applrcatlons            did not con-
taln adequate statements           of the problems or descrlptlons               of the actlvltles
designed to meet these problems                  They told us, however,           that they had sat-
isfled   themselves       In these respects,          prior    to proJect    approval,    on the basis
of their knowledge of the school dlstrlcts'                      problems and their      contacts with
school officials        in obtalnlng       addrtlonal       information     considered    necessary
The additional      lnformatlon        that was known or obtained,            however,    was not
documented in the proJect            files       Therefore,       we were unable to determine
whether ESAP funding         decrslons      were based on a conslderatlon              of the appll-
cants' needs for assistance              and the relative         potential    of the proJects.

      The following    1s an example of a descrlptlon        of a problem contained In
a grant appllcatlon     which we believe       was not adequate to show that the prob-
lem resulted     from desegregation   activities.

Houston    Independent     School   District
Houston,     Texas

      The   Reglonal    Commlssloner  of Education    approved ESAP funding     in the
amount of     $212,792 for the Houston Independent        School District   under the
category    of "special    curriculum   revision"  programs.    The applicant's    entire
statement     of the problem in that area was

       #@Therelevancy    of all curricula,          and especially      the social
       studies curriculum,     are suspect        in a multi-ethnic        school
       environment."J
      We belleve    that this statement        1s nebulous and does not effectively
deal with specific      problems that may have existed           at the time the appllca-
tlon was submitted      or that may be expected to develop            if a curriculum    revl-
 slon is not forthcoming.       Furthermore,       the application      did not include    a
comprehensive     assessment of the needs of the children             in terms of currlcu-
lum revision     nor did It provide     sufficient     information      to allow a determlna-
tlon that this was an emergency problem resulting                 from the desegregation       of
 the Houston school system.

       The program officer   agreed that the Houston              application    was not ade-
quate to provide     a basis for a funding       decision          However, he told us that,
on the basis of the regional       reviewers ' knowledge            of the school dlstrlct,
the lnformatlon    provided  In the application,          and     the additional    contact with
the school administrators,      the regional      reviewers         had been able to assure
themselves    that emergency problems stemming from               desegregation    did in fact
exist,    that the needs were valid      in light    of the       problems faced, and that


                                                  45
the proposed proJects      were designed to effectively            deal with these problems.
us told us that he had obtained         ;Lnformatlon      from school dlstrlct       off;LcLals
which lndlcated     that the drstrlct's       curriculum      was geared prlmarlly        to white
students   and was not rel    ated  to  needs    of   students   of  other    ethnic  back-
grounds.    On this basis he concluded that the curriculum                 revlslon   program
was needed      This Information,      however,     was not documented -Ln the protect
file



         The following    are examples of Inadequate        descrlptlons of proposed ac-
tlvltles     set forth  -Ln certain    appllcatlons   which did not show how the pro-
 posed actlvltles      would help meet the special needs lncldent          to the ellmlna-
 tlon of segregation       as required     by the regulations

Orleans Parish School         Board
New Orleans,  Louislana

        The Regional        Commlssloner       of Education      approved ESAP fundlng      In the
amount of $1,953,400            for the Orleans Parish School Board (New Orleans,                 Lou-
lslana)    on October 19, 1970                We noted in our review of the appllcatlon             that
Items In the approved budget totaling                    $372,500 (or about 19 percent of the
total)    were neither         described      nor accounted for m the cost breakdown or
narrative      sectlons       of the appllcatlon           Therefore,    reglonal officials     were
not aware of the purposes for which these grant funds were to be spent                               As
a result     of our questlonlng            the adequacy of the snformatlon        supporting      this
portion    of the grant,          reglonal     offlclals    wrote to the grantee on December 23,
1970, requesting           that proper Justlflcatlon           of these items be submitted        to
the reglonal       offlce.

San Antonio     Independent     School    District
San Antonio,      Texas

        The Regional    Commlssloner  of Education     approved ESAP funding       In the
amount of $1,165,300        for the San Antonio Independent        School Dlstrlct      (San
Antonlo,    Texas) on October 14, 1970          Our review of the application         showed
that funds in the amount of $105,120 were approved              for a community lnforma-
tlon program deslgned to promote acceptance of desegregation                by accurately
informlng    parents,    students, and patrons concerning       the goals and actlvltles
of the school         The application  outlined    conslderable     costs for employee
salarles,    contracted     services, and supplies     and equipment,    wlthout     any de-
scrlptlon    as to how these personnel       and supplles     and equipment were to be
used to solve the communlcatlon        problem

      Also, funds in the amount of $104,630 were approved for this proJect
under "special   pup11 personnel   services, I' for the hiring        of dlagnostlclans
to conduct physiological    and psychological       evaluations    of 1,000 pupils
The appllcatlon   dsd not describe    the quallflcatlons        of the personnel      to be
employed, the evaluations     to be performed,     nor how the evaluatrons         would
meet the special   needs of the school dlstrlct

      The program officer  agreed that the San Antonlo appllcatlon  was not
comprehensive   but told us that the fundlng declslon  was based on his



                                                     46
knowledge of the school dlstrlct,              the lnformatron         In the appllcatlon,        and
addltlonal    lnformatlon     obtained      from the applicant           as considered     necessary
He said that he had obtained            the addlixonal        lnformatlon      from the applicant     on
how the personnel        and supplles      and equipment were to be used to solve the
communlcatlon      problem,   the quallflcatlons         of the dlagnostlclans           to be hired,
and the type of evaluations           they would perform             However,     the Information
obtained was not documented In the proJect                 file

Jackson Parish School         Board
Jonesboro,  LouIslana

        The Regional      Commissioner      of Education       approved ESAP funding        In the
amount of $42,000 for the Jackson Parish School Board (Jonesboro,                          Lourslana)
on October 2, 1970             The applicant      had requested       $43,000--$23,000     under
special     curriculum     revlslon   programs and $20,000 under special                comprehensive
planning         However, the regional         revlewexs     deleted    $13,000 from special        cur-
riculum     revision    programs and the entire            $20,000 from special        comprehensive
planning         They then added a total          of $32,000 under a new actlvlty--teacher
preparation       programs--through       telephone      negotlatlons      with the applicant.
The appllcant,however,           was not required        to submit any new lnformatlon           to de-
fine the problem or describe             how the new activity          would be accomplished

       We discussed the lack of lnformatlon         in the appllcatlon     with the pro-
gram officer     who informed  us that, during his dlscusslons         with representa-
tives of the school dlstrlct,       It was determined      that the district       had a
greater    need for a teacher preparaixon       program,   which  consisted     primarily    of
hlrlng   teacher aides, than it had for the program activltles              deleted     from
the appllcatron.      However,  the lnformatlon       whxh was used as a basis for the
determlnatlon     was not documented in the proJect        file.
SUPPLEMENTING AND SUPPLANTING OF FUNDS

      The appllcatlons      submitted   by the 12 school dlstrxts     covered   in our
review contained,      as required    by the regulations, slgned assurances       that
ESAP funds would be used only to supplement non-Federal           funds avallable      to
the school district      for the purposes of the program

         We were advised by the senior program officer                  that, In those instances
where the application            showed that non-Federal          funds avallable      to a school
district      had increased        after    its court-ordered       or voluntary    desegregation
plan was Implemented,            the program officers         were not concerned and performed
no investigative        efforts.         He said that,      in those instances      where a decrease
1x-1non-Federal      funds was shown and proper Justiflcatlon                   was not contalned    in
the application,        further       lnvestlgatlon      was made      He pointed out that,       to
determine      the valldlty        of this type of information,           an audit of the appll-
cant's     records would be required

ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURES FOR
EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

      In our opinion,     eight of the 12 appllcatlons     we reviewed    drd not con-
tain,   although required     by the regulations,    an adequate description     of the
methods, procedures,      and ObJective    criteria  that could be used by an



                                                   47
Independent    organlzatlon     to evaluate   the effectiveness        of each program   ac-
tlvlty

      We found that  certam       applicants      showed goals of, or expected achleve-
ment from, planned evaluations           of program actlvltles.       They did not show
methods or ObJectlve     crlterla      which could be used to measure the success of
the actlvlty     For example, the RegIonal            Commlssloner   approved ESAP fundlng
In the amount of $1,X5,300         for the San Antonio Independent           School Dlstrlct
 (San Antonio, Texas) on October 14, 1970, lncludlng               $220,785 for special
community programs.     Concerning         this program category,      the following  com-
ments appeared with respect to evaluating              the effects   of two of the actlvl-
ties

      1. "If the proposed actlvltles      are successful,     there will be an
         Increased  understanding    of the school's     goals and greater  ac-
         ceptance of desegregation     efforts."

      2   "If the proposed procedures are successful, a higher percent-
          age of the patrons of the school ~~11 become more aware of the
          school's  maJor goals I'

No comments were set forth        as to the methods,     procedures,      or obJective   crate-
r1.a to be used in evaluating       the actrvltles.

         For some of the proposed activities,       the appllcatlons      did not contain
any comments relative        to the procedures   and crlterla      for evaluating  program
actlvltles       and the program officers    did not obtain the submlsslon of the re-
quired     lnformatlon




                                              48
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO
NONPUBLIC SEZREGATED SCHOOLS

      All 1.2 applications    included in our review contained,         as required  by
the regulations,     a sIgned assurance that the applicant         had not engaged, and
would not engage, in the transfer      of property     or services    to any nonpublic
school or school system which practiced       discrlmlnatlon.

        The Chief of the Education      DlvLsion,      Office    for Civil      Rights,  Region VI,
said that, when an application         was received,        his  office    performed    either    a
file    review or a pregrant    audit at the school district             and, on the basis of
the results,     certified   to the regional      Office      of Education      that the applicant
was or was not in compliance        with the nondrscriminatlon             requirements      of the
regulations.

      He explained          that during the file       revzew the most current          report   on an
onslte vlslt         and any lnformatlon      on complaints      or alleged    clvll      rights  vlola-
tlons In the dlstrlct            subsequent to such visit        were considered.           He added
that,    If the applicant         was under a court-ordered        desegregation        plan, his
staff relied         on the written     assurance of the school dlstrlct             that it was m
compliance       with the court order since there would be very little,                      if any,
1nformatLon        In the files      on such districts.        He said that the only instances
where his office           did not rely solely on the applicant's           assurance was when
a pregrant       audit was made. He explained             that a pregrant     audit involved        a
visit    to,the      applicant    school district      and a thorough check of all aspects
of civil      rights     compliance.

         Three of the 12 school districts          were operating          under Federal court-
ordered desegregation       plans.      In two of these cases, regional                officials      re-
lied completely       on the assurance of the applicants               that they would comply
with the court order.        No site visits,         pregrant      audits,     or other types of
lnvestigatlon      were made prior      to proJect      approval     as a basis for regional
certlflcatlon      that these two applicants           were in complzance with this requlre-
ment of the regulations.          Regional    officials       performed       a pregrant      audit for
the other court-ordered        district    on October 14, 1970, 5 days prior                    to grant
approval,     which showed that the applicant            was in compliance          wrth the regula-
tion requirement.

       The other nine school districts             were operating     under voluntary    plans
of desegregation.           For these school districts,         no pregrant    audits were made
and regional      certifications        of compliance    were based on reviews       of the ex-
isting    files   for each school district.            Our review of the files       of these
none districts       showed that the region had made onsite visits               to eight of
them.     Six of the eight onslte vzslts            had been made from 10 to 11 months
prior   to the dates of grant approval             and two were made within        1 week of the
grant approval       dates.      The reports    on the onslte vlslts        did not show any
civil   rights    problems,      and the flies     did not contain     any evidence    of clvll
rights    complaints      or violations      at the time such grants were approved.

Transfer  of property
under Louislana   law

        The Chief of the Education           DlvLslon, Offzce        for Civil  Rights,    Region
VI,   told us that the Louisiana            State law provrdes         that school districts


                                                    49
furnish     school books and school supplies            to students       in private     schools and
that transportatron        may be furnrshed        to students     attending      parochial    schools.
He said that, after        grvLng consideration         to the Louislana         State law and other
Indicatrons      of possible    violations,      regional    offlcLals       decided in early Sep-
tember 1970 that they could not at that time certrfy                      that the Lourslana
school districts      were rn compliance         with the nondiscrimination            requirements
of the regulations        and the officials        requested     a ruling     from the Office       for
Civil    Rights,   Washington,     on the ellglbllrty        of the school distracts           for
EM? fundlng.        At that time, the school district              applications       were placed
in a flYholdVr status awaiting         a decrsion     by the Washington office.

      Pending the decision    by the Washington office,     the regional      officials
decided to make pregrant     audits of 14 Louisiana    school districts       to determine
whether these school districts      had made transfers    to private    schools and
whether the districts    were complying with the nondiscrimination          requirements
of the regulations.

        The Chref of the Educatron Drvlslon             told us that during the pregrant
audits,    the superintendent        of each school district          signed a separate     state-
ment which certified         that the district      either     did or did not transfer       prop-
erty or provide       transportation     to private       schools.      He said that, through
the pregrant      audits and telephone       conversations,        it was determlned     that a
maJority     of the school districts        drd transfer      property     or provide  transporta-
tion to private       schools.

         For the two Louisiana     districts      included    in our review,   Orleans Parish
was audited     by the HEW reglonal        office    before grant approval     and Jackson
Parish was audited        after grant approval.          These audits revealed     that nerther
district     had transferred    property       or provided    transportation   to private
schools.

        The Chief of the Education       Dlvlslon      told us that, in a meeting with
an offlclal     of the Office     for Clv11 Rights,        Washington,     about October 12,
55U0, it was finally       decided that,      if the pregrant       audit or the telephone
inquiries    showed no civil     rights   violations       other than the transfers      which
are allowed     by Louisiana    State law, the Office          for Civil    Rights would cer-
tsfy that the Louisiana        school districts        in "'hold" status were in compliance
with the regulations       and would declare        them eligible      for ESAP funding.

TEACHER AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT
AND SEGREGATED CLASSES

       All 12 appllcatsons           contained,     as required     by the regulations,       signed
assurances      that the districts          were in compliance       with the regulation        re-
quirements      concerning       (1) dlscrlmination         in teacher and professional         staff-
ing patterns       and (2) dlscrlminatory           practices     or procedures,    including       test-
ing, used in assIgning            children     to classes or in carrying         out curricular        or
extracurricular       activities        within   the schools

       In addltlon  to obtaining      these assurances,            regional   officials  either
performed   a file review or made pregrant         audits          of the school districts      as
discussed   In the previous     section    of this report               (See p. 49.)



                                                   50
ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Blraclal    advzsory   comm&ttees

     Qur review     showed that many of the 12 school dlstrrcts               had not     complred
with the regulation     requirements concerning the formatron               of blraclal     advisory
committees.

      Two of the 12 school dzstricts     planned to use court-appolnted    advisory                    x
committees.    One of these dlstrlcts    had complred with the regulation    requlre-
ments in most respects.       The second dzstrlct,   however, had been unable to
meet the requirements     because of a lack of action on the part of the court
(Federal)   In appointing   committee members.

       The other 10 dlstrlcts        were requrred        to form advisory      commIttees wlthln
30 days of approval       of their    appllcatlons.         We found that three or more of
these dlstrlcts       had not submrtted       lnformatlon      showing (1) the community
organrzatlons      from which members of the advisory              commlttees were to be ap-
polnted,     (2) the ml norlty    and nonmlnorrty         composltlon    of the advrsory      com-
mittees,     (3) that parents      of children      to be directly     affected    by the proJ-
ect comprised at least 50 percent             of the committee membership,           (4) that
the names of the advisory          committee members had been made public,               and
 (5) that the committees had been formed within                 30 days of proJect       approval,

       We discussed  these matters with regional        offlclals       who informed    us that
they would follow    up on these and other regulation            requirements     during their
program monltorlng    visits  to the school dlstrncts.             Our review of the reports
prepared   on vlslts   to sxx school dlstrlcts       showed that the program officers
followed   up m some of the districts        to determine      if the districts       had com-
plied wl'ch the regulation    requirements     concerning      biracial     commIttees bat
that there was no lndlcatlon      of follow-up     for others

         For example, one district's      advisory commsttee was not comprised of
equal numbers of minority        and nonmlnorlty   members.     Although     this imbalance
in the committee structure         was known by the responsible       program officer      and,
in our opinion,      should have been corrected     at the trme of his vlslt          to the
district     m early December 1970, no corrective        action was initiated        until
we brought the condition       to his attention.

Student    advisory    commzttees

        We found that, of the 10 school dlstrlcts         included      In our review which
were required     by the regulhtions      to form student advisory         committees,    only
three submitted     assurances    that such committees would be formed.               It appears,
on the basis of our discussion         with the senior program officer,            that the
assurances were not provided         because the application       instructions       made no
provlslon     for subm-Lsslon of the assurance with the appllcatlon              even though
it was required     by the regulations.

        Our review of the files     showed, however,       that seven of the 10 districts
had formed student advisory       commrttees.        For two of the remaining    three dls-
tricts,    there was no information     in the proJect        files showing that such com-
mittees had been formed.       Regional    offlclals     told us that they did not know
whether the commsttees had been formed but that they planned to follow                 up


                                                 51
on this matter when they made their monitoring     visits   to the school districts.
Although  a visit report on the third district   showed that a committee would
be formed by December 10, 1570, the regional   office     had not received confirma-
tion that the committee had been formed as of January 8, 1971.

PUBLICATION OF PROJECT TERMS

     All 12 of the appllcatrons   contarned,    as required   by the regulations,
the assurance that the applrcant   would publish     the terms and provisions                          of
the proJect  in a local newspaper within     30 days of proJect approval.

       Our review showed that newspaper publications         were on file   for four of
the 12 school districts         and that only one of the four had publicized      the
required   information     within    30 days of the project  approval     The elapsed
tune from proJect      approval    to publlcatlon  ranged from 55 to 79 days for the
other three districts.

       The proJect      files      did not include        information       on the requxred       newspaper
publications      in the remaining            eight proJects,        although     the 30.=day period
had elapsed in all cases.                The senior program officer             told us that compliance
with the publlcatlon           requxement         was to be verified         by the program offxers
during their      first     visits     to the school dlstrlcts.              Although visits        had
been made to four of these dlstrlcts,                   our review of the proJect            files,     in-
cluding     assessment reports,            indicated    that this requirement          had not been
complied with at the time of the assessment visits                          or when we subsequently
discussed this matter with the individual                      program officers.        The elapsed
time from the proJect             approval      to the date of our dlscusslons            ranged from
58 to 97 days.




                                                    52
                                                     CHAPTER6

                      COMMENTSON HEW PHILADELPHIA                REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES

                                      FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP

       HEW Region III,     with headquarters     in Philadelphia,       Pennsylvania,     encom-
passes the five States of Delaware,          Maryland,    Pennsylvania,      Virginia    and
West Virgin1.a    and the Dlstrlct      of Columbia.    Accordxng to Office          of Educa-
tion statistics,      840 school districts      were operating     public    schools 1x-l this
region   in the fall     of 1969.   As of August 26, 1970, 89 school districts
were identified      by HEW as being potentially       ellglble    for assistance       under
ESAP. Of these 89 school districts,            59 had received     grants totaling       about
$4.7 million     as of November 13, 1970. Our review included               seven of these
grants totaling      over $1.1 million.      (See app. 111.)

       We believe      that the Philadelphia             Regional      Offxe      did not require      the
school districts         to comply with several            pertinent       requirements      of the ESAP
regulatrons.        In our opinion,          most of the applications              did not contain,
contrary     to the regulations,            comprehensxve       statements        of the problems faced
in achieving       and malntainlng          desegregated      school systems, nor did they con-
tain adequate descriptions               of the proposed activities               designed to effectively
meet such problems.           Particularly,          there was a lack of documentation               as to
how the proposed activities                would meet the children's              special   needs which
resulted     from the ellminatlon            of racial     segregation        and dlscrrmlnation         in
the schools.        Regional      officials       told us that, on the basis of their knowl- '
edge of the school districts,                their educational           experience,      and additional
information      obtained     from school district            officials,        they believed     that the
proJects     merited     approval.
       Most of the applications,       in our opinion,     did not contain,      contrary     to
the regulations,      an adequate descrlptlon      of the methods, procedures,          and
ObJective    criteria     that could be used by an independent        organization      to eval-
uate the effectiveness         of each program activity.       Also the files      supporting
some of the seven grants did not contain           evidence    that the school dlstrlcts
were in full      compliance with the regulations        concerning   the formation       of bi-
racial    and student advisory      committeesI

         Regional    officials        accepted the signed assurances               of the school dls-
tracts     that they were in compliance                 with the requirement          of the regulations
concerning       dlscrlmlnatlon          In teacher and professional            staffing        patterns.
For one of the districts               (Prince Georges County, Maryland),                  lnformatlon       in
the regional        office     files,      at the time the school dlstrlctts                 application       was
reviewed,      showed that the ratio                of minority     to nonminority       faculty       in each
school within         the district         was not substantially           the same as the ratio           for
the entire        school system,contrary              to the regulations.         We believe         that, be-
cause this lnformatlon              was available         In the regional      office      files     prior   to
proJect      approval,      regional       offlclals      should have contacted          school district
offlclals      to determine          what action was being taken or planned to comply with
this requirement           of the regulations.              By letter    dated February          2, 1971, the
Regional      DIrector,       Office     for Civil      Rights,     requested    the superintendent            of
the district        to comply with the assurance given in the ESAP appllcatlon.



                                                        53
         None of the seven appllcatlons      contalned   details  concerning the quail-
flcatlons     of consultants     or other persons who were to be employed for proJect
actlvltles     requlrlng    persons having special     expertise.

       We did not note any lnformatlon        In the reglonal    office    flies  which
would lead us to belleve        that the school dlstrlcts     (1) had transferred         any
property     or services  to nonpublxc    schools which practiced       racial   dlscrlmlna-
tlon,    (2) were assigning     children  to classes on the basis of their being
members of mlnorlty      groups, or (3) would use their ESAP grants to supplant
funds which were avallable         to them from non-Federal     sources.

ELIGIBILITY     AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

       To allot     ESAP funds to the States In Region III,          HEW/Washington deter-
mined that there were a total        of 89 potentially      ellglble    school dlstrlcts    In
the region as of August 26, 1970. On the basis of the 297,802 mlnorlty
students    In these 89 potentially      ellglble    school dlstrlcts,      the Office   of
Education,      through use of the formula previously        described    on page 7, al-
lotted   about $5.5 mllllon      to school dlstrlcts      In these States,     as set forth
below.

                              Number of
   State             potentially    eligible                    Number of                       State
(note a>                school districts                   minority  students               allotment
Maryland                          6                                43,447                  $      810,040
Pennsylvania                    11                                 25,528                         475,952
Virginia                        71                                228,387                      4,258,120
West Virginia                   1                                      440                          8.203

     Total                                                                                 $53552,315

aReglon III also Includes      the State of Delaware and the Dlstrlct         of
 Columbia.    Delaware did not have any potentially     ellglble       school dlstrlcts,
 and the District     of Columbia had entered the terminal       phase of its desegre-
 gation plan prior      to the 1968-69 school year, therefore,       they did not re-
 celve allotments.

       The regulations      require  that, for a school district       to be eligible     for
ESAP assistance,       It must have commenced the terminal        phase of Its voluntary
or court-ordered       desegregation     plan during the 1968-69, 1969-70,        or 1970-71
school year.       The application     form requires   the applicant     to attach a copy
of its desegregation        plan to its applrcatlon.      Of the seven school districts
included    In our review,      four were under voluntary    desegregation      plans and
three were under Federal court order to desegregate,

       The Chief of the Education           Division,      Reglonal      Office    for Civil    Rights,
told us that, prior          to approval    of an application,           his staff     had revlewed
the file     on the applicant       school dlstrlct         for any lnformatlon          that might
Indicate     that the district       was not In compliance with the nondlscrlmlnatlon
requirements      of title     VI of the Civil        Rights Act of 1964. With respect to
the seven proJects         included    in our review,         his office      determined     the ellgl-
blllty   of these dlstrlcts         as follows,



                                                    54
         The ellglbrlltres         of two Vlrglnla       school dlstrlcts         (Dlnwlddle       and
Powhatan) and one Maryland school dlstrlct                     (Dorchester)       were approved on the
basis of letters           sent by the WashIngton Offlce             for Clvll      Rights In 1969 to
these school dlstrlcts,             which stated that they were In compliance                     with tl-
tle VI of the Civil            Rrghts Act of 1964.          The Norfolk,       Virginia,       school dls-
tract was approved on the basis of the personal                        knowledge of the Chief of
the Education         DlvlsLon     concernrng     the court order placing             the school dls-
tract In the terminal            phase of desegregation.            This    offacnal      stated that the
ellglblllty       of the Prince Georges County, Maryland,                   school dlstrlct          was de-
termined after          his review of the drstrlct's             desegregatron        plan.     He certified
to the ellglbllltles            of the two Pennsylvania           school districts          (HarrIsburg      and
Susquehanna)        on the basis of rnstructlons             from the Washlngton Office               for
Crvrl Rights which, in turn, relied                  on HEW's Office        of General Counsel to
determlne      the ellglbllltles          for the Pennsylvanra           school dlstrlcts.           An Of-
fice of General Counsel official                told us that, as long as a PennsylvanIa
 school district          was in compliance       with the State of Pennsylvanlats                 human
relations      commlsslon desegregation             orders,    the school district           was consldered
by HEW to be in a terminal              stage of desegregation            and elrglble       to partlclpate
 in ESAP.

      After ESAP funds were allotted       by HEW/Washington to the States in
Region III,  regional  offlcrals    used the priority-ranking    system established
by the Washington Office      of Education   as a basis for determining  the rela-
tive needs of the school districts.         (See p* 23.)

         The senior program officer    told us that funding   levels  were not estab-
lished by Region III personnel       in making grants to the school dlstrlcts.        He
said that the amounts of grants In Region 311 had been determined           by the
program officers     on the basis of their    evaluations   of the problems and needs
set forth     In the appllcatrons   and therr dlscussrons    with school district   of-
ficials.

PROJECT POTENTIAL AND CONTENT
        Of the seven appllcatlons            included     in our revrew,      at least four,          In our
oplnlon,     did not contain        adequate statements         of the problems faced by the
school dlstrlcts         m achlevlng       and malntalnrng        desegregated      school systems.
Also we belleve       that the program descrlptlons               drd not provide       sufficient
rnformatlon       to allow determrnatlons           that the proposed assistance             would meet
emergency or special         needs resulting          from desegregation.          Regional     officials
expressed the vrew that, on the basis of their knowledge of the school drs-
tricts,     their   educational       experience,       and supplemental      lnformatlon       obtained
from school dlstrlct         offrcrals,        they were in a posLtlon          to pass on the
merits of the proJects.

       Following   are examples of descrlptlons        of problems contained in grant
appllcatlons     which, we believe,       were not adequate to show that the problems
resulted     from desegregation    actlvltles.

Harrlsburn      City School       Drstrlct
Harrisburg,      Pennsylvania

      The Harrisburg    City School            Dlstrrct  received     a $50,723 grant on Octo-
 ber 30, 1970.     The only problem            in the proJect     appllcatlon   was described  as-


                                                      55
          "A srgnlflcant  educatlonal   problem facrng the School Dlstrlct      1s
          the number of students of the age group to be served by the new
          mrddle school who demonstrate     a lack of posltlve attitude    toward
          school and school work."
      The appllcat-Lon   was rev-Lewed by three regIona                       program    reviewers.
One reviewer,    In recommending approval,    stated'

       "Although    there 1s a well developed      proposal    manlfestlng      careful
       and thoughtful     planning, its relatlonshlp        to racial    problems ap-
       pears to be weak."

Another      revrewer,     in recommending          disapproval,     stated              ,

       Y'h~s proJect  appears to be designed for general education   upgrad-
       ing as opposed to helping  to solve problems relative  to rntegration
       as now exist."

A third      reviewer    recommended       approval      wlthout   maklng any comment.

         The program officer       informed us that he had spoken to Harrisburg                        school
district     offrclals    subsequent to the above comments by the reviewers                           and had
obtained     supplemental     lnformatlon   regarding the proJectIs relatlonshlp                         to
desegregation.
        The lnformatlon       obtained   from these offlclals        was to the effect    that
desegregation      had placed students         of different     educational   levels   and back-
grounds In the same classrooms and in sections                  of the city that were not fa-
mllrar    to them, and that, In some cases, these students had become drsrup-
tlve and it had been necessary to devise ways to cope with them. According
to the program officer,           the Harrlsburg      offlclals   also stated that, because
of desegregation,       staff     and teachers needed to be taught to cope with stu-
dent problems resulting           from the students being placed in new situations             not
familiar    to them or to the teachers.

      The program officer     told us that , after he relayed this lnformatlon       to
the other reviewers,     they agreed that the proJect was acceptable     for funding
under ESAP. None of these dlscusslons        were documented in the proJect    file.

Susquehanna       Township School        District
Harrisburg,       Pennsvlvanla

        Susquehanna Township School District                   received      a $17,100 grant on Octo-
ber 30, 1970.          The proJect       appllcatlon       stated that it was desirable               to have
guidance and counseling              services     at the elementary-school            level not only
from the viewpoint           of all students         but also from the viewpoint              of assisting
and ensuring        satisfactory        educational      ad-justments      to students       snvolved     in
Integration.         However,      the   proJect     appllcatlon      referred     to   the   school    dls-
trlct's      experience,       since the school system was desegregated                    In 1968, as
indicating       that racial       problems caused by lntegratlon               were almost nonexls-
tent in the elementary             schools.




                                                         56
      With respect   to the latter         statement,      the program officer     told us that
this statement meant that there had been no maJor problem,                    such as violence,
during the last 2 years.          The program officer          stated also that he had con-
tacted the suprlntendent        of the school district            and had been informed    that
there was a communlcatlon         problem between white teachers and black students
and that the provlslon       of counselmg         services    was the best way to resolve
the problem.    This   addltlonal       lnformatlon      was  not   documented ITII the proJect
file.




                                                57
SUPPLEMENTINGAND SUPPLABTING
                       --I   OF FUNDS
       The seven appllcatlcns      reviewed by tis contalned assurances, as re-
qulred by the regtiiatlons,      that E4AP funds made avallable     to the appll-
cants would be used only to supplement and increase the level of non-
Federal funds avarlable to the applicants           for the purposes of ESAP. The
amounts of non-Federal funds budgeted before and after Implementation             of
the court-ordered     or voluntary     desegregation plans were included in the
project applications.       Our review of this data showed that there had been
no decrease in the school districts        I budgets for non-Federal funds after
the court-ordered     or voluntary     desegregation plans had been implemented.

       The Chief of the Education Dlvls1on, Regional Office for Civil Rights,
told us that, to ensure that school dzstricts     were complying wxth the reg-
ulation requirement,    his staff would examine the school districts'      budgets
during their postgrant reviews.     He said that all expenditures     would be ex-
amrned to verify   that  the grant funds were being used for authorzzed pur-
poses.
ADEQUACYOF PROCEDURESFOR EVALUATION
2F PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS
     We belleve that, of the seven appllcatlons      included rn our review, six
did not contain, contrary to the regulations,      adequate  descrlptlons of the
methods, procedures, or objective   crlterla   which could be used by an lnde-
pendent organizatron  to evaluate the effectiveness      of each program actlv-
1ty.
      We found that, for several of the activities, the applicants  had
shown goals or desired achievement rather than methods or objective   crl-
terra which could be used to measure the success of the actlvlty.
      For example, an application   In the amount of $36,800 was approved for
special pupil personnel services In Dlnwlddle County, Vlrginla.     With re-
spect to evaluation   procedures, the application  lndlcated that changes in
student attitudes   should occur and would be observed by the guidance de-
partment, but it did not indicate how the changes were to be measured.
     Regional officials   told us that many of the applicants    did not have
the necessary staff and time to enable them to provide adequate descrlptlons
of the methods, procedures, and objective    criteria   to be used to evaluate
the effects of their projects.    They said that steps were being taken by
the Office of Education and by State educational      agencies to provide assls-
tance to the school districts   in this regard.
TRANSFEROF PROPERTYTO
NONPUBLIC SEGREGATEDSCHOOLS
      The seven appllcatlons   included rn our review all contained, as re-
quired by the regulations,   signed assurances that the applrcants had not
engaged, and would not engage, In the transfer     of property or services to
any nonpublic school or school system whnch practices      drscrlmrnation.



                                          58
       Wrth respect to the detection of possible vlolatlons,                 we were rnformed
by the Chief of the Educatzon Division,               Regional Office for Civil Rights,
that his staff relied on lnformatson received from informants                    and com-
plaints     from clvll      rights groups.      He said that he was not aware of any
such property transfers            and that no applications     had been reJected or ter-
mlnated on such grounds,             We did not find any record of complaints in the
regIona       files.
TRACHERAND STAFF ASSIGNMENT
ANDEMPLOYMENTOFCCRSuLTANTS
Assignment of teachers and staff
       All seven appllcatlons          contained, as required by the regulations,
signed assurances that teachers and other staff members who worked directly
with children at a school would be assigned in a manner that would result
in a ratio of mlnorlty            to nonmlnonty    teachers and other staff rn each
school that was substantially             the same as the ratlo for the entire school
system,
        The Chief of the Education DivisLon, Regional Offlce for Clv~l Rights,
told us that no verlficatlon             of complzance with the assurances, other than
a research of the files,            had been made prior to the proJect approval.          He
sad that compliance would be determined by his staff during therr post-
grant reviews at the school drstricts,
        Dlsparlty      rn the ratio of rmnorlty
        to nonmlnorLty faculty         In certam schools
       We noted that rn July 1970 the superintendent                of Prince Georges County
Schools (Maryland) provided to the Regronal Office for Crvll Rights data
concerning the antzlpated             composltlon of the faculty at all the schools
althin the school drstrlct            for the 1970-71 school year.         The data showed
that the ratro of mifmrlty            to nonminorlty    faculty   m each school wlthln
the dlstrlct         was not substantially      the same as the ratio for the entire
school system, contrary to the regulatrons.                 The following    examples show
the dlsparlty         between the ratio of mlnorlty        to nonmlnorlty    faculty In cer-
tain schools In the dlstrlct             and the ratlo for the entire school dlstrlct,
whrch was 15 percent minority             to 85 percent nonminority.
                                                                            Ratlo of mmority     to
                                     Nmber   of f acuity                    nonminority f acuity
       School             Minority                   Nonnunority   Minority                  Nonmino?$.ty
                                                                                (percent)
Senior high
     Central                                                          26                           74
     Crossland                                                                                     97
     Fairmont Heights                                      41         393
     High Pomt                                            128                                      9681
     Northwestern                                         116           z                          96
Junior high
     Bladensburg                                           52
     Kent                                                              5:.
     Laurel                                               z
     Mary Bethune                                         18           628
Elementary.
     Allenwood                                            21                                     100
     Beaver Heights           20                           6           ;7                         23
     Berwyn Heights                                                                              100
     Bond Mill                                             fi                                    100
     Cherokee Lane                                         30                                    100
     Glenarden Woods          25                            2          93                          7


                                                     59
        Since this data was recesved by the Philadelphia                 Regional      Office    on
August 6, 1970, before the Prince Georges County proJect                     appllcatlon       was
approved     on September 18, 1970, we asked the Chief of the Education                       Dlvr-
slon why the proJect          had been approved      In the face of the apparent noncom-
pliance     with the assurance given In Its applrcatlon               that the ratio         of minor-
ity to nonmrnorlty         faculty     in each school would be substantially              the same
as the ratio       for the entire        school system,    This official      stated that it
was an oversight         on his part and that he should have contacted                 school dls-
tract offlclals        to determlne       what action was being taken to comply with the
regulatron      requirement      before approving      the district's     appllcatlon.

        Durrng our review of the proJect      flies,    we noted that a visit          was made
to the Prince Georges County Schools by regional             offlcrals    during the period
October 19 to 21, 1970, approximately         1 month after       the proJect was ap-
proved.      With respect to faculty    desegregation,     the report     contained      a
statement     that 23 of the 169 elementary       schools had all-white        facultres    and
that several      schools had predominately     black faculties.

       Regional     Office    for Clvrl  Rights offrclals     told us that two subsequent
vrslts    were made to Prince Georges County in an attempt to rectify              the
problem relating         to the desegregation     of faculty.     On February 2, 1971, the
Regional     Director,     Office  for Clvll   Rights,    sent a letter   to the superln-
tendent of Prince Georges County Schools stating               that measures should be
undertaken      at once to abide by the assurance given In the dlstrlct's             ESAP
application.

Employment     of consultants

        None of the seven appllcatlons           contained   details  concerning the quail-
flcatlons     of consultants       or other personnel      who were to be employed for
proJect    actlvltres    requiring     personnel     with special expertise.

       For example, with respect to the Harrisburg                    application,        the only men-
tion of consultants            was in the detailed        budget which showed that $1,500 had
been budgeted for the employment of consultants                     at $75 a day and expenses.
The program officer            said that, although        the speclflc      responslbllltles       of
consultants       were not described          In the proJect      appllcatlon,      he knew which
proJect    actlvltres        required      the use of consulting        services    as a result     of
his personal        contact with school district             personnel.       With respect to the
amount budgeted for consultants,                  the senior program officer          told us that,
when the proJect         officers      visit    the school dlstrlcts,         they would carefully
review the vouchers            supporting     payments to consultants.
SEGREGATED CLASSES

       The applications     of all seven school dlstrlcts        contalned  slgned assur-
antes, as required       by the regulations,      that no dlscrimlnatory    practices      or
procedures,    lncludlng    testing,   would be employed in the assignment of chrl-
dren to classes or in carrying          out curricular   or extracurricular     actlvltles
wlthln    the schools.
      We were informed      by the Chief of the Education            Division,     Regional       Of-
flee of Civil     Bights,    that   his  staff  had  reviewed     the   files    pertaining       to
the school dxstrlcts       and had relied      on the assurances        contained      In the proJ-
ect applications       in approving     grants    He stated that no pregrant              reviews
had been made of any of the school districts                  He  told     us,  however,     that
Regional   Office    for Clvll     Rights personnel     had vlslted        Prince Georges County.

      The report  on this visit    indicates     that regional    officials          questroned
the number of transfers     by white students from certain           desegregated          schools
to other schools with a lesser proportion           of minority   students         that had
taken place after   the desegregation       plan was implemented.           Information       con-
tained in HEW flies     showed that, prior      to the visit    by Offlce        for Civil
Rrghts personnel , a moratorium      had been placed on such transfers                by the
school district   and that action had been taken to develop an acceptable
policy with regard to student transfers.            We were informed        that this situ-
ation was being closely monitored        by the Office     for Civil     Rights

ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMIT'IZES

Blraclal    advisory    committees

        Information in the HEW proJect   files showed that five of the seven
school dlstrlcts    included In our review had biracial    advisory committees
which were In compliance with the provisions      of Federal court orders or the
regulations

         The biracial      committee for the HarrIsburg       City School District        did not
meet the regulation           requirements    that the committee membership be comprised
of 50 percent minority            and 50 percent nonmlnorlty       members     The committee
was composed of 11 white and eight black members                    The regional   office
files      indicated    that the other school district,         Prince Georges County
 (tiryland)       had not established      a biracial  advisory     committee     Regional
officials        told us that they had been in contact with the school districts
in an effort         to resolve     these problems in these two school dlstrlcts

Student    advisory    committees

       Five of the seven school districts        were required      to form student ad-
visory    committees In the secondary schools affected          by the proJects           and
gave assurances      that the committees would be formed.           Our review       showed
that two of the districts      had complied with the regulation           requirements        in
this regard and that one had formed a student advisory                committee,      which did
not meet the requirement      of the regulations      that the committee be comprised
of an equal number of minority        and nonminority     students.      At the time of
our review,     there was no information     in the files     to indicate      that the com-
mlttees had been formed for the other two districts.                Regional     offlclals
told us that they would follow         up on the compliance      with   thrs   requsrement     of
the ESAP regulations  ln these        three school dlstrxts

PUBLICATION    OF PROJECT TERMS

       All seven applicants   submltted  slgned assurances,     as required          by the
regulations,    that the terms and provlslons      of their proJects   would         be pub-
lashed wlthln    30 days after proJect   approval.

        Our review of the proJect       flies    showed that two of the districts       had
publlshed     the required     data.   The Chief of the Education      Dlvxzlon,   Regional
Offlce    for Clvll    Rights,    told us that the school dlstrlcts       were required     to
malntaln     evidence    of publxatlon      In thexr flies   but were not required      to
submit such evidence        to the regional      office.   He told us also that evidence
of publxatlon        would be obtained      durxng postgrant   reviews  In the school dls-
trrcts.




                                             62
                                               CHAPTER 7

              COMMENTSON HEW SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES

                                FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP

       HEW Region IX, with headquarters                in San Francisco,      California,       encom-
passes the four States of Arizona,                California,     Hawaii,    and Nevada         Accord-
ing to Office      of Education       statistics,        1,394 school districts        were operating
public   schools in these States in the fall                  of 1969.    As of August 26, 1970,
eight school districts           were identified         by HEW as potentially        eligible     for
assistance    under ESAP. Of these eight school districts,                     two--Pasadena         and
Inglewood,    California--received            grants totaling      about $190,000            Our re-
view included      both of these grants.             (See app III.1

        On October 6, 1970, Pasadena applied         for $125,000 and on December 7,
1970, received       a grant totaling   $115,000--$95,800     for special     curriculum
revision    (princrpally      to hire 21 teacher-aides),     $12,800 for special        com-
munity programs,         and $6,400 for special    pupil personnel   services

       On October 22, 1970, Inglewood     applied   for $126,000 and on December 14,
1970, received    a grant totaling  $74,938--$71,771      for special pupil personnel
services   and $3,167 for special   curriculum     programs.

        We believe     that the procedures         used in Region IX to evaluate        the Pasa-
dena and Inglewood         applications      provided   enough information     for HEW to deter-
mine that the proposed program actlvlties                 met the requirements     of the regula-
tions      Before the school districts             had determined    their desegregation     needs
and developed       proposed programs to solve those needs, however,               Region IX of-
ficials    established      funding     ranges within    which grants to potentially        ellg-
 able school districts         would be made. Information           on the fundlng    ranges was
communicated to the Pasadena School District                  and to other school districts
 subsequently      determined     to be xnellgible

      We believe        that a procedure       under which school districts      are informed
in advance of       the amounts that can be made available            to them under ESAP
could tend, in        some Instances,      to bring about inflated      requests     for funds
and, in other       instances,    unrealistically       low estimates   of financial     needs to
overcome maJor        problems arising       from school desegregatron

      The applications       of Pasadena and Inglewood         did not contain,   contrary   to
the regulations,       assurances     that student advisory       committees would be formed
in each secondary school affected            by the proJect.       Although both appllca-
tlons contained      references     to biracial    advisory    committees,   they were not
complete with respect to when the committees would become operational                    or what
community organizations         would be represented        on the committees.

         In our opinion,  neither  appllcatlon  contained,     contrary   to the regula-
tions,     an adequate description   of the methods, procedures,        and ObJective
criteria      that could be used by an independent     organization     to evaluate   the
effectiveness      of each program actlvlty.




                                                     63
        We did not note any information          in the regional      files    which would lead
us to belleve      that e:zther school dist:Llct       (1) had transferred         any property
or services      to a nonpablic     school which practiced       racial     dlscrlmlnatlon,
(2) was dlscrdmxnatiag         on the basis of race in teacher and professional
staffing    patterns,    (3) was aSsigning      clhxl&~~n to classes on the basis of
their being members of mxnority           groups, or <4> would use its ESAP grant to
supplant    non-Federal     funds avaPlab3e      to it for the purposes of ESAP.

ELIGIBILITY     AM3 FUNDING CtP SCHOSL DISTRICT2
      Region IX used several      sources,       prrmarily   State departments      of education,
to determine    which school districts         had implemented     desegregation      plans and
then submitted      to HJZW/Washxngton the names of eight districts              whose plans
they had determined       were in the terminal        phase.   The Divisxon      of Equal Educa-
txonal Opportunities       in Washington then requested          each of these drstrlcts        to
submit a copy of its desegregation            plans to HEW/Washington for review and
final   determxnation     of its eligLbility.         On the basrs of the 25,903 minority
students    in these ezght districts,         all of whrch were in California,           the Of-
fice of Educatxon,      through use of the formula previously            described      on
page 7, allotted      $482,944 to Region IX on August 26, 1970.

        While the final   eligibility     of the eight districts      was being consid-
ered by BEW/Washington,        the names of 14 additlonal      potentially     eligible
districts    were submitted      to Region IX by the Calxfornia       State Department of
Education.      Seven of these districts       sent their desegregation      plans to HEW/
Washlngton early In September 1970.

       On September 18, 1970, a meeting of school superintendents                   from poten-
tlally   ellglble     school dxstrxcts       was held in San Francisco        to drscuss the
purposes and requirements            of ESAP. On September 21, 1970, 3 days later,              HEW
reglonal    offxcials      held a meeting at RIverside,         Callfornla,    wsth school dls-
tract representatives            to explain  the application     procedures.     Prior to this
meeting,    reglonal      offxials      were Informed    that three of the 15 districts
whose desegregatron          plans had been sent to WashIngton were not interested               In
submlttzng      proposals      for ESAP funds       At the time of this meeting,        a final
determrnatxon       on the ellglbillty       of the remaining     12 dxstrlcts     had not been
received    from Washington.

        On October 6, 1970, HEN's Ufflce     of General Counsel notafled    Region IX
that only two of the 15 dlstr+cts--      Pasadena and Inglewood--were    eligible  for
flnanclal    assistance under FSAP. This determbnatlon       was based on a declslon
that Pasadena and Inglewood were the only distracts         in Region IX under court
order to desegregate,

        Our review showed that an allocation              of avallable    funds--$482,944--was
made among the 12 school dsstrlcts               in Regxon IX whxch the regional           staff had
concluded were potentially          ellglble       for ESAP and were interested         In receiving
funds       According   to regxonal      offxxals,      the method used to make this alloca-
tlon was based on the number of mlnorlty                children     in each dlstrxt       times $10
plus a flat      amount of $1@,0,QQ. The resulting              amount became the basis for
establlshlng      a funding   range within         whxh grants to the school dlstrlcts
would be made. The upper l~auts of the range were established                        by addlng
about 10 percent to the amount , and the lower limits                   were established       by sub-
tracting     about 10 percent     from the amount.


                                                  64
       According    to Region IX officials,        these funding     ranges were establlshed
on their    own lnltlatlve      as an admlnlstrative       tool designed to ensure that
avaIlable     funds would not be exhausted before all ellglble               dlstrlcts     had an
opportunity      to partlclpate      The offlclals      said that some dlstrlcts          had prob-
lems of such magnitude that they could possibly                submit a proposal       requesting
an amount which would equal or exceed the total                funds available       to the States,

        At tZ;e previously    mentioned meeting on September 21, lS;d, represenLa-
tlves of potentially       eligible    districts were informed    by HEW regional        of-
ficials    of the fundlng     ranges establlshed   for their   dlstrlcts     before    they
had developed      proposed programs to help solve their       desegregation       problems

       A representative          of the Pasadena School District             attended this meeting
and was advised that the school district's                   funding     range was established    at
$110,000 to $120,000.              On October 6, 1970, Pasadena submitted             an ESAP proJ-
ect proposal     requesting          $125,000     We noted that,       in the review of the pro-
posal by regional         offlclals,       one program actlvlty,         for which $10,000 was re-
quested,     had been deleted          from the proposal       because the program officer       be-
lieved   that It was not related              to desegregation      and that It would have sup-
planted    the district's          own funds      Consequently,      a grant of $115,000 was ap-
proved

       The Inglewood     dlstrlct,      which did not have a representative              at the Sep-
tember 21, 1970, meeting,            submitted      a proJect proposal     requesting     $126,000,
which substantially        exceeded the fundlng range established                for this district
of $35,000 to $45,000            Regional      officials     told us that they had informed
Inglewood    that it had to reduce its request to about $75,000 because the num-
ber of mlnorlty      students      in the Inglewood        School District     in relation     to the
number of students       in Pasadena did not Justify              the amount requested.

       By letter     dated January 23, 1971, the senior program officer,                        Office     of
Education,     Region IX, furnished         us with an explanation              of how the $74,938--
the amount of the grant made to Inglewood--had                      been developed          He stated
that, during the initial           review of the Inglewood             application,      a proposed ac-
tlvlty    for community publlcatlons--           budgeted for about $8,000--was                questloned
as not being related         to a problem resulting            from desegregation            He stated
also that the hiring         of new staff under the proposal                 would take at least
 2 months and that therefore            the proposal       could be reduced in this area--about
$40,000 for salaries         and related       employee benefits--without              changing the
 scope of the program           In addition,      other reductions           totaling    about $3,000
were made        On this basis, regional          offlclals        concluded      that Inglewood       could
reduce its request        for funds without         hurting      the program but that it should
not be held to the maxlmum of Its established                      funding     range of $45,000 be-
cause its mlnlmum program needs would require                      about $75,000.        Inglewood      then
 submitted    a revised     appllcatlon      requesting      $74,938

        Regional   offlclals       told us that,   In the future,    districts     would not be
given    funding   ranges in advance but would be asked to submit proposals                using
thpee    assumptions      regarding     possible levels  of funding,      as follows

          1   Unlimited    funding      1s available,        therefore     the full     program     should
              be presented




                                                        65
SIJPPLBIENTIMG AND SUPPLAWTINGOF FUNDS

        Regional offxlals    told us that they had relied upon the assurance
statements,signed      by the school district    officials, in their applications
that ESAP funds would be used only to supplement, not to supplant, non-
Federal funds which were available        to them for program purposes.     Regional
officials     told us also that, during their postgrant monitoring      of the proj-
ects, they would determine whether the school districts         were cornplyIng with
this assurance,
      Pasadena's application    showed an increase in the amount of non-Federal
funds available    after implementation   of its desegregatron plan, whereas
Inglewood's   application   showed a decrease, which was attributed  to a de-
cline in student enrollment.
ADEQUACYOF PROCEDURESFOR EVALUATION
OF PROJECTEFFECTIVENESS
        We believe that neither application  contained,  contrary to the regula-
tions, an adequate description     of the methods, procedures, and objective
criteria    that could be used by an independent organization    to evaluate the
effectiveness     of each program activity.
        The Pasadena application   presented evaluation    procedures, methods, and
criteria    in only summary outline form.       The methods outlined were extremely
generalized    for some program activities      and were not specific  enough to mea-
sure the effectiveness      of such activities.
        The evaluation procedures and criteria     presented in the Inglewood ap-
plication    were also inadequate.    For example, for one program activity,
Inglewood stated merely that consultants       would be engaged to review this
activity,    but there was no description    of the evaluation   procedures to be
followed.     Region IX offxcials  told us that the evaluation      requirement had
caused considerable    confusion among the school districts      and that Inglewood
would be required to revise the evaluation        section of its application.
TRANSFEROF PROPERTYTO
NomumIC -TED       scxfoo~s

      Neither Inglewood nor Pasadena listed any property or services in its
application   as being transferred    to a nonpublic school or school system,
and the school district    superintendents   certified that no such transfers
had been made.
         Office for Civil Rights regional officials       told us that they had vis-
ited the Pasadena School District       in connection with other programs and that,
in gaining knowledge of the district's       policies,     were confident     that the
district      would not support a segregated school.        A similar visit    had not
been made to the Inglewood School District,           It was the view of the Office
for Civil Rights officials      that any transfers      of property to support segre-
gated schools would very likely      be the subJect of a citizen's          complaint.
We found no record of such complaints in the regional files.



                                           67
TEXIBR   AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT

      Regxonal offxclals    accepted, wrthout verificatxon,       the assurances in the
Inglewood and Pasadena applications       that the districts     were in compliance
with HEW regulations     concerning  nondiscnminatlon      in teacher and profes-
sfonal staffing   patterns.
        The Pasadena desegregatxon plan, submitted with the applicatzon,        stated
that the drstrict       had at that time a full complement of teachers and admin-
istrators.      It also pointed out that, even though teachers from minority
groups were in short supply, efforts        would be made to hire more minority
professlonal      people as positions   became available.  A detailed recruitment
plan showed that Pasadena intended to contact colleges throughout the Na-
tion xn Its efforts       to hire more teachers from mxnorlty groups.    The Ingle-
wood application       and desegregation plan made no reference to future minority
 staffing   patterns.
      Office for Civil Rights regxonal officials          told us that they would
place reliance on monitoring        of the projects to determine whether the dis-
tracts were vlolatrng      the assurances regarding discrimination       in teacher
and professional    staffing    patterns.   These officials    told us also that they
had received no such complaints from minority          teachers regarding racial
discrnmxnation   practices    in the two districts,      and we found no record of
such complaints in our review of the files.




                                           68
SEGREGATEDCLASSES

        Both applications      contained signed assurances, as required by the regu-
lations,    that no discriminatory         practices     or procedures,  including testing,
would be employed Ln asslgnrng children to classes                 or In carryrng out cur-
ricular    and extracurricular       activities     within the schools.
       OffIce for Civil Rrghts regional officials   told us that they had not
talcen any specific    action to verify the school districts'    assurances but
had relied on their background knowledge of possible civil        rights violations
and on complaints that might be received from people III the district         that
children were being assigned to segregated classes.         We drd not find any rec-
ord of such complaints in the fales.
ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Blraclal   advisory   committees
      The applications  of both Inglewood a&l Pasadena contained references
to biracial  committees, but they were not complete in some respects.
      The Inglewood application     stated that a study group in the district       had
recommended the formation of an advisory committee, with 50 percent of its
members being from minority     groups.    The application,     however, did not stip-
ulate when the committee would become operational           and did not name the corn-
munlty organizations   that would be represented on the committee,
       The Pasadena application    lndlcated that the district     planned to use, ,as
its biracial    committee, a group which had been formed ~II the prior school
year to review some of its own programs, as well as federally           funded pro-
grams, supplemented by representatives       from other unidentified      organiza-
tions,    We were told by a reglonal official,      however, that the district's
plans to reorganize     this committee had been abandoned because information
received on its past performance indicated room for improvement.             A desire
for a more effective      biracial committee resulted   in an agreement between the
school district     and HEW that a new cozrrnrttee would be formed within 30 days
after grant approval.
      The Inglewood and Pasadena School Districts     had until January 7 and
January 14, 1971, respectively,    to form their advisory committees.      As of
January 19, 1971, Region IX had not received notification       from either grantee
that such a committee had been established,       At our request, regional offi-
cials contacted each school district     and were told that each district    was
 in the process of establishing  its biracial   advisory committee.
Student advisory      committees
        In processing the applications  of both Inglewood and Pasadena, Region
 IX offleials    did not obtarn written assurances, contrary to the regulations,
that a student advisory committee composed of minority      and nonminority  group
children would be formed in each secondary school affected by the proJect.
      The senior program officer told us that both districts understood that
student advisory committees were required and that both planned to form


                                             69
such committees,   He sand that the distracts    had not mentioned the student
committees xn their appflcatlons   because they dxd not plan to use ESAP funds
to provide support for such cammlttees*      Regxon IX offacials  agreed, how-
ever, that they should have requxred that the assurances be submltted and
said that actjon would be taken to obtain them,
PUBLICATION OF PROJECT    TERMS
        The applications    submxtted by both school dxstricts    contained, as re-
quired by the regulations,        signed assurances that the terms and provisions
of the proJects wouJ.d be published in local newspapers within 30 days after
proJect approval.        As a result of our inquzry as to t5hether the districts
had complied with thxs requirement,        a regional official   contacted district
officials    and learned that, although each dmtrict        had published an article
concerning ita grant, the artxcle        on the Pasadena grant did not state the
terms and provisxons       of the grant, contrary to the regulatrons.       The off]-
clals told us that Pasadena had agreed to have another article           published.




                                          70
                                               CHAPTER8

                COMMENTSON HEW KANSAS CITY REGIONAL OFFICE PROCEDURES

                                FOR APPROVING GRANTS UNDER ESAP

       HEW Region VII, with headquarters     in Kansas City, Mlssour'F, encompasses
the four States of Iowa, Kansas, M'LSSOUTL, and Nebraska.          According  to Of-
fice of Education    statlstlcs,  2,835 school dlstrlcts      were operating publrc
schools In these States rn the fall       of 1969.     As of August 26, 1970, 14
school drstrlcts,    all In Missouri,    were Ldentlfled    by HEW as being poten-
tially   ellglble for assistance    under ESAP.

      Three of the 14 school dlstrlcts     applied  for grants under the program
but only one-- New Madrid County R-l Enlarged      School Dlstrlct,    New Madrid,
Missouri--was  determlned   el-Lg%ble by HEW and recerved     a grant as of Novem-
ber 13, 1970.    Our review   included this grant.     (See app. III,)

       On September 24, 1970, New Madrid school dlstrlct     applied    for                $92,651
and, on October 22, 1970, recerved    a grant totaling   $57,385.-$21,770                     for
special   communLty programs and $35,615 for special pupil personnel                       services.

     We belleve   that      the procedures    used in Region VII for evaluating      the
New Madrid application         provided  enough lnformatlon   for HEW to determine      that
the proposed program        actlvltres   met the requirements    of the regulations,

       We belleve      that   the applicant's      statement     of the problems faced In de-
segregating     the school dlstrrct           was, in general,      descriptive      enough for the
program officer        to evaluate     the drstrlct's      need for assistance           and the rela-
tlve potential       of the proJect.          The program officer,        however,     told us that,
to determlne      the priority     of needs of program actrvltles               set forth    In the
application,      he had relied     on his past educational           experience       and Judgment.
The program officer         told us also that he had obtained              supplemental      rnforma-
tlon from school drstrrct          offlclals.         This lnformatlon,        however,    was not
documented m the flies.

       The program officer    obtained     the assurances       required   by HEW regulations
and, in some Instances , performed         addltlonal      work prior    to approval  of the
application     to ensure that the applicant          had complied with the regulations.
Generally    the supplemental    lnformatlon       obtained    was not documented in the
files.
ELIGIBILITY     AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

        In August 1970, the Dlvlslon       of Equal Educational          Opportunities,       Of-
flee of Education,      WashIngton,    verbally     requested     the Region VII program
officer    to obtain a llstrng      of potentially      ellglble     school dlstrlcts      wlthln
the four States m that regron so that ESAP funds could be allocated                         to these
States.     According    to the program officer,        lnformatlon      on the potentially
elrglble     school dlstrlcts    was obtalned      at State departments        of education       in
the four States, because these were the only known central                    sources in the



                                                   41
region where      lnformatlon        on court orders    and desegregation        plans    submitted
by dxstrlcts      m   the   States     was available.

       HEW determlned         that Mlssourl    was the only State In the region with
school dlstrlcts          that were potentially      ellglble      for ESAP funds.      Late In
August 1970, 14 dlstrlcts            were reported     to HEW/Washington as being poten-=
tlally    ellglble      for assistance      under ES&.        On the basis of the 7,269 minor-
xty children       in all 14 dlstrscts,         the Offxe      of Education,     through use of
the formula previously            described   on page 7, allotted        $135,526 to Mlssourl     on
August 26, 1970, although            most of the 14 dlstrlcts         were later determined     to
be lnellglble        for, or were not Interested          In applying     for, ES&? funds.

       On September 1, 1970, the 14 potentially     ellglble     school dlstrxts         were
requested   to submit copxes of their desegregation        plans and related      lnforma-
tlon to HEW/Washington for final     determlnatlon    of each dlstrxt's       ellglblllty
Four Missour     dlstrlcts responded to the request.

        On September 16, 1970, an offlclal              from the Dlvlslon        of Equal Educational
Opportunltles     In Washington,       the Region VII program officer,                and a Mlssourl
department     of education   offlclal      held an lnformatxonal            meeting with represeno
tatlves    of nine of Missouri's         14 potentially      ellglble       school districts       to in-
form them of assistance       avallable      under ESAP. The program officer                  told us
that the other five dlstrlcts            had wlthdrawn      prior      to the meeting and that,
as a result     of the meeting,      five more districts            had withdrawn       because they
either    were not Interested       or did not consider           themselves     ellglble        The re-
malnlng four dlstrxts        had submitted       copies of their desegregation                plans to
HJXW/Washlngton for review.

      On September 24 and 25, 1970, Dlvlslon                of Equal Educational          Opportune-
ties offlclals    held workshops to explain             the application       procedures,     and
they lnvlted   the four remalnlng     MIssour           school dlstrxts        to attend.       Three
of the four districts    attended    and later          submitted    applications.         The pro-
gram officer   told us that the superintendent               of the fourth       dxstrlct    had In-
formed him that the dlstrlct      did not want            to apply for ESAP funds at that
time.

       The program officer       told us also that funds had not been allocated            to
the dlstrlcts     nor had any funds been reserved          for a specific    district.     He
said that he did not review          the applxatlons      with any predetermined       amount
of funds per dlstrlct       in mind and that he had no requirement           to spend all
the money allocated      to Missouri.       He expressed his oplnlon      that, if one ap-
plxant     had the greatest      need and required     all the State's    allocation,     he
would recommend giving        all the funds to this applxant         In lieu of giving
part of the funds to applicants          with lesser needs.

        The program officer       received    the three applications        on October 2, 1970,
and took them to WashIngton on October 4, 1970, where he and three Div;Lslon
of Equal Educational        Opportunities      offlclals   reviewed     them. The three ap-
pllcants    requested    a total     of about $250,700 compared with M~SSOUT~'S allo-
catson of $135,526,        but a grant of only $132,690 was approved pendlng final
determination      of ellglbsllty          The program officer      told us that the appll-
cations had been reviewed           on the assumption    that all three dlstrlcts       were
ellglble.



                                                   72
      On October 6, 1970, HEW's Offlce of General Counsel Informed               the Dlvl-
slon of Equal Educational    Opportunltles        that only New Madrld was ellglble
for a grant.    The other two school dlstrlcts          were determined   to be inell-
gable, because they had not entered the terminal            phase of their desegrega-
tion plan during the time period        speclfled     by the regulations.     The amount
of funds approved for New MadrId on October 22, 1970, was not changed after
It became the only ellglble    district--       $92,651 was originally    requested    and
$57,385 was granted.

PROJECT POTENTIAL AND CONTENT

         We reviewed     the New MadrLd appllcatlon    and found that it had Ldentlfled
two problem areas--a          breakdown in parent-community       school communlcatlon    and
severe educatlonal          deflclts   of some of the children--and      proposed program
actlvltles       designed to meet these problems.

         In our oplnlon,   the proposed actlvrtres              were authorized       by the regula-
tions and seemed to be related             to the problems drscussed In the appllca-
tion.      Also the appllcatlon        ldentl-fled      obJectives       and achievements   antlcl-
pated and speclfled       quallflcatlons           of offlclals      needed to carry out the ac-
tivlties       The budget breakdown corresponded                with the program actlvltles
and further     specified    the officials           to be involved       and the extent and type
of costs to be incurred          in accompllshrng           the activities

         The program officer,         however,      told us that, to determlne           the priority
of needs of program actlvltles               set forth      Ln the appllcatlon,        he had relied
on his educatlonal          experxnce      and Judgment          He said that, in reviewing            the
three appllcatlons          received,    he had considered          program actlvltles        which
stressed personnel          services    oriented       to the needs of the children           involved
m desegregation           as being of the highest prlorlty              and that, In his oplnlon,
proJect     items for hardware or facility               items (capital       expenditures)      were
dlfflcult      to JUStlfy         Consequently,        he eliminated      certain   hardware or facll-
lty items from the applications,                although     they were allowable         under the reg-
ulatlons

        For example, a mobile reading-cllnlc    unit and related    equipment and
staff    were eliminated   from the New MadrId appllcatlon,    because the program
officer    did not belleve    that the need for the mobile cllnlc    resulted    from
desegregation     or that, based on the current     thlnklng of educators,    its use
was a good approach to learning.




                                                    73
SUPPLEMENTINGAND SUPPLANTING OF FUNDS
        The applJcatron  contalned assurances , as required by HEW regulatxons,
that the ESAP funds made available     would be used only to supplement and in-
crease the level of funds avarlable to the applxant         from non-Federal
sources      In addation to revlewmg the assurance statement, the program of-
ficer told us that he had reviewed the school dlstrlct's        school-year bud-
gets for 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1970-71 to ensure that the budgets had not
decreased after desegregatron       The program officer    said that the dis-
trxct's    non-Federal funds had increased after desegregation.       We noted no
documentation an the project file,     however, to verify the program officer's
review
      The program offxcer sard that in Missouri a      school district's  budget
is prepared and approved by voters in the spring       preceding the fall school
year    Consequently, he said that the applicant's      budget (level of non-
Federal funds) was set prior to knowledge of the       program
ADEQUACYOF PROCEDURESFOR
EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS
      The key program activities listed    in the application    were special com-
munity programs for promoting understanding      among students, teachers, par-
ents, and communrty groups and in-service     training   for teachers to enable
them to detect severe reading disabilities      and to provide remediation to
the students
       The application   set forth the district's   intended methods and proce.
dures for evaluating     the effects of these program activities        The success
of liarson actlvlty    to promote better understanding     between the community
and the school was to be Judged by how well the activity         worked in decreas-
rng antagonrsm toward the school's educational       process, lessening racial
conflrcts,   and increasing   cooperation between the community and the school
system     Pretesting  and posttesting   of elementary students was to be used
to determine the success of the remedral reading activity,         along with a
comparrson of academic records and an evaluation of behavioral and person-
alsty changes by the employees who had contact with the students
     The program officer  belxeved that the success of the activities        could
be evaluated by an independent evaluator
TRANSFEROF PROPERTYTO
NONPUBLIC SEGREGATEDSCHOOLS
       The New Madrid applxatlon  did not list any property or services       trans-
ferred to a nonpublic school or school system, and the school drstrlct          su-
perintendent   certified that no such transfers had been made
      The program offxer    told us that he had reviewed the files in the Mis-
souri department of education to determine whether any new prrvate schools
had been established    m the New Madrid school dlstrlct   in recent years.    He
found that there were no large nonpublic schools and that, in fact, there
were only a very few parochial    schools in the district.   The program officer
also stated that he had checked student enrollment before and after desegre-
gatlon and found that it had not dropped.
                                         74
TaCHF,R AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT AND
lZMF'LOYMENT
           OF CONSULTANTS
       Other than obtalnlng the applxant's        assurance, as required by the reg-
ulatlons,    HEW obtained little     addLtiona1 mformation     prror to approval of
the applicatxon     as to whether the distract     was xn compliance with the reg-
ulatlons    concerning discrimlnatlon      m teacher and professional      staffing
patterns      Also we believe that the application       provided sufficient      detail
whereby the program officer       could verify the qualificatrons     of the person-
nel requested to conduct the proposed actlvlties.
      The program officer told us that he had relied on the applicant's  as-
surance that the school district  was in complrance and that he had planned
to make an onsite vrslt to verify this assurance
      Before approval of the application,         Office for Civil Rights investi-
gators had visited       five schools 3.n the New Madrid district       and inquired
into areas of mmority-teacher         assignment to classes with predominately
white students,     student-testing    practices,   and integration     of teachers from
 the all-black    schools into the school system         The investigators     concluded
that there was no clear evidence in the district           of noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination      requirements of txtle VI of the Cavil Rights Act of 1964
      With respect to staff's   being hired under the program, the application
stated, for example, that two reading specialists          would be hired to con-
duct the proJect's   special pup11 personnel servxes            actlvlty     Although the
applrcatlon   did not show the specific    qualifications        these lndlvlduals    were
to possess, the program officer     contended that showing these qualrfxatlons
was not necessary because qualifications        are governed by State standards
The program officer   said that the school dlstrxct         superintendent      had as-
sured him that individuals    having the rewred         qualifications      could be ob-
tanned and that he would verify     the qualifications        during his onslte vxslt




                                             7s
SEGREZATED CLASSES

      The appllcatlon       contarned  signed assurances         from the school dlstrlct,
as requrred    by the regulations,      that   no   dlscrlmlnatory         practrces      or proce-
dures, Including      testing , would be employed In assrgnlng                children     to classes
or In carrying     out currrcular     or extracurrrcufar         actlvltles        wlthln    the
schools

       The regronal    file   on the New Madrid proJect            contalned    a copy of a re-
port on an Offlce      for Crvll     Rights onslte visit         made to five schools In New
Madrld prior     to proJect     approval         The report   showed that the dlstrlct           had
Implemented    a desegregation       plan, that it was in the terminal                phase of de-
segregation,     and that the schools in the dlstrrct               were completely        desegre-
gated.     The report     also indicated       that there were no all~blackschools              and
that the lnvestlgators        had been advlsed that the drstrlct's                buses; school
organlzatrons,      and athletic,      social,     and extracurrrcular       actlvltles      within
the schools were completely          desegregated.

       The program officer        told us that, prior        to approval     of the appllca-
tlon,   an official      of the Division       of Equal EducatIonal       Opportunltres       in
Washrngton Informed hrm verbally             that the Office     for Clvll     Rights had
cleared the appllcatron.            However, a form lndlcatmng         Office   for Clvll
Rights revrew and clearance           had not been submitted        to the reglonal       office.
The responsible       Office   for Clvll     Rights offrclal     told us that New Madrid
was determlned      to be in compliance         with this assurance but that, through an
oversrght,     the clearance      form had not been prepared.            After we discussed
this matter with the offlclal,            the form was prepared        and made a part of the
record

ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Biracial    advisory    committee

     The appllcatlon   stated that the school district      had a biracial   advr-
sory committee prior  to submission   of the appllcatlon.      The composition     of
the committee appeared to meet the requirements       of the regulations

       The committee was composed of 10 members, five black and frve white.
The appllcatlon     included     a statement       that the committee members were parents
or grandparents     of children       attending      schools affected    by the proJects.
The regulations     require    that at least 50 percent of the committee members
be parents.     The program officer          told us that the school dzstrlct          superln-
tendent had assured him that all the committee members were erther                      parents
or guardians    of children      attendlng       schools affected     by the proJects,
although    the appllcatson      file    was not documented to support his statement-.

       The application rndlcated that the blraclal   advisory committee was In
existence   when the appllcatron was signed by the school dsstrlct      superrn-
tendent   on September 24, 1970    A statement In the proJect  file,    signed by
the chairman of the committee on September 28, 1970, lndlcated       that the
committee had endorsed the proposed proJect.




                                                76
      The program officer    told us that      the committee probably     had been
formed under title    I of the Elementary        and Secondary Education    Act or Of-
fice of Economic Opportunity      programs     and that he believed    that the commit-
tee had satlsfled  HEW regulatrons.

Student   advisory   committee

       No student advisory committee was establlshed,         because   the proposed
program drd not apply directly    to secondary schools.

PUBLICATION    OF PROJECT TERMS

       The appllcatlon   submrtted by the school dlstrlct    contalned,  as required
by the regulations,    a slgned assurance that the terms and provlslons       of the
proJect   would be publxshed     in a local newspaper wlthln  30 days after proJ-
ect approval.

       During our review the program offxcer       contacted     the school dlstrlct
superintendent      and was Informed    that the publIshed   articles   were on file.
The program officer,      however,   did not know whether the articles      had been
published    wlthln   30 days after grant approval.




                                          77
                                     CHAPTER 9

                                  SCOPE OF REVIEW

       We reviewed the Lleglslatxve    history of the Bnergency School Assistance
Program, the related Federal regulations,        and the program policies  and pro-
cedures of the Offlce      of Edueatzon and the Office for Civil Rights, HEW.
In addition,    we revxewed proJect applications     and other pertinent  documents
for 50 grants reported by the Offxce of Education as having been approved
through November 13, 1970. We also interviewed         HEW personnel having respon-
saballties    under the program in the HEW headquarters in Washington and in
fnve HEW regional offices.
       Our work was concerned primarily   with a review of HEW policies    and pro-
cedures for approving grants under ESAP and was conducted at the HEW head-
quarters in Washington and at the HEW regional offices in Atlanta,        Dallas,
Kansas City, Philadelphia,    and San F'rancxsco.  We did not perform any work
at the school districts.     Exammation of the expenditures    of the school dzs-
tricts   relating to these grants is to be made in a follow-on    review.




                                        78
APPENDIXES




    79
                                                                                                                                                                                      APPENDIX I

                                                      STATISTICS                RELATING            TO PARTICIPATION                     IN

                                                         EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE                                           PROGRAM

                                                                    IN HEW REGIONS                    INCLUDED                 IN

                                                                                     GAO'S         REVIEW


                                                                                  Number           of                                              Status      ot appllcatlons          for
                                                                   public         school           districts                                  financial        assistance       submitted                        by
                                                                                                       Provided       tech-                             school    districts       as of
                                                   Wathin              Potentially                       nical     assis-                                   November        13, 1970
                                                 the State              eligible                         tame      by HEW
          HEW region--state                      (note    a)            (note      b)                        (note    c)                 Received            Approved              Rejected           --review
REGION III--PHILADELPHIA
     Delaware                                                26
     Drstrlct     of Columbia
     Maryland                                            2:                                                                                     -5                     -2               -1                     -2
     Pennsylvania                                       600                             116                               116                   10                                        1
     Virginia                                           134                             71                                69                    55                     4:                 1                 -6
     West Virginia                                       55                               1                                3                  - 2                2-                     L                 - 2
               Total                                    840                     89                                        a9                  - 72               - 59                   2                 - 10
REGION IV--ATLANTA
     Alabama                                            118                          110                                 112                                                                     2             21
     Florida                                              67                                                                                    Et                    2                                         1
     Georgia                                            190                          1%                                  1::                  157                    144                                       13
     Kentucky                                           193                             7                                                        5                      4                                       1
     Mississippi                                        148                          149                                 14;                  100
     North    Carolina                                  152                          125                                 124                    91                     i1"                                     :t
     South Carolina                                       93                                                               93
     Tennessee                                          149                             zi                                 59                 - ii                   - if;                  z-            - t
               Total                                1,110                               773                              770                  -607                   530
                                                                                                                                                                     -                      2             - 75
RRGI~ONV~~~AlUS-FORT                   WORlH
                                                        384                          126                                 121                                                                     1
       Louisiana                                          66                           65                                  59                     it                     i96                                        i
       New Mexico                                         09
       Oklahoma                                         605                             -22                              -19                     is                    -9                   -5              -1
       Texas                                        1,208                               174                              138                  -106                   - 06                   1             - 15
                Total                                2,432                              387                              336                   -243                  -200                   L!            - 32
REGION VII--KANSAS              CITY
     Iowa                                               453
     Kansas                                              311
     Missouri                                            651                            -14                                                       -3                         1              -2
     Nebraska                                        1,420                       A                                                            A                      A                      L              I
                Total                                2.835                               14                                                   - 3                    - 1                    2
REGION IX--SAN              FRANCISCO
     Arizona                                            294
     California                                      1,082                                    0                                8                  -2                     -2d
     Hawaii                                                1
     Nevada                                               17                     A                                  A                         -T-                    2.L                    z-             -L
                Total                                1.394                                    8                                8              - 2                    - 2                     I-            -L
TOTAL                                                8,611                       1,271                              1,210                     =927                   =792                   =18            =117

aBased         on Office      of Education      statistics             in      the       fall       of 1969

bIdentified             by HEW as potentially          eligible               as of August                  26,     1970

'According      to HEW--in    some States,               school             districts              other          than      those identified as being potentially       ell-
  gible    as of August    26, 1970, were                provided               with          information                about ESAP and with assistance    in preparing
  pr0.j ect applications
d
    Reported       by the Office    of Education                  as havmg              been      approved               as of November                13,   1970,           applications            actually
    approved       in December   1970




                                                                                                    81
  APPENDIX II
       Page 1

                                 BREAKDOWNBY STATE

                    OF NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF GRANTS MADE UNDER
                     THE EMERGENCYSCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
                               AS OF NOVEMBER 13, 1970
                                                          Grants   made
     HEW region   and State                      Number                    Amount

REGION I--BOSTON
    Connecticut                                                      $        -
    Maine
    Massachusetts
    New Hampshire
    Rhode Island
    Vermont
         Total
REGION II--NEW YORK
    New York
    New Jersey
    Puerto RICO
    Vlrgln   'Islands                                -1

         Total                                        1                       45,000

REGION III--PHILADELPHIA
    Delaware
    Dlstrlct     of Columbia
    Maryland                                                                 653,36'3
    Pennsylvania                                                             349,892
    Virginia                                                              3,692,998
    West Virglnla
         Total                                       59                   4,696,253

REGION IV--ATLANTA
    Alabama                                         57                    4,143,047
    Florida                                         57                    7,126,565
    Georgia                                        144                    6,504,464
                                                                             106,257
    Kentucky
    Mlsslsslppl
    North Carolina
                                                     82
                                                     81
                                                                          4,740,739
                                                                          6,481,469
    South Carolina                                   64                   4,425,449
    Tennessee                                        37                   2,666,048

         Total                                     530                36,194,038




                                         82
                                                                                APPENDIX   II
                                                                                      Page 2


                                                                Grants   made
    HEW region      and State                        Number                      Amount

REKLON V--CHICAGO
     Illinois                                                              $        -
     Indiana                                                                         .
    Minnesota
    Mlchlgan
     Ohlo
     Wisconsin
            Total

REGION VI--DALLAS-FORT          WORTH
     Arkansas                                           69                      1,698,567
     Louisiana                                          36                      5,672,848
     New Mexxo
     Oklahoma                                            -9                        265,137
     Texas                                             &i                       6,688,369

            Total                                                              14,324,921

REGION VII--KANSAS       CITY
     Iowa
     Kansas
     Missouri                                           -1                          ;7,385
     Nebraska
            Total                                         1                         57,385

REGION VIII--DENVER
     Colorado
     Montana
     North Dakota
     South Dakota
     Utah
     Wyoming
            Total

REGION IX--SAN       FRANCISCO
     Arizona
     California                                          -2a                       189,938
     Hawall
     Nevada
            Total                                         2                        189,938

RM;ION X--SEATTLE
     Alaska
      Idaho
      Oregon
     Washington
            Total
TOlAL                                                  793                    $55,507,535

aReported      by the Offlce   of Education    as having  been made through       Novem-
 ber 13,      1970, grants   were actually    made in December 1970


                                              83
APPENDIX III
      Page 1


                                                                          GRANTS UNDERTHE
                                                             EMERUNCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
                                                                       SELECTED FOR GAO REVIEW
                                                                                        Number     How selected--            Amour
                           HFN region     State      and                              of grants     certainty     (Cl           of
                               school    dxstrlct                                      selected     or random CR)            XLanC
    "I~~N~~PH'LAD""IA
                Prince Geor8es County Schools                                                                           8      532 709
                Dorchester  County Schools                                                                                     120.654
                        Total                                                                  2                               653 363
         PWlSylV8ll 8
                Harrrsburg  City School District                                                                                50 723
                Susquehanna Township School Distrxt                                                                             17,100
                                                                                            2                                   67,823

                Norfolk  City Schools                                                                      R                  294 025
                Mnwiddie    County School           Board                                                  R                    56.400
                Powhatan county schools                                                                    R                   32;210

                        Total                                                             2                                   302,635
                        Total   Region   III                                              -I                                1.103.821
    REGION IV--ATLANTA
         AhDSSI8
             Talledega  County Board of Education                                                          R                  168 247
             Phenix City Board of Education                                                                R                   74 312
             Sylacauga  City Board of Education                                                            R                   27.460
                        lotal                                                               3                                 270,027
         Florida
               Dade County Public Schools                                                                                   2,121,905
               Had&on School Board of Education                                                            R”                   50,000
               w&alla   County Schools                                                                     R                      9,000

                        lotal                                                               3                               2,180,905
*
         Georgxa
                Atlanta    Public Schools                                                                                   1,150,939
                Crisp County School System                                                                                      65,925
                Appling County Board of Education                                                                               38,313
                Carroll    County Board of Education                                                                            28,800
                Hilkinson    County Board of Rducation                                                                          22,000
                Montgomery     County Board of Educatxcn                                                                        13,000
                Bacon County Board of Education                                                                                   6,000

                        Total                                                               7                               1,324.9?7

         Kentucky
                Jefferson  County Public Schools                                                           R
                Fulton County Board of Education                                                           R

                        Total                                                               2
        Mississippi
              Jackson Municipal  Separate    School         District
              Hinds County Publx    Schools                                                                ii
              Harrison  County School District                                                             R
              Houston Municipal  Separate    School         District                                       R

                        Total                                                               4
        North       Carolina
                wu-Iston-Salem city/l%rsyth   county        Schools                                        R                  250.738
                Columbus Count     Schools                                                                 R                  118,900
                lioke County Boaru of Educatum                                                                                 89,240
                Tarboro City Board of Education                                                            R"                  43,832

                        Total                                                               4                                 502,710




                                                                                 84
                                                                                                                                                                                                                APPENDIX III
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Page 2

                                                                                                                                  Number                                       HOW selected--                                             Amount
                          HEW region                State             and                                                      of grants                                        certainty     (cd)                                           ot
                              school              dlstrlct                                                                       selected                                       or random     (R)                                         Rrant
REGION IV--ATLANTA          (cant      1
     South Carolina
          Greenville        School       District                                                                                                                                                                                    $      359 998
          Dilon      County       School       District          No                       2                                                                                                                                                   75 000
          Orangeburg        County       School         District                          No         7                                                                                                                                        25,568
                       Total                                                                                                                   3                                                                                            460        566
       Tennessee
            Memphis   City    Board of Fducatlon                                                                                                                                                                                            992,531
            Meury City     Board of Education                                                                                                                                                                                                  1.500
                       Total                                                                                                           2                                                                                                    994,031
                       Total      Region          IV                                                                                   E                                                                                                 7,323,346
REGION VI--R&LAS-FORT               WORTH
     Arkansas
           Hope School        District                                                                                                                                                            R                                               61,400
           Luxore      School    District                                                                                                                                                                                                         24 000
           Watson      School    District                                                                                                                                                                                                         11,300
            Drew-Central       School     Mstrict                                                                                                                                                 R                                                4,100
                       Total                                                                                                                   4                                                                                            100 ) 800
       Louislena
             Orleans           Parish          School         District                                                                                                                                                                   1,953 400
             Jackson           Parish                                                                                                                                                             R”                                          42,000
                       Total                                                                                                                                                                                                             1 995        400
       Oklahoma
             Ardmore           City    Schools                                                                                                                                                                                                26 000
             Checotah           Independent               School             District           No       19                                                                                                                                     8.515

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  34,515
       TeXBS
            Houston     Independent           School     Distxict                                                                                                                                                                        2,025,ooo
             San Antonio          Independent        School        District                                                                                                                                                              1,165     300
            West Orange           Cove Consolidated             Independent
                School     District                                                                                                                                                               R                                           49,080
            Buffalo      1ndepe"de"t          School      District                                                                                                                                R                                           14.550
                       Total                                                                                                           2                                                                                                 3,253.930
                       Total      Region          VI                                                                                       12                                                                                            5,384.645
REGICtJ VII--KANSAS                   CITY
     Missouri
           New Madrid                 School       District               R-I                                                                                                                      C                                              57 385
                       Total                                                                                                               r                                                                                                      57,385
                       Total      Region          VII                                                                                      22                                                                                                     57,385
REGION IX--SAN          FRANCISCO
     Califor"ia
              Pasedena     Unified                School            District                                                                                                                                                                 115 000
              Inglewood     Unified                School            District                                                                                                                                                                 74,938
                       Total                                                                                                               2                                                                                                189,938
                       Total      Region          IX                                                                                       2                                                                                                 189,938
TOTAL--ALL         RFGIONS                                                                                                                 =M                                                                                      $14,059,135
Note        Cqiterie           used      in     making             selections
            1    Grants         of      $1 million                 or more         were        selected--including                   the           grent.     to Haphis             in       the       amOunt     of    $992,531
            2    At least    tuo               grants         in      each       State         are       selected--if          the         State            had   received          only           one    or    tWo grants         all       grants
                 were selected
            3    All   other   grants                   were        selected             at random--within              each         State            the     grants         were        listed          from    high    to low          dollar
                 amou"ts     so that                   a mix        of both             would be selected




                                                                                                                        85
APPENDIX IV
     Page 1




   Mr Elmer B Staats
   Comptroller   General of the
     Unlted States
   General Accounting    Office
   441 G Street,   NW
   WashIngton,   D C 20548

   Dear hL- Staats.

   This letter  1s to request that the General Accounting    Offxe make a
   review of the lmplementatlon   of the Emergency School Assistance Program
   by the Office of Education,   Department of Health,  Education,  and Welfare

   The program, whlcn 1s presently     funded In the amount of $75 million         by
   the Office oi Education  Approprlatiorl      Act, 1971, Public Law 91-380,
   dated kgdst   18, 1970, provides financial        assistance   to Local educational
   agencies to meet special problem        xxxdent    to desegregation    In elementary
   a9d secondary schools    Statutory      autnority    to carry out the program 1s
   contaxned In six separate acts whxh are cited In the approprlatlon              act

   Tne Committees of Congress are currently    conslderlng     a bxll to provrde
   for a single authorlzatlon   for the program to be known as the Emergency
   School Aid Ac.t of 1970    The $75 million  is the fxrst part of the Press-
   dent's announced plans to ask for a total     of $1 5 bxlllon     for the program
   over the nert 2 years

   Staff members of the select committee           have met recently       with representa-
   tives of your offlce        to drscuss this request and have furnished             them wxth
   a suggested outline        of areas to be covered in the review              It was agreed
   tnat QUXing     the first    phase, the review would be llmlted          to an evaluation
   of tne regulations        and procedures  established      to Implement      the program
   This worK is to be performed prlmarlly            at the Offlce of Education          head-
   quarters    -Ln Washington,    D C , and at each HEW regional         office where financial.
   grants have been made          It is contemplatea      that following      the report on
   this review, follow-on        work will be performed at the various school dlstrxcts
   included    in the revlaw




                                                 86
                                                                                 APPENDIX IV
                                                                                      Page 2



It 1s requested  that you select  50 proJects fox        review     At least  one
proJect  In each State whlcn nas received    funds,      as well   as a rn~x of both
large and small grants,   should be examined

It 1s requested    that a report    of your findings    be provided     by January 26,
1971, In order that it may be of assistance          In the dellberatlons      on the
Emergency School Aid bill         The comrmttee staff     will be pleased to meet
with your representatives       at any time during the conduct of the review
should any problems      a1ls.e

                                           Sincerely,




                                           Chairman




                                             87