James W. Horne

Commissioner of Education

Florida Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

Suite 1514

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Commissioner Horne:

This **Final Audit Report** (Control Number ED-OIG/A06-C0031) presents
the results of our audit of the Migrant Education Program at the Florida
Department of Education (Florida). The objectives of our audit were to
determine whether Florida and its sub-grantees (1) established and
implemented appropriate procedures to identify and target services to
migratory children who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet
state standards and whose education has been interrupted during the
regular school year, and (2) established procedures to report to the
Department the number of "Priority for Services" migratory children in
Florida. Our audit focused on the period July 1, 2000, through July 31,
2002.

A draft of this report was provided to the Florida Department of
Education. In its response, Florida concurred with our recommendations.
Florida's comments are summarized in the section that follows the
Recommendations. A copy of the complete response is enclosed with this
report.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended,
authorizes federal funding of programs of education for migratory
children. In Fiscal Year 2001, over \$371.3 million of federal funds
were authorized for education of migratory children. Florida received
approximately \$24.9 million in Migrant Education Program funds. A
migratory child is a child who is, or whose parent, spouse, or guardian
is, a migratory agricultural worker, including a migratory dairy worker
or a migratory fisher. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 further specify that children
who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State\'s
challenging content standards and challenging student performance
standards, and whose education has been interrupted during the regular
school year shall receive "Priority for Services." Priority for Services
means students who meet both criteria will receive Migrant Education
Program funded services before services are provided to other migratory
children. The Department provides that if "the State does not have
assessment data on a particular migrant child (e.g., the child was not
present in the district when the assessment was administered), then the
state might use other relevant information, like the degree to which the
child is subject to multiple risk factors (e.g., being overage or behind
grade level, eligible for free/reduced price lunch, limited English
proficient) to determine the child's need for services." The Department
also establishes that "the state, in collaboration with local operating
agencies, is free to determine what constitutes 'educational
interruption' under Section 1304 (d)."

Table C-6 of the Consolidated State Performance Report, which is
submitted to the Department's Office of Migrant Education for every
award year, requires that States indicate the "count of students served
who have a priority for services (those who are failing or \[most\] at
risk of failing to meet state standards and whose schooling has been
interrupted) under Section 1304 (d) of the ESEA."

On November 26, 2002, the Department issued final regulations for the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing the Migrant Education Program
to, among other changes, require that each State Education Agency
determine the effectiveness of its program, particularly for those
students who have Priority for Services. These regulations are in
response to *The President's Management Agenda* for Fiscal Year 2002 and
the Department of Education's *Blueprint For Management Excellence*
released October 30, 2001. One of the expected long-term results in *The
President's Management Agenda* is better control over resources used and
accountability for results by program managers. The Department's
*Blueprint* describes one of the Department's commitments to management
improvement as achieving an "Accountability for Results" culture.
Through the *Blueprint,* the recipients of Department funds will be held
responsible for their performance in relation to the goals and
objectives.

Florida did not comply with Section 1304(d) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Specifically, Florida did
not establish and implement appropriate procedures to identify and
target Priority for Services to migratory children who are failing, or
most at risk of failing, to meet State standards, and whose education
was interrupted during the regular school year. As a result, the U.S.
Department of Education was unable to determine if Florida used the
\$24.9 million in Migrant Education Program funds it received for Fiscal
Year 2001 for Priority for Services migratory children before providing
services to other migratory children; and, Florida was unable to report
the correct number of Priority for Services migratory children served in
the Consolidated State Performance Report to the Department's Office of
Migrant Education.

Florida allocated migrant funds to its sub-grantees based solely on the
total number of identified migratory children and did not consider
migratory children with Priority for Services. Additionally, in its
Fiscal Year 2001 Consolidated State Performance Report, Florida reported
to the Department the number of migratory children who failed the state
assessment test (5,918), but did not identify which of those children
who failed the test also had an interruption of education.

We visited three sub-grantees and found that two sub-grantees delivered
services to migratory children who were failing or most at risk of
failing or who had an interruption of education on a priority basis, but
did not require both elements to be present. The third sub-grantee did
not distinguish from among its migratory children which children were
Priority for Services. The three sub-grantees received nearly \$6.7
million for migrant education.

We concluded that these conditions occurred because Florida (1) did not
perform independent monitoring of its sub-grantees to ensure that funds
were used for Priority for Services migratory children first; (2) did
not provide clear guidance to the sub-grantees as to the definition of
"at risk of failing" State standards and "whose education has been
interrupted during the regular school year"; and (3) did not require the
schools, school districts, or sub-grantees to report the number of
Priority for Services migratory students for 2000 and 2001.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education require Florida to:

1.  Monitor sub-grantees to ensure that funds are used for Priority for
    Services migratory children before funds are used for other
    migratory children.

2.  Provide a clear definition to all sub-grantees of what constitutes
    "at risk of failing" State standards and "whose education has been
    interrupted during the regular school year."

3.  Establish procedures to identify and report to the Department the
    number of Priority for Service migratory children served in Florida
    schools.

Florida officials indicated that they agreed with our findings and
recommendations. They stated that they (1) are currently developing an
agency-wide monitoring system for all federal programs and have targeted
the 2003-04 School Year as the initial year for full implementation; (2)
will provide technical assistance to all sub-grantees to ensure that "at
risk of failing" State standards and "whose education has been
interrupted during the regular school year" is properly addressed in the
service delivery plans; and (3) will share procedures for reporting the
number of Priority for Service migratory students with sub-grantees.

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether Florida and
sub-grantees (1) established and implemented appropriate procedures to
identify and target services to migratory children who are failing or
most at risk of failing to meet state standards and whose education has
been interrupted during the regular school year, and (2) established
procedures to report to the Department the number of Priority for
Services migratory children in Florida.

To accomplish our objectives, we:

-   Reviewed Florida's and its sub-grantees' policies and procedures for
    providing services to migratory children.

-   Interviewed Florida and sub-grantee officials regarding their
    procedures for providing Priority for Services to migratory
    children.

-   Reviewed the Florida State Single Audit Report for 2001 and other
    reviews performed.

-   Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and other guidance.

-   Reviewed the sub-grantees' documentation regarding the Priority for
    Services provided to migratory children.

-   Reviewed Florida's and its sub-grantees' decision-making process for
    allocating migrant education funds.

We obtained computer-processed data from Florida that we used for
background information and to select the two sub-grantees who had the
largest migrant education funding allocations. Because we did not use
the data for projection or to make any determinations, we did not
perform reliability assessments on the data.

Our audit of Florida's Migrant Education Program covered the period July
1, 2000, through July 31, 2002. We performed fieldwork at the State
offices in Tallahassee and at three sub-grantees' offices from August
19-27, 2002. We selected the two sub-grantees who received the most
funding in the State, at the request of the Office of Migrant Education,
and one consortium sub-grantee at our discretion. The sub-grantees
visited were Collier County School District, Immokalee, Florida; Palm
Beach County School District, West Palm Beach, Florida; and, Panhandle
Area Educational Consortium, Chipley, Florida. We discussed our results
with Florida officials on August 23, 2002, and September 5, 2002. We
held an exit conference with Florida officials on October 31, 2002. Our
work was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards appropriate to the scope of the audit described
above.

As part of our review, we assessed the system of management controls,
policies, procedures, and practices applicable to Florida's
administration of the Priority for Services portion of the Migrant
Education Program. Our assessment was performed to determine whether
Florida had management controls established to ensure Priority for
Services migratory children received services before services were
provided to other migratory children.

Because of inherent limitations, a study and evaluation made for the
limited purpose described above would not necessarily disclose all
material weaknesses in the management controls. Our assessment disclosed
that Florida had neither developed and implemented procedures nor
established a monitoring system for sub-grantees to identify, target,
and count migratory children that should be served first through the
Migrant Education Program. As a result, we concluded that Florida did
not have sufficient management controls to ensure that sub-grantees
complied with the requirements of Section 1304(d) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The AUDIT RESULTS section
of the report provides details on our finding.

If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them
directly to the following U.S. Department of Education official, who
will consider them before taking final Departmental action on the audit:

> Eugene Hickok, Acting Assistant Secretary
>
> U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 3W315, FB6 Building

Washington, D.C. 20202

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50 directs Federal agencies
to expedite the resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the
findings and recommendations contained therein. Therefore, we request
receipt of your comments within 30 days.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. §552),
reports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available, if
requested, to members of the press and general public to the extent
information contained therein is not subject to the exemptions in the
Act.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the contents of this
report, please contact me at 214-880-3031. Please refer to the control
number in all correspondence related to this report.

Sincerely,

Sherri L. Demmel

Regional Inspector General

for Audit

Attachment