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
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)