DOCUMENT ESUME 04251 - B3554814] Reevaluation Needed of Educational Assistance for Institutionalized eglected or Delinquent Children. HPD-78-11; B-164031(1). December 19, 1977. 39 pp. + 8 appendices (28 p?.). Report to the Congress; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General. Issue Area: Federally Sponsored or Assisted Education Programs (3300); Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention (500);Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention: Effectiveness of Correctional Programs (514). Contact: Human Resources Div. Budget Function: Education, Manpower, and Social Services: Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education (501); Law Enforceiment and Justice: Federal Correctional and Rehabilitative Activities (753). Organization Concerned: Department of Health, Education, and welfare; Department of Justice. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Education and Lor; Senate Committee on Human Resources; Congress. Authority: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, ti* le I 20 U.S.C. 241a). Child Abuse, Prevention, and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 601). 45 C.F.R. 116. In recent years, the Office of Education's educational assistance program for neglected or delinquent children has emphasized 'c skills instruction. Older children generally do not contini soling once outside of institutions; younger children, h ,g more likely to return to school following release. The unique because it provides assistance annually to o._ '.nstitutions, but it needs to be reexamined in reA .o the broader national iss'es of juvenile delinqlu i child abuse and neglect. Eaucaional assistance may he top priority for institutionalized youth. F.indingt/. _usions: A nationwide survey of institution administrators to de:ermine the importance of academic educational needs in comparison with other problems faced by youth in institutions indicated that the administrators consider academic education important but secondary to mental health needs. Responses to other questions raised concerns as to whether academic educational needs shoald be the exclusive or top priority e a Federal service program. Funds for the program should be distributed on a more selective basis than at present, but to do so, existing legislation would have to be amended. Recommendations: The Congress should irect the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Justice to examine the ppropriateness and/or exclusiveness of academic educational services as the top priority of Federal assistance. Such an undertaking is consistent with the need for a responsive Federal effort to address the national issues of juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect. (Author/Sc) REPORT TO THE CONGRESS <r . ~:. ;BY ~THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL o ,,4' ':OF THE UNITED STATES Reevaluation Needed Of Educational Assistance For InstitutionAlized Neglected Or Delinquent Children In recent years the Office of Education's ed- ucational assistant program for neglected or delinquent children has emphasized basic skills instruction. Older children enerally do not continue schooling once outside of insti- tutions; younger children, however, are more likeiy to return to school following release. Greater progress could be made if funds were distributed more selectively to longer term institutions arid those that serve younger children. The program is unique because it provides as- sistance annually to over 2,000 institutions, but it needs to be reexamined in relation to the broader national issues of juvenile delin- quency,and child abuse and neglect. Educa tional assistance may not be the top priority for institutionalized youths. HRD-78-11 DECEMBER 19, 1977 COMPTROLLER GrNERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D.C. 2OMU B-164031(1) To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This report describes the problems faced by institu- tionalized neglected or delinquent youths and suggests ways to enhance the effectiveness of Federal educational assist- ance made available for them. The report also questions the appropriateness of academic educational services as the exclusive service or top priority of a Federal service program. The service pro- gram is administered by the Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Account- ing Act of 1921 (31 .. C. 53), and the Accounting and Audit- ing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the Attorney General. mptroller General of the United States COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S REEVALUATION NEEDED OF REPORT TO THE CONGRESS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR INSTITUTIONALIZED NEGLECTED OR DELINQUENT CHILDREN DIGEST Financial assistance to meet special educational needs of neglected or delin- quent youths in institutions is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fiscal year 1976, $41 million was provided under title I of the act to assist youths residing in more than 2,000 institu- tions throughout the country. This report examines the program from an educational standpoint and how it relates to the broader social issues of juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect. The legislation expresses the Congress desire that participants make substantial progress. According to the Office of Educa- tion, te majority of then; are 3 to 4 years below normal expectations in reading and mathematics. Given the severity of these deficiencies, along with the wide range of social, emotional, and behavioral problems that many have, substantial progress will be difficult to achieve. (See pp. 7 to 10.) The program can be more effective if avail- ab e funds are concentrated on those youths likely to receive educational services over a longer period of time. Services under the program are restricted to the period of time that the youths are in residence in an institution. It appears that neglected youths, as a group, have the greatest opportunity to achieve substantial progress because their average residence is more than twice as long as delinquent youths-- about 22 months compared to 10 months. (See pp. 10 and 11.) Tar Sheet. Upon removal, the report cover date should be noted hereon. i HRD-78-11 Actual exposure to program services is even less according to an Office of Education- contracted study of State institutions. This showed that about 70 percent of youths (1) in institutions for the delinquent and (2) in adult correctional facilities are en- rolled in the program for 6 months or less. Conversely, about 60 percent of the students in institutions for the neglected remained in the program for 10 months or more. Beyond the institution, it appears that the younger a youth is, the more likely the youth will enroll in school following release. GAO's tracking of 170 participants after their release from institutions showed this to be true. The tracking also showed that the younger the youths were, the more likely they would be regularly attending school about 15 months later. (See pp. 12 to 15.) Older youths, for the most part, appear to be more interested in obtaining employment rather than continuing their schooling. (See pp. 18 and 19.) Institutions need only meet basic require- ments to receive assistance under the pro- gram (see pp. 3 and 4.) Funds should be distributed on a more selective basis; but to o so, title I legislation would have to be amended to provide for the awarding of grants by State education agencies on the basis of criteria to be established by the Office of Education. In particular, the criteria would give priority consideration to institutions that serve ounger youths Ind provide services to individual youths over a longer term. (See pp. 22 nd 23.) The Department of Health, Eucation, and Welfare disagreed with GAO, citing various reasons, e.g., younger children should not be given priority consideration at the ex- pense of older children. (See pp. 23 to 27.) ii The criteria should also make provision for addressing the need for adequate transi- tional services to insure that youths, to the extent possible, receive appropriate educational services following their release Lrom institutions. GAO found that institu- tions were doing little to assist youths in their transition from the institutions to schools in the community. (See pp. 19 to 21.) The title I program is the only Federal service program of its kind. Funds are made available annually for institutions to meet a particular need of institutionalized neglected cr delinquent youths. Accordingly, GAO conducted a nationwide survey of insti- tution administrators to determine the im- portance of academic educational needs in comparison with other problems faced by youths in institutions. Results show that administrators consider academic education important, but second to rental health needs. Responses to other Jurvey questions raise concerns as to whether academic educational needs should be the ex- clusive service or top priority of a Federal service program. (See pp. 29 to 36.) The Congress should direct the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Depart- ment of Justice to examine the appropriateness and/or exclusiveness of academic educational services as the top priority of Federal as- sistance. Such an undertaking is consistent with the need for a responsive Federal effort to address the nationul issues of juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect. (See p. 39.) The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was against such an undertaking, but the Department of Justice supported it. (See pp. 37 to 39.) TearSheet ~ ~ ~ ii Contents Page DIGEST CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION i Program administration 2 Program funding 4 Scope of review 5 2 MORE SELECTIVE FUNDING OF PROJECTS NEEDED 7 Problems faced by target population 7 Exposure to title I services often limited 10 Unsuccessful return to school and community 11 Inadequate back-to-school transition services 19 Conclusions 21 Agency comments and our evaluation 23 3 SHOULD ACADEMIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR INSTITUTIONk.LIZED YOUTH BE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE? 28 1974 legislation 28 Nationwide survey of problems of institutionalized youth 29 Conclusions 36 Agency comments and our evaluation 37 Recommendation to the Congress 39 APPENDIX I Descriptive information on institutions included in review 40 II Questionnaire sent to title I institutions 44 III Additional information on questionnaire methodology and results 49 IV Recommended revic . to section 123 of title I, shoulL be determined that the provision of a mic educational services is the appropriate program thrust for institutionalized youths 52 Page APPENDIX V Section 123 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended 55 VI Letter dat-ad A. ust 1, 1977, from the Inspector General, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 56 VII Letter dated AuguFt 8, 1977, from the Assistant Attorney General for Adminis- tration, Department o Justice 64 VIII Principal officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Weltare responsible for activities discussed in this report 67 ABBREVIATIONS GAO General Accounting Office HEW Department of Health, Education, and Welfare OE Office of Education CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Title I of the Elementary and Seconidary Education Act f 1965 (20 U.S.C. 241a) authorizes Federal financial assistance to expand and improve educational programs which contribute to meeting the special needs of educationally deprived children. Title I regulations define "educationally deprived children" as children who (1) need special educational assistance to raise their educational attainment to that appropriate for their age and (2) are handicapped. Title I programs are aimed at several different popula- tions and were funded in fiscal year 1976 at the following levels, excluding special incentive grants and administrative co3ts. Target group Funding (millio-s) Educaticnally deprived children from low-income families $1,612 Migrant children 97 Handicapped children 96 Neglected or delinquent children in institutions 41 Total $1,846 This report discusses the operation of the program for institutionalized neglected or delinquent children. More specifically, the report examines the program in an educa- tional context, and how he prog am relates to the broade: issues of juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect. We previously reported on the administration and opera- tion of the program for (1) educationally deprived children from low-income families in December 1975 1/ and (2) migrant children in February 173. 2/ l/"Assessment of Reading Activities Funded Under the Feder.l. Program of Aid for Educationally Deprived Children" (B-164C3(1l), Dec. 12, 1975). 2/"Impact of Federal Programs to Improve the Li ing Conditions of Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmworkers" (B-177486, Feb. 6, 1973). 1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION The Office of Education (OE), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) administers the title I program at the national level. OE is responsible for -- allocating funds, -- developing regulations and guidelines, -- monitoring the program, -- providing technical assistance to States, and -- evaluating and reporting to the Congress on overall program effectiveness. At the State level, the State eucation agency's respon- sibilities include -- applying to OE for funds, -- offering technical assistance, -- approving and monitoring title I projects, -- maintainivg fiscal records, and -- preparing evaluations and other reports required by OE or the law. A State agency--such as a department of corrections, which is responsible for providing free public education to institutionalized youths in State institutions--is eligible to receive funds under section 123 of title I. Also, under section 103, local education agencies are eligible to receive title I funds for children at locally operated institutions. Sepdrate regulations have been developed for each section. The State and local agencies or applicant agencies are responsible for -- determining special educational needs, -- designing and submitting title I projects to the State education agency for approval, -- implementing and supervising projects, 2 -- maintaining fiscal records, and -- preparing annual evaluations of their title I programs. In the late 1960s, OE allowed program funds to be used for a wide variety of services, including projects directed toward rehabilitating the children and improving their self- image. In recent years, however, OE has stressed providing basic reading and mathematics instructions, and a recent OE- contracted study has shown that nearly 70 percent of title I funds in State institutions were being spent on reading and mathematics services. Institutions included in our review generally used title I funds for basic skills instruction. Some, however, provided other services, such as vocational and educational counseling, and diagnostic services. Additional information on the projects we reviewed is provided in appendix I. The act equires that title I services supplement those educational services already available to institutionalized children. For the most part, institutions for delinquents and adult correctional institutions provide this basic educa- tional program ongrounds. while institutions for the neglected oftein send their youths to public schools. For those institu- tions we visited, title I services were generally provided ongrounds no matter where basic educational program services were provided. Locally administered institutions eligible to receive title I funds are defined by the regulations as follows: 1/ 'Institution for neglected children' means a public or private residentiai faciiity (other than a foster home) which is operated primarily for the care of at least ten children who have boen committed to the institution, or volun- tarily placed in the institution pursuant to applicable State law, because of the abandon- ment of or neglect by, or death of. parents or persons acting in the place of parents. (45 CFR 116a.2) Underscoring supplied.] 1/In 45 CFR 116c.2, State institutions are defined somewat differently, with eligibility requirements including that children be in residence for an average of at least 30 days. 3 " 'Institution for delinquent children' means a public or private residential facility which is operated primarily for the care of children who have been adjudicated to be delinquent or in need of supervision. Th term also includes an adult correctional institution in which children reside." (45 CFR 116a.2) [Underscoring supplied.] The size of institutions and the age of children in residence vary considerably. The average number of youths under 21 years of age in institutions for the neglected, delinquent, and adult corrections is 70, 86, and 151, respec- tively. In institutions for the neglected, about 50 percent of the population is under 14 years of age, with about 45 percent being in the 14 to 17 age group. About 85 per- cent of delinquent youths are 14 or older, with the majority being in the 14 to 18 age group. In adult correctional insti- tutions, the majority of inmates are over 21 years of age; for those under 21 years of age, about 85 percent are in the 18 to 21 age group. PROGRAM FUNDING Title I assistance for institutionalized children totaled $41 million in fiscal year 1976. Funds were allocated for 115,000 children living in more than 2,000 State and locally administered institutions throughout the country. Grants are allocated on the basis of a formula that considers the average per pupil expenditure in the State and the number of eligible children in residence. The table on page 5 provides fiscal year 1976 program data. 4 Number of Nuniber of children institutions (note a) Funding State institutions: Neglected 28 3,635 $ 2,084,369 Delinquent 324 29,066 18,090,832 Adult correc- tional 240 12,480 7,284,243 Subtotal 592 45,181 27,459,444 Local institutions: Neglected 999 48,706 9,589,198 Delinquent 402 19,571 3,853,122 Adult correc- tional 43 1,549 304,965 Subtotal 1,444 69,826 13,747,285 Total 2,036 115,007 $41,206,729 a/Represents the number of children used as a basis for allc- cating funds. (See p. 4.) The number of children actually served is not reported to E. Grants for children in the nearly 1,500 locally adminis- tered institutions average about $9,500 per institution, while State institutions received an average grant of about $46,400. A principal reason for this difference is that when appropriated funds are less than the am,)unts which local and State agencies are entitled to receive, the law requires that grants to local educational agencies be reduced. Con- sequently, in fiscal year 1976, State institutions received on the average about $608 per child, while local institutions received about $197 per child. SCOPE OF REVIEW Our review was made primarily at OE headquarters and in California, Virginia, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. These four States were selected to provide a wide geographical distri- bution. We did detailed work at 17 institutions for neglected or delinquent children within these States. In consultation with OE, we judgmentally selected the institutions and took into consideration geographical distribution, the type of children served, wether the institution was State or locally administered, and the number of children in residence. 5 We also tracked the activities of 170 program participants for about a 1-year period following their release from the institutions. The purpose of the tracking was to determine, among other things, (1) if the children returned to school and (2) what assistance they received from the institutions and probation/parole/welfare agencies. Finally, we sent a questionnaire nationwide to a sample (771 of 2,036) of administrators of State and local institu- tions, including adult correctional institutions; 562 rsponses were received. The survey was made to obtain national data on institutions and institutionalized children, and to obtain views on the importance of educational needs as compared to the other needs of the tarcet population. Throughout the report, the questionnaire survey results are projected to within about plus or minus 8 percent for the entire popula- tion under study at the 95-percent level of statistical confidence. The questionnaire, along with details of the survey method and design. is shown in appendixes II and III. 6 CHAPTER 2 MORE SELECTIVE FUNDING OF PROJECTS NEEDED Title I legislation expresses the Congress desire that youths participating in the program make substantial progress. However, substantial progress will be difficult to achieve, considering the educational deficiencies of the target popula- tion along with the wide range of social, emotional, and be- havioral problems that many have. The effectiveness of the program can be enhanced if available funds are argeted to those youths who are likely to receive a continuum of educational services over a longer period of time. Services under the program are r tricted to the period of time that the youths are in resience, and many--particularly delinquents--are in residence a relatively short period of time. Beyond the institution, it appears that the younger a youth is, tne more likely a continuum of educational services will be achieved. Our tracking of 170 program participants after their release from the institutions showed this to be the result. The younger youths were, the greater the like- lii od that they would (1) enroll in school after release and (2) be attending school regularly about 15 months later. For the most part, older youths appeared to be more interested in obtaining employment rather than continuing their schooling. Our review also disclosed that institutions and probation/ parole/welfare officers were doing little to assist youths in obtaining a continuum of appropriate educational services following their release. In particular, little effort was made to provide schools that the students would attend after release (receiving schools) with timely information on youths' specific strengths and weaknesses; this information would assist the schools in helping youths successfully adjust after release. PROBLEMS FACED BY TARGET POPULATION Neglected and delinquent youths generally have signifi- cant economic, social, and psychological proLublems, as well as long histories of failure and rejection. Also, under- achievement in school is common characteristic. 7 According to OE, the majority of institutionalized youths are from 3 to 4 years below normal expectations in reading and mathematics. To illustrate the ducational deficiency that most delinquent youths exhibit on entering the inst:Ltutions, several examoles of availaLle data are presented below. -- A county in California found that 78 percent of the juveniles institutionalized in its system read below grade level. The county also found that 69 percent of male youths were 3 or more grades below expected grade level, and 47 percent of those tested for intelligence quotient fell within subnormal categories. -- A study of juveniles incarcerated in the California State institutional system for delinquents found that 28 percent were regarded as high school dropouts. Most were between 16 and 20 years of age. Seventy percent were 3 or more years below grade level in reading, and 85 percent were 3 or more years behind in math. -- A State institution in Pennsylvania found that the average age of its delinquent youths was 15, which equates to an expected 9th grade achievement level. However, the average reading and math levels of the youths were grades 6.0 and 5.8, respectively. A 1972 OE-funded study, performed by the Western Inter- state Commission for Higher Education, obtained comments from 381 teachers at 29 correctional institutions in the West. The teachers described, among other things, the students' most significant learning barrier. One constant theme in their descriptions was that institutionalized students were over- whelmingly viewed as being severely disturbed and exhibiting complicated problems, unique needs, and a variety of special characteristics. Instititionalized neglected youths are often considered "predelinquents" because they exhibit similar behavior, eco- nomic, and educational problems as delinquent youths, who generally are older. Our tracking sample of 80 neglected youths, ranging from 7 to 19 years of age, delineates why they were institutionalized: 8 Uncontrollable behavior 25 Poor or deprived home environment 17 Family problems 15 Abandonment 9 Burglary, robbery, or theft 5 Abuse 4 Emotional disturbances 3 Information not available 2 Total 80 Delinquent youths have, in many cases, had more than one contact with police and the juvenile court system before being placed in an institution; some are institutionalized more than once. Poor economic conditions, broken homes, and a general low level of parental education are frequent descriptions of delinquents' backgrounds. Our sample of 90 delinquents, ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, delineates why they were instititutionalized: Burglary, robbery, theft or possession of stolen property 62 Uncontrollable behavior 10 Assault and/or battery 9 Sale or use of drugs 7 Sexual offenses 1 Information not available 1 Total 90 Behavioral problems can adversely affect educational programs. One particularly graphic example is an institu- tion that experienced a riot the night before our visit which caused the entire population to be locked up. Thus, partici- pants could not attend classes that day. One participant at the same institution had been locked up so ften that the teacher could not give him a grade. Some tenchers also commented that much classroom time is spent on discipline. Almost half of the children in institutions served by the program are handicapped according to the results of our questionnaire sent to institution administrators. (See app. II, question 19.) Only those respondents who indicated that they tested for handicapping conditions were considered. The results of the survey, by type of institution, are shown on the next page. 9 Institutions serving prjiarily Adult offenders Neglected Delinquent (under 21) children children ---------- (percent)----------- Physically handicapped 4.1 1.5 1.8 Mentally retarded 12.6 7.4 7.8 Seriously emotionally disturbed 16.9 32.2 32.9 Specific learning disabilities 15.1 19.5 25.0 Other handicapped conditions 17 3 10.9 12.8 Total (note a) 43.4 46.6 48.9 a/The total does not equal the sum of the parts because some children have more than one type of handicap. The data shows that the most prevalent type of handicap is serious emotional disturbance. Handicaps classified as "other" indicated a wide range of problems, with the mnost fre- quent ones cited being related to mental health impairments. EXPOSURE TO TITLE 1 SERVICES OFTEN LIMITED According to OE, there is little or no reliable informa- tion on the extent of the program's impact on academic achievement. 1/ Nonetheless, it appears that the target population, by its very nature, is an extremely difficult group to teach. Despite common problems among youths and the lack of information on achievement, certain youths have a greater opportunity to make substantial progress than others, parti- cularly those that receive services over a longer period of time. Program services are available to youths only during the time they reside at an institution, and the period of time varies significantly. Generally, for those institu- tions we visited, neglected youths on the average (23 months) were institutionalized nearly two and one-half times longer than delinquents (10 months). 1/OE has underway a national impact evaluation for State in- stitutions, which is expected to be completed in the spring of 1979. As part of this effort, steps are also being taken to strengthen evaluations for State institutions. 10 Our nationwide questionnaire of a sample of institution administrators substantiated the length of stay determined by our fieldwork. The average length of stay for institu- tions serving primarily delinquent youths is only 9.7 months, as compared to institutions for the neglected, where the average stay is more than twice as long--22.4 months. For youths (under 21) residing in adult correctional institutions, the average length of stay is 14.3 months. Also, for about 10 percent of the respondents--most of whom stated that they served emotionally disturbed youths--the average length of stay was 12.4 months. In estimating the average length of stay, questionnaire respondents were asked not to include those youths who were institutionalized less than 30 days. Therefore, the average length of stay is probably somewhat less than that discussed above. Projecting the questionnaire responses nationally shows that there are about 730 institutions in which the average length of stay is 1 year or less, and about 310 institutions in which the average length of stay s 6 months or less. Most of these are institutions for delinquents. An OE-contracted study dated September 1977 indicates that actual exposure to program services, as opposed to length of stay, is relatively short for many program participants. The study, which was based on a survey of State institutions, showed that about 70 percent of program participants in insti- tutions for delinquents and in adult correctional facilities are enrolled in the program for 6 months or less. Conversely, about 60 percent of program participants in institutions for the neglected remained in the program for 10 months or more. UNSUCCESSFUL RETURN TO SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY Our tracking of program participants after their release from institutions showed that most had an unsuccessful adjust- ment to school and/or the community. However, the younger the youths were, the better they appeared to adjust. The tracking was undertaken for several reasons. First, it provides insight into the payoff of rehabilitative/ treatment efforts as a whole. Second, from ar, educational standpoint, the extent to which schooling continues after release has an important bearing on the amount of progress participants will ultimately make. Fnally, many educators believe that if educational reenforcement is not received following release, gains realized in institutions may be lost. 11 Participants selection and methodology Ten former program participants were selected from each of the 17 institutions we visited. Ninety youths were from institutions for the delinquent, and the remaining 80 were neglected youths. The participants selected were the last 10 released from each of the institutions prior to March 1, 1975. The Mrch date waz siec'te to coincide with the timing planned for our fieldwork which, f.- +he most part, was ccm- pleted in April 1976. Beyond th'i ere were other con- siderations. Generally, the poba. /parole/social welfare system has knowledge of the participants' whereabouts and activities for about 1 year after release. An earlier date, terefore, would probably have caused difficulty in locating and obtaining information n the participants. A later date, such as May or June or during schools' summer recess, would have reduced the likelihood that the partici- pants would return to school immediately following release-- a critical time in the participant's transition from the in- stitution. An even later date, such as September or October 1975 would have significantly reduced the period of activity covered by our tracking. In determining the activities of participants after re- lease, we examined available records and talked with (1) in- stitution officials, (2) parole/probation/welfare officers. and (3) officials of the school to which the participants returned. If a youth was reinstitutionalized or entered a mental hospital at any time after release, we did not examine his or her activities beyond that point. Furthermore, if a youth joined the military or left the State, we did no ddi- tional followup because of logistical consideratiors. For the 170 participants in our sample, 67 were 16 years of age or older at the time of their release; 54 were either 14 or 15; and 49 were 13 or younger. The vast majority were male. Tracking results Following release from the institution, 116 (68 percent) of our sample enrolled in school. Forty-five youths (26 per- cent) did not enroll. Information on nine youths was not available. For the youths who did not enroll in school, all but nine were 16 or older. The majority of the 45 youths were 12 beyond the age for compulsory school attendance. 1/ According to the officials we interviewed, the most common reason given for their not enrolling was a lack of interest or outright refusal, as shown by the following table. Why 45 Youths Did Not Enroll In School Reason Number No interest in school or refused to enroll 15 Needed to work or obtain job skill 9 Unknown 8 Reinstitutonalized before next school session 5 Transferred to mental hospital 3 Parents did not support school attendance 2 School refused enrollment 2 Left town for fear of life 1 Total 45 Nine of the 45 youths received a high school diploma or its equivalent during their stay in the institution. It is questionable, however, just how well prepared the youths were to effectively function in society. Test scores were avail- able for five of the youths; the scores showed that on the average, the youths were nearly 4 years behind grade level, with one youth being as far behind as 7 years. One community officer commented that one of the youths--who was in prison at the time of our fieldwork--lacked the most basic educa- tional skills. The following comments about the 45 participants illus- trate the youths' negative attitudes toward school and give greater insight into the remote probability of their returning to school. The comments are for the most part typical. l/In most States, the age for compulsory school attendance is 16. 13 Age at release Comments Source 15 "A real problem is, and has been, Institution school. I am afraid there will be much official more trouble if an academic career is pursued." 14 "History of beatings by drunken step- Social father. Attended summer school for a worker couple of weeks then dropped out because he could not stand it. Kicked out of a subsequent school for truancy, marijuana, and belligerent behavior. He was put on probation by his mother because she could not control him." 14 "No trouble except he did not attend Social school." worker 18 "Between the ages of 8 and 17, this youth Institution was brought to the juvenile court 25 report times. Arrests included burglaries, shopliftings, possession of stolen prop- erty, drugs, drunkenness, beyond control of parents, run-away, and fire setting. "Institution told him that further school- Probation ing was hopeless. Youth told officer he officer would not attend school even if forced to do so. Later sent to State prison for raping and beating a victim." As discussed earlier, 116 youths did get enrolled in school some time after their release froi, the institution. Our tracking showed, however, that only half (58 of 116) were enrolled an average of 15 months later. Furthermore, of the 58 still enrolled, 20 (more than one-third) had poor attend- ance, which was typically characterized by school officials as "terrible absenteeism," "serious truancy problem," and "61 days absent out of 93 school days." The details of our tracking results are on the next page. 14 Analysis of Enrollments and Attendance Frequency About 15 Months After Release Number/age at release Total Number 1-I6 14- I3 3 Per- Delin- or or or Number cent Neglected quent over 15 under Enrolled: 58 34 38 20 7 21 30 Regular attendance 38 22 27 11 5 8 25 Poor attendance 20 12 11 9 2 13 5 Not enrolled: 90 53 24 66 49 29 12 Total known !48 87 62 86 56 50 42 Status unknown (note a) 22 13 18 4 11 4 7 Total 170 100 80 90 67 54 49 a/The status of 22 youths was not known because they e her left the State (11), qui- school and had not been heard from again (6), or no information on their activities was obtained (5). The above table shows that, for those youths 15 or over, only 12 percent (7 of 56) were enrolled in school as com- pared to 71 percent (30 of 42) of the children 13 or under. Furthermore, 83 percent (25 of 30) of the younger children who were enrolled in school were attending school on a regular basis about 15 months after their release. Comparing neglected youth with delinquents shows that 61 percent (38 of 62) of the former were enrolled in school while only 23 percent (20 of 86) of the latt-r were enrolled. Alsc, 71 percent (27 of 38) of the neglected youths as com- pared to 55 percent (11 of 20) of the delinquent youths were attending school regularly about 15 months after release. The foregoing discussed the status of 80 youths about 15 months after release--58 enrolled in school and the status of 22 unknown. The following discusses the status of the re- maining 90 youths in our sample who were not enrolled in school about 15 months after release. 15 In many respects, the status of the remaining 90 youths parallels .he earlier results of our tracking. Of the 90 youths, 66 were delinquents and 24 were neglected. More specifically, 33 delinquents were reinstitutionalized as opposed to 12 neglected youths; also, 14 delinquents were idle as compared to only 2 neglected youths. With regard to age, the incidence of reinstitutionalization and idleness increased with the age of the youths. Our tracking results, which are shown below, also give some insight into why ini- tial school enrollment dropped drastically from 116 to 58. Status of 90 Youths Who Were Not Enrollea In School About 15 Months After Release Number/age Total at release Percent Number 16 14 13 of total Delin- or or or No. sample Neglected quent over 15 under Back in an institution (note a) 45 26 12 33 23 16 6 Idle, not working, or enrolled in school 16 9 2 14 10 5 1 Working (note b) 10 6 1 9 8 2 0 Receiving vocational training 7 4 1 6 6 1 0 In mental hospital (note a) 6 4 6 0 1 2 3 Missing (note c) 5 3 1 4 0 3 2 In military (note a) I 1 1 0 1 0 0 Total 90 53 24 66 49 29 12 a/Because we did not track these youths after they reached this status, it is possii,le that the above status may have changed at the time of our fieldwork. b/Jobs included- gas station attendant, busboy, trash collec- tor, and jani.or. c/These youths wece still under the court's jurisdiction, but their whereabouts were not known. 16 The table on the previous page shows that at least 45 youths--about 26 percent of our sample of 170--were reinsti- tutionalized. This statistic, although accurate, tends to underestimate the difficulty that youths nad in adjusting to life outside the institution. Our tracking showed that 98, or 70 percent, of the youths (for which informaticn was available) experienced a wde range of behaviocial problems following release, as shown in the table below. Behavioral Problems Experienced Following Release 16 14 13 Delin- or or or Type of problem Total quent Neglected over 15 under Burglary, robbery, or theft 41 32 9 21 15 5 Truancy or school suspension 16 8 8 4 6 6 Assault and/or battery 11 9 2 3 7 1 Running away 9 1 8 - 2 7 Arrested (crime unknown) 6 5 1 2 4 - Uncontrollable behavior 4 2 2 2 - 2 Unspecified delin- quent activities 3 3 - 1 2 - Sexual offenses 3 2 1 2 1 - Sale or use of drugs 2 1 1 2 - - Traffic warrant for arrest 2 2 - 2 - - Illegal use of alcohol 1 1 - - 1 - Total with problems 98 66 32 39 38 21 Total no problems 42 19 23 16 8 18 Total known Io 85 55 55 46 39 Total unknown (note a) 30 Total '170 a/The officials we interviewed did not know if the youths were having any problems or not. 17 The data on page 17 shows that 78 percent (66 of 85) of the delinquent youths experienced problems as compared with 58 percent (32 of 55) of the neglected children, and generally, problems of delinquents were more serious. The age group appearing to have more difficulty was the 14-15 year olds; 83 percent (38 of 46) experienced some type of be- havioral problem. The group having the fewest problems was the youngest--13 or under; 21 of 39, or 54 percent, had some type of difficulty. As previously discussed, older youths in our sample have been significantly less successful than younger children in continuing their schooling following release. Although the reasons they generally do not continue are many and complex, a major reason, apparently, is that many do not want addi- tional schooling. In our nationwide survey of institution administrators, we asked the following question to gain broader insight into the ambition of youths over 15 years of age. "17. What are the interests and aspirations of those juveniles over 15 when they leave your insti- tution? (Check all thdt apply.) 1 i Go back to school 2 1-7 Obtain vocational training 3 Obtain gainful employment 4 17 Join the service of the Armed Forces 5 /-7 Return to their former street life styles 6 /_7 Other (Specify)" As expected, most respondents checked more than one of the above choices. Nevertheless, an analysis shows a very strong preference for employment and/or vocational training over goinq back to school. Thirty percent of the respondents said the youths were interested in obtaining a job and/or vocational training, but not in going back to school. Only 8 percent said that the youths would choose the option of going back to school instead of working and 40 percent of these wanted vocational training along with the education received in school. 18 Although older youths have a strong preference for gaining employment, our tracking showed most had a difficult time holding a job. Forty-five youths had at least one job some time after their release, but only 10 were employed at the tinle of our fieldwork. Most of the jobs were unskilled, and common reasons for termination were that they (1) quit, (2) were fired, (3) were layed off, (4) had trouble with the law, and (5) were underage. INADEQUATE BACK-TO-SCHOOL TRANSITION SERVICES Much more could be done to help youths receive a con- tinuum of appropriate educational assistance after they leave the institution. In particular, the timely receipt of infor- mation on youths' specific academic strengths and weak- nesses, behavior problems, etc., can reatly assist receiving schools in implementing effective instructional approaches. Such approaches in turn can have an important bearing on how well youths ultimately adjust to and benefit from the educational process beyond the institution. As stated earlier, most youths were not even enrolled in school or attending regularly about 15 months after their release from the institution. For the youths in our tracking sample, the institutions initiated some type of contact with a potential receiving school in only 16 percent of the cases. The nature and extent of the contacts varied greatly, e.g., from mailing a transcript to taking on an advocacy role by accompanying the youths to the school and discussing their specific strengths and weaknesses. Comments made to us by various institution officials illustrate the shortcomings at the institution level. A teacher told us that he had never been consulted about the educational needs of youths at release. Some officials said that plans for educational activities after release are not their responsibility. And finally, another official said that probation officers complain that the institution is encroaching on their responsibilties if attempts are made to arrange postrelease activities. Probation and parole officers were mainly concerned with community safety and spent a great deal of time on crisis situations, trying to keep juveniles out of trouble. Social workers monitoring neglected children usually directed their efforts ward solving family problems. We found that--for those youths who enrolled in school--p:obation, parole, and welfare officers (continued) 19 -- discussed academic recommendations with the institu- tions in 38 percent of the cases, --transferred records to the school in 12 percent of the cases, -- discussed educational recommendations with school officials in 34 percent of the cases, and --discussed behavioral problems with school officials in 30 percent of the cases. The most common reason cited by these officers for not assist- ing in school enrollment was that it was not their responsi- bility. Some other reasons given were that youths were not interested in school, planned to seek employment, or ran away. Ofc'-ials at the receiving school, in some cases, knew nothing nut the youths they were to enroll. According to school o..cials, common problems were that: -- No advance notice of the enrollment was received. -- Records arrived after enrollment. -- Additional records were needed. -- Records did not specify academic needs. School officials told us that institutions should pro- vide academic information on the child, such as transcripts and test data, in order to (1) help the school to determine the best teaching methods, (2) identify the student's strong and weak points, and (3) tailor the curriculum to meet the student's needs. Some officials also wanted additional in- formation, including psychological, medical, behavioral, and family background data to help make proper educational place- ment and provide supportive services to encourage continued studies. A 1973 study made or Los Angeles County, California, also found many problems with transition services provided students upon release. The study recommended that a compre- hensive transition program be developed to provide assurance that the students receive appropriate educational placement in public schools after release. The study found that the period between students' re- lease from the institution and their return to the community 20 is critical, and released juveniles often are confronted with problems that are beyond their ability to resolve. In a number of instances, regular schools were not enthusiastic about receiving a former problem student and devoted little energy toward integrating the student into the system. The study also found that (1) some returning students were placed in classes without regard to needs and abilities and (2) a variety of problems during this period could result in students having an overwhelming sense of frustration and futility. The study disclosed little coordination of institutional efforts to prepare students for return to their communities and no coordination between institutions and regular schools. Probation officers reported difficulties in discussing educa- tional factors with school administrators. The officers were often unable to state in precise educational terms the status, problems, learning, and study habits of returning juveniles. Accordingly, the receiving school administrator usually had only the youth's school transcript for use in selecting a school program. CONCLUSIONS The target population is an extremely difficult group to teach. The complexity of its problems, including its severe educational deficiencies, raises a question concerning the extent to which certain institutional programs can pos- sibly assist youths in making educational progress or the extent to which certain youths can benefit from the program. Many program participants are exposed to title I program services for a relatively short period of time primarily be- cause of their short stay at an institution. Generally, neglected children have an opportunity to make greater educa- tional progress than do delinquents because neglected children are in residence twice as long. Furthermore, most delinquent youths only receive program services for 6 months or less while most neglected youths receiv3 program services for 10 months or more. Although some progress for all program participants is entirely possible, it would nonetheless seem that certain youths could ultimately realize greater benefits from the program. Specifically, those youths who continue schooling after release from the institution have a greater likelihood of building on and sustaining the gains achieved from the program while in the institution, as opposed to those who do not. 2.1 Our review shows that younger children have a much higher incidence of returning to school. Older youths conversely do not, and in many cases are not interested in school; they generally appear more inclined towards obtaining a job. Furthermore, many older youths have a greater tendency to get into trouble with the law and are often reinstitutionalized. Relating the factors of age and length of exposure to program services shows that the bulk of available program resources go to those youths and institutions where a con- tinuum of educational services is least likely to be achieved. Institutions serving delinquent children receive nearly twice the funding that institutions for the neglected receive. Concerning age, the great majority of younger children are in institutions for the neglected, which receive about $11.7 million or only 28 percent of all program funding. What then can be done to enhance the effectiveness of the program? For the most pert, it seems that factors dis- cussed above are beyond the control of educators. The rela- tively short exposure to program services is determined pri- marily by the short period of stay in the institution. The length of stay, in turn, is governed principally b factors which are extraneous to the educational process, .g., the length of sentence, resolution of beha ioral and tImily problems, location of suitable foster parents, etc. In comparison, providing older youths a continuum of educational services following release would seem to be a factor that educators could possibly address. At the same time, however, their task would be extremely difficult. How can educators, fr example, deal with a situation where a youth beyond the compulsory school age simply will not attend scnool, or how cn an educator address the problems created by a youth returning to crime or the peer group with which the youth chooses to associate? Legislative changes would be needed to bring about a more effective use of program funds. Under the present leg- islation, funds are allocated for institutions without con- sidering the extent to which they can possibly meet the children's educational needs or the extent to which certain children are likely to benefit from program services. Avail- able program resources are scarce and should be directed at the target population on a more selective basis, with priority consideration given to institutions that provide services over a longer term and serve younger children. 22 One way to accomplish this is to provide State educational agencies a lump-sum entitlement on the basis of existing fund- ing formulas for children in State and local institutions. This would assure that individual States obtain the same amount of funding for children in State and locally operated institutions that they are now receiving. Once State educa- tional agencies receive their entitlement, individual grants could then be made on a competitive basis by the State agency for the special educational needs of children in institutions who would most likely benefit from the additional services provided. State educational agencies would select successful appli- cants on the basis of criteria to be established by the Com- missioner of Education. Such criteria should give priority to younger children and those children who receive services over a longer period of time. Also, the criteria should em- phasize that adequate prerelease and transitional services be provided. Such services would provide greater assurance that the children receive a continuum of appropriate educa- tional services following their release from the institution. Presently, grant funds are generally expected to be ex- ppnded during a 1-year period. Under the proposed arrangement, individual grants should be permitted to cover a period greater than 1 year, in those cases where program partici- pants are likely to be an residence beyond such a period. Grants made in this way would (1) eliminate the administra- tive burden that would be created if successful applicants had to compete every year and (2) would provide assurance that institutions would receive sufficient funds to cover the period that the youths are likely to be in residence. To accomplish the foregoing, recommended revisions to section 123 of title I, along with other necessary technical amendments, are presented in appendix IV. Also, for com- parison purposes, section 123 of title I, as it is presently authorized, is shown in appendix V. It should be noted, however, that the recommended course of action should be considered net by itself but also in light of the findings discussed in chapter 3 of this report. IACENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION HEW did not agree with our proposal that program funds be distributed on a more selective basis. HEW believes that neglected children should not be given priority in the provi- sion of services at the expense of delinquent youths and that delinquent youths have the greatest educational needs. 23 HEW, in effect, has stated that delinquent be given funding priority because they have the youths should greatest edu-- cational needs. The question of who has the greatest however; is a very difficult one. need, Delinquent youths are generally older and, therefore, frequently further grade level than neglected children; and for this behind in reason, an argument could be made that they should receive the provision of services. At the same time, an priority in equally valid argument could be made that younger children priority for the simple reason that they are should be given young. In essence, why should they have to wait until they and further behind grade level before they receive are older priority attention? It may be better to intervene at an earlier age. Regardless of which group it is de-cded has the greatest need, the point of the report is that neglected to have a greater opportunity to make substantial children tend than delinquents because the former are exposed progress to program services over a much longer period of time. Furthermore, younger children are more likely to continue their schooling after release from an institution. The report does not argue for increased assistance for neglected children at the expense of delinquent per se although neglected children generally would tend youths, to receive a larger share of program funds under our proposal. short-term institutions for the neglected, and there there are neglected youths who are older. Our proposal makes are tinction between neglected or delinquent youths; no dis- the is that priority should be given to younger children point longer-term institutions. and HEW states that the program may be the "last chance" older youths, and this may be a reason for for not consideration to younger youths. It would appeargiving priority to us that the "land of opportunity" is outside the institution within. For example, other Federal programs exist and not which provide educational and training opportunities, such as adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and programs under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. HEW states that the average length of stay for delin- quents in an institution (10 months) is sufficient time to benefit from the proyLam. HEW states that: "According to the report * * *, an average length of stay for delinquent youths is about 10 months. For a youth confined to an adult correctional institution, the average stay 24 is over 14 months. The two groups tend to be the oldest children served by the program and represent 72 percent of Title I expenditures. GAO recommends that older youth, because they generally are institutionalized a shorter period of time and thus receive less program exposure than younger youth, be given a lower priority in receiving services. "If one compares the two averages cited above with the length of a regular school year, it appears that more than an academic year of in- structional exposure is available to these older students. Considering that the instruction of children in regular schools is disrupted annually, it seems that the average institutionalized, delinquent child (who is also probably older than the average neglected child) has enough exposure time to benefit from a Title I program. Again, for many of these children, this may be the 'last chance' to receive this type of service." The answer to how much time is needed to benefit from the program is one of definition and degree; presumably, a youth could "benefit" with as little as 1 week's participation. Furthermore, the answer as to what "substantial progress" is (the desired effect on program participants intended by the Congress) is also one of definition and degree. We did not attempt to define either "benefit" or "substantial progress;" our position is that the longer the exposure to program serv- ices, the more likely the benefits to be derived or the progress made will be greater. HEW's comparison of institutionalized delinquent youths with children in regular schools is hardly valid. First of all, children in regular schools more than likely will return to school the following year (most title I programs in regular schools are targeted at children in kindergarten through grade 6). Older institutionalized youths more than likely will not return to school. Secondly, the two groups are not comparable considering the wide range of problems that insti- titutionalized delinquents have. Finally, although HEW is correct in citing the average length of stay for delinquents as 10 months, OE's recently completed survey of State institutions shows that most delinquents' actual exposure to program services is 6 months or less. 25 HEW states that: "Presently, grant funds are generally expected to be expended during a one year period. Under the proposed arrangement, individual grants should be permitte& to cover a period greater than 1 year, in those cases where Title I participants are likely to be in residence beyond such a period. * * * * * "It seems this suggested multiple-year funding would be inconsistent with the Department's view that Title services are to be tailored to the individual needs of the children served. Since participants change from year to year and annual needs assessments are required (including the identification of those most in need in local in- stitutions), multi-year projects for all Title I grantees would be inappropriate. Secondly, under Section 412(b) of the General Education Provi- sion Act, applicant State and local agencies may "carry-over" Title I funds from one fiscal year to the succeeding year providing in effect a two year funding period." We agree that participants can change from year to year or, for that matter, even more frequently. Regardless of the length of the grant period, institutions should be held re- sponsible for periodically assessing the educational needs of the children and directing program services accordingly. Designing projects to run for longer than 1 year would -not inhibit an institution's flexibility in providing services to children. On the contrary, we believe that multiple-year funding, where appropriate, would provide more flexibility to the institutions and would relieve them of the administrative burden of applying for grants every year. The carryover provision can provide some flexibility to State and local agencies in expending program funds appro- priated for a given fiscal year. However, it does not negate the desirability, under a competitive arrangement, for funding beyond a 1-year period, where appropriate. HEW states that: "We would agree that services that facilitate the transition of children from institutions to normal 26 community life, including school, are needed. We would point out, however, that such transi- tional services even those that are educational, involve the efforts of other agencies as well as the Title I applicant agencies. Transitional services for children leaving institutions and returning to some form of placement are being provided, although often inadequately, by State and local institutions, as well as other State or local gencies such as parole, probation, and public wifare offices and juvenile courts. To address the need for transitional services in- tended to insure the child's continued education without attending to his or her needs for other types of community based services is unrealistic. "In view of the wide variety of agencies currently involved in providing services for youth upon their release from institutions, Title I should not be the vehicle for Federal assistance for the purpose of enhancing those services." The report points out that the children need assistance to make a successful transition from the institution back to school and that the social services and probation/parole systems are generally preoccupied with other matters. Because of this, we believe that the institutions should provide re- ceiving schools timely information on a youth's specific strengths and weaknesses to help the schools design an effec- tive program of instruction. We share HEW's concern about the inadequacies in the existing systems. However, we do not believe that this is a good reason for not taking some action to assist the children. Furthermore, what we have proposed--the forwarding of timely information to receiving schools--can hardly be viewed as a significant burden to title I institutions or being outside the scope of the title I legislation. 27 CHAPTER 3 SHOULD ACADEMIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR INSTITUTIONALIZED YOUTH BE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE? Chapter 2 examined the program in the context in which it was authorized, that is, as an educational program. This chapter looks at the program in the context of broader social issues. In 1974 legislation was enacted which underscored the concerns of the Congress and the executive branch that there be a responsive and coordinated Federal effort to address the problems of juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect. Becausc of these expressc oncerns, the many rob- lems faced by the target population, and the fact that the program is the only Federal service program for institution- alized neglected or delinquent children, our review included a comparison of the importance of academic educational needs with other needs of the target population. Our analysis of responses to our questionnaire sent to a nationwide sample of institutions that receive program assist- ance showed that while academic educational needs are impor- tant, it is questionable as to whether providing services to meet these needs should be the exclusive service or top prior- ity of a Federal service program. 1974 LEGISLATION Two major pieces of legislation were enacted in 1974 to address the problems of juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect. The first, enacted on January 31, 1974, was the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101). The second, tne Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 560j) was enacted on September 7, 1974. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act The at became law in response to the need for a coordinated Federal effort to assist in solving the complex and nationwide rcolem of child abuse and neglect. Speci- fically, with regard to coordination, the law states that 28 "The Secretary [HEW] shall promulgate regulations and make such arrangements as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure that there is effective coordination between programs related to child abuse and neglect under this Act and other sch programs which are assisted by Federal funds." To carry out he egislation, the act created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect as a focal oint for Federal eforts aimed at identifying, treating, and preventing the problem. The center was placed uinder HEW's Office of Child Development. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act o- 1974 -- According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention Act of 1974, the Congress found that "* * * the high incidence of delinquency in the United States today results in enormous annual cost and immeasurable loss of human life, personal security, and wasted human resources and that juv- enile delinquency constitutes a growing threat to the national welfare requiring immediate and comprehensive action by the Federal Government to reduce and prevent delinquency." To carry out this critical mandate, the Congress estab- lished the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion within the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Department of Justice. The Administration has been given broad authority to carry out the act, which includes estab- lishing overall policies and priorities for all Federal juvenile delinquency programs and activities. NATIONWIDE SURVEY OF PROBLEMS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED YOUTH During our fieldwork, few local and State officials told us that educational needs were clearly the highest pri- ority of instititutionalized children. The vast majority felt that other needs exceeded or were at least as important as educational needs; those most often cited were social and emotional needs. Also, the program is the only Federal service program of its kind. Funds are made available annually for institutions across the country to meet a par- ticular need of institutionalized, neglected, or delinquent youths. 29 For these reasons, we sampled the opinions of institution administrators nationwide as to the highest priority needs of the target population. More specifically, our purpose was to examine the appropriateness of providing Federal assistance to meet the ademic educational needs of the target popula- tion, as opposed to prciding assistance to meet their other needs. In brief, our anaiysis of questionnaire responses shows tat, while academic educational services are important, it may 'e more appropriate for Federal assistance to be focused on other rehabilitative/treatment services. Methodology Our survey questionnaire ws addressed to the top admin- istrative official at the institution, e.g., the warden or director. These officials were selected because we believed they were in the best position to assess the overall needs of the children and the capability of the institution to respond to these needs. Furthermore, we felt that to address the questionnaire to an individual responsible for providing a specialized service (such as vocational education) would run a high risk of introducing bias into our survey results. In the questionnaire, institutional administrators were offered six types of services to consider in addition to aca- demic educational services. These were -- health and developmental services; -- mental health services (social, psycholocical, psychi- atric, and counseling services); --vocational services; -- family services; -- diagnostic services; and --drug/alcohol abuse services. Ail of the services are common rehabilitative/treatment serv- ices found in an institutional setting. The services alsc cover a broad range of activities, but this was considered necessary, given the broad age range of the target population and the diversity of its problems. 30 To test the appropriateness of academic educational needs as the top priority for Federal assistance, we asked institu- tional administrators six questions. The questions, our rationale for asking them, and the survey results, are discussed below. It should be noted that our survey results, with a few exceptions, were esse.ntially the same, regardless of (]) whether the institution served adult ffenders, neglected, or delinquent chiidren; (2) what organization (e.g., State or local) administered the institution; and (3) the age or sex of the youths that the institutions served. Consequently, results displayed in the following section 1o not give con- sideration to these factors. A copy of the questionnaire is shown in appendix I. We also included additional information on our methodology and the technical aspects of our survey in appendix II. Survey results Question No. 11 This question focused on the high priority needs of institutionalized youth. The results show that mental health services and academic educational services were rated by in- stitutional administrators as being the highest priority needs of institutionalized youths, with the former being rated somewhat higher than the latter. The table on the next page shows our survey results. The highest possible rating for each of the services is 5; that is, if all respondents checked "essential" for a particular service, it would be rated "5." 31 Relative Importance of Needs of Insttutinalzed Youth Needs Importance rating Rating score Mental health services: Essential 4.8 social, psychological, psychiatric, and counseling Educational (academic) Essential services 4.7 Family services Very important 4.2 Diagnostic services Very important 4.0 Health and develop- Very important mental services 4.0 Vocational services Very important 4.0 Drug/alcohol abuse Moderately important 2.9 services The above table shows that the relative importance of the services falls into three distinct categories. Mental health and educational services, with ratings of 4.8 and 4.7, respectively, are in one category and are the highest prior- ity needs of the target population. The next grouping, all of which are considered "very important" needs, consist of family, diagnostic, health and developmental, and vocational services. The rating for all of these services is tightly clustered around a score of 4.0. And finally, drug/alcohol abuse services, with a rating score of 2.9, are in an in- dependent class and are felt to be the least important. Question No.12 Because our field testing of the questionnaire showed that administrators were often inclined to rate many services as essential in question number 11, we those services in order of importan:e, then asked them to rank i.e., the most impor- tant would be ranked "1," the second most important would be ranked '," etc. The ranking of mental health and educational services hows that the former is clearly felt to be the high- est prior y need of the target population. Mental health 32 services received a score of 1.3, while educational services received a score of 2.2 Question No.13 Institutions fce many obstacles in attempting to address the problems of youth. Some of the more conlmon are a lack of resources; relatively short periods of incarceration; unde- veloped state-of-tthe-art for treating and rehabilitating youth; and underlying causes often being external to the institution, i.e., the schools, home, community, etc. To obtain an idea of how serious each of these obstacles is in attempting to meet the needs of the youths, we asked the administrators to rank them. Our concern was to determine those needs of youths where the lack of resources or money is perceived to be the greatest obstacle. Conversely, the concern was also to identify those needs where money or resources would tend to have a lesser impact because other obstacles were felt to be more serious. Our survey results, which are presented below, show the seriousness of lacK of money or resources as an obstacle. If money was felt to be the biggest obstacle by all respondents in meeting a particular need, it would then receive a rating of 5, which is the highest possible score; 1 is the lowest possible score. Seriousness of money as an obstacle to Rating Correcting for lack of basic vocational training or job-entry-level skills 4.7 Providing appropriate diagnostic services 4.7 Correcting mental health problems 4.6 CorLecting health and development deficiencies 4.5 Correcting deficiencies in basic educational skills, i.e., reading and math 4.0 Resolving home, environmental, and family problems 3.9 Providing appropriate drug and alcohol services 3.9 The above table shows that the seriousness of money as an obstacle falls into basically two distinct categories. 33 The first four problem areas listed are those where money is likely to have the greatest impact. The last three problem areas listed, which include academic educational problems, are the problem areas where money is likely to have the least beneficial impact because of other obst cles faced by the institution. Question No.14 In this question, we asked institutional administrators to rate the adequacy of the services that were being pro- vided to the youths. The rationale was to identify those services which were in need of improvement. The results are shown below. The possible ratings range from "very inade- quate" (4.5 to 5.0) to "more than adequate" (1.00 to 1.49). Extent to Which Needs Are Being Met Rating Rating definition Vocational services 3.2 marginal Family services 3.1 marginal Drug/alcohol abuse services 2.9 marginal Diagnostic services 2.4 adequate Mental health services: social, psychological, psychiatric, and counseling services 2.2 adequate Educational (academic) services 2.1 adequate Health and developmental services 1.9 adequate The above table shows that the adequacy of vocational, family, and drug/alcohol services are considered by institu- tional administrators to be "marginal." The other four serv- ices, including academic educational services, were considered to be adequate. Question No.15 In this question, we asked the administrators the extent to which they could solve youths' problems, if sufficient 34 resources were available. The results are shown below. The ratings range from "little or no extent" (1.00 to 1.49) to "very great extent" (5.0 to 5.4). Extent to Which Problems Could be Solved If Sufficient Resources Were Available Problem areas Rating Rating definition Health and development deficiencies 3.9 Great extent Mental health problems: psychological, psychiatric, social, etc. 3.9 Great extent Deficiencies in basic educa- tional skills 3.9 Great extent Lack of basic vocational training or job-entry- level skills 3.7 Great extent Inadequate diagnostic screening 3.7 Great extent Home, environmental, and family problems 2.9 Moderate extent Drug and alcohol problems 2.9 Moderate extent With the exception of home, environmental, family, and drug and alcohol problems, administrators felt that they could accomplish a great deal if sufficient resources were available. Question No.20 Because all of the institutions in our sample received program assistance, it could be argued that institutions would have possibly rated educational services differently had they not been receiving this assistance. To check this possibil- ity, we also asked institutional administrators ho- they would allocate Federal funds among rehabilitative/treatment services if no strings were attached concerning how the funds should be used. The results are shown on the next page. 35 How Federal Funds Would Be Expen-edf No_Strlngs Were Attached Concerning Threlr Use Expenditure area Percent Mental health services: 24.6 social, psychological, psychiatric, and counseling Education (academic) services 19.0 Family services 15.6 Vocational services 15.2 Health and developmental services 10.9 Diagnostic services 7.8 Drug/alcohol abuse services 5.0 Other 1.9 Total 100.0 The results support our earlier findings. That is, edu cational services, with 19.0 percent of the resources, is second to mental health services, where institution adminis- trators would allocate 24.6 percer.r of Federal funds. CONCLUSIONS The title I program was authorized in recognition of the fact that institutionalized neglected or delinquent children have special educational needs, as well as children attending classes in school systems i.hroughout the country. The program was not specifically created as part of an overall strategy to address the social problems created by juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect, but nonetheless, today it is a significant part of Federal efforts to deal with these social issues, particularly in an institutional setting. The program is the only Federal service program for insti- 'utionalized neglected or delinquent children. 36 Given the findings of our review and the 1974 legislation that emphasizes the Congress and executive branch's desire for a responsive Federal effort to address juvenile delin- quency, and child abuse and neglect, the services provided under the program should be eamined in terms of their re- sponsiveness to these issues. With the scarcity of resources, it is important that funds be expended in a manner which will do the most good, and the type of services provided should be determined as the result of a conscious examination of the various options available. AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION In our draft report, we proposed that the Secretary, HEW, and the Attorney General examine the appropriateness and/or exclusiveness of academic educational services as the top priority of Federal assistance for institutionalized neglected or delinquent children. HEW disagreed with our recommendation (see app. VI), but the Department of Justice agreed with us. (See app. VII.) HEW comments "We do not believe that the joint examination as recommended by GAO would be productive. The recom- mendation is based upon an analysis of the findings of a questionnaire which, in our ooinion, was not broad enough to obtain an accurate picture of the success of the Title I program in institutions. We would further point out that there is an on-going study being conducted under the auspices of the Office of Education. This study is much broader in scope, in that it solicits information not only from adminis- trators, but from program staff and recipients of Title I services, which appears to indicate that the priority assigned to educational services by the Office of Education, is appropriate." We do not agree with HEW's position that the study would not be productive. Considering such controversial issues as juvenile delinquency, and child abuse and neglect, it is hard to imagine that such a study is not warranted. The questionnaire survey was not designed to obtain an accurate picture of tha success of the program. The survey was designed to gage the relative importance of each of a wide variety of needs of the target population. (See p. 29.) 37 The ongoing OE study is not broader in scope than the study we have recommended. OE's study intends to "* * * measure the impact of the title I program on the basic reading and mathematics skills of the participants and on the self-concept of the participants as it relates to gains in achieve- men t. HEW also points out that neither the legislation nor the regulations require that services under the program be limited to basic skills. HEW states that a wide variety of services may be provided under the program, provided those services are shown to be designed to meet the special educational needs of children in institutions. Although we realize that other services may be provided under the program, the program as authorized and implemented is basically an education program. Further, as HEW points out, the wide variety of services" must be shown to be relat- ed to an educational goal. The question posed by the report is essentially--Should the thrust of the program be basically education or basically something else? HEW provided technical comments on our analysis and in- terpretation of the responses to questions 11, 14, and 20 on the questionnaire survey. HEW concludes that we have intro- duced a bias into the questionnaire survey results. HEW's conclusion appears to be based on a belief that the top admin- istrator may not be the mst unbiased person to report on the needs of the institutionalized children and the resources available to the institution. HEW also bases its conclusion on its interpretation of the responses to the three questions mentioned above. In our opinion, the top administrator is the single person in the best position to provide an unbiased broad perspective related to the needs of the children served by an institution and the resources available to the institution. In addition, the responses to questions 11, 14, and 20, in our opinion, clearly point out that academic needs, although important, are not the only needs of institutionalized child- ren and may not be their top priority need. Department of Justice comments The Department was supportive of our recommendation. It also felt that the Coordinating Council on .3L'. i'e Justice and Delinquency Prevention would be the appropriate forum 38 for conducting the study. The Council was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. We have no objection that the Council undertake the study; our principal concern is that it be done. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS We recommend that the Congress direct the Secretary, De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Attorney General to examine and report on the appropriateness and/or exclusiveness of academic educational services as the top priority of Federal assistance for institutionalized neglected or delinquent children. More specifically, the organizations to participate in such an undertaking should include OE, the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention under the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. If it is determined that an academic thrust is not appro- priate as the exclusive or top priority, then the thrust of the program should be changed accordingly. Furthermore, if it is felt that the desired thrust is not within the legal bounds of title I legislation, the report to the Congress should in- clude legislative recommendations, if such action is needed to bring about a more responsive program to assist instit tion- alized youths. 39 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN REVIEW Average Average Number of age of months' Institution children childan stay TitleTperogram CAMP PAIGE, 94 15 7 Reading and math LaVerne, Calif. teachers for children An institution for achieving below the juvenile delinquents 5th-grade level; operated by thi county educational aftercere probation department; counselor who assists academic school on on counselor who assists grounds, including a former particoiants back into the com- special program using munitv. audio-visual equipment to teach reading and math to nontitle I students. Eight liv- ing units supervised by probation officers. YOUTH TRAINING SCHOOL, 1,140 20 IR Remedial tchers Chino, Calif. A State-operated insti- in eanq, lanquaq anmath; tyolaniq la: tution for older, hard bind mnqath;Itynq core" delinquents; lau- tin and nstruionl a three residential halls trin and vclai. na (400 wards per hall,riiarot h. Par- each with its own cell); tbelowoant mradsthe school on grounds pro- level and/or have a vides primarily voca- referral from voca- tional education, with tional instructor; academic courses avail- psycholoqist, 0 able. oercent title I funded; supervisor and steloraer . SACRAMENTO CHILDREN'S 109 14 18 One resource special- HOME, Sacramento, ist who supervises Calif. remedial reading A private institution tutors for 10 child- for severely emotion- ten (tutors financed ally disturbed and/or under a Federal neglected children; College-Work-Study residential therapy Program) and performs programs including vocational testing, an nte,.sive treat- and makes vocational ment center for the educational placement most severe cases and and employment refer- group homes in the rals. community. Most children attend an on- grournds chool for the edu:cationully handi- capped operated by the county. Psychiatric, speech therapy, social work and other support- ing rograms available. LEROYS BOYS HOME, 81 13 13 One part-time tutor, Laverne, Calif. 3 hours per night, Private institution available to any for neglected and emo- ward needing help. tionally disturbed One full-time school boys. Most children liaison worker who attend a local public checks attendance school, however, there at local Shools, is a county-operated tutors, and adminis- ongrounds school for ters a behavioL the educationally modification program handicapped. Individ- in which title I ual and group therapy; funds buy candy, cottage living quarters; toys, and other re- and group homes in the wards for academic community. and behaviorial achievements. 40 APPENDIX APPENDIX I Average Average Number of age of months Institution children children stay Title I rogram SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOYS 80 16 5 Remedial reading RANCH, Sacramento, teacher, 50 Dercent Calif. title I funded, An institution for serves 30 ouths who juvenile delin- are achieving below quents operated by the 6th-qrade level. the county proba- Math teacher 30 Der- tion department. cent title funide. Pural "worKing ranch" serving youths need- setting in which Ing math credit for youths perform all high school radua- maintenance as work tion. Partially experience. Youths funded field trios work half-day and for all youths; attend half-day aca- testing material. demic classes on grounds. Medical, pyschological, reli- gio;s, and other speciao services available. LOYSVILLE YOUTH DE- 100 15 10 Remedial math tacher VELOPMENT CENTER, for youths :t- the Loysville, Pa. lowest test scorts; State-operated insti- graphic arts; summer tution for juvenJle camping program; art delinquents. Treat- of the salary co;ts ment cottages; on- of a secretary and grounds school1 opera- retail merchandise ted by local school training; driver district provides aca- education teacher; demic and vocational equipment purchases; education; individual, diagnostic and group, and family counseling services. counseling. BETHANY CHILDREN'S 134 15 T.o Educational coordi- HOME, Womelsdorf, diverse nator serves as Pa. guidance counselor A private institu- and in proper school tion for neglected program; tutors in children. Residen- basic subjects; art tial cottages, social and craft teacher; services, psycholo- summer recreation gist, and nurse. teacher. Youths attend local public schools for academic and voca- tional education. ST GABRIEL'S HALL, 170 15 9 Summer half-day Phoenixville, Pa. sessions taught in A private institu- reading, language, tion for juvenile de- math, social science, linquents. Group and vocational sub- living; vocational jects. All youth guidance; professional participate. social services. On- grounds school includ- ing academic and voca- tional technical courses. ST. MICHAEL'S SCHOOL 101 14 14 Teacher aides pro- FOR BOYS, Hoben Heights, vide reading assist- Pa. ance individually to A private institu- all youths for 10 to tion for dependent- 30 minutes per day. neglected, and emotion- ally disturbed boys. Social services; dormi- tory living; ongrounds school centered around subjects of reading, math, and English. 41 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Average Average Number of age of mocnths Institution children children stay Title Iprogram LIFELINE HOME, CHILDREN'S 31 14 12 Provides school oro- ansas City, gram or. grounds for Kans. A private insti- all children who have been expelled or who tution for ne- are failing at public glected children. school. The teachers Group living; re- provide instruction creation; therapy; prevocational edu- in all subjects. cation; most child- ren attend public schools. Consul- tant psychological services available. LAKE AFTON BOY'S 37 15 2 Instruction in basic RANCH, Wichita, math and reading Kans. A delinquent de- skills ae provided tention facility to all youths for 2 hours ech day. operated by the county juvenile court. County staff provides house-keep- ing services. On- grounds school pro- vided by local school district; no social, psychological, or guidance services available. WICHITA CHILDREN'S 43 9 3 Evening reading HOME, Wichita, classes for all Kans. A private temporary children, math care facility for classes for those below grade level, dependent, neglected, and abused children. and arts and crafts in the summer. Social worPer; counsel- ing. Wards attend local public schools. No psychological services. YOUTH CENTER AT 190 lo 14 Provides teachers in TOPEKA, Topeka, remedial reading, Kans. math, social studies, A State-operated and oral ad written institution for communications, delinquents; 4 teachers' aides, 11 residen- part-time program tial cottages; director. Program social workers, serves those with psychiatrist, severe academic de- nurses, chaplain; ftcits as determined ongrounds by tests. academic school operated by the local school dis- trict; vocational education (thru Federal vocation- al rehabilitation program). HANOVER LEARNING Physical education, CENTER, Va. music, and behavior A State-operated modification institution for teachers. younger delinquents Materials to support above stressing academic classes. Participa- education. On- tion is by random ground school provid- placement. ing cademic and pre- vocational classes. Team approach to treatment; medical and recreational services. 42 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Average Average Number of age of months Institution children children stay Title-ILpor[avm BEAUMONT LEARNING 221 16 6 Teachers for human CENTER, Va. growth and develop- A State-operated in- ment, math, reading, stitution for older physical education, delinquents. On- general equivalency grounds school pro- diplomi; and arts and viding half-day crafts, materials. academic and half- day vocational edu- cation programs; be- havior modification; cottage living; treatment team approach. VIRGINIA BAPTISTS 117 15 36 Reading and math CHILDREN'S HOME tutors available te Salem, Va. all wards for 3 hours A private institu- per week during the tion for neglected evening. children. Children attend local public schoolu. Cottage living ongrounds; social workers; recreational facil- ities. PRESBYTERIAN HOME, 56 13 45 4th, 5th, and INC., Lynchburg, Va. 6th graders perform- A private insti- ing below grade level tution for neglected are tutored at ublic children. Children -:hool one-half hour attend local public per day, 5 days a schools. Primary week in reading and empl.asis on family math by a full-time counseling. Recrea- teacher. tion; cottage living; work program. 43 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO TITLE I INSTITUTIONS U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SIURVEYOF INSTITUTIONS SERVING CHILDREN b .UVENILES INsTfRUCTONS FACILITY DA'I.. lh puIrp,) Of this survy is to, find out what th pUrPneed the priority of thi, survy i to finpriritd instiltulionalized ofut what . What type or population do you principally childran and serve? (check ie) i vnile, ale (ildren and yoith v:rider the legal age of 'i) and which of these nJs inst!cutionc can mo ,uccciullv it address. Our ultimate goal is I / Delinquent children & juveniles to asi st he U. S. Cngress in deciding how the (including status offend rs) Federal Government can best help institutions mlet 2 / / Adult offenders the needs of this population 3 I Neglected children & juvenile-s This questionnaire is designed to be answered ( ;,.luding those dopendent and by Dire tors, Superintendents, Wardens or their abhusu) designees who have ;.ll'overall view of the institutions' 4 / 0 Other (Specify) °in ltions and operations. It probably will take only 'or O minutes to Lomplte. Most of h questions . 2. What type of organization administers this can .,e answered in less than a minute by ei her checking istitution? (check oe) boxes or filling in blanks. I / / State government Be assured that your responses will he ireated with the strictest of cofidenc. Theounty or local government we are asking for respondent and institution Identi- tiatlon is in the event we need further clarificationoundation, charity, school, 1 toc delete the InstlLuLoll's name ror the fllow-up church, tc. (Specify) procedure scheduled for these who fail to return the questionnaile. In fact, all namies of institt Lions and rpondents will bC disassociated from this fcHrm and all records, as soon as your rsponsc have been nnal!ztd. The respondent's names and the names of institution designed, equipped and stafled to their institutions will nut be used in this or sub- serve at any one time? sequent reports. se ue t re or s(num ber of children and juveniles) Names are not important t this study, but what youi, as a spokeserson for your instittion, have to 4. Do you serve males, females,or both? say is. So please give us your most frank and honest assessments. We are most grateful for your cooperation, 1 /7 Males for we can not make a mcaniingful report to the U.S. Congress without your assistance and participation. 2 / Females In answering this questionnaire, you certainly 3 / i Both may seek assistance or onsensus from key staff or associates o certain questions if you wish. It is 5. How many fll time equivalent staff members important that you provide a reasonable answer to do you have? every question. However, we do realize that there may be some instances where the information is difficult (no. of full time equivalent to obtain. In these cases, please provide us with your staff Iembers) best estimate, rather than delay or fail to respond. 6. What is the estimated number of children or Please return the completed form in the self-addressed envelope withn 10 days after receiving this questionnaire. - ----- -------- - --- one time? (Answer for each appropriate age RESPOND)FNT 'NFORMATTON I group) Number of cni'drn Age ;'roup or juveniles Under 6 year i of age (Name and phone tIo. of person completing form) II Under 2 Floi b6 to under 9 3 Fri;i 9 Lo und- 12 (Title if person compietiing frni) Frl, 9 L under 12 4 Fo 12 to under 14 __1 _5 From 14 to under 16 (Alldress) I (Adrs) f i rli 11, to under 18 7 From I1 to iurlder 21 I - Adulto over 21 years I 44o age 44 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II II. Ihat arc te priority needs of the childr,-n t,- 7. Do you ometimes keep childre, or juceniles juvenile i your institution! Do not consider Whtitl- for a short tima less than 30 days, e.g. for er or ,.your insitution has the capability or auth- observation, diagnostic or referral purposes)? ority to address these needs. Indicate your answers by chitckin. one and only one priority rating coluiami I/ / yes 2 / no fo r each row or priority need.) It yes, continue; if no, o to 9. Priority ' 8. About how many chilIren or uveniles do you Rating Y usually keep foe less than 30 days? c 0 no. of children or .Z' ' / ,s jullenes / What is the average length of stay for child- PRI(RITY NEEDS ren or juveniles in your institution? Exclude RI NEES _ those who stay for less than 30 days. Please 1. Health and deve lopmental give us vour best estimate for each age services group if actual figurts are not avallbl. 2. Mental ealth servics: Average length social, psychological, Age group of stay in months psychiatric, and counsel- ing services l. Under 12 years of age 3. Educational (academic) services 2. From 12 to under 18 4. Vocational services 3 From 18 to under 21 5. Family services 6. Diagnostic services 7. Drug/alcohol abuse services I 10. In general, where are the basic educational i2 onsider only those needs in question 11 bov, services provided (Kindergarden thru grade ,hat yu. checked as essential, Now rank tlest: 12)? (check one) ssclntial needs by order of deccreasin, impioltanc,. Do this by selecting the most important of al I th i. // On Campus needs you considered essential. Rank this st hy circling. Then do the same for the remaining 2. /_ Off Campus csstntial needs, ranKinig them 2nd, 3rd tc., ultiL you have ranked each of th needs chlcke-d as 3. /_ Both on & off Campus essential. (PEMEMBER EACH NEED CAN HAVE ONLY ONE UNIQUE RANKING SCORE. Check for this by making 4. //i Not provided sure you do not have more than one circle in eacb row or colun.) PRIORITY NEEDS RANKING Note: In tihe following section we are seekin answers 1. HIealth and develop- Ist 2nd 3;d 4th 5th 6th 7th to five ajo)o questions: mental services 2. Mental health setv- o-What art the priority needs of the children ices: social, psy- or juveniles in your institt tion? chological, psychil- tric , and counse ling 1s1 2nd 3rd 4th 5th th 7th o-What are your Ila jul problems in lmeetinlg these services needs? i. Educational (aca- Ist 2rd Jrd 4th 5th th 7th o-llow well are these tneeds being et? demic) services 4, Vocational services 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th o-What needs can you most ffectively meet, 5 Family srvics st rd th h 7th given the constraint of the institutional setting and an interventioti role. 6. Diagnostic services 1st 2nd 3rd 4tth 5th th th o-lIhat services are most neded when Lt, 7. Dru/aicool as 2ld J3d 41t 5ti tlh 7ttl childrn leave the insttulion. 45 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II I i. Rank the fol lowin, baarriers that you ace in 11. BARRIERS TO CORRECTIN: meeting, each specilti ne*d areas numerated DEFICIENCiES IN BASIC b low. Rank ach bahrrier in order of decreasinl h EDUCATIONAL SKILIS, I.e,I seriousness. Do this by selecting the most serious READING: & MATH RANKINC barrier and rankin it first by circling the num- I. Iack of resources h- I. Contine Iankin; the remain! !arrie rs hy circling the nurb, rs 2nd, 3rd, 4th (money, adequately rained c until staff, quipmntit ilate- Ist all the barriers in thi particalar nee ed are 2nd 3rd 4th 5th rials, faci:itis, tc ranked. For xalpli if you felt that 1 . o 2 Relativly brief perod rd h rtesources was thip ut serious barrier to correc tin h of stay i institution health and development deficiencies you would 3, Underlyine causes of th circle the number lt i tnc 1st row under Lh problems are external o neil area hetding. fIf you felt that t the institution, i.e., the lIst 2nd 3rd 4th Sth "State-of-Knowltdge" was the 2nd most serious home, orasunity, schools, barrier to correcting health and development deficiencies you would circle the number 2nd in peer pressure, stc. i 4. "The State-of-Knowlcdgct" row 4 ol the need area heading. Complete hy ranking in the field of treatin ; all the rmainin, barriers in the need area until for child eglect and tst 2nd 3rd 4th 'th all the baricrs for each need area are ranked. delinquiney is not wll deve loped. I. BARRIERS TO CORRECTING 5. Other (Specify) HEALTHI AND DEVELOPMENT DEFIC:ENCIES RANKING Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th I. Lack of resources (money, adequately trained staff, equipment & ate- lIst 3nd 'rd 4th 5th IV. BARRIERS TO RESOLVING rials, facilities. etc.) HOME ENVIRONMENTAL AND 2. FAMILY PROBLEMS R&NKING 2. Relatively Relativelyv brief bri period period 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1. Lack of resources of stay in institution. (money, adequately trained 3. Underlying causes of the staff, equipment & at - st 2nrd 3rd 4th 5th probinms art, external to rials. facilities, etc. the institution, i.e., the . seatil ' biefin 1Is 2nd 3rd .th 5th ic, conuunity, schools, Il nd Ird ith 5th 2 of e 2n d 3 per pressu r, etc.. 3. Undrlyin causes of thw ---. "Th Stato-u-Knowlede" proble-ms are external to the institutior., i.e., the Ist 2nd in the fie Id of treating 3rd 4th 5th home, conmnunity, schools, for chi'd neglect and 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th peer pressureetc delinquency is not well 4. "The State-o-Knowledge" developed. _ in thi fi-ld o(f treating 5. Other (Specify) for cild nglect and Ist 2nd 3rd 4th ,th Ist 2nd irrd 4th 5til delinquency is not well developed. 5. Other (Specify) 11. BARRIERS TO CORRECTING Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th MENTAL HALTH, SOCIAL, COUNSELING PROBIEMS RANKINCG V. BARRIERS TO CORRECTINt; I. Lack of resources FOR ACK OF BASIC (money, adequately trained VOCATIONAL TRA-NING OR staff, equipment & mate- 'st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th JOB ENTRY LEVEL SKILLS rials, facili4 lcs etc.) IF APPROPRIATE. RANKING 2. Relatively brief period y '1st 2nd 3rd 1. Lack o resources ofstay ii institution. 4th 5th (money, adequately trained of3. 3. Undstarlyin Underlying causes causes of te of the; staff, equipment &mate- rials Ist znd 3rd 4th 5th facilities, etc.) problems are external to rias faciities etc.) the institution, i.c., I the' tst 2rd 3rd 4th of stay in institution. It Znd 3rd 4th 5th hoe, comniullity, schools, 3. Underlying causes of the eer pressure, etc.. problems are external to 4, "The State-of-KnowledeL" 1the in the tield of treating institution, i.e., the Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th home, ommunity, schools, fo- child neglect and Ist 2nd lrd 4th 5th dii.Lquniicv is not well peer pressure, etc.. 4. "The State of-Knowledge" 5. ~ in the field of treating 5 Oth. _Sp cif/ ) for child neglct and Ist 2nd 3rd 4 th rs Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th delinquency i not well dIped. 4. "Th tadeveloped. 5. Other (Specify) _ g lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 46 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II 13. CONTINUED: i. Considering the above problems and the con- straints of your institutional setting, in general to what extent is your institution actually vneeting the needs of thl children or juveniles you so:vt? (Indicate your answer by chicking one and only one V1. BARRIERS TO PROVIDING adequacy rating colurn for ach row or priority APPROPRIATE DIAGNOSTIC r oleed.) SERVICE RANKNC I iLack of resources (money, adequately trained A / / staff, equipment & att- list 2nd 3rd 4th 5thA -ials, facilities, etc.) t 2. Relatively brief period It 2nd 3td 4th 5th of stay in institution . st' 2nd 37d 4th 5th 3. Underlying causes of the P problems are external to PRIORITY NEEDS the institution, i.c, the ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5thh and deve home, community, schools, 1. Health and develop- peer pressure, etc.. mental services 4. "The State-of-Knowledge" 2. Mental health services: in the field of treating social, psychological, for child neglect and ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th psychiatric, and delinquency i not well counseling services developed. 3. Educational (academic) 5. Other (Specify) services I_____ st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 4. Vocational services 5. Family services 6. Diagnostic services VI1. BARRIERS TO PROVIDING Services APPROPRIATE DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICE ; RANK1NG i. Lack of rsources 15. Assumin;g sufficient resources (oney, adequate (money, adequately trained staff, etc.), to what extent it at all, can you staff, equipment & mate- i t 2ld 3rd 4th 5th correct the following problem areas Before you rials, facilities, etc.) answer this question, be sure you carefully weight it ~the constraints of your institutional setting 2. Relatively brief priod lit 2nd 3rd 4th 5th (except for money) considered in question 13 and of stay in institute ion. |_I ___2d 3rd 4th 5t vour role as an institution for intervention. (Mark ' Ondcrlyin,:cause*s 3. Underlying causis of of they Lhe; your answer by checking one column box which indicates problems are external to the extent of correction, for each row or problem the institution, i.e., the Ist 1 Znd 3rd 4th 5th area EXTENT OF home, community, schools, CORRECTION peer pressure, etc.. ] 4. "The State-of-Knowledge"I + in the field of treating for child neglect and 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 4/ delinquency i nut well PROBLEM AREAS 5. Ohcr (Specify) 5.!Ocher (Spetfy)1 I. Health and development 1 ; 1st 2nd 3 4tL 5.h deficiencies 2. ental health problems; psy- chological, psychiatric, social, etc. 3. Deficiencies in basic educ- ational skills 4. Lack of basic vocational training or job entry level skills R. Home, environmental and family roblems 7. Drev and alcohol problems 47 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II lb. Consid r Ih. priority ned o the cllildren o I . (onside th problllm, of t1l handica.pp d juvI rli lt , WhIC thlvLy liav your institution. As in children o juveniles. houbhly, about what percnt thi previous qutstion, rank ord r these needs in of your ctildr n or juvIniles havl rhe fllowin order of ducreasiln importance. Iliatia, indicat, the hiehF'st prioritv need by circrl in . pecific types of handicaps: physical handicaps, the olumni Iinlltal r-tardation, sriouo Ileotional iisturlaliu, ni-bri It o, th. elond hlighe-t by ircling' 2nd specifLic l arnin, diabiliti esI PRIORITY NEEDS RA;iI N Phys i a lly halld i app d 1. Ira th and de v lop mental services Men l ly r tardd st 7th Sriouly emotionlly distrbed _ 2. Mental he althI srvic r s sueital, psychlolu acl, l. l.t 2nd 3rd ath th 7th Sprc;fic larlnin disahilitits psychiatrlic, and cousls. 1- ( , disil, lv.) I. Eduational Ovh, r haridicapp,,d (academic) 1ctOt r i iOlappt l d s. Vocational scr L Ist 2nd 3rd 4ti 5thIlth 7th . rami screices 2 Ist rd 3rd 4th t___hio h7t (. Diagnostic services Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 7. DIru,/alcohol abuse Ist 2nd 3r s _rvices th th th 7t l nd rd ntb th th 7th tal '7. lndicapped 20. If no striniss were attached to the Federal monie. 17. What are the interest and youL are now receiving or you expect to receive, spirations of those how would you allocate these nonies aong the- ollowing llillnil'S oVeI 15 whent they leavr your institution? areas' (Indicate your answer by wriLing tile ICh,cY all that apply.) of the total Federal lunds that you would spend in ach area.) I Expenditlre area / (; ba k to school of lotal 1. Health ard dev, luIpmental scr ices 2 / / l lLbain vocational traiin,, 2. Mental health servirce: social, psychonloia I, poychia i,, , and /Obtin ia inn:ul tliplyr-ilt. counselin ser-ices f 3. EFucational (academiic) services 4 // loin t service of tht Armed Forces 4. VoriLiona s-rvice, i /i R ctuoi to th i l eorr- street L. Dia . ti cservices lii, st,-lr Drut/a.,cohol alus se rvices h. Other b / 7 otill Spc ify) TOTAL 1007 1. If you have addi tiolal coillilt ull ally Il tihe items within tile ustionnaire or re attll tpics not coverted, please express your views in th pace below. 18. Prior to or durinxL their stay at your instit- (Use the hack of this theet if necessary.) Your ution, are the children or uveniles sub jected to answers and commarnts will be greatly appreciated. a iagnostic screenin process d i ned to test for and identify specific types of handicaps which may be present (i.e., Iarnine disabilities, mental retardaLion, tc,) I/ /Y s 2 _/ No / / Not sr II v , conl ; ot iu, wis, .o to Z0. 4P APE'ENDIX III APPENDIX III ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON QUESTIONNAIRE METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS The reported results of the questionnaire survey are based on a statistical, analysis of questionnaire returns. The returns represent a sample drawn from a universe of institutions prepared by OE and used -o compute fiscal year 1976 title I fund allocations. For p poses of our sample, the universe was grouped into six strata--State and locally administered institutions were each classified as institu- tions serving delinquents, neglected children, or adults. For local-adult, and State-neglected institutions, the entire population was polled because its size was relatively small. For the remaining four strata, sample sizes were determined to obtain comparable error rates among the strata. The absolute size of the samples was determined by nonresponse and sampling error considerations. The nonresponse rate was anticipated to be 25 percent, and it was not considered prac- tical to have sampling errors greater than 10 percent at the 95-percent confidence limits. The initial sample design yielded sampling errors that ranged from 5 to 8 percent for nonresponse rates varying between 0 and 30 percent. The table below shows our initial sampling plan. INITIAL SAMPLING PLAN Population Population Sample Percent of population strata size size sampled size Local neglected 999 250 25 Local delinquent 402 160 40 Local adult 43 43 100 State neglected 28 28 100 State delinquent 324 150 46 State adult 240 140 58 Total 2,036 771 38 49 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III In population surveys the implementation of a sampling design does not always proceed as exactly as planned because one does not have complete control of the sample. For example, the population or sampling universe may change; the nonresponse rates may be worse than expected; the response rates and, hence, the sampling errors among the stratifica- tions may vary from their predetermined values; and every respondent may not answer every question. For our survey, the universe changed between the time the sampling elements were identified and the time our sample was taken. This change did not come as a great surprise be- cause the fiscal year 1976 allocation data that we used to derive the universe was based on fiscal year 1974 attendance data. Consequently, the universe did not consider that, by the time our sample was selected, (1) some institutioi had closed and (2) opulation changes apparently had taken place. With regard to .,e latter, adult correctional institutions indicated that no youths under 21 were in residence at the time our questionnaires were filled out. Also, a number of the returned questionnaires noted that the addressee was un- known. The following table enumerates the invalid sample units, and shows the sizes of the final samples and the adjusted universe. ADJUSTED SAMPLE DESIGN Invalidsamp. Elements Do not Adjusted serve universe Final Type of Initial Initial youths Address (projected) sample institution universe samele closed under 21 unknown estimates size Local neglected 999 250 2 - 8 959 240 Local delinquent 402 160 1 - 5 387 154 Local adult 43 43 - 4 1 38 38 State neglected 28 28 2 - - 26 26 State delinquent 324 150 1 - 2 317 147 State adult 240 140 - 41 - 170 99 Total 2,036 771 .C 45 16 1,897 704 50 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III The deletion of invalid sample elements and the corresponding adjustments decrease the sample and universe sizes. However, the corresponding decrease in the universe size tends to offset the increase in sampling errorrs that result when the sample size is reduced. For example, a sam- ple of 250 from the local neglected strata had a sampling error of 5.4 percent, while the adjusted sample and universe sizes yielded a sampling error of 5.5 percent. The overall nonresponse rate to the questionnaire was about 27 percent, which is about what we anticipated. This nonresponse rate increases the sampling error from about 5 percent to near 8 percent; however, this error is still within the upper tolerance level set at 10 percent. The 27 percent consists, in part, of 20 percent that did not respond either because the questionnaire was (1) returned substantially incomplete, (2) received after our cut-off date, or (3) not returned. The other 7 percent consists of item or individual-question nonresponses. -e the nonresponse rate ranged from 0 to 18 percent. The most important factor influencing the item-nonresponse ra*e appeared to be the irrelevancy of the item to the individual instead of the complexity, sensitivity, or position of the item. The re- sponse rate, by strata, is summarized below. Response Rate For Questionnaires Returned n a Useubie Form Useable Type of Sample returned Response institution size gquestionnaires rate Local neglected 240 191 80 Local delinquent 154 124 81 Local adult 38 27 71 State neglected 26 19 73 State delinquent 147 119 81 State adult 99 82 83 Total 704 562 80 51 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO SECTION 123 of TITLE I, SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED THAT THE PROVISION OF ACADEMIC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IS THE APPROPRIATE PROGRAM THRUST FOR INSTITUTIONALIZED YOUTHS To provide greater assurance that institutionalized children receive maximum possible benefit from title I program services, the Congress should amend title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The amend- ments should combine, into a single program, that assistance presently authorized for institutionalized children under section 103 (local institutions) and section 123 (State institutions). Authorization for the new program should be in a revised section 123--Programs for Neglected contained or Delinquent Children. Suggested language for the new section 123, along with other necessary technical amendments, is presented below. Also, for comparison purposes, the current section 123 is shown in appendix V. PROGRAMS FOR NEGLECTED OR DELINQUENT CHILDREN Sec. 123. (a) - A State education agency, upon application to the Commissioner, shall receive an entitlement for any fiscal year under this section to supplement existing educa- tion programs for neglected or delinquent children residing in State or locally administered institutions, including adult correctional institutions (but only if such entitle- ments are used only for children in such institutions). (b). Except as provided in sections 124 and 125, the entitlement which the State Education Agency (other than for Puerto Rico) shall receive shall be an amou.c equal to 40 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the State (or (1) in the case where the average per pupil expenditure in the State is less than 80 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, or (2) in the case where the average per pupil expenditure in the State is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure the United States, 120 per centum of the average per pupilin expenditure in the United States) multiplied by the aggre- gate of the number of children in State and local institu- tions. 52 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV (c). For State supported or operated schools, including schools providing education for children under con- tract or other arrangement for the State, the number of children shall be based on average daily attendance data, as determined by the Commissioner, using the most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data are available; for locally adminstered institutions, the number of children determined on the basis of caseload data, as shall be determined by the Commissioner, for the month in which the most recent reliable data is available to him. The entitlement which Puerto Rico shall be eligible to receive under shall be arrived at by multiplying the number this section of children in Puerto Rico counted as provided in the preceding sentence by 40 per centum of (1) the average per pupil expenditure in Puerto Rico or (2) in th3 case where such average per pupil expenditure is more than 120 per centum of the aver- age per pupil expenditure in the United States, 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States. (d). To accomplish the purpose of this section, a State education agency shall make grants directly to State or local institutions, local education agencies, or other public and private nn-profit agencies. Such grants shall be made in accordance with criteria set forth in regulations established by the Commissioner. Such criteria shall include requirements that (1) priority in the use of funds provided under thiz ection shall be given to programs and projects designed to aid (A) younger children and (B) those children who are provided lolg-term institutional care and (2) adequate prerelease and transitional services be provided to insure that children, to the extent possible, receive appropriate educational placement following their release from the insti- tution. (e). Payments under this section shall be used only for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equipment and where necessary the construction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of such children. (f). Notwithstanding section 412(b) of the General Education Provisions Act or any other provision of law, any funds from appropriations to carry out any programs to which this section is applicable during any fiscal year, which are not obligated and expended by agencies or institutions prior to the beginning of the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year of which such funds were appropriated shall remain available for obligation and expenditure by such agencies and 53 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV institutions during such succeeding fiscal years as the Commissioner may determine. Technical amendments to title I The effect of the technical amendments is to eliminate the entitlement under section 103 that local education agen- cies receive for neglected or delinquent youths in locally administered institutions. Such entitlements in turn would be set aside under the new section 123. The amendments are: -- Delete subsection 103(a)(3)(A), and redesignate (3) (B) as (3)(A) and (3)(C) as (3)(B). --Under subsection 103(c)(1), add the word "and" after the phrase "as determined under paragraph (2)(A)," and, delete paragraph 103(c)(])(C). --Under subsection 103(c)(2)(B), delete the phrase "living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, or" from the second sentence. -- Under subsection 103(c)(2)(C), delete the sentence "For purposes of this section, the Secretary shall consider all children who are in correctional institutions to be living in institutions for delinquent children." 54 APPENDIX V APPENDIX V SECTION 123 O TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED PROGRAMS FOR NEGLECTED OR DELINQUENT CHILDREN "Sec. 123. (a) A State agency which is directly responible for providing free public education for chi_- dren in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in adult correctional institutions shall be entitled to receive a grant under this section for any fiscal year (but only if grants received under this section are used only for children in such institutions). "(b) Except as provided in sections 124 and 125, the grant which such an agency (other than the agency for Puerto Rico) shall be eligible to receive shall be an amount equal to 40 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the State (or (1) in the case where the average per pupil expenditure in the State is less than 80 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, of 80 per centui; of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, or (2) in the case where the average per ppil expenditure in the State is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, of 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States) multiplied by the number of such children in average daily attendance, as determined by the Commissioner, at schools for such children operated or supported by that agency, including schools providing education for such children under contract or other arrangement with such agency, in the most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data dre available. The grant which Puerto Rico shall be eligible to receive under this section shall be the amount arrived at by multiplying the number of children in Puerto Rico counted as provided in the preceding sentence by 40 per centum of (1) the average per pupil expenditure in Puerto Rico or (2) in the case where such average per pupil expenditure is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, 120 per centum of the average per pupil expendi- ture in the United States. "(c) A State agency shall use payments under this section only for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equipment and where necessa;v the con- struction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of such children." 55 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20201 AUG 1 1977 Mr. Gregory J. Ahart Director, Huan Resources Division United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Ahart: The Secretary asked that I respond to your request for our comments on your draft report entitled, "Educational Assistance for Institutionalized Neglected or Delinquent Children: Major Changes Needed". The enclosed comments represent the tentative position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation when the final version of the report is received. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report before its publication. Sincerely yours, omas .Morris Inspector General Enclosure 56 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Comments of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the Comptroller General's Report to the Congress Entitled, "Educational Assistance for Institutionalized Neglected or Delinquent Children: Major Changes Needed" [See GAO note 1, p. 63.1 In order to place the specific GAO recommendation and the Department's response in proper perspective, we wish to comment on some of the assumptions and conclusions contained.within the body of the report. These comments are included in an Overview which is followed by our response to the GAO recommendation The final part of this response contains Technical Comments on ;AO Survey Analysis. OVERVIEW The following citations are taken from the draft GAO report. The Department's comments on each are presented as background for the Department's response to the GAO recommendation: [See GAO note 2, p. 63.] 2. "GAO believes the effectiveness of title I can be enhanced if available funds are concentrated on those youths who are likely to receive a continuum of educational service over a longer period of time." (p. iii; see also pp. 8, 9, 14, 30-31, and 37) Concentrating funds, as GAO suggests, on younger youth (where educational services are more likely to continue) and on institutions which serve youth likely to be institutionalized longer would have the effect of serving primarily neglected youth. As the report points out (pp. 14, 32), neglected youth in general are in residence more than twice as long as delinquent youth, and the great majority of younger children are in institutions for the neglected. 57 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Na7rowing the scope of the prcg.'am to serve primarily neglected youth at the expense of .nstitutionalized delinquent children would have the The GAO [See AO note 2, p. 3.i Further, the fact that these students are less likely to return to school upon leaving the institution may be a rason for providing lather than denying Title I services. A more concentrated, enriched instructional program at this time may equip them for bette- and moie lasting employment. As the report indicates, this may be the "last chance' for the majority of these older, delinquent youths. Current regulations, 45 CFR Part 116c, allow State institutions to provide Title I services to children ho are receiving State-supported nstruction in vocationally-oriented subjects which may be appropriate for older children. 3. "Relating the factors of age and length of exposure to program services shows that the bulk of available resources go to those youths and institutions in which a continuum of educational services is least likely to be achieved. . .. The relatively short exposure to program services is determined by the short period of stay in the institution." (pp. 31-32) According to the report (p. 32), an average length of stay for delinquent youths is about 10 months. For a youth confined to an adult correctional institution, the average stay is over 14 months. The two groups tend to be the oldest children served by the program and represent 72 percent of Title I expenditures. GAO recommends that older youth, because they generally are institutionalized a shorter period of time and thus receive less program exposure than younger youth, be given a lowfer priority in receiving services. If one compares the two averages cited above with the length of a regular school year, it appears -hat more than a:. academic year of instructional exposure is available to hese older students. Considering that the instruction of children in regular schools is disrupted annually, it seems that the vc-age institutionalized, elinlquent child (who is also probably older than the average neglected child) has enough exposure time to benefit from a Title I program. Again, for many of these children, this may be the "last chance" co receive this type of service. [See GO note , . 63.] 58 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI [See GAO note 2, p. 63.] 5. "GAO's survey results show that administrators consider academic educational needs important, but second to mental health problems. Responses to other survey questions also raise concerns as to whether academic educational needs should be the exclusive or top priority of a Federal service program.:' (p. 29; see also pp. iii, 3, 9, 34, and a/) The Office of Education has not prohibited grantees from designing programs which provide supportive services for cildren. Recent recognition of this intended programmatic flexibility can be found in the Senate Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S.1539, March 29, 1974, pp. 30-31: Title I programs have offered flexible responses to local problems facing disadvantaged; local officials are charged with developing local solutions to meet specific needs. Often the solutions involve remedial educational programs in basic skills. But many local officials have found that their children's educational progress also depends on provision of auxiliary services such as guidance and counseling programs or cultural enrichment. Title I is not basically a social services program; occasionally, however, such social services arc necessary if education is to take place. 59 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI Thus, for the purposes of Title I, "special educational needs" are broadly conceived and there may be room within the current Title I program to provide certain mental health services beyond those provided with State and/or local funds. However, it does not appear that the case has been made that the current Title I program, which serves children with grave educatijonal needs, should be modified to provide mental health services alone. 6. "Presently, grant funds are generally expected to be expended during a one year period. Under the proposed arrangement, individual grants should be permitted to cover a period greater than 1 year, in those cases where Title I participants are likely to be in residence beyond such a period." (p.34) This multiple-year funding concept in presented as part of a larger program modification suggested by GAO, and commented upon in other sections of this response. It seems this suggested multiple-year funding would be inconsistant with the Department's view that Title I services are to be tailored to the individual needs of the children served. Since participants change from year to year and annual needs assessments are required (including the indentification of those most in need in local institutions), multi-year projects fr all Title I grantees would be inappropriate. Secondly, under Section 412(b) of the General Education Provision Act, applicant State and local agencies may "carry-over" Title I funds from one fiscal year to the succeeding year providing in effect a two year funding period. 7. "GAO believes that . . . provisions Cshould be madejfor addressing the need for adequate transitional services to insure that youths, to the extent possible, receive a continuum of appropriate educational services following their release from the institutions . . " (pp. ii; see also pp. 25 and 29) We would agree that services that facilitate the transitior, of children from i- titutions to normal community life, including school, re p We would oint out, however, that such transitional services even those that are educaional, involve the efforts of other agencies as well as the Title I applicant agencies. Transitional services for children leaving in3titutions and returning to some form of placement are being provided, although often inadequately, by State and local institutions, as well as other State or local agencies such as parole, probation, and public welfare ffices and juvenile courts. To Ladress the need for transitional services intended to insure the child's continued education without attending to his or her needs for other types of community based services is unrealistic. In view of the wiae variety of agencies currently involved in providing services for youth pon their release from institutions, Titlp I should not be the vehicle for Federal assistance for the purpose of ennancing those services. 60 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI GAO RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the S cretary, HEW, jointly with the Attorney General, Department of Justice, examine the appropriateness and/or the exclusiveness of academic educational services as t top priority of Federal assistance for institutionalized neglected and delinquent children. More specifically, the organizations to participate in such an undertaking should include HEW's Office of Education and the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention under the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. We do not believe that the joint examination as recommended by GAO would be productive. The recommendation is based upon an analysis of the findings of a questionnaire which, in our opinioln, was not broad enough to obtain an accurate picture of the success of the Title I program in institutions. We would further point out that there is an on-going study being conducted under the auspices of the Office of Education. This study is much broader in scope, in that it solicits information not only from administrators, but from program staff and recipients of Title i services, which appears to indicate that the priority assigned to educational services by the Office of Education, is appropriate. If it is determined that an academic thrust is not appropriate as the exclusive or top priority, then the thrust of the program should be chatiged accordingly. Further, if it is felt that the desired thrust is not wiLhin the legal bounds of the Title I legislation, the Congress should be requested to amend Title I, if such action is needed to brin about a more responsive program tc assist institutionalized youths. Since we do not concur that a joint examination is required, we do not see a need at this time to amend legislation accordingly. Further, neither the current legislation nor the recently published interim final regulations (45 CFR Part 116c) require the applicant agencies to limit their programs to instruction in the basic skills. What the regulations do require is that the needs of institutionalized children as indicated by their performance in the basic skills be considered in the development of special assistance under Title I. A wide variety of services may be provided under Title I, provided those services are shown to be "designed to meet the special educational needs of children in institutions." TECHNICAL COMMENTS GAO's analysis of the survey of inotltutional administrators indicated the following: Question 11, pp. 43-44 - Relative Importance of Needs 1. Mental health and educational services rated essential. 2. Family, diagnostic, health and vocational services rated very important. 61 APPENDIX V APPENDIX VI 3. Drug/alcohol abuse services rated moderately important. Question #14, . 47 - Extent to Which Needs Are Being Met 1.. Diagnostic, mental health, educational and health services rated as adequate. 2. Drug/alcohol abuse, family, and vocational services rated marginal. Question #20, pp. 49-50 - How Federal Funds Would be Expended if No Strings Were Attached Percent of Total Funds Available Mental Health 24.6 Education 19.0 Family 15.6 Vocational 15.2 Health 10.9 Diagnostic 7.8 Drug/alcohol Abuse 5.0 Other 1.9 Administrators, in response to Question #11, rated all seven areas of needs as important. Thet is, one of the need areas fell into the two lower categories of "somewhat important" or "little importance". As the report also points out, responses tended to cluster at the "essential" category. hile a complete analysis cannot be made, it appears that educational services are viewed as second in priority among the seven service areas. An interpretation of the results of Question #14, could be that all seven areas could stand some improvement but that none were in drastic need as evidenced by none being rated in the two lower categories. Responses to Question #20, seem to confirm this interpretation since the administrators indicated that they would expend any additional funds in all seven areas. The relationships between responses to Question #14 (Extent to which needs are being met) and Question #20 (How Federal funds would be expended if no strings were attached concerning their use) are somewhat unclear. for example, administrators elected to expend 62 percent of "no strings attached" Federal money on four service areas rated as "adequate' in Question #14 and only 36 percent on three service areas rated as marginally meeting the needs of children. This raises the question, why would the largest percentage of such funds (24.6) be expended on mental health services which were rated as adequately meeting the needs of children, while drug/alcohol abuse services were rated "marginally" meeting the needs of the children and would receive the lowest percentage of the funds (5.0)? 62 APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI A final comment concerning the interpretation of the survey results relates to the validity of the population surveyed. Although the report indicates (p. 42) that the top administrators were selected to be surveyed because it was felt they would be the most unbiased persons to report on the needs of the children and the resources of the institution, the questions raised above suggest that a bias was introduced into the survey results. A possible explanation for some of the conflicting responses is that administrators may have a tendency to cite the most obvious and possibly the most popular needs rather than those needs that staff members would identify as critical. GAO note 1: Page number references in this appendix may not correspond to pages of this report. GAO note 2: Deleted comments relate to matters which were presented in the draft report but were omitted from the final report. 63 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE .....-.. ~ASHINGTON, D.(t 20530 ,ddre. Hep> , the AUG 8 1377 Diviioin Indiclred and Hefrh to Initi.l /ad Number Mr. Victor L. Lowe Director General Government Division United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Lowe: This letter is in response to your request for comments on the draft report entitled "Educational Assistance for Institutionalized Neglected or Delinquent Children: Major Changes Needed." Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gives administrative control in this program area to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). However, we generally agree with the main conclusion in the report that the Title I program needs to be reexamined. This is particularly true in lighr of the findings contained in the report and the 1974 legislative developments in (1) child abuse and neglect, and (2) juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Most individuals who have worked with neglected or delinquent children know that educational needs are only one of a number of significant variables, such as health programs, emotional ills, family crises, etc., which must be addressed if the child is to be helped. Simply focusing on education without consideration of the other issues is short-sighted and cost ineffective. If remediation fforts such as those under the Title I program are to succeed, there is a critical need to develop more effective inter- disciplinary methods for assessing and treating individual needs. 64 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII The Concentration of Federal Effort provisions of the Juv.rlle Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act assi ned responsibility to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) for establishing policies and priorities for all Federal juvenile delinquency programs. Section 206 of the JJDP Act created the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to assist in coordinating these programs. The Council is chaired by the Attorney General and is composed of the Secretaries of the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development. We strongly endorse the recommendation for HEW and the Department of Justice, through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in LEAA, to jointly explore the exclusivity of Title I funds for educa- tional purposes and believe that the Coordinating Council would be the appropriate forum for the recommended inter- departmental review and examination of the Title I program. Should modifications to the Title I program be required, we believe that the annual comprehensive planning requirements for all Federal juvenile delinquency programs [JJDP Act, Section 204(b)(6)] be identified as the appropriate vehicle for formally establishing the necessary interdepartmental strategies, roles and responsibilities. Formula grants to participating States and territories are established under Section 222 of the JJDP Act. Compre- hensive plans, which are required to be submitted in order to qualify for funding, st include a detailed study of State needs for an effective, comprehensive, coordinated approach to juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment and the improvement of the juvenile justice system. We believe that any procedures which are established to review the Title I program must include methods to encourage coordination with the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention program at the State level. A national policy has been established to remove "status offenders" -- juveniles charged with or who have committed offenses which would not be criminal if committed by an adult--from juvenile detention or correctional facilities [JJDP Act Section 223(a)(12)]. It appears that this mandate would have a significant bearing on the future directions of the Title I program. We believe that any subsequent review of the Title I program must include a specific 65 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII assessment of the need to coordinate with activities now underway in implementation of Section 223(a)(12) of the JJDP Act, and the general movement in the field to reduce the number of children sent to secure correctional institu- tions. Finally, we believe it is imperative that all States and institutions receiving Federal funds be required to have a transition phase from institution to community programs. The responsible State agency should be required to track children through their respective programs to insure that there is a satisfactory link-up between the institution and community agencies. We appreciate the opportunity given us to comment on the draft report. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Kevin D. Rooney Assistant Attorney General for Administration 66 APPENDIX VIII APPENDIX VIII PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT Tenure of office From To SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE: Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Jan. 1977 Pzesent David Mathews Aug. 1975 Jan. 1977 Caspar W. Weinberger Feb. 1973 Aug. 1975 Frank C. Carlucci (acting) Jan. 1973 Feb. 1973 Elliot L. Richardson June 1970 Jan. 1973 ASSISTANT SECRETARY (EDUCATION): Mary F. Berry Apr. 1977 Present Philip E. Austin (acting) Jan. 1977 Apr. 1977 Virginia Y. Trotter June 1974 Jan. 1977 Charles B. Saunders, Jr. (acting) Nov. 1973 June 1974 Sidney P. Marland, Jr. Nov. 1972 Nov. 1973 COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION: Ernest L. Boyer Apr. 1977 Present WillIam F. Pierce (acting) Jan. 1977 Apr. 1977 Edward Aguirre Oct. 1976 Jan. 1977 William F. Pierce (acting) July 1976 Oct. 1976 Terrel H. Bell June 1974 July 1976 John R. Ottina Aug. 1973 June 1974 John R. Ottlna (acting) Nov. 1972 Aug. 1973 Sidney P. Marland, Jr. Dec. 1970 iyov. 1972 104024 67
Reevaluation Needed of Educational Assistance for Institutionalized Neglected or Delinquent Children
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-12-19.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)