oversight

Weaknesses in School Districts' Implementation of the Emergency School Assistance Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-09-29.

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

                                         lllllllilllli~illlllllllllllllllllllllilll~
                                                 LM09551   I




                                                      istricts’
                                                       mergency
                                                       m       B- 164037/7)




        Department   of Health,   Education,
           and Welfare




                                               SEPi.29,1971

-- --      - _. i
                        COMPTROLLER    GENERAL      OF   THE   UNITED    STATES

                                      WASHINGTON.    D.C.   20548




          B-104031(1)




    tit   Dear   Mr.    Chairman:

                  This is our report   on weaknesses     in school districts’    im-
          plementation    of the Emergency    School Assistance     Program
          administered    by the Department    of Health, Education,       and Wel-            r L
          fare.   Our review    was made pursuant    to your request      of Novem-
          ber 24, 1970.

                   We believe that the contents        of this report     will be of inter-
          est to other members        of Congress.       Release    of the report,     how-
          ever, will be made only upon your agreement                or upon public
          announcement       by you concerning      its contents.      Although     the re-
          port contains     recommendations       to the Secretary        of Health,   Ed-
          ucation,   and Welfare,    neither   the Department        of Health,
          Education,    and Welfare     nor the Office of Education           has been        ’ ‘-
          given an opportunity     to formally     comment       on this report.

                                                     Sincerely          yours,




                                                     Comptroller             General
                                                     of the United           States

.         The Honorable     Walter    F. Mondale
          Chairman,   Select Committee         on
                                                               .: 2.
           Equal Educational       Opportunity
    I     United States Senate




                            50 TH ANNIVERSARY               1921- 1971
 COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S REPORT                            WEAKNESSESIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS’
 TO THE SELECT COMklITTEE ON                            IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY
 EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY                          SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
 UNITED STATES SENATE                                   Department of Health, Education, and
                                                        Welfare B-164031(1)


 DIGEST
 ------

 i7HY THE REVIEW WASM4DE

           The Emergency School Assistance            Program (ESAP), administered       by the De-
           partment of Health,        Education,    and Welfare (HEW), provides       grants to
           school districts       to defray the costs of meeting special          problems arising
           from c_-..
                  the_-_desegregation    of elementary      and secondary schools.       The program
           was established      in August 1970, under six existing        legislative      authori-
           ties,    with a $75 million      appropriation.
/
di         At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Equal                          1
           Educational  Opportunity,   the General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed
           the implementation    of the program.

           This report   concerns the activities     of       28 school districts  in implement-
           ing the program.     An earlier    report  to      the Committee (B-164031(1),
           March 5, 1971) concerned the need for            HEW to improve its policies    and
           procedures  for approving     grants under       the program.

           The Office of Education    and HEW have not been given the opportunity     to                  : --
           formally  examine or comment on this report.      Most of the matters  were
           discussed with school district    and agency officials   who generally  indi-
           cated that corrective   action would be taken.


 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

           In many cases school districts      were not complying with the HEW regulations
           and the assurances    given in their    applications.    Although some of these
           cases did not affect     the conduct of the school districts'     program activi-
           ties adversely,    GAO's review indicates      a need for HEW to strengthen  its mon-
           itoring  of projects    under the program.

          Of the 28 school districts,      24 appeared to be eligible       for program assis-
          tance.     One was ineligible   because it was not in the final        phase of de-
          segregation    at the beginning   of the 1970-71 school year, contrary        to the
          regulations.     In the other three school districts,        questions   of compli-
          ance with the nondiscrimination       requiremen,ts of title    VI of the 1964
          _CivilJL~~ht.sAct were unresolved.        (See ppi 13, 40, 41, and 56.)

           Generally  the districts'      activities     were directed      toward meeting special
           needs associated    with __--__
                                     achieving
                                          _..----.-  and maintaining    a   desgregated   school
                                                                     -.   ._ ,-        -j -_.-... --v.-
                                                                           SEPT.29,19?1
     Tear Sheet
                                                        1
system.     Some activities,    however, appeared to be directed  more toward
aiding education      in general than toward solving  problems arising   from
desegregation.

Weaknesses in project        implementation

In some school districts,       project activities     may not be implemented or
will  be only partially     implemented during the grant periods,        which will
leave unresolved     the problems of desegregation.        In addition,   a number
of activities    were not being carried     out in accordance with the provi-
sions of the applications       or with certain    program requirements.

Examples     of poor   program     implementation      by school   districts       include

  --using     program funds to hire         employees or to acquire            equipment     for
     which    there was no apparent         need in the ESAP project,

  --hiring      employees for the program           at salary rates which         exceeded the
     limitations      set by the conditions          of the grants without         prior  written
     approval     of HEW, and

  --assigning  only minority   group students     to an education   center for
     which both minority   and nonminority    group students    had been recom-
     mended.

Other   examples   of poor       program   implementation     are summarized         in chapter     7.

In its application    a school district       must give formal assurances   that it
will  comply with certain     conditions     and will meet HEW regulations.     Most
of the districts   had not fully       complied with at least one of the assur-
ances or with certain     regulations.

  --Two school districts      had not taken effective      action  to assign teachers
     and other staff    members who work directly      with children    so that the
     ratio  of minority   group and nonminority     group teachers     and staff   in
     each school was substantially      the same as the overall      ratio   for the
     school district.     (See pp. 35 and 50.)

  --Two school districts     were using program funds              to supplant non-Federal
     funds available   to them prior   to desegregation.              (See p. 53.)

  --One school district      had leased a school building               for $500 a year to
     a private    school for white students   only, without               reporting the trans-
     action    to HEW as required.    (See p. 52.)

Reasons for     weaknesses

The weaknesses in project   implementation    were attributable,  to a high de-
gree, to the emergency nature of the program and to its need for expe-
ditious planning,  funding,  and implementation.      The lack of an effective
         HEW regional   office   monitoring    system   also   contributed   to the weaknesses
         in project   implementation.


 RECOMNDATIONS         OR SUGGESTIONS

         To help ensure that grant funds are used for the intended        purposes,  the
         Secretary  of HEW should follow     up on the matters  discussed  in this report
         and should take corrective    action.    He should also use the HEW Audit
         Agency, when appropriate.

         Further,   to help minimize   the occurrence    of similar    problems in the event
         that additional    Federal funding   is authorized     to help school districts
         defray the costs of meeting problems arising         from desegregation,     the Sec-
         retary   should

             --allow    school districts     a reasonable    time to identify   problems in
                achieving    and maintaining     a desegregated   school system and to develop
                plans to effectively      meet such problems prior      to applying   for Federal
                assistance,

             --emphasize   to school districts      that grant funds are to be used only
                for program purposes and that changes in approved project        activities
                are not to be made without     prior    written approval of HEW, and

             --provide   for an effective    monitoring     system to help ensure that (1)
                grant funds made available     to school districts       are being used for the
                purposes specified    in their   applications     and (2) the school districts
                are complying with HEW regulations         and program requirements.




Tear Sheet                                          3
                          Contents
                                                                 Page

DIGEST                                                             1

CHAPTER

  1       INTRODUCTION                                             4
              Establishment     of program                         6
              Authorized    activities   under program             7
              Project application      requirements                9
              Community and student participation
                 in program                                       10

  2       SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP
          PROJECTSAPPROVEDBY HEW DALLAS REGIONAL
          OFFICE                                                  12
              Eligibility       of school districts               13
              Implementation       of projects                    15
                    Funds not expended or resources
                        not used in accordance with
                        approved programs                         15
                    Questionable     use of ESAP funds for
                        employees and equipment                   20
                    Some project     activities     not imple-
                        mented or only partially       imple-
                        mented                                    22
                    Expenditures     not in accordance with
                        grant conditions      and program
                        requirements                              23
                    Compliance with ESAP regulations
                        and assurances                            26
  3       SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP
          PROJECTSAPPROVEDBY HEWPHILADELPHIA RE-
          GIONAL OFFICE                                           30
              Implementation    of projects                       30
                   Expenditures    not in accordance
                     with grant terms and conditions              30
                   Project activity    not meeting in-
                     tended purpose                               34
                   Compliance with ESAP regulations    and
                     assurances                                   35
CHAPTER                                                         Page

  4       SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMF,NTATIONOF ESAP
          PROJECTSAPPROVEDBY HEWATLANTA REGIONAL
          OFFICE                                                 38
              Eligibility      of school districts               39
              Relationship      of projects    to meeting
                 desegregation      problems                    43
              Implementation       of projects                  44
                    Some planned project       activities not
                        implemented or only partially
                        implemented                              45
                    Expenditures     not in accordance with
                        grant terms and conditions              49
                    Compliance with ESAP regulation       and
                        assurances                               50

  5       SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP
          PROJECTSAPPROVEDBY HEWSAN FRANCISCORE-
          GIONAL OFFICE                                         56
              Eligibility     of school districts               56
              Implementation      of projects                   58
                    Teacher-aides    not used in accor-
                        dance with approved project             58
                    Compliance with ESAP regulations
                        and assurances                          59

  6       SCHOOLDISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP
          PROJECTAPPROVEDBY HEWKANSAS CITY RE-
          GIONAL OFFICE                                         61
              Implementation     of project                     61
                   Special community programs                   62
                   Special pupil personnel services
                      program                                   63
                   Inactive   biracial   committee              64
                   Project expenditures                         65
  7       SUMMARYOF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,AND
          RECOMMENDATIONS                                       66
             Recommendations to the Secretary  of
               Health, Education,  and Welfare                  68
APPENDIX                                                           Page

  I        Grants under Emergency School Assistance
             Program reviewed by GAO                               73

 II        Letter dated November 24, 1970, from the
             Chairman, Senate Select Committee on
             Equal Educational    Opportunity, to the
             Comptroller  General                                  75
                              ABBREVIATIONS

ESAP       Emergency School Assistance         Program

GAO        General      Accounting   Office
HEW        Department      of Health,   Education,   and Welfare
COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S REPORT                     WEAKNESSESIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS’
TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON                      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY                   SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
UNITED STATES SENATE                            Department of Health, Education, and
                                                Welfare B-164031(1)


DIGEST
------

WHY THE REVIEW WASMADE

    The Emergency School Assistance         Program (ESAP), administered       by the De-
    partment   of Health,   Education,    and Welfare (HEW), provides       grants to
    school districts     to defray the costs of meeting special         problems arising
    from the desegregation      of elementary     and secondary schools.       The program
    was established    in August 1970, under six existing       legislative      authori-
    ties,  with a $75 million     appropriation.

    At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Equal
    Educational  Opportunity,   the General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed
    the implementation    of the program.

    This report   concerns the activities     of     28 school districts  in implement-
    ing the program.     An earlier    report to     the Committee (B-164031(1),
    March 5, 1971) concerned the need for          HEW to improve its policies    and
    procedures  for approving     grants under     the program.

    The Office   of Education and HEW have not been given the opportunity      to
    formally   examine or comment on this report.     Most of the matters  were
    discussed   with school district  and agency officials   who generally  indi-
    cated that corrective    action would be taken.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

    In many cases school districts      were not complying with the HEW regulations
    and the assurances    given in their    applications.    Although some of these
    cases did not affect     the conduct of the school districts'     program activi-
    ties adversely,    GAO's review indicates      a need for HEW to strengthen  its mon-
    itoring  of projects   under the program.

    Of the 28 school districts,       24 appeared to be eligible       for program assis-
    tance.      One was ineligible   because it was not in the final        phase of de-
    segregation     at the beginning   of the 1970-71 school year, contrary         to the
    regulations.      In the other three school districts,        questions   of compli-
    ance with the nondiscrimination        requirements  of title    VI of the 1964
    Civil    Rights Act were unresolved.       (See pp. 13, 40, 41, and 56.)

     Generally  the districts'       activities     were directed   toward meeting special
     needs associated    with    achieving      and maintaining   a desgregated  school
system.     Some activities,    however, appeared to be directed  more toward
aiding education      in general than toward solving  problems arising   from
desegregation.

Weaknesses in project        impZementation

In some school districts,       project activities     may not be implemented   or
will  be only partially     implemented during the grant periods,        which will
leave unresolved     the problems of desegregation.        In addition,   a number
of activities    were not being carried      out in accordance with the provi-
sions of the applications       or with certain    program requirements.

Examples     of poor program    implementation      by school   districts       include

  --using     program funds to hire      employees or to acquire            equipment     for
     which    there was no apparent      need in the ESAP project,

  --hiring      employees for the program        at salary  rates which        exceeded the
     limitations      set by the conditions       of the grants without         prior  written
     approval     of HEW, and

  --assigning  only minority   group students     to an education   center for
     which both minority   and nonminority    group students    had been recom-
     mended.

Other   examples   of poor program      implementation     are summarized         in chapter     7.

In its application    a school district       must give formal assurances    that it
will  comply with certain     conditions     and will  meet HEW regulations.     Most
of the districts   had not fully       complied with at least one of the assur-
ances or with certain     regulations.

  --Two school districts      had not taken effective      action  to assign teachers
     and other staff    members who work directly      with children    so that the
     ratio  of minority   group and nonminority     group teachers     and staff   in
     each school was substantially      the same as the overall      ratio   for the
     school district.     (See pp. 35 and 50.)

  --Two school districts     were using program funds           to supplant non-Federal
     funds available   to them prior   to desegregation.           (See p. 53.)

  --One school district      had leased a school building            for $500 a year to
     a private    school for white students   only, without            reporting the trans-
     action    to HEW as required.    (See p. 52.)

Reasons for     weaknesses

The weaknesses in project   implementation    were attributable,  to a high de-
gree, to the emergency nature of the program and to its need for expe-
ditious  planning, funding,  and implementation.      The lack of an effective
    HEW regional   office   monitoring   system   also   contributed   to the weaknesses
    in project   implementation.


RECOHMENDATIONS
             OR SUGGESTIONS
    To help ensure that grant funds are used for the intended        purposes, the
    Secretary  of HEW should follow     up on the matters  discussed  in this report
    and should take corrective    action.    He should also use the HEW Audit
    Agency, when appropriate.

    Further,   to help minimize the occurrence    of similar    problems in the event
    that additional    Federal funding is authorized     to help school districts
    defray the costs of meeting problems arising       from desegregation,     the Sec-
    retary   should

      --allow    school districts    a reasonable   time to identify    problems in
         achieving   and maintaining    a desegregated   school system and to develop
         plans to effectively      meet such problems prior    to applying    for Federal
         assistance,

      --emphasize   to school districts      that grant funds are to be used only
         for program purposes and that changes in approved project        activities
         are not to be made without     prior    written approval of HEW, and

      --provide   for an effective     monitoring     system to help ensure that (1)
         grant funds made available      to school districts       are being used for the
         purposes specified     in their   applications     and (2) the school districts
         are complying with HEW regulations          and program requirements.
                                CHAPTER1

                              INTRODUCTION

      The Emergency School Assistance Program provides grants
to school districts     to defray the costs of meeting special
problems arising    from the desegregation     of elementary and
secondary schools.      In response to a request dated Novem-
ber 24, 1970 (see app. II), from the Chairman, Senate Select
Committee on Equal Educational      Opportunity,   we reviewed, in
two phases, the implementation     of ESAP which is administered
by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

        Our report on the first        phase, submitted to the Chair-
man of the Committee on March 5, 1971 (B-164031(1)),                 dealt
with the need for HEW to improve its policies                and procedures
for approving ESAP grants.          ‘In the first      phase we selected,
at the Committee's request,          grants made to 50 school dis-
tricts    for a review of HEW's grant approval procedures.                 The
review was made at the HEW'headquarters              in Washington, D.C.,
and at the HEW regional        offices     in Atlanta,    Georgia; Dallas,
Texas; Kansas City,Missouri;           Philadelphia,     Pennsylvania;     and
San Francisco,     California.       Our report did not contain com-
ments on the procedures and expenditures               of the school dis-
tricts.

        This report deals with the second phase of our review,
which we made at 28 of the 50 school districts,            The objec-
tive of the second phase was to find out whether the school
districts      were (1) accomplishing    the program activities    as
described in their ESAP applications,          (2) using their grant
funds to defray the costs attributable          to special problems
arising     from the desegregation     of their schools, and (3) com-
plying with the ESAP regulations         and with the assurances con-
cerning program activities        stated in their applications.

       We did not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness      of the
projects   being conducted by the school districts    because, in
our opinion,    they had not been in operation   for a sufficient
period of time to demonstrate their effectiveness       in solving
problems incident    to desegregation.

     Our review at the school districts was limited                to 28 of
the 50 grants so that our report would be available                in time

                                      4
for consideration    by the Congress in its deliberations            on
proposed legislation    authorizing        an additional  $1.5 billion
for fiscal years 1972 and 1973 to assist school districts
in their desegregation      efforts.       We examined the records of
the school districts    and selected schools within the dis-
tricts   relating  to their    ESAP grants and discussed our find-
ings with school district       officials,     school principals    and
teachers, members of the biracial           and student ESAP advisory
committees, and HEWofficials.

      The 28 grants totaled about $9.2 million,    or 14.6 per-
cent of the approximately    $63.1 million reported by HEWas
granted to 899 school districts    as of June 30, 1971. A
breakdown of the 28 grants by State and school district     is
shown in appendix I.




                                  5
ESTABLISHMENTOF PROGRAM

       To meet the emergency needs of school districts         that
were in the process of desegregating       and of those that had
to desegregate by the fall of 1970, the President,           on May 25,
1970, requested that the Congress appropriate,          under six
existing   legislative    authorities,  $150 million    to be made
available    immediately to school districts      undergoing deseg-
regation.     In response the Congress, on August 18, 1970, ap-
propriated    $75 million   and thereby established     ESAP.
      Statutory    authority    to carry   out ESAP is contained         in
the following     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 Civil Rights Act of 1964, title             IV (42 U.S.C.
         2oooc-2oooc-9) 0
      4. The Elementary and Secondary Education            Act of 1965,
         section 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 HEW).

       The regulations       governing the administration     of ESAP
by HEWwere published          in the Federal Register on August 22,
1970. The Commissioner of Education, who was vested with
responsibility       for administering     ESAP, delegated this re-
sponsibility      to the Office of Education's       Division   of Equal
Educational      Opportunities.       The Office of Education's    repre-
sentatives     in each of the 10 HEWregional         offices  were
given the responsibility          for reviewing and approving grant,
applications      received from the school districts.

       Under ESAP a school district   is eligible for            financial
assistance   if (1) it is desegregating   its schools            under a

                                    6
final State or Federal court order or under a voluntary
plan approved by HEWas meeting the nondiscrimination         re-
quirements of title   VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
 (2) it commenced the terminal phase of such plan or court
order by the opening of the 1970-71 school year or had com-
menced such terminal phase during the 1968-69 or 1969-70
school year.    The regulations    define "terminal   phase" as
that phase of a desegregation     plan during which the school
district  begins operating    a unitary   school system--one
within which no person is effectively       excluded from school
because of race or color.
       Applications   for assistance   under ESAP are submitted to
HEW's regional offices     for evaluation   and approval or disap-
proval.     According to HEWofficials     applications  were to be
reviewed by regional Office of Education employees for ade-
quacy of program content and for adherence to the ESAP regu-
lations.     Also employees of HEW's Office for Civil Rights
located in either the regional or the Washington office
were to review the applications       for compliance with civil
rights matters.      Review for compliance with the legal as-
pects of the regulations     was to be made by employees of
HEW's Office of General Counsel.

AUTHORIZEDACTIVITIES UNDERPROGRAM

       The ESAP regulations       provide that financial    assistance
be made available      to eligible     school districts   only to meet
special needs resulting        from the elimination     of racial
segregation   and discrimination        among students and faculty
in elementary and secondary schools and that such assis-
tance contribute     to the costs of new or expanded activities
designed to achieve successful          desegregation   and to elimi-
nate discrimination.       The regulations      require that projects
assisted under ESAP be designed to contribute            to achieving
and maintaining     desegregated school systems and emphasize
the carrying out of such activities          as

      --special   community programs to assist      school   districts
         in implementing desegregation  plans;
     --special  pupil personnel services   (guidance, counsel-
        ing, and remedial services)  to assist in maintaining
        quality education during the desegregation    process;


                                  7
--special    curriculum    revision and special teacher
   preparation     programs to meet the needs of desegre-
   gated student bodies;

--special   student-to-student     programs to assist   stu-
   dents in opening up channels of communication        on
   problems resulting      from desegregation; and

--special   comprehensive planning and logistic,support
   to assist in implementing desegregation     plans.




                            8
PROJECTAPPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
       A school    district       is required   to give   formal   assurances
that

       --it   will use the ESAP funds only to supplement, not
          to supplant,   funds which are available to it from
          non-Federal  sources for purposes which meet the re-
          quirements of the program;

       --it will make a reasonable effort            to utilize  other
           Federal funds available,  rather         than ESAP funds, to
           meet the needs of the children;
       --it has not engaged and will not engage in the trans-
           fer of property or services to any nonpublic school
           or school system which, at the time of such transfer,
           practices  racial discrimination;

       --it 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 take effective    action to assign teachers and
           other staff who work directly  with children    so that
           the ratio of minority to nonminority    group teachers
           and staff in each school is substantially    the same
           as the ratio in the entire school district;

       --it will not          employ any discriminatory    practices  or
           procedures,        including testing,    in the assignment of
           children    to     classes or in carrying    out other school
           activities;        and

       --it will have published   in a local newspaper of general
           circulation the terms and provisions of the grant
           within 30 days of its approval.




                                         9
COMMUNITYAND STUDENT
PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM

       The regulations  provide for the interests    of the com-
munity to be considered by the school districts        in the for-
mulation and administration     of their ESAP projects    by re-
quiring   that biracial  and student advisory committees par-
ticipate    in ES&?.
       Each school district        receiving     an ESAP grant is required
to establish      a biracial     advisory committee if no biracial
committee has been formed by the district                 pursuant to a Fed-
eral or State court desegregation              order.     The school district
is to select at least five, but not more than 15, organiza-
tions which, in the aggregate, are broadly representative
of the minority       and nonminority       groups in the communities
to be served.       The names of the organizations             selected are
to be submitted with the district's               application     for a grant.
Each organization       may appoint one member to an advisory com-
mittee,   and the school district           then is to appoint such ad-
ditional   members from the communiv as may be needed to es-
tablish   a committee composed of an equal number of minority
and nonminority      group members, at least one half of whom
are to be parents whose children will be directly                    affected
by the district's       ESAP project.        The biracial      advisory com-
mittee is to be established           within 30 days after approval
of the district's       application.

      The school district    is to make public the names of mem-
bers appointed to the biracial      advisory committee.    It also
is to consult with the committee on policy matters arising
in the administration     and operation   of the ESAP project  and
to give the committee a reasonable opportunity       to observe
and comment on all project-related       activities,

        In addition   to submitting     other assurances required by
the regulations,      a school district      must submit with its ap-
plication    an assurance that, promptly following        the opening
of the 1970-71 school year, a student advisory committee
will be formed in each secondary school affected by the
project    which has a student body composed of minority         and
nonminority     group children.     The number of minority    and non-
minority    group students serving on each such committee is
to be equal, and the members are to be selected by the


                                      10
student body.   The school district     is to consult with the
student advisory committee on carrying       out the project   and
on establishing  standards,  regulations,     and requirements
regarding student activities    and affairs.



      The results of our work at the 28 school districts       are
discussed in the following  chapters.




                                 11
      SCHOOLDISTRICTSB IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAF' PROJECTS

            APPROVEDBY :W       DALLAS REGIONAL OFFICE
                                ---
        HEW Region 'VI, which has headquarters    in Dallas, com-
prises the five States of Arkansas, Louisima,          Oklahoma,
Texas $ and New Piexiso.     According to Office of Education
statistics,    2,385 school districts    were operating public
schools in these States in the fall of 1970, As of
June 30, 1971, 244 of these districts        had received ESAP
grants totaling     $16,9 million,    We reviewed grants totaling
about $3,5 million     to seven of these districts.
       Six of the seven school districts     appeared to be eli-
gible to receive ESAP assistanse.        The eligibility     status of
the seventh district    appeared questionable      in that certain
requirements    of its court-ordered   desegregation     plan--namely,
the elimination    of dml school-bus routes and the transport-
ing of students on a nonsegregated and otherwise nondiscrim-
inatory basis-- had not been met.

       In our opinion the projects approved by the region for
all seven school districts     generally were designed for, and
directed   toward, meeting special needs incident    to achieving
and maintaining    desegregated school systems.

         In five of the seven school districts,           some project ac-
tivities      (1) were not implemented in accordance with the
descriptions        in the districts9   approved applications
were delayed in their implementation,             or (3) dxdD not'a%re
to certain       program requirements,      Additionally,     it appears
that the implementation          of some reject activities        was de-
layed to the extent that little,          if any, benefit       in meeting
desegregation        needs was realized during the 1970.=71 school
year.
       Most of the districts   did not fully comply with one or
more of the assurances given in their applications      or with
certain   requirements   of the ESAP regulations,
ELIGIBILITY    OF SCHOOLDISTRICTS

      Of the seven school districts,    only one appeared to
not have met the eligibility    requirements  for ESAP because
it was operating dual school-bus routes on a segregated basis
and therefore   was not in compliance with the nondiscrimina-
tion requirements   of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

       Region VI approved an ESAP grant in the amount of
$42,000 for the Jackson Parish School Board (Jonesboro,
Louisiana)   on October 2, 1970, to assist with special cur-
riculum revision     and teacher preparation       activities.   The
school board's eligibility       was based on the implementation
of a desegregation     plan ordered by a Federal district        court
in August 1970, which required complete desegregation            of
the parish school system starting         with the 1970-71 school
year.    Among other matters the court order directed that
dual school-bus routes be eliminated          and that the routing
of buses and the assignment of students to buses be made to
ensure transportation      of all eligible     students on a nonseg-
regated and otherwise nondiscriminatory           basis.

       Our site examination      in March 1971 showed that the
Jackson Parish school system was operating           its transporta-
tion system in a manner inconsistent          with the district
court order in that dual school-bus routes still             existed
and in that 39 of the 44 buses in operation            were transport-
ing only white or only black students.            The school board's
records showed that the Department of Justice had apprised
the board of alleged noncompliance with the busing require-
ments in a letter      dated September 17, 1970--2 weeks before
HEWapproved the ESAP grant.           The records showed also that,
by letter    dated November 20, 1970, the Department of Justice
had notified     the school board that it was not in compliance
with the directives       of the district    court concerning trans-
portation    of students.     Although the regional      Office for
Civil Rights made a postgrant         compliance review on Decem-
ber 3, 1970, the resulting        report did not identify       any dis-
criminatory    practices    or other problems in the school sys-
tem.

      The superintendent    of the school system told us that
a representative    from the Department of Justice had visited


                                   13
      the parish early in March 1971 and that an agreement had
      been reached on a busing plan which was acceptable to the
      court.   He said that, as a result of this action,   a court
      appearance ordered for mid-March had been averted and that
      a new court order implementing the acceptable busing plan
      would be issued.   At the end of our site review on April 1,
      1971, the new court order had not been received and no
      changes had been made in the operation   of the busing sys-
      tem.
            Regional Office for Civil Rights officials   told us
      that they were not aware of the grantee's    noncompliance
      status prior to our bringing   this matter to their attention.
      They informed us that the Department of Justice was respon-
      sible for investigating   complaintx against school districts
      which had been ordered to desegregate by court orders.




,_’




                                     14
IMPLEBGNTATIONOF PROJECTS

        In a number of instances project   activities       were in-
adequately planned and managed by the.school          districts      and
were conducted without a complete understanding            on the part
of administering     school officials  as to the specific         intent
of approved activities     and, in certain  instances,        without
sufficient    knowledge of ESAP requirements.

        This situation   resulted      in (1) implementation     of activ-
ities in a manner inconsistent           with that described in the
districts'    approved applications         and without adequately meet-
ing desegregation      needs, (2) unwarranted delays in the im-
plementation     of some activities,        and (3) noncompliance with
certain ESAP requirements.           It appears that substantial
amounts of grant funds were used for purposes that could re-
sult in aiding general educational            needs rather than in
dealing with problems incident           to the elimination    of segre-
gation and discrimination         in the school systems.       It appears
also that little,      if any, benefits       were realized  from cer-
tain project activities        during the 1970-71 school year be-
cause of their delayed implementation.

      We believe that the weaknesses in project      implementa-
tion were attributable,to     a large degree, to the emergency
nature of ESAP and to the need for its expeditious        planning,
funding, and implementation.       We believe also that the lack
of an effective    regional  Office of Education monitoring
system contributed     to the weaknesses in project   implementa-
tion.

       The regional    senior program officer    told us that in-
adequate staffing      levels,  coupled with the time constraints
of the program, had precluded the intensive          surveillance   re-
quired to identify      and correct problems.     He agreed that
more effective     monitoring   of ESAP projects    was needed and
indicated    that follow-up    efforts with respect to our find-
ings would be undertaken by the responsible          program officers.

Funds not expended or resources not used
in accordance with approved programs

     At three school districts either funds were expended
for purposes other than the approved program activities  or


                                    15
resources provided under approved activities       were not used
in the manner indicated     in their applications,    Region VI
officials    were generally   unaware of the manner in which
these program activities     were being conducted, although pro-
gram assessment reviews had been made at three districts
subsequent to grant award.       In our opinion the implementa-
tion of these programs by the school districts       has resulted
in directing    assistance  to areas of general educational     need
rather than to those stemming from the desegregation        process.

      West Orange Cove Consolidated
      Independent School District
      Orange, Texas

        The approved ESAP project           for this district       included
funds for the construction            of two portable      classroom build-
ings.      According to the district's          application,      this addi-
tional classroom space was needed to implement a program
for more individualized           instruction    by grouping students
into smaller class sizes on the basis of their abilities                        to
learn.      The district,       however9 constructed       one semipermanent
building,     costing $20,477, which was being used primarily
for group-type       activities      andp to a limited       extent,     for con-
ducting some of its larger art and science classes.                        Such
activities      appeared to not bear any relationship               to the
district's      desegregation      problems.     Plans to group students
in reduced class sizes on the basis of their abilities                       to
learn were accomplished without benefit of the added class-
room space.

       School district     officials  told us that changes in their
program had been necessary because the construction        of the
proposed buildings       had been held up due to a Region VI delay
in providing     written   approval for the reallocation  of funds
within the approved project budget to meet increased con-
struction    costs.

        We were told that, although verbal approval was given
by the region for the reallocation      on December 2, 1970,
written    confirmation,  which was required by the district
school board before funds could be reserved for construction
purposes, was not received until January 18, 1971. Due to
this delay, school officials     concluded that the realignment
of classroom space at this point in the school year, to

                                       16
permit use of the portable classrooms as intended, would
prove too disruptive   to the students.     Thus the decision
was made, without the region's    approval,   to construct     one
semipermanent building   to be used for group-type     activities
which, in the opinion of school officials,      would more nearly
meet school needs at that time,

        The regional   program officer    was unaware of these
changes to the district's         program, although a program assess-
ment review was made on January 11, 1971. He said that his
assessment visit     had shown no evidence of deviation      from the
approved program.       He agreed, however, with our position
that the classroom space provided by ESAP was being used for
general educational       purposes and would have little,    if any,
impact on desegregation        problems identified   by the school
district,      He assured us that the matter would receive im-
mediate attention      by the regional     staff.

      Orleans Parish School Board
      New Orleans, Louisiana

       ESAP funds amounting to over $300,000 were approved in
this district's     application     to allow the school system to
retain teacher positions        and thereby to reduce student-teacher
ratios in certain     schools.      Because of an unanticipated   de-
cline in student enrollment         for the 1970-71 school year, the
number of teachers employed for the school year was signifi-
cantly above the staffing        level for which State financial
support was to be provided.           The ESAP grant provided for re-
tention of 40 of the excess positions,          which would allow a
reduction    of student-teacher       ratios at some of the schools
having the most critical        desegregation   problems.
       The manner in which 27 of the 40 ESAP-funded teacher
positions   were designated at 17 individual         schools, however,
did not actually     result  in increasing    the number of teacher
positions   which normally would have been authorized           at those
schools exclusive      of the ESAP assistance.       Instead,   the de-
signation    of these teacher positions     resulted     in only a
change in the source of funds from which the teachers'              sal-
aries were being paid (i.e.,       from the school board's general
operating    fund to the ESAP fund) and did not reduce the
student-teacher     ratio at these schools, contrary         to the
stated intent of the approved project.


                                   17
        Region VI officials      told    us that   they planned   to re-
quest    the   school  board to submit information    justifying     the
assignment      of these teacher positions   to individual       schools,
They assured us that the school board would be required to
use the positions  to reduce the student-teacher     ratios at
its schools having the most critical   desegregation      problems
as provided by the approved project.

        ESAI? funds amounting     to $1,340 were used to procure of-
fice furniture       and equipment for one of the school system's
district     superintendents,     although funds for that purpose
were not included in the approved ESAR budget.            Both Re-
gion VI and school board officials          agreed that this expendi-
ture was not within the intent of the approved program,            The
regional     program officer     assured us that the school board
would be required        to charg e these expenditures  to its gen-
eral operating       fund.

        San Antonio     Independent     School
                                        ---    District-I^
        San Antonio,     Texas

       At the time of grant award to the district,       Region VI
had disapproved    $7,000 for small musical instrument pur-
chases requested by the district       in its EM.!? application.
We noted, however, that the school district        was in the pro-
cess of procuring    musical instruments     of the type specifi-
cally disapproved.      Our review of accounting records and
other supporting    documentation showed that this was being
accomplished by classifying      the instruments   as supply-type
items and by charging the cost against an instructional
supplies category approved for an ESAP curriculum          revision
program.

        The district's      ESAP director   told us that, although he
was aware that funds for this purpose had been disapproved,
the district's        policy of classifying     as supplies any items
having an acquisition         cost of less than $25 had permitted
him to make the purchases,           He said that, since the approved
ESAP program did not identify           the types of items that could
be purchased with ESAP funds, the district            had considerable
latitude    in the use of the funds.

      Because of the time required           to identify     individual
transactions  within the district's            accounting    records, we
did not determine the total amount expended for small musical
instruments.   Our limited analysis, however9 showed that at
least $1,200 had been used for this purpose.

        San Antonio received supplemental           funds in February
1971, which included $35,000 to provide hot water for art
classes being conducted under the district's               approved ESAP
after-school      program.    The district's      ESAP director    told us
that these funds provided for hot water to be piped from
the cafeterias       of each of 6C elementary schools to the par-
ticular    classrooms where art classes were being conducted.
At the time of our review, however, the district                was in the
process of purchasing individual            hot-water    heaters for in-
stallation     in the nursing stations        at each of the elementary
schools.      Additionally,    40 of the schools were to receive
lavatories     in conjunction    with installation        of hot-water
heaters.

       According to the school officials     responsible  for this
activity,    this change in program direction     was made on the
premise that the availability      of hot water at nursing sta-
tions would improve the quality      of health services provided
to students.      Region VI approval for this change was not re-
quested by the district.

       The regional     program officer       having direct responsi-
bility    for the San Antonio program was not available            for
comment at the end of our review; thus, we were unable to
establish    with certainty      that he was unaware of the fore-
going deviations       in program implementation.         On the basis
of our discussion       with the senior program officer         and our
review of the district        project   file,     however, it appears
that regional     officials    were not aware of the manner in
which the program was being conducted.




                                    19
Questionable use of ESAP funds
for employees and equipment

      At two of the seven districts,       ESAP funds were used
to hire employees or to acquire equipment although there
was no apparent need for them in the ESAP projects.            These
uses of the funds were authorized under the districts'           ap-
proved projects;     however, resources other than ESAP were
generally  available    for these purposes.     We believe that,
through better planning by the districts,         in conjunction
with more effective     technical  guidance by Region VI, the
ESAP funds could have been directed        to meeting more criti-
cal desegregation     needs of the districts.

      San Antonio   Independent    School District
        This district's    approved ESAP project     included about
$227,000 to pay the salaries        of teachers and teacher-
aides employed on an after-school         basis to teach in the
district's    after-school    program.    This activity    was being
conducted at 68 of the district!s         elementary schools.

       At the time the ESAP grant was made, teachers and
teacher-aides    at 46 of the 68 schools were already being
provided with funds from another Federal source--title            I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.          Although
title   I funds were available    for this purpose at the 46
schools, the school district      requested,  and obtained Re-
gion VI approval for, ESAP funds to hire teachers and
teacher-aides    for all 68 elementary schools.      At the time
of our site visit      in March 1971, ESAP funds of about
$136,000 we7re being used for the period October 1970
through <June 1971 to fill     92 teacher positions   and 184
teacher-aide    positions   at the 46 schools receiving     title   I
assistance.
        The district's   director     of Federal programs told us
that the district's      interpretation     of the title  I program
regulations     was that assistance under the program could not
be extended to a school if other schools within the dis-
trict     were being provided with comparable assistance        from
any other fund source.         Therefore,   in the opinion of the
district,     it was necessary that ESAT?assistance       be extended
to all 68 elementary schools to ensure that title           I


                                  20
assistance  in the 46 schools would be in addition  to that
provided by ESAP. This action had the effect of at least
doubling the after-school   program staff in the 46 title   I
schools.
      Title I regulations  provide that the restriction  on
the use of title   I funds be applicable  only when compa-
rable assistance   is being provided with State or local
monies.

       This activity was being implemented at the time of the
region's   assessment review on November 12, 1970. The re-
gional program officer    said, however, that the region was
unaware that the condition     existed.     He expressed the be-
lief that the district    had misinterpreted     the title  I reg-
ulations   and that the additional      employees at the 46
schools having title    I programs should not have been hired
unless they were needed for ESAP.

         Orleans   Parish   School Board

        ESAP funds were being used by this district      to rent or
purchase apparently      unneeded equipment.    For example, the
school board used ESAP funds to rent two identical         copying
machines (at a cost of about $58 a month for each) to sup-
port the activities      of 10 staff members employed under
ESAP. All 10 employees were housed in the same space, and
both machines were placed at this location.         Region VI of-
ficials    agreed that the need for two machines was question-
able and said that corrective       action would be taken.     Sub-
sequent regional     correspondence with the school district
indicated     that one of the machines was to be returned to
the vendor.

      In another instance certain      school board administra-
tive districts      were acquiring  new office furniture     (desks
and chairs)     for ESAP employees while other districts       were
using, without cost to the program, office        furniture    which
was surplus to the school board's needs.        Our tour of the
school board warehouse revealed that substantial           quantities
of office    furniture   were in storage.

         ESAP funds amounting to $18,000 were approved       for   fur-
niture     purchases in the board's six administrative


                                    21
districts.    We believe that the districts  could have used
the apparently   suitable  surplus furniture and could have
directed   the ESAP funds to meeting more critical   desegre-
gation needs.

       School board officials     told us that they would inves-
tigate the possibility      of more extensive use of surplus
furniture.     Regional officials     told us that they did not
have the authority     to require the school board to use its
surplus furniture     but would recommend that it do so when-
ever possible.

Some project    activities    not implemented
or only partially       implemented

       We believe that the maximum benefits     of some ESAP
project   activities   were not realized  during the 1970-71
school year because some activities      were not implemented
or were only partially     implemented.

        The ESAP project   of Orleans Parish involved primarily
the hiring     of employees; about 69 percent of the $1,953,400
grant was budgeted for the payment of employees' salaries
and benefits.      The project provides for a total of 161
full-time    ESAP employees and, with certain     exceptions,   in-
cludes funds for the payment of salaries        during the par-
ish's school year.       At the end of our review at the parish
in March 1971, 138 of the employees had been hired, but a
majority    did not start work on the program until       2 to
3 months after the grant was made in October 1970. Al-
though the grant period extends into October 1971, the late
employment of these people, coupled with the nonoperational
status of many of the ESAP activities       during the summer va-
cation months, will preclude full use of these funds within
the time available.

       At the San Antonio Independent School District          which
received a grant of $1,431,945, one project         activity,      in-
volving   $47,700 for an Elementary Ethnic Studies Program,
was not being implemented as proposed, due to difficulties
in obtaining    qualified     employees, Another project      activ-
ity, involving    $207,000 for a Remedial Language and Reading
Program, was still       in the planning stages at the time of
our review, and it appeared doubtful        that this activity
would be implemented within the grant period,

                                 22
      School officials    in both the Orleans Parish and San
Antonio school districts     attributed    the problems encoun-
tered in implementing these activities         to a lack of time
to plan project    implementation.      They  said that it would
be necessary to extend the grant periods in order for them
to use all the grant funds.

      At the Luxora School District     in Arkansas, ESAP funds
of $12,000, or 50 percent of the grant to this district,
were used to purchase an electronic       learning  system which,
at the time of our review, was not being used due to a lack
of operational  knowledge and to the.need for additional
supplies and equipment.     It appears that successful     imple-
mentation of the electronic    learning     system will be delayed
at least until  the beginning of the 1971-72 school year.

     School officials   and the program officer attributed
the problems experienced in this case to a lack of time to
plan project implementation.
Expenditures   not in accordance with
grant conditions   and program requirements

      At three school districts,        several expenditures       were
not in conformance with grant conditions          and program re-
quirements.    For example, contrary       to the ESAP general
terms and conditions,     salary limitations      were exceeded
without the required HEW approval;         expenditures      in small
amounts were charged to ESAP accounts prior to the effec-
tive date of the grant; grant funds were used to finance
other than approved ESAP activities;          and, in some instances,
ESAP accounts either were charged with incorrect               amounts or
were erroneously   charged with expenses incurred by other
programs.    In addition,   limitations      on consultants'      fees
were exceeded by one school district.

       The lack of adherence to grant conditions    and program
requirements    apparently was because school officials    either
were not aware of the pertinent    program requirements    or did
not employ adequate program controls.

     At the Orleans Parish School Board, 18 school employ-
ees hired under the ESAP project were being paid at rates
which exceeded the limitations  on salaries imposed by the

                                  23
general terms and conditions     of the ESAP grant. The gen-
eral terms and conditions    require the grantee to obtain the
approval of the regional Office of Education grants officer
when rates of compensation paid to persons employed to
carry out ESAP projects   exceeds (1) $15,000 a year or (2)
their immediately preceding rate of compensation by more
than 20 percent,  if paid at an annual rate in excess of
$6,000.

      Of the 18 employees, 17 received,    without prior ap-
proval of the grants officer,   increases in compensation
ranging from 23 to 133 percent of their immediately preced-           '
ing salaries;  11 received more than a 35-percent     increase.
The other employee was being paid more than $15,000 a year
without the required approval.     School officials   were not
aware of the requirement   to obtain the grants officer's       ap-
proval of salaries   in excess of the limitations   until we
brought this matter to their attention.
      At the San Antonio Independent School District,       the
20-percent  salary limitation     was exceeded for four ESAP-
funded employees.    School officials     told us that they were
aware of the salary limitations       but that they did not re-
quest the grants officer's    approval of the salaries     because
of an administrative   oversight.

       School officials    at both Orleans Parish and San Anto-
nio told us that they would request HEW approval of the
salaries    which exceeded the limitations.     Region VI offi-
cials told us that they would evaluate the justifications
for the salaries      being paid and indicated  that the ultimate
disposition     of this matter would be based on the circum-
stances.
         At the Buffalo Independent School District      in Texas,
$3,500 was transferred       from the ESAP accounts and was used
to finance the operation of two normally self-supporting
school activities      which were in arrears--the     School Activ-
ity Fund and the School Lunch Operations Fund. These ac-
tivities     were unrelated    to the approved project,    and the
transfer     of the funds for this purpose was not approved by
Region VI. A school official         told us that, since ESAP
funds were available       and were not currently   needed, he had
borrowed these funds to avoid making a bank loan to cover


                                 24
expenses of the two activities.     He said that the ESAP
funds would be reimbursed;    however, this had not been done
at the conclusion  of our review.     Regional officials  told
us that they would seek corrective     action on this matter.

       Other deficient    aspects of project    administration     at
the San Antonio school district,        although limited     in terms
of dollar     impact, indicated   a lack of knowledge of certain
program requirements      and demonstrated the need for more
adequate financial      control over the use of ESAP funds.         Our
findings    in this respect follow.

      --Limited    expenditures   ($247) for supplies and con-
         sultants'   fees incurred prior to the effective   date
         of the grant were charged to ESAP accounts.

      --Seven regular classroom teachers employed to work in
         the district's  ESAP-funded after-school program re-
         ceived pay ($625) for hours that they did not work
         in the program.

     --The salaries  of 18 teachers employed for, and actu-
        ally working in, another federally  funded program
        were being charged to the ESAP grant.    Conversely
        the salaries of 10 teachers employed on an after-
        school basis for an ESAP-funded activity   were being
        paid from another federally  funded program of the
        district.

     --A consultant    employed for ESAP-funded activities     was
        paid at a daily rate of $180 for 2 days.      The dis-
        trict superintendent   told us that, although he was
        aware of the general limitation    of $75 a day imposed
        by the Office of Education for such fees, he was not
        aware that the consultant    had been hired at a rate
        of $180 a day.

      San Antonio school officials   indicated that they were
generally  unaware of these matters until we brought them to
their attention.    They agreed to investigate   the matters
and to take appropriate   corrective   action.




                                  25
Compliance with    ESAP regulations
and assurances

      Most of the school districts       did not fully comply with
one or more of the assurances given in their ESAP applica-
tions or with certain ESAP regulation          requirements    pertaining
to (1) formation and functioning        of biracial     and student ad-
visory committees,     (2) transfers    of property to nonpublic
schools practicing     racial  discrimination,       and (3) publication
of ESAP project    terms and provisions.

      Biracial   advisory   committees

      Each of the seven school districts     did not comply with
one or more of the regulation    requirements     concerning the for-
mation of biracial   advisory committees.      The extent of the
noncompliance noted indicated    that grantees were unaware of
the ESAP requirements    or that regional   officials    had not made
adequate compliance follow-up    reviews.
        Although the regulations        require--if   no biracial advisory
committee has been formed pursuant to a court order--a school
district     to establish    a biracial     committee within 30 days of
approval of its application,          the formation of such committees
by four districts       was delayed for periods ranging from 56 to
120 days.      For example, the Orleans Parish School Board did
not establish     a biracial    advisory committee for about 3 months.

       At four school districts,    the membership of the advisory
committees was not in accordance with the regulations.            The
San Antonio Independent School District       and the Orleans Parish
School Board advisory committees were not composed of equal
numbers of minority     and nonminority  group members. In addi-
tion, the Orleans advisory committee was not composed of at
least 50 percent parents of children      directly   affected by the
project.     The Buffalo Independent School District       and the
Luxora School District     did not meet the requirement       for mem-
bership representation     by at least five community organiza-
tions,    None of the members of the Buffalo committee were
appointed by community organizations      but instead were elected
at a group meeting of parents of members of the student body.
The Luxora advisory committee had representatives          from only
two community organizations.      Only one of these organizations,
however, appointed its members to the committee,          The re-
maining members were selected by the school district.

                                      26
       To create community interest       in successful  desegrega-
tion, the ESAP regulations       require that school districts
make public the names of the members of the biracial           advisory
committees.      At the time of our review, four of the seven
school districts      had not publicized    their committee member-
ships.    One  of  the  school  districts   took  action to publish the
required information      in the local newspaper after we called
the matter to its attention.

       In two school districts,   there was no committee      involve-
ment in the ESAP projects.      For example, at Buffalo     the bi-
racial     advisory committee had not met at the time of      our site
visit    in April 1971 although the committee had been      in exis-
tence for about 6 months.
       Student   advisory   committees

       At each of the six school districts   which were required
by the regulations    to establish student advisory committees,
the committees either were not formed initially,     contrary   to
the requirements,    or were not used as intended by the regula-
tions.

       Contrary to the regulations,    members of the student ad-
visory committees at four school districts.     reviewed were not
selected by the respective     student bodies.    For example, the
Jackson Parish School Board selected 12 of the 16 committee
members by means other than popular election       by student bod-
ies affected    by the ESAP project.    Also a districtwide     com-
mittee was formed, although the regulations       clearly   require
that an individual    committee be established    at each affected
secondary school.

       At two of the districts,     the student advisory committees
were not composed of an equal number of minority         and non-
minority   group children.      For example, of the 26 individual
student advisory committees formed at schools within the San
Antonio Independent School District,        13 were not composed of
an equal number of minority       and nonminority  group students,
12 were composed of predominantly       minority  group students,
and one was composed of predominantly        nonminority  group stu-
dents.

       In at least three of the six districts,  there     was little,
if   any, committee involvement in the implementation      of the

                                     27
ESAP project.     This lack of committee involvement appears
to have been due mainly to the committees at these dis-
tricts   not being formed promptly following     project   approval.
For example, at the Luxora Independent School District,          the
formation of the student advisory committee was not con-
sidered by the district     superintendent  until mid-January
1971 although the district     had received its grant in mid-
October 1970. At the time of our site visit         in early Feb-
ruary 1971, the committee had not met and had not been con-
sulted about the ESAP project.
       Transfer of property to
       nonpublic   schools
        Under Lousiana statutes         school districts       act as agents
for the State in the distribution              of State-owned textbooks
and supplies to private           and parochial      schools and also may
provide transportation          for students attending         these non-
public schools.         As discussed in our prior report on ESAP,
the Office for Civil Rights initially               placed in a hold
status ESAP applications           received from Lousiana school dis-
tricts.      It was decided that, if pregrant investigations,
along with other information            available,     showed no potential
civil    rights violations        other than the transfers         made in
accordance with Louisiana law, the Office for Civil Rights
would certify      that the Louisiana school districts              in the
hold status were in compliance with the nondiscrimination
requirements      of the regulations        and would declare them eli-
gible for ESAP funding.
        Our review included two school districts               in Louisiana.
The Orleans Parish School Board was distributing,                   in ac-
cordance with State law, State-owned textbooks and school
supplies to private         and parochialschoolsand          was providing
some transportation         for children      attending    the nonpublic
schools.       In addition,     teachers'     desks and chairs owned by
the board were loaned to parochial               schools.     The Jackson
Parish School Board also was providing                State-owned textbooks
to two private       schools in the parish.
      Although the scope of our review did not include work
at the private   or parochial     schools to determine whether
there was evidence of racial discrimination,        our discussions
with school district    officials    and our examination   of avail-
able district  records indicated      that some private  schools had


                                      28
enrolled  only nonminority     group students.      We were told that
both of the private     schools in Jackson Parish had enrolled
only nonminority    group students.     Statistics    published by
the OrleansParish    School Board showed that, during the
1969-70 school year, there were 68 parochial          schools having
36,951 students and 44 private       schools having 7,961 stu-
dents.   Of the 44,912 private      and parochial    students,
9,948 were minority     group students--g,224      at the parochial
schools and 724 at the private       schools.

       Regional Office for Civil Rights officials              said that
the situation      in these districts      offered a potential      area
for violation      of the ESAP regulations         which require an
applicant     school district    to give a formal assurance that
it has not and will not engage in the transfer               of property
or services to nonpublic school which, at the time of such
transfer,    practices    racial   discrimination.       They believed
that an effective       review procedure in this regard would re-
quire an in-depth analysis beyond the regional               Office for
Civil Rights present staffing          capability.
      Publication    of project   terms
      and provisions
      The seven schooldistrictspublished         articles   in their
local newspapers covering the terms and provisions            of their
ESAP projects.   The  publications      by three  of   the districts,
however, were not made within 30 days of project           approval,
contrary to the regulations.        The elapsed time from proj-
ect approval to publication      ranged from 62 to 87 days.




                                    29
                            CHAPTER3

     SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP PROJECTS

       APPROVEDBY HEWPHILADELPHIA REGIONALOFFICE

        HEWRegion III, which has headquarters      in Philadelphia,
comprises the five States of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylva-
nia, Virginia,      ancl West Virginia and the District   of Colum-
bia.      According to Office of Education statistics,     826
school districts       were operating public schools in this re-
gion in the fall of 1970. As of June 30, 1971, 71 of the
districts      had received ESAP grants totaling   about $5.7 mil-
lion.      We reviewed grants totaling   $850,000 to five of
these districts.

     The five districts      appeared to be eligible  for ESAP,
and generally     the project activities   approved by Region III
for the districts     appeared to be related to solving prob-
lems incident     to desegregation.

      Two of the five districts    did not comply with the gen-
eral terms and conditions     imposed by HEW for ESAP grants,
and none fully complied with one or more of the assurances
given in their applications     or with certain regulation   re-
quirements.   Also in one district     a project activity  was not
meeting its intended purpose.

IMPLEMENTATIONOF PROJECTS

Expenditures  not in accordance
with grant terms and conditions

       The ESAP general terms and conditions   require that
project   activities  be carried out by grantees as approved
by NEWand that no substantive     changes in the activities    be
made without obtaining    prior approval in writing   from the
HEWgrants officer.
       In several instances grantees implemented,without
prior written    approval of the Region III grants officer,
project activities     in a manner inconsistent with the provi-
sions of the approved projects.


                                30
      Harrisburg    City School District
      Harrisburg,    Pennsylvania

        The district's    ESAP grant included $36,150 to establish
an education development center to find better ways to in-
volve students and staff members in the development of rele-
vant teaching and learning         strategies   and program materials.
According to the project application,           the center was to pro-
vide the opportunity        to involve students in trying out a
variety    of individualized      and specialized    techniques and ma-
terials    which encourage self-motivation         in attainment of
learning    objectives.

       A significant     aspect of the project was to be the in-
volvement,     throughout the year, of approximately         120 students
identified     by classroom teachers and other staff members as
demonstrating      a lack of effort     and a disregard   for other per-
sons. A school district        official    told us that the center
also was established       to determine the type of learning        ex-
periences under which disruptive          students function    best and
to make this information       available     to their teachers.

      We noted that only minority      group students had been as-
signed to the center,    although    both minority     and nonminority
group students had been recommended by their teachers for
the project.   In addition,     these minority     group students,
although physically   located in the same school building,
were isolated  from other members of the school for virtually
all classes, contrary to the regulations.

      On March 12, 1971, we discussed the operation       of the
center with Region III officials      who told us that the opera-
tion as described by us did not agree with the approved proj-
ect.   Consequently,     HEWofficials  visited the project   on
March 24 to 26, 1971, to observe and discuss its operations
with district   officials.

        On March 29, 1971, a district    official   advised us that
the center would be closed on April 5, 1971, until further
notice,    to provide time to restructure      the operation    of the
center.      He subsequently told us that the center was re-
opened on April 21, 1971. A Region III official            told us on
June 7, 1971, that both minority      and nonminority      group
students were participating      in the project    and that students

                                  31
had been assigned to the center on a rotating basis and
spent a major portion of their school time in regular
classes.

      The district's   project also included an authorization
of $6,500 for the purchase of equipment to be used in the
center.    At the time of our review in March 1971, the dis-
trict   had purchased equipment costing about $3,900.      We re-
viewed the acquisition     and use of this equipment and found
that:

           --Equipment purchased at a cost of about $1,700 had
              not been included in the list of equipment approved
              for the project.
           --None of the equipment could be readily   identified  as
              ESAP equipment because the district's  methods for
              matking and controlling  equipment were not adequate.

           --Equipment costing about $2,600 was being used for
              purposes other than ESAP or was not being used al-
              though it had been received several weeks prior to
              our visit.

      We discussed the district's    control    over and use of
equipment with Region III officials     who told us that they
were unaware of any deviations    from the provisions     of the
approved project.   Regional officials      then visited  the dis-
trict  to review the situation.

           On March 26, 1971, a regional    official   told   us that   the
district       had been instructed:

           1. To prepare written justification     for all equipment
              purchased which was not on the approved list of
              equipment for the project     and to submit it to HEW
              for approval.
           2. To establish  procedures for marlcing and controlling
              ESAP equipment and materials.

He told us also that Region III would take any action needed
after it had an opportunity  to evaluate the need for the
equipment purchased to date,   At the completion of our

                                      32
fieldwork   in April   1971, the district    had not responded     to
Region III.

      Prince   Ceorges County Schoc$s, Maryland

       Under the district's  approved ESAP project,    a program
specialist   was hired on March 1, 1971, for 7 mznths at a
monthly salary of $1,350, which exceeded the maximum monthly
salary rate of $1,250 ($15,000 annually)     permitted   by the
general terms and conditions     of the ESAP grant, without ob-
taining prior written approval of the HEWgrants officer.

        A letter   requesting   permission to pay the higher salary
was sent to the grants officer          on February 26, 1971. A dis-
trict    official    told us on April 15, 1971, that the request
to pay a higher salary had not been approved by the grants
officer     pending receipt    of additional    information  to justify
the salary.       The official   said, however, that the district
would submit another request for approval with further             ex-
planation      and that, if this request was disapproved,       district
funds would be used to pay the difference            between the amount
allowable under the grant and the salary paid to the program
specialist.




                                  33
Project   activity   not meeting    intended   purpose
       The ESAP application     from Prince Georgc~ County Schools
stated that there was an urgent need to extend counseling
services,   through evening walk-in counseling       centers, to
students experiencing      problems because of their enrollment
in desegregated schools,,       Psychologists,  counselors,   and
pupil personnel workers were made available         at 14 such COW-
seling centers established        at various secondary schools
throughout   the county.     The estimated cost of this activity
was $22,000.

      The counseling    service was to be provided for a 3-hour
period one evening a week at each center,           The district
opened the 14 centers during the first          week of February 1978.
According to a school district      p;lblication,    the centers
were open in the evenings so that parents and students could
use the centers without the parents: taking time from work
or the students!    missing classes,

        The professional   employees working at nine walk-in
 centers which we visited     expressed the belief   that the need
for the centers was more closely related to normal school
activities     than to problems arising   from school desegrega-
tion.      They said that only 24 of 270 contacts with students
and parents had been concerned with problems resulting        from
desegregation.       At one of the centers which we visited   and
which had been open for 5 weeks, the staff members told us
that contacts had not been made.

       A school district   official told us that the centers
were a needed community asset because they provided the op-
portunity    for parents to come in at night and to discuss
any school problems that their children might have.       She
also expressed the belief that the services of the center
should not be limited    to problems related to desegregat%on,

        A Region III official     told us that he was aware of this
situation      and had suggested that the district        intensify  pub-
licity    regarding   the availability      and locations    of the cen-
ters, to increase their use by students having problems
arising     from desegregation.       He said that he planned to
monitor the centers to determine the future need for them.


                                   34
Compliance with    ESAP regulations
and assurarrces                r

       At the time of our visits,    none of the districts    had
fully complied with one or more of the assurances given Tn
their applications    or with certain regulation    requirements
pertaining    to (1) proper assignment of faculty     and staff,
 (2) formation and use of biracial     and student advisory com-
mittees,   and (3) publication    of ESAP project  terms and pro-
visions.
      Assignment   of teachers   and other   staff

       Prince Georges County did not accomplish its teacher
and staff assignments in accordance with the assurance given
in its ESAP application.    This assurance, required by ESAP
regulations,   is that the school district    will take effective
action to ensure that the assignment of teachers and other
staff members who work directly    with children    will be made
so that the ratio of minority    to nonminority    group teachers
and other staff in each school is substantially        the same as
the ratio for the entire school district.        The Office for
Civil Rights policy is to give school districts        until the
beginning of the 1971-72 school year to comply with this re-
quirement.

        In September 1970, 182 of the 227 schools in the dis-
trict    did not,meet the required ratios.      For example, the
faculty     at one school was 85-percent minority    group and at
30 schools was loo-percent       nonminority group.   The percent-
age of minority     group faculty   for the entire school district
was 18 percent for elementary schools and 14 percent for
secondary schools.

       The district was attempting    to improve the ratio by en-
couraging faculty   to transfer    but did not expect to achieve
a ratio acceptable    to HEWuntil    1972.

      By letter  dated June 23, 1971, the Office for Civil
Rights notified   the Prince Georges County superintendent  of
schools that the date for reaching the required ratio would
not be acceptable    and that a new desegregation plan must be
developed for implementation    in September 1971. On Au-
gust 20, 1971, the Office for Civil Rights notified     the

                                  35
 superintendent     that, since t'he Prince Georges County Sc'hool
 Board, at its meetings of July 13 and 29, 1971, had declined
 to take any action which would bring t'he district        into com-
pliance with the requirements       of title    VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, administrative         enforcement proceedings
'had been initiated      against the district.

      Biracial    advisory    committees

         Three of the five districts     did not form their biracial
advisory committees in accordance with the ESAP regulations.
Prince Georges County's committee took about 5 months to be
formed although a 30-day time limit was specified          in the
regulations.        Also the members were appointed by the school
district      without consulting   local community organizations,
and the committee members said that they merely were being
informed of ESAP activities        rather than being used as advi-
sors.      After completion of our fieldwork,     Region III offi-
cials told us that t'he committee had been reorganized          to
meet the requirements.

        At Dinwiddie County in Virginia,     the committee 'had not
met at the time we visited      the district    in February 1971,
although the committee was formed in December 1970. After
we broug'ht this matter to the attention        of school district
officials,    a meeting was 'held to inform the members of the
ESAP project     activities being implemented and to obtain their
vikws on them.

       None of the members of the Harrisburg     committee were
selected from community organizations      nor was the committee
composed of an equal number of minority      and nonminority
group members, contrary to the requirements.        We brought
this matter to the attention     of school district   officials
who told us that they would take the necessary steps to com-
ply with the regulations.      On May 24, 1971, a Region III of-
ficial   told us that, on the basis of a compliance review
made at the district,     the committee met the regulation      re-
quirements.

     Student     advisory    committees

     Three of the five school        districts    were not in compli-
ance with the ESAP regulation        pertaining    to student advisory
committees.
                                    36
       Of the 17 schools in Prince Ceorges County required to
establish    student advisory committees, 12 did not meet the
requirements     in that (1) the members had not been selected
by the student bodies, (2) the memberships were not composed
of equal numbers of minority      and nonminority  group children,
or (3) the committees had not been consulted with respect
to carrying     out the ESAP projects.   Two other schools had
not, as of March 10, 1971, formed committees.        According to
records of the Washington Office for Civil Rights, the
schools later took action to comply with the requirements.
        Although the committee in Dinwiddie County had been
formed properly,        it had not held any meetings or been con-
sulted on the district's          ESAP project  at the time of our
review.      When questioned on this matter, school district       of-
ficials     told us that meetings would be held to involve the
committee in the ESAP project.            After completion of our
fieldwork,      a district   official   advised us that a meeting
was held on March 19, 1971.

      At Dorchester County in Maryland, the committee members
at one of the schools were selected by teachers and counsel-
ors rather than elected by the student body.       District    offi-
cials told us that the situation   had been rectified       by a
May 1971 student election  of committee members for the
1971-72 school year.

      Publication    of project    terms
      and provisions

        The five school districts     published articles      in their
local newspapers covering the terms and provisions              of their
ESAP projects.      The elapsed   time  from   the  dates  of   project
approval to the dates of publication          by four of the dis-
tricts,    however, ranged from 2 to 8 months.          The regulations
require that the terms and provisions          of the project      be-pub-
lished within 30 days of project        approval.




                                   37
                             CHAPTER4

      SCHOOLDISTRICTS' IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP PROJECTS

           APPROVEDBY HEWATLANTA REGIONALOFFICE

      HEWRegion IV, with headquarters        in Atlanta,   Georgia,
comprises the eight States of Alabama, Florida,          Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi,      North Carolina,    South Carolina,    and
Tennessee.      According to Office of Education statistics,
1,114 school districts      were operating   public schools in these
States in the fall of 1970. As ofJune 30, 1971, 573 of
these districts     had received ESAP grants totaling       $40 mil-
lion.   We reviewed grants totaling       about $4.6 million    to 13
of these districts.

      The eligibility   of two of the districts was in ques-
tion because discrimination    complaints had been filed against
them that,at    the time of our review, had not been fully re-
solved.

       Although many of the ESAP activities    appeared to be
related    to solving problems incident   to desegregation,  some
appeared to be directed more toward aiding education in
general than toward achieving successful      desegregation.

        Approved project     activities   at some of the districts
may not be implemented or will be only partially          implemented
during their grant periods, which will leave unresolved            the
problems faced by the schools.           Although most of the school
districts     appeared to be complying with the general terms
and conditions      established      by HEWon the use of ESAP funds,
two districts     were not.

     At the time of our visits,    none of the 13 districts
had fully complied with one or more of the assurances given
in their ESAP applications   or with certain requirements   of
the ESAP regulations.
      --One district   had not, in our opinion,   made sufficient
         effort  to comply with the requirement   that the ratio
         of minority  group to nonminority   group teachers and
         staff members who work directly    with children   in
         each school be substantially    the same as the ratio
         in the entire school system.
                                  38
      --One'district    had leased property   to a private       school
         established   for nonminority  students only.
      --Two districts    used ESAP funds to supplant funds nor-
         mally available   to them from non-Federal  sources.
      --None of the 13 districts   had complied with all the
         requirements  governing the formation and use of bi-
         racial and student advisory committees.
      --Four districts   had not made information  on their ap-
         proved ESAP projects  available  to the public although
         required.

       We believe that the weaknesses we observed were due,
to a large degree, to HEW's policy of emphasizing the emer-
gency nature of the program, which encouraged school dis-
tricts   to hasten preparation    of their grant applications
and provided an extremely short period for the HEWregional
offices    to review and evaluate the districts'    applications.
As a result,     applications  were approved that, in our opinion,
did not adequately describe the problems faced by the dis-
tricts   in achieving successful    desegregation  and did not
contain adequate descriptions      of activities  designed for
meeting these problems.

       In addition,    ceilings   established    by HEW on the amount
of ESAB funds to be awarded to each district            required dis-
tricts   to tailor   project    activities    to the predetermined
funding levels rather than to their needs6 This resulted
in some districts      having to postpone, cut back, or eliminate
some activities     proposed to achieve successful         desegregation.

ELIGIBILITY    OF SCHOOLDISTRICTS

      In our prior report on ESAF, we discussed discrimina-
tion complaints   that had been filed against three of the 13
school districts    included in this review.  We followed up
on the complaints    to determine what action had been taken
to resolve them.




                                    39
Dillon        County   School District         No. 2
Dillon,        South   Carolina

         HEW/Washington        received     an unsigned      inquiry    concerning
 the down grading'of           black principals         in this district.           The
 letter    was forwarded         to HEW Region IV, and Office             for Civil
Rights     personnel     visited       the district       in September      1970.
As a result       of the visit,         HEW wrote to the school district
 superintendent       in December 1970 and reminded him that the
district      had not submitted           to HEW the job descriptions             for
newly created        positions       of coprincipals        and that black co-
principals      appeared       to be subordinate          to white coprincipals
 in the district.           The district      was requested        to submit the
job descriptions          of the coprincipals           so that a determina-
 tion could be made as to whether                 the district       was in com-
pliance     with title       VI of the Civil         Rights    Act of 1964.

        The superintendent           responded      to the HEW letter       on
December 11, 1970, but did not include                    the job descriptions
requested,           The response      stated    that the black coprincipals
were not subordinate             to the white coprincipals           and invited
HEW representatives            to visit      the district     and talk    to the
black coprincipals.              No other action        was taken by HEW.
Therefore,         in April    1971, we asked regional          Office    for Civil
Rights     officials       why no action        had been taken since the job
descriptions          were not furnished         as requested.       They said
that the question           was still      unresolved     and that the Office
for Civil        Rights    planned     to make a compliance        review    at
the district          at a later    date.

Columbus        County Schools
Whiteville,        North Carolina

        A complaint     was made against          the district       involving
the acceptance        of students       from a neighboring         school dis-
trict.     An HEW official          told us that white         students      were
leaving    certain     schools      in the neighboring         county which was
under a Federal        court     order to desegregate          and attending
schools    in Columbus County which was operating                   under a vol-
untary    desegregation        plan.      HEW advised     the superintendent
that this practice          was not acceptable        because it was con-
trary    to the nondiscrimination            requirements        of title     VI of
the Civil     Rights    Act of 1964 and requested              the superinten-
dent to furnish        written      assurance    that the practice           would


                                          40
be discontinued.      The assurance    was furnished    to HEWby
the superintendent.

      We noted that the superintendent     had written  letters
to parents of the students residing     in the neighboring
county and attending    school in Columbus County informing
them that, effective    November 2, 1970, students were to be
reassigned to schools in their resident county.        The super-
intendent   told us on March 31, 1971, that students of the
neighboring    county were not enrolled   in Columbus County
Schools.    HEWhas determined the district     to be in compli-
ance with title    VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Talladega    County Board of Education
Talladega,    Alabama

       Two complaints were received by the Department of Jus-
tice concerning the demotion of three principals           and a
teacher in Talladega County.       A Department of Justice        in-
vestigation   of these complaints resulted       in an issuance of
a court order on January 8, 1971, requiring         reinstatement
of the individuals.      The superintendent     was directed     by the
court order to offer the three former principals           positions
as principals    in elementary schools and to offer a former
band director   a position    as band director.

        As a result of the court order, the superintendent
mailed letters      to the three principals      inquiring  whether
they desired to change the positions          they then occupied.
One did not and another accepted an offered principalship
at a new school.       Because he was not offered a specific
principalship,     the third principal     requested the Department
of Justice     to take further   legal action.       The band director
was not offered a new position        because of an alleged quali-
fication    problem.

        On February 18, 1971, the Department of Justice       filed
a show-cause motion requiring       Talladega to present reasons
why it had not offered a specific        elementary school princi-
palship to the third principal       and a specific   band director-
ship to the band director.        The superintendent   appeared in
court on June 9, 1971, to present the school district's            po-
sition.     On June 10 the court ordered Talladega to offer
the third principal    a specific    principalship   but did not


                                  41
require     the district to offer    the band director                 another    po-
sition    since he was not qualified.

        Although       the superintendent          offered     the third    principal
a specific        principalship,         the Department       of Justice,      by let-
ter dated July           12, 1971, informed          the district      that it be-
lieved      the position         offered    would result       in a demotion.
Therefore       the district          was told that it should offer             the
principal       a position        equivalent     to that previously         held.




                                         42
EELATIONSHIP
           -- OF PRQJECTSTO
MEETING DESEGREGATION--PRCBLmS
       Although many of the ESAP activities    appeared to be
related to solving problems incident      to desegregation,    some
appeared to be directed more toward aiding the education
system in general than toward achieving      successful    desegre-
gation.

       In our prior report on ESAP, we discussed two activi-
ties in the ESAP application    of the Board of Education,
Memphis City Schools, in Memphis, Tennessee, which seemed
to be unrelated    to achieving successful desegregation   and
followed up on them at our review at the district.

      One of these activities    was to purchase daily newspapers
and distribute   them to 60 schools in the system.      These
newspapers, according to district      officials, would be placed
in schools in underprivileged     areas where they would provide
a needed form of communication,      serve as a good instruc-
tional tool, and make students more aware of existing         condi-
tions and events.     Some teachers used the newspapers to
supplement teaching techniques using regular textbooks;
others used the newspapers as a reference and data source in
the classroom.     The estimated cost of this activity     was
$25,000.

      The acting superintendent     of schools at Memphis told US
that he believed a greater social awareness would aid the
desegregation    process and that, until    "hard" data was de-
veloped to prove otherwise,     the newspaper program seemed to
be an effective    aid to desegregation.      In our discussions
of this activity     with school principals    and teachers,   how-
ever, several of them said that the newspapers were an edu-
cational   tool and had no relationship     to desegregation     prob-
lems 0

        The other activity      involved the staffing    and maintain-
ing of a mobile zoo which was being used to provide children
with a program of educational           experiences with animals.
School district      officials     told us that the zoo would provide
a means where children         could be brought together in a con-
trolled    educational     environment and would provide a common



                                  43
bond between children     of different races.       The estimated
cost of this activity     was about $15,000.

       The area specialist     responsible    for the mobile zoo ac-
tivity   said that the activity        was not directed    toward solv-
ing existing    desegregation     problems but rather toward avoid-
ing problems that might arise in the future.              The director
of psychological    services for the Memphis City Schools told
us that any black-white       activity    in a school could be re-
lated in some way to desegregation          and therefore    considered
fundable under ESAP.

      We discussed with Region IV officials     a number of ex-
amples of ESAP activities,    such as those cited in Memphis
City's project,   which we believed were questionable     in terms
of meeting special needs incident     to desegregation.     The Re-
gional Commissioner of Education said that any activity         that
brings blacks and whites together to learn would be fundable
under ESAP. He said also that educational       functions   created
or necessitated   by desegregation  that did not exist in sep-
arate black and white schools were considered acceptable un-
der the program.

       We recognize that a number of ESAP-funded activities
could have some relationship      to the desegregation    process;
but, as pointed out by the President in his message to the
Congress on ESAP, funds were needed to deal with the most
pressing problems of school districts       that were in the pro-
cess of desegregating.       In carrying  out this policy state-
ment, HEW headquarters      emphasized to its regional    offices
that the purpose of ESAP was to fund quality        desegregation
projects   in school districts    where the need was greatest.

IMPLEMENTATI0N OF PROJECTS

      Some of the 13 school districts    experienced delays in
the implementation    of planned project activities,     some were
not complying with the terms and conditions       imposed by HEW
on the use of ESAP funds, and none had fully complied with
all the assurances given in their application        or with all
program requirements.




                                  44
Some planned project activities
not implemented or
only partially  implemented

       Planned project activities           of some of the 13 districts
may not be implemented or will be only partially                implemented
at the end of their grant periods, which will leave unre-
solved the special needs of the schools incident                to deseg-
regation.     We attribute       part of the delay to the districts'
not having clearly       identified      the problems faced in achiev-
ing and maintaining        desegregated school systems or not ade-
quately designing the activities             to meet the problems.
School district     officials       told us that HEWhad encouraged
them to rush preparations           of their applications.       As a re-
sult, some districts        had to develop detailed        plans after
the grants were made.

       The ceilings established     by HEWon the amount of ESAP
funds to be awarded to each district        also contributed    to
delays in implementing activities.         Some districts    had iden-
tified   problems and proposed activities       in their applications
only to have funding for these activities         reduced or'cur-
tailed during the approval process and would thereby re-
quire the districts   to reevaluate     their proposed activities
in the light of the funds granted.         Delays arose because,
in other instances,   the districts     were not taking positive
action to implement their proposed activities.

        Some school district      officials     indicated that they pre-
ferred to identify       those areas where ESAP funds could be
best used and to carefully         assess the needs of the schools
before committing the funds.            Others said that implementa-
tion of their projects        had been delayed due to difficulty
in obtaining    qualified     personnel needed to carry out the
activities.     The HEWRegional Commissioner of Education said
that our comments concerning the haste in preparing ESAP
applications    and the tailoring         of the amount of the grants
to established     funding levels were valid.

        Some examples of delays      experienced    in implementing
activities    follow.




                                    45
      Jackson Municipal    Separate      School District
      Jackson, Mississippi

        The ESAP application    for this district     was tailored  to
a predetermined     funding level of $1.4 million.         Detailed
plans for use of the grant funds were made after the grant
was approved causing delay in the implementation            of the ac-
tivities.     At the time of our fieldwork        in January 1971,
the district    was still    developing specific     plans for use of
the grant funds,

        A major activity    of Jackson's ESAP project was the pur-
chase of an instructional       television     system for installation
throughout     the school system. The estimated cost of this
activity    was about $500,000.       A contract    for the purchase
and installation      of the television     system was awarded in
December 1970; installation        was to be completed in June
1971.

       Jackson's approved application          stated that the foremost
problem facing the district        was demonstrating        that a quality
education could be achieved in a desegregated school sys-
tem* ESAP plans developed by Jackson were directed                   toward
improving the quality      of education and restoring           community
confidence    in the schools.       The application      stated that an
immediate program for educational          redevelopment was essen-
tial.    Despite the expressed need for restoring              public con-
fidence in the school system and an immediate program for
educational     redevelopment,    the district      will not realize
any benefit     from the television     system until the beginning
of the 1971-72 school year.

      Board of Education,      Memphis City     Schools

      Confusion over the amount of the ESAP grant to be
awarded to Memphis, coupled with a question of Memphis'
compliance with title   VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
delayed award of its grant and will result in activities
being only partially   implemented within the grant period.
       In August 1970 Memphis officials    were advised by HEW
that the amount of the district's       ESAP grant would be based
on its needs.    These officials   developed a preliminary     ESAP
application   consisting  of 14 activities    with an estimated


                                    46
total cost of $1,115,098 and on September 3, 1970, met with
HEWofficials   to discuss the application.       The district   was
told that it had been allotted     $2,083,564 and revised its
application  to include 24 activities     estimated to cost that
amount. This application    was sent to HEW's Region IV in
late September and reviewed by three program officers,         each
of whom recommended funding at $992,531.        A delay of over
1 month was then experienced principally       because a question
concerning the district's   compliance with title      VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to be settled.

         In early November a regional  official  visited    Memphis
and helped the district      to modify its application     to bring
it in line with the recommended funding level.           The 24 ac-
tivities     were cut back to 18 and a grant was approved on
November 12, 1970, for $992,531.

         A district    official    told us that HEW did not allow the
district      enough time to do the detailed        professional  plann-
ing necessary for its activities.              As of January 31, 1971,
the district        had not initiated    detailed   plans for five of
the 18 activities         and plans for most of the remaining 13 ac-
tivities      were incomplete.

        A district    official    told us that the district    was hav-
ing difficulty      filling    the 112 positions    estimated to be
needed to implement the ESAP activities            because the persons
sought for these positions           were already employed when the
grant was approved and were reluctant            to transfer  due to the
short time remaining in the grant period.              As of March 1,
1971, only 60 employees had been hired.             A school district
official     said that he did not expect the project activities            '
to be fully implemented by the end of the grant period.

       Despite the difficulties      being experienced by the dis-
trict    in filling   the 112 positions    included in the original
grant, the district      received a supplemental grant of
$500,000 on February 18, 1971, which authorized          activities
that would require the hiring of 66 more employees.              The
original    completion date of the grant period--August          31,
1971--was not extended.




                                   47
     Atlanta    Public School
                         --   System
     Atlanta,    Georgia

      A major activity  of Atlanta's  ESAP project was the de-
velopment of a program to identify    specific    school desegre-
gation problems at each of the 150 schools in the district.
Each school was requested to identify     its most urgent needs
and to submit a proposal estimating    the cost of activities
to meet these needs.   About $779,000 of the total grant of
$1,150,989,  which was awarded on October 21, 1970, was al-
lotted to the schools for such activities.        As of March 2,
1971, 18 schools had submitted proposals that had been ap-
proved by the Atlanta ESAP coordinator.        We visited four of
these schools and noted that at two the approved activities
had not been implemented.
       Another project activity   provided about $201,000 for
the purchase and installation     of 37 communication skill      lab-
oratories    to aid in teaching language arts.      Only two
schools had proposed acquiring     these laboratories     and no
equipment had been purchased as of February 11, 1971. Also
the district    made no provision  for advance training     of
teachers in the operation of the laboratories        until March
1971.

       The project was approved on October 21, 1970, and as
of January 31, 1971, the Atlanta Public School System had
expended $8,268 of its grant, of which about $5,000 was for
salaries   of employees administering the ESAP project.

      We discussed the delay in implementing the activities
with representatives     of the school system.    The assistant
superintendent    for research and development agreed that
progress had been slow but said that it was beginning to
pick up. He said that one reason for the slow progress was
the late award of the grant and that, if the grant had been
made in the summer before school started,      it would have
allowed time for necessary preplanning.




                                 48
Expenditures  not in accordance
with grant terms and conditions

      ESAF' grantees must comply with general terms and condi-
tions developed by HEWto regulate the program.        Although
most of the school districts      appeared to be complying with
the terms and conditions     of their grants, two districts    were
not.

      Talladega    County Board of Education

        Talladega's      ESAP project    included $40,000 for materials
and fixtures        to build dressing rooms and shower facilities
at two schools.          Labor costs were to be borne by the dis-
trict.       In  reviewing   the district's      application,     Region IV
officials       did not question the construction           of the facili-
ties, only the amount thereof.
       The proposed facilities    will consist of two permanent
buildings,    one at each school,     Each building   will measure
50 by 58 feet and will contain separate showers and dressing
rooms for boys and girls,      two classrooms, and two offices.
It appears that this construction       is not in accordance with
the ESAP terms and conditions      which specify that funds not
be used for the construction      of new facilities    or for major
structural    changes in or additions     to existing  facilities.
      Dillon   County District      No. 2

       The Dillon grant provided for the establishment       of an
instructional    materials    center with an estimated cost of
$66,000, including       the salary of a director,   the cost of
renovating    space for the center, and the purchasing of in-
structional    materials    and an instructional   materials van.
After the grant was approved, the district         decided not to
hire a director     because there was no assurance that ESAP
funding would continue in future years and because the dis-
trict    had no other funds with which to continue to pay salary
costs.

       The district    had purchased about $20,000 worth of in-
structional    materials,   most of which were distributed   to
the schools.       Space for the materials  center was renovated,
b,ut no materials     had been stored in this space.     An

                                    49
instructional materials  van had been ordered and delivery
was expected about April 15, 1971. Since the materials
center was not being ,used as a central   storage point, how-
ever, the van was not needed to transport     materials  to the
schools in the district  and there were no definite     plans for
its use.



      Although we brought these matters to the attention     of
Region IV Office of Education officials,   they did not indi-
cate what action,  if any, would be taken on them. We be-
lieve that HEW should take appropriate   measures, including
the use of the HEWAudit Agency, to follow 'up on these mat-
ters.

Compliance with
ESAP regulations    and assurances

       At the time of our visits,       none of the 13 school dis-
tricts    had fully  complied with one or more of the assurances
given in their ESAP applications         or with certain ESAP regula-
tion requirements     pertaining     to (1) assignment of teachers
and staff,    (2) transfer    of property to nonpublic schools
practicing    racial  discrimination,      (3) s,upplanting of non-
Federal funds, (4) f ormation and 'use of biracial          and student
advisory committees, and (5) publication           of ESAP project
terms and provisions.

     Assignment    of teachers   and staff

     The   ESAPregulations    require that a grantee school dis-
trict  sign an assurance that it will take effective     action
to ensure the assignment of teachers and staff who work di-
rectly with children     at a school so that the ratio of minor-
ity group to nonminority     group teachers and other staff in
each school is substantially      the same as the ratio for the
entire  school district.

     The Office    for  Civil Rights, in     making its compliance
reviews, g enerally    considers a school     district  to be in com-
pliance  with this requirement if the        ratio of minority   group
to nonminority    group faculty in each      school deviates no more
than 5 percent from the ratio of the         entire school district.

                                  50
Also the Office for Civil Rights policy is to give school
districts  until the beginning of the 1971-72 school year to
comply with this regulation   requirement.  The general terms
and conditions         of the   ESAP regulations   provide     for     termina-
tion     of funds if     the grantees     do not comply with         the regufa-
tions.

       One of the 13 school districts       had not, in our opinion,
taken effective     action at the time of our review to accom-
plish the required staffing       ratio at many of its schools,
The Atlanta Public School System is desegregating         under a
Federal court order.       The order called for faculty    reassign-
ments to begin in March 1970 and showed the required faculty
composition by race for each school in the district.          .These
projected   assignments were to be accomplished by August 20,
1970, and would have resulted        in each school's having a ratio
of minority    group to nonminority     group teachers that was sub-
stantially   the same as the ratio for the entire school sys-
tem. The ratio established       by the court order is the same
as that required by the ESAP regulations,

       Cur review of district      reports dated September 1970
showed that the racial composition         of teachers in each school
was substantially     different    from the projections   included in
the court order.      For example, the court order included
projections     of the number of minority      group and nonminority
group teachers in each high school in the system which, if
met, would have resulted        in each high school's having about a
5%percent minority       group faculty.     In 26 of the high
schools, the percentage of minority         group teachers ranged
from 37 to 71 percent when school opened in September 1970,
The same condition     existed in many of the elementary schools
where the faculty     projection     was about 60 percent in the
minority    group, b,ut actual faculty     assignments had resulted
in a range from 40 percent to 88 percent in the minority
group.
        We discussed this deviation   from the court order with
the superintendent      of education.   He believed that the dis-
trict    was not required to maintain the minority     group to
nonminority     group faculty  ratio once the assignments re-
quired by the court order had been met. He based his posi-
tion on a ruling by the U.S. Caurt of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit    made on September 25, 1970, that states,     in part, that:

                                         51
      "once a unitary    system has been established      the
      system-wide racial     ratio may thereafter     change
      from time to time as a result of nondiscrimina-
      tory application    of objective   merit standards
      in the selection    and composition    of faculty   and
      staff."

We were unable to determine whether the district    had ever
achieved the faculty   assignments projected  by the caurt or-
der because statistics    on the racial makeup of faculty were
not maintained   on a continuing  basis.

       We discussed this matter with Region IV officials        who
said that they disagreed with the superintendent's        interpre-
tation of the court decision and stated that HEW's policy
was that a district    must, within reasonable limits,     maintain
the required minority    group to nonminority    group faculty
ratio in each school even if this required reassignments          of
faculty   on a semester basis.     They said that they would fol-
loti 'up on this matter with the school district,

        There is nothing in the ESAP regulations         or in the ESAP
application     containing  a district's    ass'urance with respect
to the assignment of faculty,         which in any way indicates
that a district      does not have to take continuing       action to
maintain the proper ratio once that ratio has been attained.
In our opinion,      the school district    is obligated    to take
effective    action by the beginning of the 1971-72 school year
to comply with the assurance given in its application.

     Lease of property    to a nonpublic    school
        The ESAP regulations  require an ass'urance that an ap-
plicant    has not engaged in the gift,    lease, or sale of
property    or services to any nonpublic     school which, at the
time of such transaction , practiced      racial discrimination.
If the applicant     has engaged in such transactions,     the ESAP
application    form requires the applicant      to include the name
and address of the nonpublic      schools to which the property
or services were transferred     and their actual or estimated
value.

      The Wilkinson County school district  in Georgia had
leased a school building  on April 20, 1970, to a private

                                 52
school for $500 a year,      The district   superintendent    told us
that the private     school began operation    in this building    in
September 1970, the month the district       filed its ESAF appli-
cation,   and that the school was for white students only.
The district    also had sold a school b,uilding at public auc-
tion for $500, in March 1970, to a private        school that in-
tended to 'use the building    as a school for white students
only.   The school closed, however, after about 4 weeks and
has since remained vacant.      We asked the superintendent       why
these transactions     were not reported to HEWas required and
were told that they were not listed       in the application     be-
cause he did not want to take the time to explain          them.

      Region IV officials   agreed that it appeared that the
school district    had not complied with the assurance given
in its application    and said that they would follow up on
this matter with the district.

     In eight of the 13 districts,   we were unable to deter-
mine whether any equipment had been given, sold, or leased
to nonpublic  schools because records were not maintained
that would show this type of information.
      S,upplanting   of non-Federal    funds

      The ESAP regulations     require that Federal funds made
available  ,under the program not be ,used to supplant funds
which were available    to the applicant    from non-Federal
saurces prior to desegregation.        At two school districts,
ESAP funds were being used, in our opinion,       to supplant
funds normally available     to them from non-Federal     sources.

       In Crisp County, Georgia, the district's     1970-71 ap-
proved school budget included allowances for the purchase of
five new school bus chassis and bodies,        The vehicles were
received by the district   in August 1970.

      School district     officials     told us that, on September 3,
1970, the district    informed Region IV of the need for addi-
tional buses that resulted          from desegregation    and that three
of the five bus bodies had been acquired but were not paid
for.   Regional officials       told the district      to include the
purchase of the bodies in its ESAP application.               The grant
was approved on September 12, 1970, and included $10,800 for

                                  53
                                                                       ..



the purchase of the bodies.   In our opinion,   the ESAP funds
used to pay for the three bus bodies supplanted funds pre-
viously earmarked for that purpose in the district    budget
and thereby made those funds available   for other purposes.

      At Dillon County School District      No. 2, ESAP funds
were being used to pay the salary of a principal's        secretary.
The district   superintendent    told us that he had authorized
payment of the secretary's      salary with ESAP funds because
general salary funds had been short and, unless paid with
ESAP funds, the secretary would have been discharged.          Our
review of the secretary's     duties and discussion   of these
duties with her indicated     that they were not related to ESAP.

      Although we brought these matters to the attention    of
Region IV Office of Education officials,    they did not indi-
cate what action,    if any, would be taken on them. As stated
previously,   we believe that HEW should take appropriate   mea-
sures, including   the 'use of the HEWAudit Agency, to follow
up on these matters.

     Formation and 'use of biracial
     and student advisory committees

        The ESAP regulations  require that biracial   and student
advisory committees be formed and consulted in the adminis-
tration    of ESAP projects  and contain specific   requirements
on how members of these committees are to be selected.
     At three districts,     the biracial   advisory committees
were not selected as required;      at three other districts    the
committees were not properly consulted in the administration
of ESAP projects;   and at one district     the committee members
were neither properly    selected nor consulted.

      In only two of the 13 districts     were student advisory
committee members properly selected and consulted with re-
spect to carrying    out the ESAP projects,      Of the remaining
11 districts,   four had not properly    selected committee mem-
bers, one was not consulting    with the members, and six had
not selected the committee members properly nor consulted
with them.



                               54
         We discussed     our observations     with Region IV officials
and provided       them with details       on each of the districts
visited.       The officials     said that they would follow        up on
our observations         and would attempt     to get the districts     to
comply with the ESAP regulations.

      Publication      of project    terms   and provisions

         Of the 13 districts,         four had not published         in a local
newspaper the terms and provisions                of their    approved    ESAP
project,      contrary     to ESAP regulations.         At another     distrtct
the superintendent           said that information         on its ESAP project
was published        but he was unable to furnish            us with a copy of
the article.         Although      two other districts       had published
some information          on their    ESAP projects,      we believe    that the
information       did not adequately        describe    the terms and pro-
visions     of the projects.




                                       55
                                 CHAPTER 5

     SCHOOL DISTRICTS'        IMPLEMENTATION OF ESAP PROJECTS

        APPROVED BY HEW SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE

         HEW Region IX, which has headquarters            in San Francisco,
California,      comprises   the four States of Arizona,           California,
Hawaii,     and Nevada.    According      to Office    of Education      sta-
tistics,     1,380 school districts        were operating     public     schools
in these States      in the fall      of 1970.     As of June 30, 1971,
two of these districts--1nglewood            and Pasadena,     California--
had received      ESAP grants    totaling    $189,938.      We reviewed        both
of these grants.

       Pasadena appeared    to be eligible      to receive    ESAP assis-
tance.    We questioned   the eligibility        status  of Inglewood,
however,    because the district     did not appear to be in the
terminal    phase of desegregation        at the beginning    of the
1970-71 school year,     contrary    to the ESAP regulations.

      After    we brought     the situation       to the attention     of HEW,
it reevaluated       Inglewood's    eligibility      and concluded     that
the district     was not implementing           a 1970-71 terminal     phase
desegregation      plan which met ESAP requirements.               HEW advised
the district     that no further       payments under the grant would
be made and that a question          would be raised      as to whether
the district     would have to repay the amount already               advanced.

         We believe     that the projects        approved   by Region IX for
 Inglewood     and Pasadena generally          were designed      for and di-
rected     toward meeting       special    needs incident     to achieving
and maintaining         a desegregated      school system.       At Inglewood,
however,      some  teacher-aides       were   being   used  contrary    to the
provisions       of the district's        approved project.        Also the two
districts      had not fully       complied    with certain     of the assur-
ances given in their          ESAP applications        or with certain     regu-
lation     requirements.

ELIGIBILITY     OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

     Region IX officials          had submitted     to HEW headquarters
in Washington, D.C., the          names of districts,     including


                                       56
    Inglewood, whose plans they had determined were in the ter-
    minal phase.   These school districts   were then requested to
    submit copies of their desegregation    plans to HEWheadquar-
    ters for review and final determination     of their eligibility.
    On Qctober 6, 1970, HEW's Office of General Counsel notified
    Region IX that Inglewood was eligible    for financial    assis-
    tance under ESAP. On December 7, 1970, Inglewood received
    a grant of $74,938.

          On February 24, 1971, Inglewood submitted a proposal for
I   supplemental   funds of $154,897 and on March 30, 1971, re-
    ceived approval from HEW; however, expenses could not be in-
    curred until   the project    budget was finalized. In June 1971
    HEWdetermined that the supplemental funds should not be
    used because Inglewood had not entered the terminal phase
    of its desegregation    plan.

        _ The regulations    required that, to be eligible   for ESAP,
    a school district     be in the terminal phase of its desegrega-
    tion plan by the beginning of the 1970-71 school year.         Our
    review of the desegregation      plan for Inglewood, which plan
    was approved by the State court, showed that the secondary
    schools were being integrated       on a grade-by-grade basis and
    would not be fully integrated       until the 1973-74 school year.
    Only the elementary schools and the seventh and ninth grades
    in the junior and senior high schools, respectively,        were
    integrated   in the 1970-71 school year.

            Because itappearedthat        Inglewood was not in the termi-
    nal phase of its desegregation          plan, in March 1971 we asked
    HEW's Office of General Counsel to reevaluate           the district's
    eligibility    and to provide us -with a decision as to whether
    the district    met the terminal phase requirement         under ESAP.
    In May 1971 an HEWOffice of General Counsel official              ad-
    vised us that a reevaluation          of Inglewood9s eligibility
    showed that the district        was not implementing a 1970-71 ter-
    minal phase desegregation        plan which met the ESAP require-
    ments and that proceedings         therefore   would be started to
    void the district"s      grant.

             By letter  dated June 14, 1971, Region IX advised the
    district      that the initial  determination     of its eligibility
    had been in error and that a further          review had indicated
    that the district       was not operating    at the time the grant

                                      59
was made and still      was not operating        under a plan directing
commencement of the terminal         phase of desegregation       by the
opening of the 1970-71 school year,            contrary   to the ESAP
regulations.    The district      was advised      that,  since the Of-
fice of Education     had no legal     authority      to make grants    to
an ineligible   recipient,     further    payments under the grant
would not be made.

       The letter     further     stated  that,   because of the unusual
circumstances     surrounding        the grant and because of the unique
nature    of ESAP, the Comptroller          General   of the United     States
would be asked to render a decision              as to whether    Inglewood
should be required         to repay the amount--$18,735--already
advanced.      By letter      dated July 14, 1971, HEW made the re-
quest.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS

        The ESAP grants       of both Inglewood    and Pasadena were
primarily      for hiring     teacher-aides.    At the completion   of
our fieldwork         in March 1971, the districts     had hired all of
their     teacher-aides      and had placed them in the schools.

Teacher-aides      not used
in accordance      with approved      project

       Inglewood's     approved     ESAP project     provided      for hiring
elementary      school teacher-aides        who were to give concen-
trated    assistance     to minority     group students       identified     as
having deficiencies         in basic skill      development      in language
arts.     Aides at the secondary          schools were to be assigned           to
an existing      remedial-reading       program to assist        those students
who had reading disabilities            and those who were unable to
speak English       as a primary     language.

      In five of the       eight    schools we visited,  aides were
being used contrary        to the    provisions of the approved proj-
ect.   For example,      aides were being used to assist teachers
of grades,   such as     the lOth,    llth,  and 12th grades, not af-
fected   by the desegregation       plan in the 1970-71 school year.
(See p. 57.)      Aides were being used also in other than
remedial-reading      classes, such as journalism,      publications,
mathematics,     and  history   classes,


                                        58
        Officials    at these schools told us that they used the
aides in other than the authorized         classes because the of-
ficials      (1) had not received instructions     from the district
on how the aides were to be used and (2) believed that the
aides were not qualified        to assist in remedial-reading
classes.        They believed also that certain teachers would not
work effectively       with aides.
        We discussed the use of the aides at the schools with
district    officials    who told us that they were unaware of the
situation     and would take steps immediately to ensure that the
aides were used in accordance with the approved project.
They also said that they would monitor how the schools were
utilizing     the aides.

Compliance with   ES&? regulations
and assurances

       Both Inglewood and Pasadena school districts      had not
complied fully with certain assurances given in their ESAP
applications    or with certain ESAP regulation   requirements
pertaining   to formation of biracial   and student advisory
committees and to publication    of ESAP project    terms and
provisions.

     Formation of biracial and
     student advisory committees

       The districts did not establish      their biracial  advisory
committees within 30 days of approval of their applications,
contrary to the ESAP regulations.        The formation of Ingle-
wood's committee was delayed for 53 days and Pasadena's for
56 days.    District officials   told us that the delays had
been caused by time constraints      resulting    from the Christmas
holiday vacations.    Both applisations      were approved in mid-
December 1970.

     At  two schools in Inglewood and two schools in Pasadena,
members of the student advisory committees were selected by
the school principals   rather than by the student bodies,
contrary to the regulations,    Also one of these committees
in each district   was not composed of an equal number of mi-
nority and nonminority   group children,  contrary to the regu-
lations.

                                 59
      After we brought these matters to its attention,        the
HEWheadquarters     Office for Civil Rights promptly sent let-
ters to both districts     citing  the requirements  which they
had not met with respect to the committees and requesting
them to notify HEWwithin 10 days as to what steps they had
taken to meet the requirements.        According to the districts'
responses,   the districts    have taken action to meet the re-
quirements.

     Publication    of project   terms
     and provisions

       Both districts     published articles   in their local news-
papers covering the terms and provisions         of their grants.
Inglewood's    publication,      however, was made 70 days after
grant approval rather than within the required 30.day
period.




                                 60
                                 CHAPTER6

          SCHOOL~ISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATIONOF ESAP PROJECT
                                                     -
             APPROVEDBY HEWKANSAS_CITYREGIONALOFFICE
             --
             HEWRegion VII, which has headquarters        in Kansas Ci.Lyt
    Missouri,     comprises the four States of Iowa, Kansas, Mis-
    souri, and Nebraska.        According to Office of Education sta-
    tistics,     2,669 school districts     were operating public
    schools in these States in the fall of 1970. As of June 30,
    1971, two of these districts         had received ESAP grants total-
    ing $86,560.       We reviewed the grant made to one of these
    districts,      the New Madrid County R-l Enlarged School Dis-
    trict,     New Madrid, Missouri.

           On October 22, 1970, the school district   received ap-
    proval for a grant of $57,385--$21,770     for special commu-
    nity programs and $35,615 for special pupil personnel ser-
    vices.    As of January 31, 1971, the district   had received
    about $14,000 of its grant funds, of which about $5,300 had
    been expended.

           We believe that the school district     met the eligibility
    requirements     for ESAP and that it had complied with the as-
    surances given in its application.        We believe also that the
    problems identified     in the district's   application  related
    to, or were compounded by, desegregation       and that the pro-
    grams proposed were directed      toward meeting these problems.

          Although the school district  had established   a biracial
    advisory committee, it was not operational     and had not been
    involved in the project's  implementation.

    IMPLEMENTATIONOF PROJECT
i
         The school district   identified two problem areas in
    its application-- a breakdown in parent-community     school
    communication and severe educational    deficits  of some of
    the children--and  proposed program activities    designed to
    meet these problems.

          To bring about social and racial adjustments and, in
    general, create better lines of communication between the

                                      61
community and the school, the district       proposed in its ap-
plication,  under the activity    YSpecial Community Programs,"
to add personnel with training     in sociology and psychology.
Such personnel were to act as a liaison       between the comnu-
nity and the school to promote better understanding        among
students,  teachers,    parents, and community groups and to
resolve existing    problems.

        To enhance educational          achievement, the district       pro-
posed, under the activity            'Special Pupil Personnel Services,"
a program to supplement its remedial-reading               program,       Under
the program the district            proposed hiring two reading spe-
cialists      to administer       and perform diagnostic     testing    for all
children      identified      with low reading achievement and to pro-
vide certain        instructional     materials.     Funds were proposed
under the program to provide the remedial-reading                  teachers
with courses in remediation             and diagnostic   reading-learning
disabilities.          According to a school district        official,     the
courses are needed to qualify             the teachers for State certi-
fication      as reading specialists.

        At the time of our review, the school district       had im-
plemented both programs but only on a limited basis and
primarily     by using existing    school personnel.    The school
district     superintendent   told us that the district    had been
unable to hire the needed full-time        personnel because the
grant was received after the school year started.
Special   community programs
                          --
        As of February 1971 the district        had not employed a
full-time    director    for the special community programs.            The
superintendent      told us that he hoped to hire someone full
time before June 30, 1971, the end of the grant period.                   A
member of the district's        administrative     staff was acting as
director    of the special community programs on a part-time
basis.     According to the superintendent         very little     had
been done to implement the programs.            The acting director
said that he had discussed problems of racial tension with
three members of the district's          administrative      staff who
had been designated as advisors.            Records or minutes of
these discussions,       however, were not maintained.           The act-
ing director     said also that there had not been any meetings
or formal contracts       with the biracial     advisory committee or
with the general public.
                                      62
       The acting director      and his advisory committee had
proposed construction       of playground facilities      with dis-
trict   funds.    In addition,     the committee had in the planning
stage a summer recreation        program at five playgrounds      in
the communities served by the district.             The committee was
planning to combine supervised play for children             with in-
struction     on good citizenship,       personal hygiene, and drug
abuse.     The acting director       believed that the establishment
of additional     playground facilities        would ease problems re-
sulting    from desegregation.

      The HEWRegion VII program officer        told us that he was
not aware of the school district's       progress in implementing
the special community programs.       He said, however, that he
found it hard to relate the recreational         planning activities
of the acting program director     to the intended functions
proposed in the district's    application.       He believed that
the primary function    of the program director       should be in
the public relations    area.  He said also that he would take
a close look at the implementation       and accomplishments      of
the district's   special community programs.

        The program advisory committee's        effort  in developing
community recreational      facilities      and the programs could be
considered within the scope of the special community pro-
grams. We believe,      however, that the programs had not been
sufficiently     implemented at the time of our review to demon-
strate their effectiveness          in solving problems relative     to
desegregation.

Special   pupil   personnel   services    program

        The school district   had not hired the two reading spe-
cialists    proposed for the program.      The district's     reading-
curriculum     supervisor,  who is a qualified    reading specialist,
was director     of the program on a part-time     basis in addition      'j
to her regular duties.       The superintendent     told us that the
director    devoted her authorized    free time of 1 hour during
the day plus several hours following         the regular-duty     day
to earn her compensation as the part-time         director    of the
program,     He also said that she would aid with the teacher
education courses planned for June 1971.



                                     63
       The district   used ESAP funds to purchase instructional
supplies including      reading text materials     and various test-
ing and evaluation      materials.    These items, along with the
supplies and equipment purchased with district          funds, were
used in conducting 10 remedial-reading         classes.    The
remedial-reading     classes include both minority      group and
nonminority     group children,    and the teachers of such classes
are paid from other than ESAP funds.

        The director    told us that the ESAP funds enhanced the
district's     existing    remedial-reading   program and allowed the
program to be fully implemented a year earlier           than it would
have been without the ESAP funds.           She attached particular
significance     to the time element, stating       that each year a
child gets further       behind socially    and in his education.

         The director  told us also that the ESAP funds had en-
abled the district       to supplement State-required      achievement
tests with various diagnostic        tests.    She said that achieve-
ment tests show at what level a child reads, whereas diag-
nostic tests, which are administered         individually,     show why
a child reads at a particular        level.   According to the di-
rector,     diagnostic  testing,   except for the school unit where
she was the reading specialist,         had not been done in the
district     prior to the 1970-71 school year.

       School district     officials    and teachers told us that
benefits   were being attained       from the remedial-reading
classes.    Although ESAP has undoubtedly enhanced the existing
remedial-reading      program, the degree to which it has done so
cannot be readily measured because the ESAP activity             supple-
ments, and is interwoven with, the district's           remedial-
reading program.

Inactive   biracial
            -------   committee
                         ----
      Although the school district     had formed a biracial     ad-
visory committee in accordance with the regulations        prior to
submission of its application,     the district  had not con-
sulted with the committee on policy matters arising         in the
administration  and operation of the ESAP project.        The corn-
mittee was not operational,     and the members that we con-
tacted were not familiar    with the programs.    The committee
chairman only vaguely remembered discussing      the district's

                                   64
proposed ESAP project    with a school district      official    and
signing the committee    endorsement statement     included     with
the application.

      Committee members that we contacted did not know how
they were appointed and were unable to tell us what programs
were involved in the ESAP project   or who else was on the
committee.    When we informed the members of the nature of
the project,   they expressed their belief  that the project
represented   needs of the district related   to desegregation.
Project   expenditures

        As of January 31, 1971, the district    had received
$14,346 (25 percent) of its grant funds and had spent
$5,343--$2,772     for the special community programs and
$2,571 for the special pupil personnel services program.           A
full-time    secretary had been hired under the special commu-
nity programs activity,       and her salary and related benefits
made up approxi,mately      59 percent of that activity's   expendi-
tures.     The secretary was used primarily    for the special
pupil personnel services program, although she was paid with
funds made available      for the special community programs ac-
tivity.

        For most of the other cost categories      in the ESAP pro-
grams where the school district      had spent funds, the items
acquired corresponded with the cost categories          and were for
the programs charged.      However, we brought a questionable
expenditure    of $107, representing   the partial     cost of a
trip made by the school district      superintendent      to HEWhead-
quarters in Washington, D.C,, to the attention          of the HEW
Region VII program officer     who said that the item was not'an
allowable program expense and that he would follow up on
this matter at the time of his onsite visit          to the school
district.

      The school district  estimated that, if full-time  per-
sonnel were not obtained by June 30, 1971--the end of the
grant period-- about $24,300, or 42 percent of the grant
amount 0 would be spent.




                                  65
                             CHAPTER7

                SUMMARYOF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS

                       AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        In many cases school districts    were not complying with
the ESAP regulations      and the assurances given in their ap-
plications.      Although some of the items of noncompliance
were of less significance      than others and did not adversely
affect the conduct of the school districts'          ESAP activities,
we believe that our review indicates       a need for HEWto
strengthen    its system of monitoring    districts'    implementa-
tion of their ESAP projects.

        Of the 28 school districts,   24 appeared to be eligible
for ESAP assistance.       he of the remaining four districts
was ineligible      because it was not in the terminal phase of
desegregation      at the beginning of the 1970-71 school year,
contrary     to the ESAP regulations.     In the other three dis-
tricts,    questions of compliance with the nondiscrimination
requirements      of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
were unresolved,

        Generally the districts'   activities were designed for
and directed     toward meeting special needs incident   to achiev-
ing and maintaining     a desegregated school system.    Some ac-
tivities,    however, appeared to be directed more toward aid-
ing education in general than toward solving problems aris-
ing from desegregation.
         ESAP project activities    of some of the districts     may     i


not be implemented or will be only partially           implemented
during their grant periods, which will leave unresolved            the
problems faced by the schools.         In addition,    a number of ac-
                                                                         \
tivities    were not being carried out in accordance with the
provisions     of the approved applications      or with certain
program requirements,         For example:
      --At four districts,   ESAP funds were not expended or
         other resources were not used in accordance with the
         provisions  of the approved projects.   (See pp. 16,
         17, 18, and 58.)

                                 66
     --At two districts,   ESAP funds were used to hire       em-
        ployees or to acquire equipment although there        was
        no apparent need for them in the ESAP projects.         (See
        pp. 20 and 21.)

     --At one district,  ESAP funds were used, contrary      to
        the regulations, to partially    finance the construc-
        tion of two permanent buildings.       (See p. 49.1

     --At three      districts,   employees were hired for ESAP
        projects     at salary rates which exceeded the limita-
        tions on     salaries   imposed by the general terms and
        conditions      of ESAP grants without the prior written
        approval     of HEW. (See pp. 23, 24, and 33.)

     --At one district,    funds were transferred    from the
        ESAP accounts and used to finance the operation       of
        two normally self-supporting    school activities.     (See
        P* 24.)
     --At one district,   only minority  group students were as-
        signed to an education center, although both minority
        group and nonminority  group students had been recom-
        mended by their teachers for the project.      (See
        p* 31.1
     --At two districts,     there was a need for adequate ac-
        counting control   over the use of ESAP funds and
        equipment.    (See pp. 18 and 32.)
     --At one district,    walk-in centers,    established   to pro-
        vide counseling  service to students experiencing
        problems because of their enrollment       in desegregated
        schools, were not accomplishing     their intended pur-
        pose.   (See p. 34.)

      Most of the school districts    had not fully     complied with
one or more of the assurances given in their ESAP applica-
tions or with certain ESAP regulation      requirements    pertain-
ing to (1) assignment of teachers and staff,        (2) transfer
of property  to nonpublic  schools,    (3) supplanting    of non-
Federal funds, (4) formation     and use of biracial     and student
advisory committees, and (5) publication       of ESAP project
terms and provisions.

                                  67
      Two school districts    had not taken effective     action to
assign teachers and staff who worked directly        with children
so that the ratio of minority      group to nonminority    group
teachers and staff in each school was substantially          the
same as the ratio for the entire school district.          Two
other school districts     were using ESAP funds to supplant
funds which were available     to them from non-Federal      sources
prior to desegregation.      One school district   had leased a
school building   for $500 a year to a private      school for
white students only and had not reported the transaction           to
HEW, contrary   to HEWrequirements.

       The weaknesses in project      implementation  at the dis-
tricts   were attributable    to a high degree to the emergency
nature of ESAP and to the need for its expeditious           planning,
funding,   and implementation.       The lack of an effective     HEW
regional   office monitoring     system also contributed     to the
weaknesses in project      implementation.

         During our review we discussed our findings     with school
district      and HEW officials  who generally indicated    that cor-
rective      action would be taken.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARYOF HEALTH,
EDUCATION. AND WELFARE

      We recommend that the Secretary of HEW, to help ensure
that grant funds are used for the purposes intended,          take
appropriate     measures, including    use of the HEWAudit Agency,
to follow up on the matters discussed in this report and to
take corrective     action.   We recommend also that the Secre-
tary y  to  help  minimize  the  occurrence of similar problems
in the event that additional        Federal funding is authorized
to help school districts       defray the costs of meeting special
problems arising      from desegregation:
     --Allow school districts   a reasonable time to identify
        problems in achieving and maintaining   a desegregated
        school system and to develop plans to effectively
        meet such problems prior to submitting   applications
        for Federal assistance.

     --Emphasize to school districts   that grant funds are to
        be used only for program purposes and that changes in

                                  68
  approved project    activities    are not to be made with-
  out prior written    approval    of HEW.

--Provide    for an effective    monitoring  system to help
   ensure that (1) grant funds made available        to school
   districts    are being used for the purposes specified
   in their applications      and (2) the school districts
   are complying with HEWregulations        and program re-
   quirements.




                             69
     APPENDIXES




71
                                                                      APPENDIX I

                                 GRA.NTS
                                       UNDEREMERGENCY
                                SCHOOLASSISTANCEPROGRAM
                                    REVIEWEDBYGAO

                                                            Number        Amount
                  HEWregion, State,                       of grants         of
                 and school district                       reviewed        pant
 REGIONIII--PHILADELPHIA:
    Maryland:
         Prince Georges County Schools                                  $ 532,709
         Dorchester County Schools                                        120,654
                                                                              -
             Total                                             2           653,363
     Pennsylvania:
          Harrisburg City School District                        1          75,723
     Virginia:
          Dinwiddie County School Board                                     85,100
          Powhatan County Schools                                           32,210
             Total                                           2             117,310
             Total Region III                                 -5           846,396
 REGION IV--ATLANTA:
m   Alabama:
         Talladega County Board of Education                     1         168,247
    Georgia:
         Atlanta Public School System                                    1,150,989
         Crisp County School System                                         65,925
         Appling County Board of Education                                  38,313
         Carroll County Board of Education                                  28,800
         Wilkinson County Board of Education                                22,000
              Total    -                                         5       1,306,027

     Kentucky:
          Fulton County Board of Education                       1           4,430
     Mississippi:
          Jackson Municipal Separate School District             1       1,300,000
     North Carolina:
          Columbus County Schools                                          118,900
          Hoke County Board of Education                                    89,240
              Total                                              2         208,140
     South Carolina:
         Dillon County School District  No. 2                    1          75,000
     Tennessee:
         Memphis City Board of Education                                 1,492,531
         Maury City Board of Education                                       1,500

              Total                                           -2         1,494,031

             Total Region IV                                  -13        4,555,875




                                            73
APPENDIX I


                                                      Number        Amount
                     HEWregion, State,              of grants         of
                    and school district              reviewed        grant
REGIONVI--DALI&Z-FORT WORTH:
   Arkansas:
        Luxora School District                             1    $      24,000
   Louisiana:
        Orleans Parish School Board                                 1,953,400
        Jackson Parish School Board                                    42,000
                 Total                                              1,995,400
    Oklahoma:
        Ardmore City Schools                                           26,000
    Texas:
             San Antonio Independent School
               District                                          1,431,945
             West Orange Cove Consolidated
               Independent School District                             49,080
             Buffalo Independent School District                       14,550
                 Total                                 -3        1,495,575
                 Total Region VI                       1            3,540,975
REGIONVII--KANSAS CITY:
   Missouri:
       New Madrid County R-I Enlarged School
          District                     .z.             - 1'            57,385
                 Total Region VII                      -1              57,385
REGION IX--SAW FRANCISCO:
   California:
        Pasadena Unified School District                              115,000
        Inglewood Unified School District                              74,938
                 Total                                 -2             is9,938
                 Total Region IX                       -2             189,938
TOTAL--ALL REGIONS                                     28       $9,190,569




                                               74
                                                                                                         APPENDIX II




               MEMBERS OF THE COMMlrrEE ON THE JUI)ICIARI         2lCdeb         AMates;        35emde
    JOHN      ARK. ROMAN
      L.MCCLELLAN.
    THOMAS
        J.DODD.
            CCINN.
                      L.HRUSNA,
                   MARLOW
                           NEBR.
                       W.COOK,
                           KY.                                 SELECT COMMITTEE ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
    B,RcWSAX-hIN!&                                                     (CREATED
                                                                              P”RS”*M TOs. RES.359,P!STCONGRESS)
                           MEMBERS
                                 PITLARGE                                  WASHINGTON,   D.C.   20510
    WARREN0. M.4GNUSDN,WASH.       EDWARDw. BROOKE. MRSS.
    DANIEL K. INOUYE.HAWAll        MARK 0. HATFIELD. OREO.
I   wlLuAM 8. SWNG, ,R.. “A.
      WU‘lA”     C. SMITH, STAFF DIRECTORAND GENERAL COUNSEL                                    November   24, 1970


               Mr. Elmer B. Staats
               Comptroller   General of the
                  United States
               General Accounting    Office
               441 G Street,    N.W.
               Washington,   D.C. 20548

               Dear Mr. Staats:

               This letter   is to request that the General Accounting   Office make a
               review of the implementation    af the Emergency School Assistance    Program
               by the Office   of Education,  Department of Health, Education,    and Welfare.

               The program, which is presently       funded in the amount of $75 million        by
               the Office    of Education Appropriation       Act, 1971, Public Law 91-380,
               dated August 18, 1970, provides       financial     assistance  to local educational
               agencies to meet special problems incident           to desegregation   in elementary
               and secondary schools.     Statutory     authority     to carry out the program is
               contained   in six separate acts which are cited in the appropriation            act.

                The Committees of Congress are currently  considering     a bill    to provide
                for a single authorization for the program to be known as the Emergency
                School Aid Act of 1970. The $75 million   is the first     part of the Presi-
                dent's announced plans to ask for a total   of $1.5 billion      for the prcgram
                over the next 2 years.

                Staff members of the select committee have met recently               with representa-
                tives of your office       to discuss this request and have furnished              them with
                a suggested outline       of areas to be covered in the review.              It was agreed
                that during the first        phase, the review would be limited          to an evaluation
                of the regulations       and procedures   established     to implement the program.
                This work is to be performed primarily           at the Office     of Education       head-
                quarters   in Washington,      D.C., and at each HEW regional        office      where financial
                grants have been made. It is contemplated             that following       the report    on
                this review,    follow-on     work will be performed at the various             school districts
                included in the review.




                                                                         75
     APPENDIX II

It is requested  that you select 50 projects  for      review.    At least one
project  in each State which has received funds,       as well   as a mix of both
large and small grants,  should be examined.

It    is requested   that a report   of your findings    be provided by January 26,
l-971, in order that        it
                            may be of assistance      in the deliberations  on the
Emergency School Aid bill.         The committee staff    will be pleased to meet
with your representatives       at any time during the conduct of the review
should any problems arise.

                                         Sincerely,



                                         Walter F. Mondale
                                         Chairman




                                                                    U.S.   GAO,   Wash.,   D.C.

                                          76