prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: The Federal Reserve's (the Fed's) responsibilities as the nation's central bank fall into four main categories: monetary policy, provision of emergency liquidity through the lender of last resort function, supervision of certain types of banks and other financial firms for safety and soundness, and provision of payment system services to financial firms and the government  Congress has delegated responsibility for monetary policy to the Fed, but retains oversight responsibilities to ensure that the Fed is adhering to its statutory mandate of "maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates " The Fed has defined stable prices as a longer-run goal of 2% inflation—the change in overall prices, as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index  By contrast, the Fed states that "it would not be appropriate to specify a fixed goal for employment; rather, the Committee's policy decisions must be informed by assessments of the maximum level of employment, recognizing that such assessments are necessarily uncertain and subject to revision " Monetary policy can be used to stabilize business cycle fluctuations (alternating periods of economic expansions and recessions) in the short run, while it mainly affects inflation in the long run  The Fed's conventional tool for monetary policy is to target the federal funds rate —the overnight, interbank lending rate  This report provides an overview of how monetary policy works and recent developments, a summary of the Fed's actions following the financial crisis, and ends with a brief overview of the Fed's regulatory responsibilities  In December 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis and the "Great Recession," the Fed lowered the federal funds rate to a range of 0% to 0 25%  This was the first time rates were ever lowered to what is referred to as the zero lower bound   The recession ended in 2009, but as the economic recovery consistently proved weaker than expected in the years that followed, the Fed repeatedly pushed back its time frame for raising interest rates  As a result, the economic expansion was in its seventh year and the unemployment rate was already near the Fed's estimate of full employment when it began raising rates on December 16, 2015  This was a departure from past practice—in the previous two economic expansions, the Fed began raising rates within three years of the preceding recession ending  Since then, the Fed has continued to raise rates in a series of steps to incrementally tighten monetary policy  The Fed raised rates once in 2016, three times in 2017, and four times in 2018, by 0 25 percentage points each time  The Fed has stated that "some further gradual increases in     the federal funds rate" are necessary to fulfill its mandate  The Fed describes its plans as "data dependent," meaning they would be altered if actual employment or inflation deviate from its forecast  Although monetary policy is now less stimulative than it had been at the zero lower bound, the Fed is still adding stimulus to the economy as long as the federal funds rate is below what economists call the "neutral rate" (or the long-run equilibrium rate)  To illustrate, the federal funds rate is currently similar to the inflation rate, meaning that the real (i e , inflation-adjusted) federal funds rate is around zero  However, there is uncertainty as to what constitutes a neutral rate today  By historical standards, a zero real interest rate would be well below the neutral rate, but the neutral rate appears to have fallen following the financial crisis, so that current rates may be close to the neutral rate today  Typically, the Fed keeps interest rates below the neutral rate when the economy is operating below full employment, at neutral levels when the economy is near full employment, and above the neutral rate when the economy is at risk of overheating  Indeed, the Fed identifies this as one of its "three key principles of good monetary policy " Because of lags between changes in interest rates and their economic effects, in the past, the Fed has often preemptively changed its monetary policy stance before the economy reaches the state that the Fed is anticipating  In this business cycle, the Fed has maintained a (progressively less) stimulative monetary policy throughout the expansion, boosting economic activity  In one sense, this policy could be viewed as having successfully delivered on the Fed's mandated goals of full employment and stable prices  The unemployment rate has been below 5% since 2015 and is now lower than the rate believed to be consistent with full employment  Other labor market measures are also consistent with full employment, with the possible exception of the still-low labor force participation rate  Economic theory posits that lower unemployment will lead to higher inflation in the short run, but inflation has not proven responsive to lower unemployment in recent years  After remaining persistently below the Fed's 2% target from mid-2012 to early 2018 as measured by core PCE, inflation has remained around 2% in 2018 as measured by headline or core PCE  Economic growth has also picked up beginning in the second quarter of 2017, after being persistently low by historical standards throughout the expansion  Contributing to the 2018 growth acceleration, a more expansionary fiscal policy (larger structural budget deficit) added more stimulus to the economy in the short run  Two notable policy changes contributing to fiscal stimulus in 2018 were the 2017 tax cuts ( P L  115-97 ) and the boost to discretionary spending in FY2018 and FY2019 agreed to in P L  115-123   The Fed did little to offset this fiscal stimulus, as the pace of monetary tightening in 2018 was only slightly faster than in 2017  Despite strong economic data (which is only available with a lag), the Fed announced in January 2019 that it would be "patient" before raising rates again in light of increased economic uncertainty and financial volatility  The Fed's intended policy path poses risks  If the Fed waits too long to raise rates again, the economy could overheat, resulting in high inflation and posing risk to financial stability  As an example of how overly stimulative monetary policy can lead to the latter, critics contend that the Fed contributed to the precrisis housing bubble by keeping interest rates too low for too long during the economic recovery starting in 2001  Critics see these risks as outweighing any marginal benefit associated with monetary stimulus when the economy is already so close to full employment  Raising rates more quickly would also provide more "headroom" for the Fed to lower rates more aggressively during the next economic downturn  The potential percentage point reduction in rates before hitting the zero bound is currently smaller than the rate cuts that the Fed has undertaken in past recessions  Alternatively, there is uncertainty about whether strong growth, low unemployment, inflation around 2%, and the generally benign economic environment will continue  Economic expansions do not "die of old age"; nevertheless, the current expansion is already the second longest on record and cannot last forever  The flattening of the yield curve (i e , long-term Treasury yields are similar to short-term Treasury yields) is seen by some as a warning signal that rates are too high  Although there is a risk of stimulative monetary policy causing the economy to overheat, there is also a risk that tightening too quickly could be harmful if the economy slows  Some critics would prefer clear evidence that inflation is above the Fed's target or financial conditions are unstable before the Fed raises rates again  Monetary policy refers to the actions the Fed undertakes to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to promote the goals mandated by Congress, a stable price level and maximum sustainable employment  Because the expectations of households as consumers and businesses as purchasers of capital goods exert an important influence on the major portion of spending in the United States, and because these expectations are influenced in important ways by the Fed's actions, a broader definition of monetary policy would include the directives, policies, statements, economic forecasts, and other Fed actions, especially those made by or associated with the chairman of its Board of Governors, who is the nation's central banker  The Fed's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets every six weeks to choose a federal funds target and sometimes meets on an ad hoc basis if it wants to change the target between regularly scheduled meetings  The FOMC is composed of the 7 Fed governors, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and 4 of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents serving on a rotating basis  The Fed targets the federal funds rate to carry out monetary policy  The federal funds rate is determined in the private market for overnight reserves of depository institutions (called the federal funds market)  At the end of a given period, usually a day, depository institutions must calculate how many dollars of reserves they want or need to hold against their reservable liabilities (deposits)  Some institutions may discover a reserve shortage (too few reservable assets relative to those they want to hold), whereas others may have reservable assets in excess of their wants  These reserves can be borrowed and lent on an overnight basis in a private market called the federal funds market  The interest rate in this market is called the federal funds rate  If it wishes to expand money and credit, the Fed will lower the target, which encourages more lending activity and, thus, greater demand in the economy  Conversely, if it wishes to tighten money and credit, the Fed will raise the target  The federal funds rate is linked to the interest rates that banks and other financial institutions charge for loans  Thus, whereas the Fed may directly influence only a very short-term interest rate, this rate influences other longer-term rates  However, this relationship is far from being on a one-to-one basis because longer-term market rates are influenced not only by what the Fed is doing today, but also by what it is expected to do in the future and by what inflation is expected to be in the future  This fact highlights the importance of expectations in explaining market interest rates  For that reason, a growing body of literature urges the Fed to be very transparent in explaining what its policy is, will be, and in making a commitment to adhere to that policy  The Fed has responded to this literature and is increasingly transparent in explaining its policy measures and what these measures are expected to accomplish  The Federal Reserve uses two methods to maintain its target for the federal funds rate: The Fed can also change the federal funds rate by changing reserve requirements, which specify what portion of customer deposits (primarily checking accounts) banks must hold as vault cash or on deposit at the Fed  Thus, reserve requirements affect the liquidity available within the federal funds market  Statute sets the numerical levels of reserve requirements, although the Fed has some discretion to adjust them  Currently, banks are required to hold 0% to 10% of customer deposits that qualify as net transaction accounts in reserves, depending on the size of the bank's deposits  This tool is used rarely—the percentage was last changed in 1992  Each of these tools works by altering the overall liquidity available for use by the banking system, which influences the amount of assets these institutions can acquire  These assets are often called credit because they represent loans the institutions have made to businesses and households, among others  The Fed's control over monetary policy stems from its exclusive ability to alter the money supply and credit conditions more broadly  The Fed directly controls the monetary base , which is made up of currency (Federal Reserve notes) and bank reserves  The size of the monetary base, in turn, influences broader measures of the money supply, which include close substitutes to currency, such as demand deposits (e g , checking accounts) held at banks  The Fed's definition of monetary policy as the actions it undertakes to influence the availability and cost of money and credit suggests two ways to measure the stance of monetary policy  One is to look at the cost of money and credit as measured by the rate of interest relative to inflation (or inflation projections), and the other is to look at the growth of money and credit itself  Thus, it is possible to look at either interest rates or the growth in the supply of money and credit in coming to a conclusion about the current stance of monetary policy—that is, whether it is expansionary (adding stimulus to the economy), contractionary (slowing economic activity), or neutral  During the high inflation experience of the 1970s the Fed placed greater emphasis on money supply growth, but since then, most central banks including the Fed have preferred to formulate monetary policy in terms of the cost of money and credit rather than in terms of their supply  The Fed conducts monetary policy by focusing on the cost of money and credit as proxied by the federal funds rate  A simple comparison of market interest rates over time as an indicator of changes in the stance of monetary policy is potentially misleading, however  Economists call the interest rate that is essential to decisions made by households and businesses to buy capital goods the real interest rate  It is often proxied by subtracting from the market interest rate the actual or expected rate of inflation  If inflation rises and market interest rates remain the same, then real interest rates have fallen, with a similar economic effect as if market rates (called nominal rates) had fallen by the same amount with a constant inflation rate  The federal funds rate is only one of the many interest rates in the financial system that determines economic activity  For these other rates, the real rate is largely independent of the amount of money and credit over the longer run because it is determined by the interaction of saving and investment (or the demand for capital goods)  The internationalization of capital markets means that for most developed countries the relevant interaction between saving and investment that determines the real interest rate is on a global basis  Thus, real rates in the United States depend not only on U S  national saving and investment but also on the saving and investment of other countries  For that reason, national interest rates are influenced by international credit conditions and business cycles  How do changes in short-term interest rates affect the overall economy? In the short run, an expansionary monetary policy that reduces interest rates increases interest-sensitive spending, all else equal  Interest-sensitive spending includes physical investment (i e , plant and equipment) by firms, residential investment (housing construction), and consumer-durable spending (e g , automobiles and appliances) by households  As discussed in the next section, it also encourages exchange rate depreciation that causes exports to rise and imports to fall, all else equal  To reduce spending in the economy, the Fed raises interest rates and the process works in reverse  An examination of U S  economic history will show that money- and credit-induced demand expansions can have a positive effect on U S  GDP growth and total employment  The extent to which greater interest-sensitive spending results in an increase in overall spending in the economy in the short run will depend in part on how close the economy is to full employment  When the economy is near full employment, the increase in spending is likely to be dissipated through higher inflation more quickly  When the economy is far below full employment, inflationary pressures are more likely to be muted  This same history, however, also suggests that over the longer run, a more rapid rate of growth of money and credit is largely dissipated in a more rapid rate of inflation with little, if any, lasting effect on real GDP and employment  Economists have two explanations for this paradoxical behavior  First, they note that, in the short run, many economies have an elaborate system of contracts (both implicit and explicit) that makes it difficult in a short period for significant adjustments to take place in wages and prices in response to a more rapid growth of money and credit  Second, they note that expectations for one reason or another are slow to adjust to the longer-run consequences of major changes in monetary policy  This slow adjustment also adds rigidities to wages and prices  Because of these rigidities, changes in the growth of money and credit that change aggregate demand can have a large initial effect on output and employment, albeit with a policy lag of six to eight quarters before the broader economy fully responds to monetary policy measures  Over the longer run, as contracts are renegotiated and expectations adjust, wages and prices rise in response to the change in demand and much of the change in output and employment is undone  Thus, monetary policy can matter in the short run but be fairly neutral for GDP growth and employment in the longer run  In societies in which high rates of inflation are endemic, price adjustments are very rapid  During the final stages of very rapid inflations, called hyperinflation, the ability of more rapid rates of growth of money and credit to alter GDP growth and employment is virtually nonexistent, if not negative  Either fiscal policy (defined here as changes in the structural budget deficit, caused by policy changes to government spending or taxes) or monetary policy can be used to alter overall spending in the economy  However, there are several important differences to consider between the two  First, economic conditions change rapidly, and in practice monetary policy can be more nimble than fiscal policy  The Fed meets every six weeks to consider changes in interest rates and can call an unscheduled meeting any time  Large changes to fiscal policy typically occur once a year at most  Once a decision to alter fiscal policy has been made, the proposal must travel through a long and arduous legislative process that can last months before it can become law, whereas monetary policy changes are made instantly  Both monetary and fiscal policy measures are thought to take more than a year to achieve their full impact on the economy due to pipeline effects  In the case of monetary policy, interest rates throughout the economy may change rapidly, but it takes longer for economic actors to change their spending patterns in response  For example, in response to a lower interest rate, a business must put together a loan proposal, apply for a loan, receive approval for the loan, and then put the funds to use  In the case of fiscal policy, once legislation has been enacted, it may take some time for authorized spending to be outlayed  An agency must approve projects and select and negotiate with contractors before funds can be released  In the case of transfers or tax cuts, recipients must receive the funds and then alter their private spending patterns before the economy-wide effects are felt  For both monetary and fiscal policy, further rounds of private and public decisionmaking must occur before multiplier or ripple effects are fully felt  Second, monetary policy is determined based only on the Fed's mandate, whereas fiscal policy is determined based on competing political goals  Fiscal policy changes have macroeconomic implications regardless of whether that was policymakers' primary intent  Political constraints have prevented increases in budget deficits from being fully reversed during expansions  Over the course of the business cycle, aggregate spending in the economy can be expected to be too high as often as it is too low  This means that stabilization policy should be tightened as often as it is loosened, yet increasing the budget deficit has proven to be much more popular than implementing the spending cuts or tax increases necessary to reduce it  As a result, the budget has been in deficit in all but five years since 1961, which has led to an accumulation of federal debt that gives policymakers less leeway to potentially undertake a robust expansionary fiscal policy, if needed, in the future  By contrast, the Fed is more insulated from political pressures, as discussed in the previous section, and experience shows that it is willing to raise or lower interest rates  Third, the long-run consequences of fiscal and monetary policy differ  Expansionary fiscal policy creates federal debt that must be serviced by future generations  Some of this debt will be "owed to ourselves," but some (presently, about half) will be owed to foreigners  To the extent that expansionary fiscal policy crowds out private investment, it leaves future national income lower than it otherwise would have been  Monetary policy does not have this effect on generational equity, although different levels of interest rates will affect borrowers and lenders differently  Furthermore, the government faces a budget constraint that limits the scope of expansionary fiscal policy—it can only issue debt as long as investors believe the debt will be honored, even if economic conditions require larger deficits to restore equilibrium  Fourth, openness of an economy to highly mobile capital flows changes the relative effectiveness of fiscal and monetary policy  Expansionary fiscal policy would be expected to lead to higher interest rates, all else equal, which would attract foreign capital looking for a higher rate of return, causing the value of the dollar to rise  Foreign capital can only enter the United States on net through a trade deficit  Thus, higher foreign capital inflows lead to higher imports, which reduce spending on domestically produced substitutes and lower spending on exports  The increase in the trade deficit would cancel out the expansionary effects of the increase in the budget deficit to some extent (in theory, entirely if capital is perfectly mobile)  Expansionary monetary policy would have the opposite effect—lower interest rates would cause capital to flow abroad in search of higher rates of return elsewhere, causing the value of the dollar to fall  Foreign capital outflows would reduce the trade deficit through an increase in spending on exports and domestically produced import substitutes  Thus, foreign capital flows would (tend to) magnify the expansionary effects of monetary policy
Report 2:  Across the five VA medical centers, we found that providers were not reported to the NPDB and state licensing boards as required for two reasons  First, VA medical center officials were generally not familiar with or misinterpreted VHA policies related to NPDB and state licensing board reporting  For example, at one VA medical center, we found that officials failed to report six providers to the NPDB because they were unaware that they had been delegated responsibility for NPDB reporting  Officials at two other VA medical centers incorrectly told us that VHA cannot report contract providers to the NDPB  At another VA medical facility, officials did not report a provider to the NPDB or to any of the state licensing boards where the provider held a medical license because medical center officials learned that one state licensing board had already found out about the issue independently  Therefore, VA officials did not believe that they needed to report the provider  This misinterpretation of VHA policy meant that the NPDB and the state licensing boards in other states where the provider held licenses were not alerted to concerns about the provider’s clinical practice  Second, VHA policy does not require the networks to oversee whether VA medical centers are reporting providers to the NPDB or state licensing boards when warranted  We found, for example, that network officials were unaware of situations in which VA medical center officials failed to report providers to the NPDB  We concluded that VHA lacks reasonable assurance that all providers who should be reported to these entities are reported  VHA’s failure to report providers to the NPDB and state licensing boards as required facilitates providers who provide substandard care at one facility obtaining privileges at another VA medical center or at hospitals outside of VA’s health care system  We found several cases of this occurring among the providers who were not reported to the NPDB or state licensing boards by the five VA medical centers we reviewed  For example, we found that two of the four contract providers whose contracts were terminated for clinical deficiencies remained eligible to provide care to veterans outside of that VA medical center  At the time of our review, one of these providers held privileges at another VA medical center, and another participated in the network of providers that can provide care for veterans in the community  We also found that a provider who was not reported as required to the NPDB during the period we reviewed had their privileges revoked 2 years later by a non-VA hospital in the same city for the same reason the provider was under investigation at the VA medical center  Officials at this VA medical center did not report this provider following a settlement agreement under which the provider agreed to resign  A committee within the VA medical center had recommended that the provider’s privileges be revoked prior to the agreement  There was no documentation of the reasons why this provider was not reported to the NPDB under VHA policy  To improve VA medical centers’ reporting of providers to the NPDB and state licensing boards and VHA oversight of these processes, we recommended that VHA require its networks to establish a process for overseeing VA medical centers to ensure they are reporting to the NPDB and to state licensing boards and to ensure that this reporting is timely  VA concurred with this recommendation and told us that it plans to include oversight of timely reporting to the NPDB and state licensing boards as part of the standard audit tool used by the networks  If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 (williamsonr@gao gov)  Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Other individuals who made key contributions to this testimony include Marcia A  Mann (Assistant Director), Kaitlin M  McConnell (Analyst-in-Charge), Summar C  Corley, Krister Friday, and Jacquelyn Hamilton  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 

ground_truth: Research has shown that students who experience discipline that removes them from the classroom are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. Studies have shown this can result in decreased earning potential and added costs to society, such as incarceration and lost tax revenue. Education and Justice are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the administration of discipline in public schools. GAO was asked to review the use of discipline in schools. To provide insight into these issues, this report examines (1) patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) actions Education and Justice have taken to identify and address disparities or discrimination in school discipline. GAO analyzed discipline data from nearly all public schools for school year 2013-14 from Education's Civil Rights Data Collection; interviewed federal and state officials, as well as officials from a total of 5 districts and 19 schools in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas. We selected these districts based on disparities in suspensions for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities, and diversity in size and location. We also reviewed federal laws and a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved federal school discipline investigations (selected in part based on the type of alleged discrimination). We incorporated technical comments from the agencies as appropriate. Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) in K-12 public schools, according to GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) national civil rights data for school year 2013-14, the most recent available. These disparities were widespread and persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school attended. For example, Black students accounted for 15.5 percent of all public school students, but represented about 39 percent of students suspended from school—an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points (see figure). Officials GAO interviewed in all five school districts in the five states GAO visited reported various challenges with addressing student behavior, and said they were considering new approaches to school discipline. They described a range of issues, some complex—such as the effects of poverty and mental health issues. For example, officials in four school districts described a growing trend of behavioral challenges related to mental health and trauma. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the issues that influence student behavior, officials from all five school districts GAO visited were implementing alternatives to disciplinary actions that remove children from the classroom, such as initiatives that promote positive behavioral expectations for students. Education and the Department of Justice (Justice) documented several actions taken to identify and address school discipline issues. For example, both agencies investigated cases alleging discrimination. Further, to help identify persistent disparities among the nation's schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through its Civil Rights Data Collection effort.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The issue of who gets disciplined and why is complex  Studies we reviewed suggest that implicit bias—stereotypes or unconscious associations about people—on the part of teachers and staff may cause them to judge students’ behaviors differently based on the students’ race and sex  Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make case- by-case decisions about whether to discipline, and the form of discipline to impose in response to student behaviors, such as disobedience, defiance, and classroom disruption  Studies show that these decisions can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined than others  Further, the studies found that the types of offenses that Black children were disciplined for were largely based on school officials’ interpretations of behavior  For example, one study found that Black girls were disproportionately disciplined for subjective interpretations of behaviors, such as disobedience and disruptive behavior  A separate study used eye-tracking technology to show that, among other things, teachers gazed longer at Black boys than other children when asked to look for challenging behavior based on video clips  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that this research has highlighted implicit bias as a contributing factor in school discipline and may shed some light on the persistent disparities in expulsion and suspension practices, even though the study did not find that teacher gazes were indicative of how they would discipline students  Children’s behavior in school may be affected by health and social challenges outside the classroom that tend to be more acute for poor children, including minority children who experience higher rates of poverty  Research shows that experiencing trauma in childhood may lead to educational challenges, such as lower grades and more suspensions and expulsions; increased use of mental health services; and increased involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, according to HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)  Further, a substantial share of children nationwide are estimated to have experienced at least one trauma, referred to as an adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to the National Survey of Children’s Health  Additionally, as we recently reported, there has been an increase in certain mental health issues within the school age population  For example, from 2005 to 2014, the suicide rate of youth ages 15 to 19 rose slightly, with older youth having a much higher rate of suicide than younger youth, and since 2007, the percentage of youth ages 12-17 experiencing a major depressive episode increased  About 50 million students were enrolled in K-12 public schools during the 2013-14 school year, according to the CRDC  About 90 percent of students attended traditional public schools; the remainder were enrolled at public charters, magnets, and other types of schools (see table 1)  About half of all public school students were White and the other half fell into one of several minority groups, with Hispanic and Black students being the largest minority groups (see fig  1)  The number of boys and girls in public schools was almost evenly split  A larger percentage of boys were students with disabilities  Nearly half of all public school students went to schools where 50 percent or more of the students were low-income, and about a quarter went to schools where 75 percent or more of the students were low-income (see table 2)  Discipline of students dropped between 2011-12 and 2013-14 over the six broad categories of discipline reported in Education’s CRDC, which were (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school- related arrests  For example, in school year 2011-12 about 3 4 million (or 6 9 percent) of K-12 public school students were suspended out-of-school at least once, and in school year 2013-14 these suspensions fell to about 2 8 million (or 5 7 percent)  Other disciplinary actions affected a much smaller portion of the student body—specifically, less than 0 5 percent of all K-12 public school students were expelled, referred to law enforcement, had a school-related arrest, or experienced corporal punishment in 2013-14, according to Education’s reported data  Education’s Office for Civil Rights and Justice’s Civil Rights Division are responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws, which protect students from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (see table 3)  As part of their enforcement responsibilities, both agencies conduct investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible discrimination  Education also carries out agency-initiated investigations, which are called compliance reviews and which target problems that Education has determined are particularly acute  Education may also withhold federal funds if a recipient is determined to be in violation of the civil rights laws and the agency is unable to reach agreement with the parties involved  In addition, Justice has the authority to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education  Education and Justice have also issued guidance to assist public schools in meeting their obligations under federal law to administer school discipline without unlawfully discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin  According to the guidance, public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating in the administration of student discipline based on protected characteristics  Further, Education and Justice have noted in their guidance that disciplinary policies and practices can result in unlawful discrimination based on race, for example, in two ways: first, if students are intentionally subject to different treatment on account of their race; and second, if a policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race, referred to as disparate impact  According to Education and Justice guidance, significant and unexplained racial disparities in student discipline give rise to concerns that schools may be engaging in racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws; however, data showing such disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  Two significant, recently enacted laws include provisions related to school discipline: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG Act of 2014)  ESSA, enacted in December 2015, amended Title I program requirements to allow states’ accountability systems to use multiple indicators of success, which can include measures of school climate and safety  As we previously reported in 2017, some states were considering measures related to suspension rates or school attendance  Additionally, ESSA amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program, under which school districts may use grant funding to, among other things, design and implement a locally-tailored plan to reduce exclusionary discipline practices in elementary and secondary schools  These grants also allow the use of funding to expand access to school- based mental health services, including counseling  In addition, the CCDBG Act of 2014 allows states to use certain funds to support the training and professional development of child care workers through activities such as behavior management strategies and training that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors, including reducing expulsions of young children for those behaviors  Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined in K-12 public schools, according to our analysis of Education’s most recent CRDC data  This pattern of disproportionate discipline persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school these students attended  Across each disciplinary action, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities experienced disproportionate levels of discipline  Black students were particularly overrepresented among students who were suspended from school, received corporal punishment, or had a school- related arrest (see fig  2)  For example, Black students represented 15 5 percent of all public school students and accounted for 39 percent of students suspended from school, an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points  Differences in discipline were particularly large between Black and White students  Although there were approximately 17 4 million more White students than Black students attending K-12 public schools in 2013-14, nearly 176,000 more Black students than White students were suspended from school that school year  See appendix IV, table 12 for additional data on the disciplinary experiences of different racial or ethnic groups  For example, American Indian and Alaska Native students had higher than average rates of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions  This pattern of disproportionate discipline affected both Black boys and Black girls—the only racial group for which both sexes were disproportionately disciplined across all six actions  For example, Black girls were suspended from school at higher rates than boys of multiple racial groups and every other racial group of girls (see fig  3)  Further, boys as a group were overrepresented, while girls were underrepresented among students disciplined across each action  Specifically, boys accounted for just over half of all public school students, but were at least two-thirds of students disciplined across each of the six actions, according to our analysis of Education’s school year 2013-14 data  Boys were particularly overrepresented among students who received corporal punishment, by about 27 percentage points (see fig  4)  These kinds of disparities presented as early as pre-school (see sidebar)  Additional information about discipline for pre-school students is in appendix IV, table 17  Regardless of the level of school poverty, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were suspended from school at disproportionately higher rates than their peers (see fig  6)  This was particularly acute for Black students in high-poverty schools, where they were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions from school  This pattern persisted across all six disciplinary actions, as well  A similar pattern emerged for boys and students with disabilities  However, unlike Black students, boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from low-poverty public schools (poverty less than 25 percent)  Effect of School Poverty on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of school poverty on discipline in school year 2013-14  The model showed that increases in the percentage of low-income students in a school were generally associated with significantly higher rates for each of the six disciplinary actions GAO reviewed (in-school and out-of-school suspensions, referrals to law enforcement, expulsions, corporal punishment, and school- related arrests)  In these schools, boys and students with disabilities were overrepresented by approximately 24 and 20 percentage points, respectively  See appendix IV, table 14 for more information on discipline by the poverty level of the school  In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to poverty and school discipline  Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10  Regardless of the type of public school a student attended—traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, or special education—Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disciplined at disproportionately higher rates than their peers, with few exceptions (see fig  7)  For example, Black students were disproportionately suspended from all types of public schools, and this was particularly acute in charter schools  That is, although they represented about 29 percent of all students in charter schools, Black students accounted for more than 60 percent of the students suspended from charter schools (about 32 percentage points higher than their representation in those schools)  Boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from traditional public schools (roughly 19 and 14 percentage points, respectively, above their representation in traditional public schools)  Effect of School Type on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of attending different types of public schools on disciplinary outcomes  The model showed several significant associations between school type and the likelihood of receiving discipline  For example, attending an alternative school was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of being suspended (in-school or out-of-school), expelled, referred to law enforcement, or arrested for a school-related incident, compared to attending a traditional public school  The model also showed that students were significantly less likely to be suspended (in-school or out-of-school) if they attended a magnet, charter, or special education school as compared to a traditional public school  We found a few exceptions to the general pattern of Black students, boys, and students with disabilities receiving disproportionately high rates of discipline by school type  For example, Black students attending special education schools did not receive corporal punishment at disproportionate levels  See appendix IV, table 15 for additional information on discipline by the type of public school  In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to school type and school discipline  Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10  We also found a regional component to discipline in public schools  For example, corporal punishment generally occurred in southern states  See appendix II for maps showing the rates of disciplinary actions by public school district  We spoke with school officials at five school districts about how they are addressing discipline, including challenges they face in responding to student conduct given the complex issues influencing student behavior  Several school officials noted a range of issues, including complex issues such as the effects of poverty, mental health issues, and family dysfunction, that they said contributed to behavior that leads to discipline (see fig  8)  For example, officials at a high-poverty Georgia high school said that their students have additional responsibilities, such as raising or watching siblings or working to support their family, which may cause students to be late to, or skip, class  This observation is consistent with our recent report on child well-being, which cited research showing that children in poverty are more likely to face academic and social challenges than their peers, and with our analysis of CRDC data, which showed that rates of chronic absenteeism (being absent 15 or more days in a school year), were higher in high-poverty schools  See appendix IV, table 19 for detailed data on chronic absenteeism  At one high school in Georgia, officials said that attendance issues were the reason for a majority of disciplinary actions at their school  They said that if students were repeatedly late to school or did not get to their next class within the set amount of time, students could amass enough infractions to warrant suspension from school  In contrast, an official at an elementary school in Georgia said that they usually do not discipline their students for being late to school, as they have found that it was often due to circumstances beyond the child’s control  According to several school officials, some groups such as homeless youth, American Indian, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning (LGBTQ) students have had greater attendance problems than others  For example, education officials in California said that homeless and foster youth frequently miss school because of all the transitions and instability in their lives  In a school in Texas, officials also reported attendance issues with students who are homeless or in foster care because they lack transportation and clothing  Similarly, we previously reported that American Indian students face school attendance challenges, including access to reliable transportation  In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native students had the highest rates of chronic absenteeism in school year 2013-14, compared to students of other races, according to our analysis of CRDC data (see appendix IV)  LGBTQ students are at a high risk of suicide and other emotional issues during adolescence, and often feel disconnected from their peers and families, according to county education officials in California  According to these officials, this can contribute to attendance problems  Officials in our five selected school districts also described what they perceived as a growing trend of behavioral challenges or provided examples related to mental health and trauma, such as increased anxieties, thoughts of and attempts at suicide, and depression among students  For example, state education officials in Georgia said they viewed a growing number of their students as being “trauma complex ” Officials at one school in Massachusetts said that they involve the mental health clinicians or social worker for additional support when students are dealing with traumatic experiences, depression, or are struggling to self- regulate  Further, officials at another school in Massachusetts said that many of their students have experienced trauma and this may lead to more aggressive behaviors at the elementary school level, and to more self-destructive behaviors at the middle school level  Specifically, these officials said that children who have experienced trauma may kick, bite, and punch others when they are younger and cut themselves or become suicidal when older  Similarly, officials at a school in Texas said that they have seen a growth in suicidal ideation and self-harm among the students  Some school officials also said that they felt ill-equipped or that schools lacked resources to deal with the increase in students with mental health issues and the associated behaviors  School officials in all five of the selected states also said that social media results in conflicts or related behavioral incidents among students, such as related bullying and arguments  Officials at a school in Georgia said that social media arguments can cause students who were not part of the original situation to be pulled in, creating classroom disruptions that end in discipline for a larger group  Moreover, officials in a North Dakota middle school said that disagreements on social media last for longer periods of time  They said that social media has also been used to facilitate the purchase of illegal drugs, which can result in students being arrested in school and expelled  Use of Corporal Punishment in School for Five Selected States California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota: Corporal punishment in schools is prohibited  Texas: If a school district adopts a policy to permit corporal punishment, school staff may use corporal punishment unless the student’s parent has provided a written, signed statement prohibiting it  None of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials  Georgia: Boards of education are authorized to determine policies related to corporal punishment, including allowing school staff, at their discretion, to administer corporal punishment in order to maintain discipline  However, none of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials  School district officials from three of the five selected districts we visited stated that officials at individual schools generally have a lot of discretion in determining what discipline a student receives  In several schools, officials said they often try other avenues first to address behavior, such as detention, alerting or having a discussion with the parent, or taking away certain privileges such as making the student eat lunch with the teacher instead of with their friends  However, for certain offenses, officials in most districts said that discipline was automatically more severe  Gun possession, for example, prompts an automatic expulsion at most of the school districts we visited  In another example, school district officials in Texas said drug-related incidents, physical assault of a teacher or student, or extreme sexual behaviors can result in a student being placed in an alternative school  School officials at one alternative school we visited stated that 80 to 90 percent of their students are there due to drug-related incidents  Officials in several of the school districts said their districts had School Resource Officers who only become involved in school disciplinary issues when requested by school administrators  In a Texas high school with over 3,800 students, a school official said School Resource Officers patrol school grounds, monitor gang activity, and may become involved when there are illegal drug issues  Officials also said that School Resource Officers sometimes provide trainings for students, parents, or school staff on subjects such as safety, good decision making, substance abuse, and peer pressure  Further, although corporal punishment was legal in two of the five states we visited (see sidebar), the school district officials with whom we spoke in those states said it was not used anymore in their districts  Our analysis of schools nationwide using school year 2013-14 data showed that corporal punishment tended to be most prevalent in southern states (see maps in appendix II)  While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing challenging student behavior, or to the evident disparities in discipline for certain student groups, officials in two school districts we visited told us they recognize the importance of finding alternatives to discipline that unnecessarily removes children from the learning environment  Some school officials said they have begun to specifically address disparities for certain student groups  Officials in all selected school districts reported they are implementing efforts to better address student behavior or reduce the use of exclusionary discipline  For example, officials in all school districts said that they are implementing alternative discipline models that emphasize preventing challenging student behavior and focus on supporting individuals and the school community, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice practices, and social emotional learning (SEL) (see sidebar)  For example, officials at a selected school district in Texas said they have implemented a classroom management model that uses positive behavior techniques  Texas state law allows schools to develop and implement positive behavior programs as disciplinary alternatives for very young students  This was also true in California, where state law specifically lists suggested alternatives to suspension, including restorative justice, a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions, and enrollment in programs that teach positive social behavior or anger management  Examples of Alternatives to Discipline that Removes Students from the Classroom Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A school-wide framework that focuses on positive behavioral expectations  By teaching students what to do instead of what not to do, the school can focus on the preferred behaviors  All of the selected school districts used some form of positive behavioral intervention and supports  One school official told us that PBIS has significantly reduced their discipline referral numbers and provided teachers more tools to get behavior situations under control  Restorative Justice Practices: This approach focuses on repairing harm done to relationships and people  The aim is to teach students empathy and problem-solving skills that can help prevent inappropriate behavior in the future  For example, according to officials we interviewed at one school, their restorative practices help students take ownership of their actions and work collaboratively to restore relationships that may have been strained  Officials at another school said schools use mediation techniques as alternatives to suspensions  Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): SEL enhances students’ abilities to deal effectively and ethically with daily tasks and challenges  SEL integrates the following five core competencies: self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making  At a school implementing this model, officials said that they are strengthening their SEL program to improve the whole child instead of treating discipline and mental and behavioral health separately  With regard to directly addressing disparities in school discipline, officials at one school district in California said they created a new leadership team for equity, culture, and support services, and developed a district- wide equity plan that includes mandatory training on implicit bias for principals  Officials from that district also said they had recently changed a policy to increase the consistency of discipline actions across the district’s schools  Similarly, officials at a school district in Massachusetts reported they were working to build awareness among school leadership to address racial bias and the achievement gap through multiyear trainings  Officials we spoke with at a school within that district said they conduct trainings for staff on implicit bias and other related issues to reduce school discipline disparities  As some of the schools and districts we visited have begun implementing alternative discipline models and efforts to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline in recent years, we heard from officials in two districts that there has been difficulty with implementation due to limited resources, staffing turnover, and resistance on the part of some parents  During our visits to schools, we observed classroom spaces that school officials used to manage student behavior, including through various alternative approaches to discipline (see fig  9)  Officials in two school districts said they are moving away from exclusionary discipline because it decreases the amount of academic instruction  Officials at one school district in Georgia said that the district had a history of overusing exclusionary discipline and they understood that schools cannot “suspend their way out of behavioral and discipline issues ” Officials at that district said they are currently rolling out PBIS to their schools, although progress has been slow  While they said discipline rates have decreased and they have received fewer parent and staff complaints, change is difficult because of limited resources, staff turnover, and some resistance to alternative discipline versus punitive discipline on the part of both some school staff and parents  State education officials in all five states said that changes to state law were made or considered related to school discipline in the past several years  For example, California officials said that state law now prohibits suspensions and expulsions for children in grades K-3 for willful defiance  For all ages suspensions may only be used when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct  Similarly, Massachusetts law requires that during a student meeting or a hearing to decide disciplinary consequences for a student, school administrators consider ways to re-engage students in the learning process and that expulsion only be used after other remedies and consequences have failed  Massachusetts also revised its state law effective July 2014 to require that schools provide educational services for expelled students  Georgia state law includes a preference for reassignment of disruptive students to alternative educational settings in lieu of suspending or expelling such students  In addition, most of the selected states plan to include school discipline or absenteeism as measures of school quality in their state ESSA Title I plans (see sidebar)  According to administrative data from Education, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolved over 2,500 K-12 school discipline cases between 2011 and summer 2017 through several means, including voluntary resolution (leading to agreed-upon actions and subsequent monitoring), dismissal, or closure due to insufficient evidence  These cases stemmed both from external complaints and reviews self-initiated by Education  When we analyzed a non-generalizable sample of resolved cases, we found that most of them focused on alleged racial discrimination or disability status  In the four cases we selected for more in-depth review, the school districts agreed to address discipline issues by, for example, designating a discipline supervisor, training staff, revising district policies, holding student listening sessions, and regularly reviewing data to identify disparities (see case descriptions below)  Some of these remedies are designed to reduce exclusionary discipline or improve overall school climate, and others are more directly focused on addressing disparities in school discipline  For example, having school leadership regularly review data, particularly when disaggregated by race and other student characteristics, would increase awareness of disparities  Education Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Mississippi School District  OCR’s 2014 investigation of the Tupelo Public School District found that Black students were disproportionately disciplined in nearly all categories of offenses  These commonly included subjective behaviors like disruption, defiance, disobedience, and “other misbehavior as determined by the administration ” The consequences for “other misbehavior” in high school could be severe, ranging from detention to referral to an alternative school  Once at the alternative school, students were searched thoroughly each day upon entry, escorted by security officers when changing classes, and not allowed to carry purses or book bags  OCR concluded that the district’s discipline codes afforded administrators broad discretion, and found different treatment of Black students when looking at specific disciplinary records  For example, among several students who were disciplined for the first offense of using profanity, Black students were the only ones who were suspended from school, while White students received warnings and detention for substantially similar behavior  To address these issues, the district entered into a voluntary resolution agreement whereby it committed to taking specific actions to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to learn in school  It agreed, among other things, to revise its student discipline policies, practices, and procedures to include clear and objective definitions of misconduct, eliminate vague and subjective offense categories, and describe criteria for selection within the range of possible penalties when imposing sanctions  The district also agreed to require that alternatives to suspension and other forms of exclusionary discipline be considered in all cases except where immediate safety of students or staff is threatened, and where the behavior in question is such that the disruption to the educational environment can only be remedied by removal, or where the student’s removal is a result of the district’s progressive discipline policy  Education Case 2: Disability and Restraint & Seclusion in a Non- Public California School  This 2016 OCR investigation focused on restraint and seclusion of a student with disabilities who was placed at the non-public school with which Oakland Unified School District contracted to provide the student with certain services, including developing and implementing behavior intervention plans  OCR found the use of prone restraint on this student to be severe, persistent, and pervasive: staff held the student face-down 92 times over a period of 11 months, with the longest duration of a single face-down restraint being 93 minutes  Examples of behaviors that led to the use of restraint included disruptive behavior, not following directions, pushing desks, and ripping up assignments  Staff said that the student wanted to be disciplined and understood prone restraint to be disciplinary  OCR determined that the district allowed the student to be treated differently for non-dangerous behavior on the basis of disability  The district entered into a resolution agreement, committing to resolve these issues by offering individual relief to the student—arranging for an evaluation of the student for adverse effects of the restraint and seclusion, with recommendations for addressing areas of harm—and implementing district-wide policy changes related to restraint and seclusion  The latter included establishing a protocol for responding to any contracted non-public schools’ reports of restraining or secluding district students, and providing training on positive interventions  Excerpt from Christian County, KY Case An African American 10th grader was assigned 1-day out-of-school suspension for skipping school  In comparison, a white 12th grader was assigned a conference with the principal for skipping school  The African American student had 19 previous disciplinary referrals, while the white student had 28 previous disciplinary referrals  Education reported that it would be difficult for the district to demonstrate how excluding a student from attending school in response to the student’s efforts to avoid school meets an important educational goal  Education Case 3: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Kentucky School District  In this 2014 case, OCR found that Christian County School District disciplined Black students more frequently or harshly than similarly situated White students  Specifically, Black students were more than 10 times more likely than White students to receive out-of-school suspension for disorderly conduct, and Black students were more likely to be assigned to an “Isolated Classroom Environment” when discipline was for a violation that afforded discretion  OCR also found that the district’s discipline code did not define 61 types of violations, including ones that involve interpretation, such as disorderly conduct, failure to follow directions, deliberate classroom disruption, and profanity  OCR found that administrators had wide discretion in determining the consequences for such actions, and noted that the discipline code allowed for virtually every type of sanction, including expulsion, for each type of violation  OCR also found inconsistencies in treatment of students in different racial groups when looking at individual records (see sidebar)  Although district officials said they were aware of the higher rates of discipline for Black students, OCR found that there were no safeguards to ensure that discretion would be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner  To resolve these issues, the district agreed to ensure as much as possible that misbehavior is addressed in a way that avoids exclusionary discipline, collaborate with experts on research-based strategies to prevent discrimination in discipline, and provide support services to decrease behavioral difficulties, among other things  Education Case 4: Race and Informal Removals in a California Charter School  In this 2015 case, OCR investigated whether Black students were disproportionately disciplined at a charter school which emphasizes Hmong culture and language  The complaint noted that the student’s parents had been asked to take him home on a few occasions because he was disruptive in class  School administrators confirmed the practice of “early dismissal” in response to misbehavior, but said they did not consider the dismissal to be disciplinary  Because the school did not maintain records of these removals, OCR was unable to determine if the student was subjected to discriminatory discipline  However, OCR noted that the practice of removing students from school for disciplinary reasons without appropriate recordkeeping and due process makes it almost impossible for the school to assess whether it is fully meeting its duty of ensuring nondiscrimination with respect to discipline  To resolve these issues, the school agreed, among other things, to revise its discipline policies, provide due process and alternatives to exclusionary discipline, and clearly prohibit the kinds of informal suspensions that OCR observed  Justice also investigates discrimination in school discipline based on complaints filed under federal civil rights statutes and as part of monitoring desegregation orders  Three recently-resolved cases investigated exclusionary discipline or restraint and seclusion for students of color and those with disabilities (see case descriptions below)  Justice Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in an Arkansas School District  This Justice case, originally stemming from a desegregation order, focused on whether the Watson Chapel School District was discriminating against Black students in its administration of school discipline  Justice found that the district suspended and expelled Black students at significantly higher rates than White students, and that district policies and procedures were responsible for this difference  The parties signed a Consent Order in 2016, under which the school district agreed to implement positive interventions and supports, transition away from exclusionary discipline, revise the code of conduct to list specific levels of disciplinary infractions and consequences, prohibit corporal punishment, establish a memorandum of agreement with any law enforcement agency that supplies school resource officers, and provide training to staff  In addition, the district agreed to provide due process before students receive out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to the alternative education program because of disruptive behavior  Justice Case 2: Race and Disability in a Maryland School District  Justice investigated complaints that discipline policies in the Wicomico County Public School District resulted in the discriminatory suspension of Black and Latino students and students with disabilities  After the investigation, Justice and the district negotiated and entered into a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement in January 2017  The district agreed to hire a consultant to implement positive behavioral interventions and supports and restorative practices, revise the code of conduct to include objective definitions of behavioral infractions and incorporate alternatives to exclusionary discipline, establish clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate, and provide appropriate due process procedures  Justice Case 3: Race and Restraint & Seclusion in a Kentucky School District  This 2017 Justice case investigated whether Covington Independent Schools’ disciplinary practices, including the use of exclusionary discipline, restraint, and seclusion, discriminated on the basis of race, national origin, or disability  The parties agreed to negotiate a settlement agreement under which the district agreed to develop a process to regularly identify students who disproportionately had disciplinary referrals, with a focus on offenses that may be the result of unaddressed behavioral needs such as disruptive behavior or aggression, defiance, and being “beyond control ” The district also agreed to discontinue the use of “calm rooms” (where students are isolated during an episode of misbehavior) and prohibit the use of physical restraint except in the case of imminent danger that could not be addressed through de-escalation techniques  The district agreed to adopt an intervention procedure to meet the needs of students with disabilities who may need support beyond the standard discipline policies  In addition, if parents of students with disabilities were asked to come to the school to become involved in an ongoing instance of misbehavior, the district could no longer require the parent to take the student home unless the student had been assigned an out-of-school suspension or expulsion  Education and Justice collaborated on a “Rethink Discipline” campaign in 2014 to address what they viewed as widespread overuse of suspensions and expulsions  This awareness campaign included comprehensive guidance to help states and schools implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline, reduce discrimination, and identify root causes of disparities (see sidebar)  The agencies have also collaborated to provide guidance encouraging school districts that use school resource officers to formalize partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and clarify that school resource officers should not administer discipline in schools  Education has also issued special guidance related to the discipline of students with disabilities, including an explanation of the requirement to provide appropriate strategies to address behavior in students’ individualized education programs (IEPs)  This guidance stated that when a student with a disability is regularly sent home early from school for behavior reasons, it is likely that the child’s opportunity to make progress in the general education curriculum is significantly impeded (see sidebar)  The guidance states that being sent home regularly in this way constitutes a disciplinary removal, which comes with statutory reporting obligations and other considerations  For further information on available federal guidance related to discipline in public schools, see appendix III  available could result in an inappropriately restrictive placement  demonstrates that disciplinary measures such as short-term removals from the current placement (e g , suspension), or other exclusionary disciplinary measures that significantly impede the implementation of the individualized education program (IEP), generally do not help to reduce or eliminate reoccurrence of the misbehavior  Education and other federal entities have also awarded grants and established special initiatives related to student behavior and school discipline, many of which started around the same time as the federal Rethink Discipline campaign and were designed to be complementary  For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to improve behavioral outcomes  According to Education, nearly 3,000 schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals  In addition, Education awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive violence  According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over 5,000 students  Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the school-to-prison pipeline  More recently, Education collaborated with HHS to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data systems to understand equity issues  For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)  For example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments provides information and resources on addressing school discipline, mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement, and other related issues  Justice funds a technical assistance center on school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement officials  This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement  For a list of other technical assistance centers related to student behavior or discipline, see appendix III  Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through the CRDC  The agency publicly releases highlights from these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports, which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability status)  Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school  Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by various student demographics and examine it for disparities  In addition, Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B  This IDEA report provides the public with information on whether districts had significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of students with disabilities  We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and Justice for review and comment  These agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We also provided selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state agencies, school districts, and school officials  We received technical comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school discipline  To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3) interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation, federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection of resolved school discipline cases  To inform all aspects of our work, we interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American Indian communities  We also met with academic subject matter experts to discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline  In addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school discipline issues and programs  We evaluated the methods used in the research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not appropriate or rigorous  The following sections contain detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report  To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e g , race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e g , school type, such as charter or magnet school)  Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The CRDC is a biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the United States  Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school environment, such as incidents of bullying  CRDC data are self-reported by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for misreporting of information  In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14)  Using the public-use data file of the CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis  We also compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to analyze how discipline may have changed over that period  The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests  The CRDC did not collect data on less severe forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or field trips  As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC  For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student demographic characteristics  Specifically, we examined counts and rates for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and English Language Learners  Using the CRDC, we also examined race and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or White girls  In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the 2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the 2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data  The CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation  A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty level and the size of the family  State education agencies supply these data for their schools and school districts  We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25 percent, 25 1 to 49 9 percent, 50 to 74 9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent (see table 6)  The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and also aligned with how Education analyzed its data  To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information  The 2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education, magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7)  The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school  To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we applied the following criteria: Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well  Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type  Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type and/or the special education school type  Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter school type  Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in the CRDC  Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the 2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria  For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities in disciplinary rates by student demographics  Specifically, we compared each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their representation in the overall student population  For example, if boys accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points  We also compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all students  We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students  The disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for K-12 students  Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions  Findings from our analysis of pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17  In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent 15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could include for suspensions and expulsions  The CRDC also collected data on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and mechanically—or secluded at school  Education has provided a resource document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and should never be used as punishment or discipline  However, multiple sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with disabilities  We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV, tables 18 and 19  We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics  For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors in the original data previously submitted by several school districts  We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary action  Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant  We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables) for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables)  Table 9 lists the variables we included in our regression model  We conducted a separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an outcome variable  We excluded some schools from our regression model  Specifically, we excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria: Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas  School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above  School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in the CRDC  School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC  In the 2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility, and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i e , traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education schools)  Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our regression model  School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates  In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools to 86,769 public schools  All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the limitations included: Data we analyzed were by school rather than student  Consequently, we were not able to describe the association between our independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student, such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level  Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of students who are boys or are Black  Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline are not available in the data  For example, in this context, it could be that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed  Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics  Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage of Black students  An estimated incidence rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary action when a factor is present  Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary outcomes  For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics  For example, the results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional schools to be suspended out of school  For continuous variables (i e , those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased  For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions also increased  It should be noted that interactions (i e , where we combine both race and sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in table 10  Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction  For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than average percentage of Black students and a higher than average percentage of boys was positive  Since the contribution for an interaction coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether, despite the negative interaction  To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples  To select school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections  With regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all students attending public schools in school year 2013-14: Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34 7% of all students in 2013-14) Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33 2% of all students in 2013-14) Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32 1% of all students in 2013-14) Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC)  Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual instructional or learning environment  Selecting districts with a range of out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may employ alternatives  For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways  First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities  Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and address such disparities  Second, we grouped school districts by whether their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between 2011-12 and 2013-14  Exploring school districts that changed in different ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing disparate discipline  Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following categories: Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14 Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14  After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting school districts  In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to consider other key factors in school discipline  Specifically, we checked for variety in: types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district  To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above post-checks  We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to participate in this review  When school districts were unresponsive to our outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final selections  This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see table 11)  We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in school discipline and school climate initiatives  These officials included superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and directors of applicable district departments (e g , student support services and special education)  We also reviewed district-level discipline data, school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district  In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19 schools  At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource officers (i e , law enforcement officers), and teachers  In each district, we selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type, and disciplinary data  For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions  In California, we also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local school district accountability structure  Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide  To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data, reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases)  With both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them  We also discussed each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e g , grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities  In addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and guidance documents  We also requested and reviewed Education’s data on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better understand the scope of the agency’s efforts  Education provided these data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases as being related to school discipline  We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes  To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline  We then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases reflected recent policies and practices in each agency  We also excluded cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were outside the scope of this review  This resulted in a list of 12 relevant resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice  From this list, we selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative examples in our report  We selected 4 cases from Education that provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e g , race or disability) and type of discipline (e g , suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc )  We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice  For each case, we reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address findings  In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the cases  We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 2013-14  Funded by Department of Education (Education): National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments: offers information and technical assistance focused on improving student supports and academic enrichment  This includes resources on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of physical learning environments  https://safesupportivelearning ed gov/  National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center: a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate high school prepared for college, career, and civic life  It offers webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and improving attendance for vulnerable students  http://new every1graduates org/nsaesc/ National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works to improve education services for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk  This includes running the Supportive School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices  https://www neglected-delinquent org/ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support  In addition, it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior support systems, among other issues  https://www pbis org/  Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in promoting mental health and school readiness  It provides training to leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school readiness issues  https://www samhsa gov/iecmhc Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for youth  This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and Service Administration  http://csmh umaryland edu/ National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of trauma-informed approaches  https://www samhsa gov/nctic National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events  The group provides a comprehensive focus on childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health, education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military family service systems  http://nctsn org/ National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall child wellness and prevent youth violence  http://www healthysafechildren org/ Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants  https://www samhsa gov/nitt-ta/about-us Funded by Department of Justice (Justice): School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education arenas  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges operates this center  https://schooljusticepartnership org/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14  Our analyses of Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The following tables and information are included in this appendix: Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English Language Learner status  Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity  Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other student characteristics  Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student characteristics  Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other student characteristics  Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status  In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R  McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K  Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney 


Report 2:  Fifth, fiscal policy can be targeted to specific recipients  In the case of normal open market operations, monetary policy cannot  This difference could be considered an advantage or a disadvantage  On the one hand, policymakers could target stimulus to aid the sectors of the economy most in need or most likely to respond positively to stimulus  On the other hand, stimulus could be allocated on the basis of political or other noneconomic factors that reduce the macroeconomic effectiveness of the stimulus  As a result, both fiscal and monetary policy have distributional implications, but the latter's are largely incidental whereas the former's can be explicitly chosen  In cases in which economic activity is extremely depressed, monetary policy may lose some of its effectiveness  When interest rates become extremely low, interest-sensitive spending may no longer be very responsive to further rate cuts  Furthermore, interest rates cannot be lowered below zero so traditional monetary policy is limited by this "zero lower bound " In this scenario, fiscal policy may be more effective  As is discussed in the next section, some argue that the U S  economy experienced this scenario following the recent financial crisis  Of course, using monetary and fiscal policy to stabilize the economy are not mutually exclusive policy options  But because of the Fed's independence from Congress and the Administration, the two policy options are not always coordinated  If Congress and the Fed were to choose compatible fiscal and monetary policies, respectively, then the economic effects would be more powerful than if either policy were implemented in isolation  For example, if stimulative monetary and fiscal policies were implemented, the resulting economic stimulus would be larger than if one policy were stimulative and the other were neutral  Alternatively, if Congress and the Fed were to select incompatible policies, these policies could partially negate each other  For example, a stimulative fiscal policy and contractionary monetary policy may end up having little net effect on aggregate demand (although there may be considerable distributional effects)  Thus, when fiscal and monetary policymakers disagree in the current system, they can potentially choose policies with the intent of offsetting each other's actions  Whether this arrangement is better or worse for the economy depends on what policies are chosen  If one actor chooses inappropriate policies, then the lack of coordination allows the other actor to try to negate its effects  When the United States experienced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Fed undertook increasingly unprecedented steps in an attempt to restore financial stability  These steps included reducing the federal funds rate to the zero lower bound, providing direct financial assistance to financial firms, and "quantitative easing " These unconventional policy decisions continue to have consequences for monetary policy today, as the Fed embarks on monetary policy "normalization " The bursting of the housing bubble led to the onset of a financial crisis that affected both depository institutions and other segments of the financial sector involved with housing finance  As the delinquency rates on home mortgages rose to record numbers, financial firms exposed to the mortgage market suffered capital losses and lost access to liquidity  The contagious nature of this development was soon obvious as other types of loans and credit became adversely affected  This, in turn, spilled over into the broader economy, as the lack of credit soon had a negative effect on both production and aggregate demand  In December 2007, the economy entered a recession  As the housing slump's spillover effects to the financial system, as well as its international scope, became apparent, the Fed responded by reducing the federal funds target and the discount rate  Beginning on September 18, 2007, and ending on December 16, 2008, the federal funds target was reduced from 5 25% to a range between 0% and 0 25%, where it remained until December 2015  Economists call this the zero lower bound to signify that once the federal funds rate is lowered to zero, conventional open market operations cannot be used to provide further stimulus  The Fed attempted to achieve additional monetary stimulus at the zero bound through a pledge to keep the federal funds rate low for an extended period of time, which has been called forward guidance or forward commitment   The decision to maintain a target interest rate near zero was unprecedented  First, short-term interest rates have never before been reduced to zero in the history of the Federal Reserve  Second, the Fed waited much longer than usual to begin tightening monetary policy in the current recovery  For example, in the previous two expansions, the Fed began raising rates less than three years after the preceding recession ended  With liquidity problems persisting as the federal funds rate was reduced, it appeared that the traditional transmission mechanism linking monetary policy to activity in the broader economy was not working  Monetary authorities became concerned that the liquidity provided to the banking system was not reaching other parts of the financial system  As noted above, using only traditional monetary policy tools, additional monetary stimulus cannot be provided once the federal funds rate has reached its zero bound  To circumvent this problem, the Fed decided to use nontraditional methods to provide additional monetary policy stimulus  First, the Federal Reserve introduced a number of emergency credit facilities to provide increased liquidity directly to financial firms and markets  The first facility was introduced in December 2007, and several were added after the worsening of the crisis in September 2008  These facilities were designed to fill perceived gaps between open market operations and the discount window, and most of them were designed to provide short-term loans backed by collateral that exceeded the value of the loan  A number of the recipients were nonbanks that are outside the regulatory umbrella of the Federal Reserve; this marked the first time that the Fed had lent to nonbanks since the Great Depression  The Fed authorized these actions under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, a seldom-used emergency provision that allowed it to extend credit to nonbank financial institutions and to nonfinancial firms as well  The Fed provided assistance through liquidity facilities, which included both the traditional discount window and the newly created emergency facilities mentioned above, and through direct support to prevent the failure of two specific institutions, American International Group (AIG) and Bear Stearns  The amount of assistance provided was an order of magnitude larger than normal Fed lending, as shown in Figure 1   Total assistance from the Federal Reserve at the beginning of August 2007 was approximately $234 million provided through liquidity facilities, with no direct support given  In mid-December 2008, this number reached a high of $1 6 trillion, with a near-high of $108 billion given in direct support  From that point on, it fell steadily  Assistance provided through liquidity facilities fell below $100 billion in February 2010, when many facilities were allowed to expire, and support to specific institutions fell below $100 billion in January 2011  The last loan from the crisis was repaid on October 29, 2014  Central bank liquidity swaps (temporary currency exchanges between the Fed and central foreign banks) are the only facility created during the crisis still active, but they have not been used on a large scale since 2012  All assistance through expired facilities has been fully repaid with interest  In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act changed Section 13(3) to rule out direct support to specific institutions in the future  From the introduction of its first emergency lending facility in December 2007 to the worsening of the crisis in September 2008, the Fed sterilized the effects of lending on its balance sheet (i e , prevented the balance sheet from growing) by selling an offsetting amount of Treasury securities  After September 2008, assistance exceeded remaining Treasury holdings, and the Fed allowed its balance sheet to grow  Between September 2008 and November 2008, the Fed's balance sheet more than doubled in size, increasing from less than $1 trillion to more than $2 trillion  The loans and other assistance provided by the Federal Reserve to banks and nonbank institutions are considered assets on this balance sheet because they represent money owed to the Fed  With the federal funds rate at its zero bound and direct lending falling as financial conditions began to normalize in 2009, the Fed faced the decision of whether to try to provide additional monetary stimulus through unconventional measures  It did so through two unconventional tools—large-scale asset purchases (quantitative easing) and forward guidance  With short-term rates constrained by the zero bound, the Fed hoped to reduce long-term rates through large-scale asset purchases, which were popularly referred to as quantitative easing (QE)  Between 2009 and 2014, the Fed undertook three rounds of QE, buying U S  Treasury securities, agency debt, and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS)  These securities now comprise most of the assets on the Fed's balance sheet  To understand the effect of quantitative easing on the economy, it is first necessary to describe its effect on the Fed's balance sheet  In 2009, the Fed's emergency lending declined rapidly as market conditions stabilized, which would have caused the balance sheet to decline if the Fed took no other action  Instead, asset purchases under the first round of QE (QE1) offset the decline in lending, and from November 2008 to November 2010, the overall size of the Fed's balance sheet did not vary by much  Its composition changed because of QE1, however—the amount of Fed loans outstanding fell to less than $50 billion at the end of 2010, whereas holdings of securities rose from less than $500 billion in November 2008 to more than $2 trillion in November 2010  The second round of QE, QE2, increased the Fed's balance sheet from $2 3 trillion in November 2010 to $2 9 trillion in mid-2011  It remained around that level until September 2012, when it began rising for the duration of the third round, QE3  It was about $4 5 trillion (comprised of $2 5 trillion of Treasury securities, $1 7 trillion MBS, and $0 4 trillion of agency debt) when QE3 ended in October 2014, and has remained at that level since  Table 1 summarizes the Fed's QE purchases  In total, the Fed's balance sheet increased by more than $2 5 trillion over the course of the three rounds of QE, making it about five times larger than it was before the crisis  This increase in the Fed's assets must be matched by a corresponding increase in the liabilities on its balance sheet  The Fed's liabilities mostly take the form of currency, bank reserves, and cash deposited by the U S  Treasury at the Fed  QE has mainly resulted in an increase in bank reserves, from about $46 billion in August 2008 to $820 billion at the end of 2008  Since October 2009, bank reserves have exceeded $1 trillion, and they have been between $2 5 trillion and $2 8 trillion since 2014  The increase in bank reserves can be seen as the inevitable outcome of the increase in assets held by the Fed because the bank reserves, in effect, financed the Fed's asset purchases and loan programs  Reserves increase because when the Fed makes loans or purchases assets, it credits the proceeds to the recipients' reserve accounts at the Fed  The intended purpose of QE was to put downward pressure on long-term interest rates  Purchasing long-term Treasury securities and MBS should directly reduce the rates on those securities, all else equal  The hope is that a reduction in those rates feeds through to private borrowing rates throughout the economy, stimulating spending on interest-sensitive consumer durables, housing, and business investment in plant and equipment  Indeed, Treasury and mortgage rates have been unusually low since the crisis compared with the past few decades, although the timing of declines in those rates does not match up closely to the timing of asset purchases  Determining whether QE reduced rates more broadly and stimulated interest-sensitive spending requires controlling for other factors, such as the weak economy, which tends to reduce both rates and interest-sensitive spending  The increase in the Fed's balance sheet has the potential to be inflationary because bank reserves are a component of the portion of the money supply controlled by the Fed (called the monetary base ), which grew at an unprecedented pace during QE  In practice, overall measures of the money supply have not grown as quickly as the monetary base, and inflation has remained below the Fed's goal of 2% for most of the period since 2008  The growth in the monetary base has not translated into higher inflation because bank reserves have mostly remained deposited at the Fed and have not led to increased lending or asset purchases by banks  Another concern is that by holding large amounts of MBS, the Fed is allocating credit to the housing sector, putting the rest of the economy at a disadvantage compared with that sector  Advocates of MBS purchases note that housing was the sector of the economy most in need of stabilization, given the nature of the crisis (this argument becomes less persuasive as the housing market continues to rebound); that MBS markets are more liquid than most alternatives, limiting the potential for the Fed's purchases to be disruptive; and that the Fed is legally permitted to purchase few other assets, besides Treasury securities  On October 29, 2014, the Fed announced that it would stop making large-scale asset purchases at the end of the month  Now that QE is completed, attention has turned to the Fed's "exit strategy" from QE and zero interest rates  The Fed laid out its plans to normalize monetary policy in a statement in September 2014  It plans to continue implementing monetary policy by targeting the federal funds rate  The basic challenge to doing so is that the Fed cannot effectively alter the federal funds rate by altering reserve levels (as it did before the crisis) because QE has flooded the market with excess bank reserves  In other words, in the presence of more than $2 trillion in bank reserves, the market-clearing federal funds rate is close to zero even if the Fed would like it to be higher  The most straightforward way to return to normal monetary policy would be to remove those excess reserves by shrinking the balance sheet through asset sales  The Fed does not intend to sell any securities, however  Instead, it is gradually reducing the balance sheet by ceasing to roll over securities as they mature, which began in September 2017—almost three years after QE ended  Initially, it allowed only $6 billion of Treasuries and $4 billion of MBS to run off each month, which was gradually increased to $30 billion of Treasuries and $20 billion of MBS per month, where it will remain until normalization is completed  The Fed believes that it would only cease shrinking the balance sheet or use QE again in the future if it its ability to stimulate the economy using reductions in the federal funds rate were insufficient  The Fed intends to ultimately reduce the balance sheet until it holds "no more securities than necessary to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively " The Fed has stated that it foresees a balance sheet size that is consistent with this goal will be larger than it was before the crisis  In part, that is because other liabilities on the Fed's balance sheet are larger—there is more currency in circulation now than there was before the crisis, and the Treasury has kept larger balances on average in its account at the Fed  But the balance sheet will also be significantly larger because the Fed decided in January 2019 to continue using its new method of targeting the federal funds rate even after normalization is completed  Under the new method, the federal funds rate is not determined by supply and demand in the market for bank reserves, and the Fed would prefer to maintain abundant bank reserves so that it does not have to use open market operations to respond to changes in banks' demand for reserves  By contrast, if it went back to the pre-crisis method of targeting the federal funds rate, only minimal excess reserve balances would be necessary (but perhaps more than before the crisis), so its balance sheet could be much smaller  The Fed has not yet announced when the wind-down will be completed or how large the balance sheet would be upon completion, but the January 2019 FOMC minutes noted the wind-down could be completed as soon as this year  In that case, the balance sheet would not be much smaller than its current size of $4 trillion when normalization is completed—more than four times larger than its pre-crisis size  Although the Fed has stated that it intends to eventually stop holding MBS, the Fed would still have sizable MBS holdings in 2025, according to projections from the New York Fed  In order to raise the federal funds rate in the presence of large reserves, the Fed has raised the two market interest rates that are close substitutes—it has directly raised the rate it pays banks on reserves held at the Fed and used large-scale reverse repurchase agreements (repos) to alter repo rates  In 2008, Congress granted the Fed the authority to pay interest on reserves  Because banks can earn interest on excess reserves by lending them in the federal funds market or by depositing them at the Fed, raising the interest rate on bank reserves should also raise the federal funds rate  In this way, the Fed can lock up excess liquidity to avoid any potentially inflationary effects because reserves kept at the Fed cannot be put to use by banks to finance activity in the broader economy  In practice, the interest rate that the Fed has paid banks on reserves has been slightly higher than the federal funds rate, which some have criticized as a subsidy to banks  Reverse repos are another tool for draining liquidity from the system and influencing short-term market rates  They drain liquidity from the financial system because cash is transferred from market participants to the Fed  As a result, interest rates in the repo market, one of the largest short-term lending markets, rise  The Fed has long conducted open market operations through the repo market, but since 2013 it has engaged in a much larger volume of reverse repos with a broader range of nonbank counterparties, including the government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and certain money market funds, through a new Overnight Reverse Repurchase Operations Facility  The Fed is currently not capping the amount of overnight reverse repos offered through this facility  There has been some concern about the potential ramifications of the Fed becoming a dominant participant in this market and expanding its counterparties  For example, will counterparties only be willing to transact with the Fed in a panic, and will the Fed be exposed to counterparty risk with nonbanks that it does not regulate? The Fed has distinct roles as a central bank and a regulator  Its main regulatory responsibilities are as follows: B ank regulation   The Fed supervises bank holding companies (BHCs) and thrift holding companies (THCs), which include all large and thousands of small depositories, for safety and soundness  The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Fed to subject BHCs with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets to enhanced prudential regulation (i e , stricter standards than are applied to similar firms) in an effort to mitigate the systemic risk they pose  The Fed is also the prudential regulator of U S  branches of foreign banks and state banks that have elected to become members of the Federal Reserve System  Often in concert with the other banking regulators, it promulgates rules and supervisory guidelines that apply to banks in areas such as capital adequacy, and examines depository firms under its supervision to ensure that those rules are being followed and those firms are conducting business prudently  The Fed's supervisory authority includes consumer protection for banks under its jurisdiction that have $10 billion or less in assets  P rudential regulat ion of nonbank systemically important financial institutions   The Dodd-Frank Act allows the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate nonbank financial firms as systemically important (SIFIs)  Designated firms are supervised by the Fed for safety and soundness  Since enactment, the number of designated firms has ranged from four, initially, to none today  R egulation of the payment system   The Fed regulates the retail and wholesale payment system for safety and soundness  It also operates parts of the payment system, such as interbank settlements and check clearing  The Dodd-Frank Act subjects payment, clearing, and settlement systems designated as systemically important by the FSOC to enhanced supervision by the Fed (along with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, depending on the type of system)  M argin requirements   The Fed sets margin requirements on the purchases of certain securities, such as stocks, in certain private transactions  The purpose of margin requirements is to mandate what proportion of the purchase can be made on credit  The Fed attempts to mitigate systemic risk and prevent financial instability through these regulatory responsibilities, as well as through its lender of last resort activities and participation on the FSOC (whose mandate is to identify risks and respond to emerging threats to financial stability)  The Fed has focused more on attempting to mitigate systemic risk through its regulations since the financial crisis, and has also restructured its internal operations to facilitate a macroprudential approach to supervision and regulation 

ground_truth: Congress has delegated responsibility for monetary policy to the Federal Reserve (the Fed), the nation's central bank, but retains oversight responsibilities for ensuring that the Fed is adhering to its statutory mandate of "maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." To meet its price stability mandate, the Fed has set a longer-run goal of 2% inflation. The Fed's control over monetary policy stems from its exclusive ability to alter the money supply and credit conditions more broadly. Normally, the Fed conducts monetary policy by setting a target for the federal funds rate, the rate at which banks borrow and lend reserves on an overnight basis. It meets its target through open market operations, financial transactions traditionally involving U.S. Treasury securities. Beginning in 2007, the federal funds target was reduced from 5.25% to a range of 0% to 0.25% in December 2008, which economists call the zero lower bound. By historical standards, rates were kept unusually low for an unusually long time to mitigate the effects of the financial crisis and its aftermath. Starting in December 2015, the Fed has been raising interest rates and expects to gradually raise rates further. The Fed raised rates once in 2016, three times in 2017, and four times in 2018, by 0.25 percentage points each time. In light of increased economic uncertainty and financial volatility, the Fed announced in January 2019 that it would be "patient" before raising rates again. The Fed influences interest rates to affect interest-sensitive spending, such as business capital spending on plant and equipment, household spending on consumer durables, and residential investment. In addition, when interest rates diverge between countries, it causes capital flows that affect the exchange rate between foreign currencies and the dollar, which in turn affects spending on exports and imports. Through these channels, monetary policy can be used to stimulate or slow aggregate spending in the short run. In the long run, monetary policy mainly affects inflation. A low and stable rate of inflation promotes price transparency and, thereby, sounder economic decisions. The Fed's relative independence from Congress and the Administration has been justified by many economists on the grounds that it reduces political pressure to make monetary policy decisions that are inconsistent with a long-term focus on stable inflation. But independence reduces accountability to Congress and the Administration, and recent legislation and criticism of the Fed by the President has raised the question about the proper balance between the two. While the federal funds target was at the zero lower bound, the Fed attempted to provide additional stimulus through unsterilized purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a practice popularly referred to as quantitative easing (QE). Between 2009 and 2014, the Fed undertook three rounds of QE. The third round was completed in October 2014, at which point the Fed's balance sheet was $4.5 trillion—five times its precrisis size. After QE ended, the Fed maintained the balance sheet at the same level until September 2017, when it began to very gradually reduce it to a more normal size. The Fed has raised interest rates in the presence of a large balance sheet through the use of two new tools—by paying banks interest on reserves held at the Fed and by engaging in reverse repurchase agreements (reverse repos) through a new overnight facility. In January 2019, the Fed announced that it would continue using these tools to set interest rates permanently, in which case the balance sheet may not get much smaller than its current size of $4 trillion. With regard to its mandate, the Fed believes that unemployment is currently lower than the rate that it considers consistent with maximum employment, and inflation is close to the Fed's 2% goal by the Fed's preferred measure. Even after recent rate increases, monetary policy is still considered expansionary. This monetary policy stance is unusually stimulative compared with policy in this stage of previous expansions, and is being coupled with a stimulative fiscal policy (larger structural budget deficit). Debate is currently focused on how quickly the Fed should raise rates. Some contend the greater risk is that raising rates too slowly at full employment will cause inflation to become too high or cause financial instability, whereas others contend that raising rates too quickly will cause inflation to remain too low and choke off the expansion.