United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1995 SCHOOL FACILITIES

Accessibility for the

Disabled Still an Issue

GAO/HEHS-96-73

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-261623 

December 29, 1995

The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

The Honorable Claiborne Pell

The Honorable Paul Simon

The Honorable Paul Wellstone

United States Senate

To meet the educational needs of America’s disabled children, schools

must provide access to programs and services. Accessibility to programs

and activities in public school facilities has been required by federal law

since 1973,1

 and new schools are designed to comply with current codes,

including accessibility requirements. Little is known, however, about the

accessibility of existing schools nationwide.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are both applicable to accessibility in schools.

The ADA applies to all programs or services provided by state and local

governments, and section 504 applies to all schools receiving federal

financial assistance. Accessibility requirements, which are the same under

these two laws, differ according to whether the facility is existing or new.

For existing buildings, school districts are required to operate their

programs and activities so that when viewed in their entirety the programs

are accessible to individuals with disabilities. The law does not require a

school district to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a

facility accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The

second and more stringent standard applies to new construction and

certain renovations to existing facilities. Buildings initiated after 1979

under section 504 and after 1992 for the ADA must be readily accessible and

usable by individuals with disabilities and must comply with design

standards. In this report, we use accessibility to indicate standards for

both existing buildings and for new construction or alterations.

To obtain information on the condition of America’s schools, including

accessibility to individuals with disabilities, we surveyed a national sample

of schools and augmented the survey with visits to selected school

districts.2

 Because this was part of a larger survey of school facilities,

1

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

2

In these site visits, we were looking at the general condition of each school, including its physical

accessibility. We did not attempt to determine whether these schools legally complied with federal

mandates.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

however, our questions on accessibility were limited. We used school

officials’ reports of the amount spent in the last 3 years and the amount

they need to spend in the next 3 years to provide access for the disabled to

evaluate the degree to which accessibility was still a problem. Since we do

not know whether officials reported all of what needs to be done or only a

small portion, or perhaps more than what needs to be done, these figures

should be viewed cautiously. Also, these estimates were based on school

officials’ understanding of accessibility requirements. See appendix I for

relevant survey items and appendix II for a full discussion of methodology.

We conducted our analyses at both national and state levels. Furthermore,

we looked at spending patterns according to several school

characteristics, for example, location (region of the country and type of

community), school size (enrollment) and type (level), and student

characteristic (economic level and minority status). We did not attempt to

verify self-reported data.

This report, one in a series of reports3

 responding to your request for

information on the physical condition of the nation’s public schools,

addresses the accessibility of today’s schools. School Facilities: Condition

of America’s Schools, the first of these reports, reported that accessibility

for the disabled accounted for the largest share of the estimated $11 billion

needed to be spent on federal mandates in the next 3 years, supplanting

asbestos as the largest share of spending on such mandates. (See fig. 1.)

This report provides a more detailed analysis of that information.

3

See School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1, 1995) and School

Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95, Apr. 4,

1995).

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Figure 1: Schools Estimate That Spending on Accessibility Will Supplant Spending on Asbestos Abatement as the Largest

Share of Spending on Federal Mandates

15%

40%

45%

Other

Accessibility

Asbestos

Other

Accessibility

Asbestos

49%

29%

22%

Last 3 Years Next 3 Years

Note: “Other” includes lead in water/paint, underground storage tanks, radon, and other

mandated requirements, such as those governing pesticides and chemicals.

Results in Brief The requirement that programs and activities of schools receiving federal

financial assistance be accessible to the disabled has been in force for two

decades. Yet no comprehensive nationwide study has been done or is

currently planned to evaluate schools’ accessibility to the disabled

(hereafter referred to as “accessibility”). Meanwhile, the passage of the

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)—although not changing the

accessibility requirements for schools from the earlier law—has

highlighted the need to improve accessibility.

Over half—53 percent—of schools nationwide reported having spent a

total of $1.5 billion in the last 3 years on accessibility. Only about 20

percent of schools reported that such spending was not needed. A total of

56 percent of all schools estimated that they will need a total of $5.2 billion

more for accessibility in the next 3 years. Only about 26 percent of schools

reported that such spending will not be needed.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

At the district level, the situation is quite complex. As we saw in our site

visits, just because one district school is fully accessible does not mean

that other district schools are as well. However, the law does not require a

school district to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a

facility accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Lack of

funding was cited by many as the chief reason for not making schools

accessible.

Background Accessibility for the disabled to schools receiving federal financial

assistance was first required by law in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973. Another section of the act established the Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (A&TBCB), whose purpose in

part was to determine the adequacy of measures by federal, state, and

local governments and other public or nonprofit agencies to eliminate

such barriers. The most recent law, title II of the ADA, did not change the

requirement of accessibility to disabled individuals as originally set forth

in section 504.

For existing buildings, school districts are required to operate their

programs and activities so that when viewed in their entirety the programs

are accessible to individuals with disabilities. A school may not be

required to make structural changes in existing buildings where other

methods are effective in achieving accessibility, such as moving a program

to an accessible floor. For new construction and certain renovations to

existing buildings, regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA and

section 504, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the

ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), specify the technical requirements

for schools’ accessibility to disabled individuals. These regulations require

public school facilities to provide parking spaces, access to different floors

through elevators (platform lifts instead of elevators may be used in some

circumstances) or ramps, public telephones, and automatic and

power-assisted doors, among other features.

Besides requirements in the law, accessibility to school facilities also

affects the degree to which schools can successfully implement education

reform. At the heart of education reform is the tenet that all children have

access to high-quality education—regardless of where they live, their

family income, their ethnic background, or if they have disabilities. Also,

school building accessibility has implications for disabled parents’ and

other community members’ involvement in education and other

community activities and services that take place in schools.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Even though federal law has required schools to be accessible to disabled

individuals since 1973, recent studies and the media have reported that

accessibility continues to challenge schools.

Principal Findings

Scope of Accessibility

Problem Unknown

The Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental

Disabilities Amendments of 1978 amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

and required the A&TBCB to determine the costs to state and local

governments of affording people with disabilities full access to all

programs and activities receiving federal assistance. However, this cost

study was never conducted because the Board lacked the resources.4

Officials from the Departments of Education and Justice and the A&TBCB

told us that, to their knowledge, no national survey of school accessibility

has been done or is being planned. Even the biennial school survey by the

Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has not included

questions on facilities’ accessibility since the late 1970s, according to one

official.5

Half the Schools Reported

Spending $1.5 Billion in the

Last 3 Years

Nationwide, 53 percent of schools reported spending a total of $1.5 billion

during the last 3 years on accessibility. About 27 percent of schools

reported that they had spent no money in the last 3 years on accessibility,

while an additional 20 percent of schools reported that no money was

needed for this purpose (see app. III). Our site visits illustrated this:

officials in Chicago and New Orleans said that most schools were not

accessible.

Although all types of communities spent money for accessibility, schools

in central cities were less likely than schools in the urban fringe and large

towns or rural areas and small towns to report having spent money on

accessibility. However, schools in rural areas and small towns were more

likely to report that spending was not needed (see fig. 2). Regionally, only

44 percent of schools in the Northeast reported spending on accessibility,

while over half the schools in other regions reported such spending. (See

app. III, table III.3.) However, a greater proportion of the amount of

4

Summary of Existing Legislation Affecting People With Disabilities, U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Washington, D.C.: June 1992), pp. 138-139.

5

It has, however, asked about “program” accessibility. In 1993, the survey had one question that asked

about the number of disabled students enrolled in gifted and talented programs.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

spending reported by northeastern schools was above the average for all

schools. (See app. III, table III.4.)

Figure 2: Money Reported Needed, Not

Needed, and Spent for Improving

School Accessibility in Various Types

of Communities in the Last 3 Years

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Central City Urban

Fringe/Large

Town

Rural/Small

Town

School Location

Money Spent

No Money Spent

No Money Needed

The average amount reportedly spent on accessibility was $40,000 per

school, although amounts varied widely.6

 About 80 percent of schools

nationwide that reported spending for accessibility spent less than

$40,000. The average amount spent by this group was about $8,000 per

school. While only about 20 percent of schools reported spending more

than $40,000, spending by this group accounted for about 84 percent of all

funds spent. These above average spenders were frequently large schools

and those that tend to be located in the Northeast (see fig. 3).

6

Individual respondents reported as low as $1 to as high as $16.5 million spent for a single school. The

median amount reported was $6,500.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Virtually every state reported spending money for accessibility during the

last 3 years. However, the proportion of a state’s schools spending money

ranged from 7 percent in the District of Columbia to 69 percent in New

Mexico. Forty percent of schools in New York reported that spending was

not needed, compared with 1 percent in the District of Columbia that

reported that spending was not needed. In four states (Nevada, Arkansas,

Maryland, and Oklahoma) and the District of Columbia, over 95 percent of

schools that spent money on accessibility were in the below average

spender group. Only California, New Jersey, and Hawaii reported that, of

their schools’ spending on accessibility in the last 3 years, more than

one-third were in the above average group, with Hawaii reporting over

60 percent of its schools in this group. (See app. III, table III.2.)

We could not project information on the dollar amounts that states spent

on accessibility.7

 However, by region, the Northeast reported more above

average spending than others. (See fig. 3 and app. III, table III.3.)

7

Because of the wide range of amounts reported, we could not report sufficiently precise state-level

estimates on dollars spent on accessibility. See appendix II for a discussion of sampling errors.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Figure 3: More Northeastern Schools

Reported Above Average Spending on

Accessibility Than Schools in Other

Regions

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Northeast West Midwest South

Regions

28

34

23 20 19 19

13

17

Last 3 Years—Above Average Spending

Next 3 Years—Above Average Estimate

Notes: Last 3 years, average reported per school expenditure on disabled accessibility = $40,000.

Next 3 years, estimated average per school expenditure on disabled accessibility = $124,000.

When we looked at spending patterns according to school characteristics,

we found that spending was not confined to schools of particular

locations, sizes, or demographic characteristics. However, some notable

differences are shown in table 1. (See app. III, table III.4 for details.)

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Table 1: Characteristics of Schools

Most Likely to Report Above Average

Spending to Improve Accessibility in

the Last 3 Years

Characteristics (mutually exclusive)

Characteristics of schools most likely to

report above average spending

Location

Community type

Geographic region

Central city and urban fringe/large town

Northeast

School characteristics

Size

Level

Large

Secondary

Student characteristics

Proportion of students approved for free or

reduced lunch

Proportion of minority students

Less than 20 percent

Greater than 50.5 percent

Over Half of Schools

Reported Needing $5.2

Billion to Improve

Accessibility Nationwide in

the Next 3 Years

About 56 percent of all schools estimated that they will need to spend

money in the next 3 years to improve accessibility. About 26 percent of

schools estimated that no money will be needed to improve accessibility in

the next 3 years, while an additional 19 percent reported that accessibility

requirements were “unknown.”

Schools nationwide reported that they will probably need to spend about

three times more in the next 3 years to improve accessibility than they

spent in the last 3 years, for a total of $5.2 billion. About 79 percent of

schools that expect to spend money on accessibility in the next 3 years

estimated that they will spend less than the average of $124,000.8

 The

average amount estimated for these below average spenders was about

$34,000 per school. The remaining 21 percent of schools—the above

average spenders—accounted for 78 percent of all funds estimated to be

spent.

States varied widely in the proportion of schools that reported needing to

spend money on accessibility in the next 3 years, from 93 percent in the

District of Columbia to 34 percent in New York and Hawaii (see app. IV,

table IV.1). In contrast to spending on accessibility reported for the past 3

years, over twice as many states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District

of Columbia estimated that over a third of their schools’ spending on

accessibility will be above the average. Only one state—Mississippi—

estimated that more than 95 percent of its schools’ spending money on

8

The median amount was $39,500.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

accessibility will be below the average. Maryland, Connecticut, and the

District of Columbia estimated that more than 50 percent of their schools’

spending on accessibility will be more than $124,000 or above the average.

(See app. IV, tables IV.2 and IV.3.)

Characteristics of schools most likely to report planning to spend money

on improving accessibility in the next 3 years appear in table 2. (See also

app. IV, table IV.4.)

Table 2: Characteristics of Schools

Most Likely to Report Above Average

Spending to Improve Accessibility in

the Next 3 Years

Characteristics (mutually exclusive)

Characteristics of schools most likely to

report above average spending

Location

Community type

Geographic region

Central city/urban

fringe/large town

Northeast

School characteristics

Size

Level

Large

Secondary

Student characteristics

Proportion of students approved for free or

reduced lunch

Proportion of minority students

No notable difference among schools

50.5 percent or more

Schools’ Physical

Accessibility Varies

During our site visits, we observed that schools’ physical accessibility

varied enormously. The schools we visited ranged from being fully

physically accessible—all classrooms and other areas—to being partly

inaccessible—allowing access to the front door but little else in the

school—to being even totally inaccessible. For example, we visited a new

school in Pomona, California, that is fully accessible—even its auditorium

stage has an elevator. In contrast, also in Pomona, we visited a two-story

school that was accessible on the ground floor but had no elevator,

although it had plans to install one. In Chicago, we visited schools that

were totally inaccessible. Accessibility to bathrooms was a problem in

many schools. The law, however, does not require a school district to

make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to

and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

Lack of Funding Cited as

Reason for Variable

Accessibility

Although our survey did not ask the reasons why districts have been

unable to meet facility requirements of federal mandates, many survey

respondents addressed the issue in their comments and we explored the

issue in our site visits. School officials told us that they could not make

schools accessible because of lack of funding. For example, because of the

expense of installing elevators and other needed changes, we were told,

few of the schools in Chicago were accessible.

Officials also reported that money spent on accessibility may be

“unreasonable” or at the expense of other areas. Following are typical

comments:

“In my district, we no longer have a curriculum department, but we have a

handicapped elevator that just cost $250,000 to build—for a student who is

no longer in that building and who used a stair climber successfully when

he was there.”

“The ADA requirements were a major reason we had to replace two older

schools. These costs, when added to other costs for renovations and

modifications, resulted in overall costs for repairs which exceeded the

costs for new facilities.”

The first example likely illustrates a confusion about what the law requires

for program accessibility. Accessibility experts have observed that local

officials sometimes misunderstand section 504 and ADA requirements and

that some decisions leading to accessibility expenditures by local schools

may not, in fact, be mandated by section 504 or the ADA.

Conclusion Accessibility is clearly an important, complicated, and expensive issue for

schools. It was beyond the scope of this study to comprehensively assess

schools’ compliance with accessibility laws and the amount of money it

would cost to make schools fully accessible. However, the answers to our

two survey questions and our site visits suggest the magnitude of the

problem: schools report that they have already spent a lot to improve

accessibility and that they need to spend much more.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate

committees and all members, the Secretary of Education, and other

interested parties.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
B-261623 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Eleanor L.

Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7209. A list of major contributors

to this report appears in appendix V.

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Questionnaire Items

16

Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

17

Scope and Methodology Overview 17

Site Visits 20

Classification Variables 21

Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported

Spending on

Accessibility in the

Last 3 Years

27

Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated

Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3

Years

32

Appendix V 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

37

Tables Table 1: Characteristics of Schools Most Likely to Report Above

Average Spending to Improve Accessibility in the Last 3 Years

9

Table 2: Characteristics of Schools Most Likely to Report Above

Average Spending to Improve Accessibility in the Next 3 Years

10

Table II.1: Sampling Errors Greater Than 5 Percent 24

Table II.2: Sampling Errors for State Tables 25

Table III.1: Money Reported Needed and Spent on Accessibility in

the Last 3 Years, State Analyses

27

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Contents

Table III.2: Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility in the

Last 3 Years, State Analyses

28

Table III.3: Money Reported Needed and Spent on Accessibility in

the Last 3 Years

30

Table III.4: Other Characteristics of Schools That Reported

Spending on Accessibility in the Last 3 Years

31

Table IV.1: Money Estimated Needed for Accessibility in the Next

3 Years, State Analyses

32

Table IV.2: Schools’ Estimated Spending on Accessibility in the

Next 3 Years, State Analyses

33

Table IV.3: Money Estimated Needed on Accessibility in the Next

3 Years

35

Table IV.4: Other Characteristics of Schools That Reported

Spending on Accessibility

36

Figures Figure 1: Schools Estimate That Spending on Accessibility Will

Supplant Spending on Asbestos Abatement as the Largest Share

of Spending on Federal Mandates

3

Figure 2: Money Reported Needed, Not Needed, and Spent for

Improving School Accessibility in Various Types of Communities

in the Last 3 Years

6

Figure 3: More Northeastern Schools Reported Above Average

Spending on Accessibility Than Schools in Other Regions

8

Abbreviations

A&TBCB Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act

ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines

NCES National Center for Educational Statistics

SASS Schools and Staffing Survey

SMSA standard metropolitan statistical area

UFAS Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix I 

Questionnaire Items

13. During the last 3 years, how much money has been spent on the

federal mandates listed below of this school’s on-site buildings? Include

money spent in 1993-1994. If exact amounts are not readily available,

give your best estimate. Enter zero if none. Circle "1" if spending was

not needed.

Federal Mandates Spending Not Needed Amount Spent

Accessibility for

students with

disabilities

1 $________________.00

Managing/correcting: 1 $________________.00

Asbestos 1 $________________.00

Lead in water/paint 1 $________________.00

Underground storage

tanks (USTs)

1 $________________.00

Radon 1 $________________.00

Other (specify:_____) 1 $________________.00

14. How much money will probably need to be spent during the next 3

years on these federal mandates for this school’s on-site buildings? If

exact amounts are not readily available, give your best estimate. If

spending will not be needed, circle "1." If unknown, circle "2."

Federal Mandates

Spending Will

Not Be Needed Unknown Amount Probably Needed

Accessibility for

students with

disabilities

1.................2 $________________.00

Managing/correcting: 1.................2 $________________.00

Asbestos 1.................2 $________________.00

Lead in water/paint 1.................2 $________________.00

Underground storage

tanks (USTs)

1.................2 $________________.00

Radon 1.................2 $________________.00

Other(specify:_____) 1.................2 $________________.00

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Scope and

Methodology

Overview

To determine the condition of America’s schools and extent to which

America’s 80,000 schools have the physical capacity to support 21st

century technology and education reform for all students, we surveyed a

national sample of public schools and their associated districts and visited

selected schools districts. Various experts advised us on the design and

analysis of this project.9

We sent surveys to a nationally representative sample of about 10,000

public schools in over 5,000 associated school districts. For our sample,

we used the public school sample of the Department of Education’s

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which is a multifaceted,

nationally representative survey sponsored by the National Center for

Educational Statistics (NCES) and administered by the Bureau of the

Census.

In addition to asking about the physical condition of schools, we asked

how much money schools had spent during the last 3 years on selected

federal mandates, including accessibility for disabled students. Likewise,

we asked about anticipated spending on federal mandates during the next

3 years. A list of relevant survey items appears in appendix I. A copy of the

full survey is included in School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools.

We directed the survey to those officials who are most knowledgeable

about facilities—such as facilities directors and other central office

administrators of the districts housing our sampled schools. Our analyses

were based on responses from 78 percent of the schools sampled.

Analyses of nonrespondent characteristics showed them to be similar to

respondent characteristics. Survey findings have been statistically

adjusted (weighted) to produce estimates representative at national and

state levels. All data were self-reported, and we did not independently

verify their accuracy.

In addition, we visited 41 schools in 10 selected school districts varying in

location, size, and minority composition to augment and illustrate our

survey results. We also reviewed the literature on education reform. We

conducted our study between January 1994 and March 1995 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

9

See School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1, 1995), appendix III,

for a full list.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Survey Participants For our review of the physical condition of America’s schools, we wanted

to determine physical condition and spending as perceived by the most

knowledgeable school district personnel. To accomplish this, we mailed

questionnaires to superintendents of school districts associated with a

nationally representative sample of public schools. We asked the

superintendents to have district personnel, such as facilities directors

familiar with school facilities, answer the questionnaires. The

questionnaires gathered information about a variety of school facility

issues, including spending associated with federal mandates. For our

school sample, we used the sample for the 1993-94 SASS.

Sampling Strategy The 1993-94 SASS sample is designed to give several types of estimates,

including both national and state-level estimates. It is necessarily a very

complex sample. Essentially, however, it is stratified by state and grade

level (elementary, secondary, and combined). It also has separate strata

for schools with large Native American populations and for Bureau of

Indian Affairs schools. A detailed description of the sample and discussion

of the sampling issues appear in NCES’ technical report on the 1993-94 SASS

sample.10

Survey Response We mailed our questionnaires to 9,956 sampled schools in 5,459 associated

districts across the country in May 1994. We did a follow-up mailing in July

1994 and again in October 1994. After each mailing, we telephoned

nonresponding districts to encourage their responses. We accepted

returned questionnaires through early January 1995.

Of the 9,956 schools in the original sample, 393 were found to be ineligible

for our survey.11 Subtracting these ineligible schools from our original

sample yielded an adjusted sample of 9,563 schools. The number of

completed, usable school questionnaires returned was 7,478. Dividing the

number of completed, usable returns by the adjusted sample yielded a

school response rate of 78 percent.

We compared nonrespondents with respondents by urbanicity, location,

state, race and ethnicity, and poverty. Few notable differences existed

among the groups. On the basis of this information, we assumed that our

10Robert Abramson et al., 1993-84 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation, NCES

(available July 1995).

11Reasons for ineligibility included school no longer in operation, entity not a school, private rather

than public school, and postsecondary school only.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

respondents did not differ significantly from the nonrespondents.12

Therefore, we weighted the respondent data to adjust for nonresponse and

yield representative national estimates.

Measures of Central

Tendency and Other

Analytic Decisions

All analyses in this report are based on data from two multiresponse

questions about spending (see app. I). In both cases, the resulting

distributions were severely skewed, making no single measure of central

tendency adequate to describe the distribution. In cases where kurtosis

makes statistical description difficult, analysts sometimes use the median

as the preferred measure of central tendency. However, in this case, both

distributions divided naturally into a low-spending group and a

high-spending group, with the mean providing a convenient reference

point for this division. Our visits to school districts confirmed that

spending for accessibility improvement often fell into categories of minor

improvements or major improvements. Therefore, we chose to divide the

distribution for further analyses at a point that separated it into

low-spending schools and high-spending schools, a point that

corresponded to the mean. We felt that analyses of these categories both

presented an honest treatment of the data and provided practical, useful

information.

Sampling Errors All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, that is, the extent to

which the results differ from what would be obtained if the whole

population had received the questionnaire. Since the whole population

does not receive the questionnaire in a sample survey, the true size of the

sampling error cannot be known. However, we can estimate it from the

responses to the survey. The estimate of sampling error depends largely on

the number of respondents and the amount of variability in the data.

Variability in the data is particularly relevant to this report. Analyses are

based on the dollar amount reported by schools in response to questions

about past and future spending on accessibility. The wide range of dollar

amounts reported reduced the amount of precision with which we could

produce dollar estimates. For this reason, we limited our dollar estimates

to a national level estimate of average and total dollars spent and to totals

and averages of those schools’ spending above and below specified

amounts. We then looked at proportions of schools that reported spending

in these categories by a number of variables.

12Detailed sample and response information for each sample stratum is available upon request. See

appendix V for appropriate staff contacts.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Sampling errors for estimates appearing in the text are equal to or less

than ± 5 percent unless listed in tables II.1 and II.2 at the end of this

appendix.

Nonsampling Errors In addition to sampling errors, surveys are also subject to other types of

systematic error or bias that can affect results. This is especially true when

respondents are asked to answer questions of a sensitive nature or when

questions are inherently subject to error. Lack of understanding of these

issues can also result in systematic error. Bias can affect both response

rates and the way respondents answer particular questions. It is not

possible to assess the magnitude of the effect of biases, if any, on the

results of a survey. Rather, possibilities of bias can only be identified and

accounted for when interpreting results. This survey had two major

possible sources of bias: (1) bias inherent in all self-ratings or self-reports

and (2) sensitivity of compliance issues.

Bias inherent in self-rating may impact results of surveys because integrity

of the data depends upon respondents’ providing honest and accurate

answers to the questions asked. The results of this report were affected by

the extent to which respondents accurately reported expenditures and the

extent to which they could provide accurate estimates for projected

spending. When, as in this case, responses are not verified, the possibility

of this kind of bias always exists.13

A second kind of bias that may occur results from the sensitivity of

compliance issues. In this case, our interest in securing information on

compliance with federal mandates put the survey in a highly sensitive area.

For example, respondents may have perceived that accurately reporting

accessibility problems could make school districts vulnerable to lawsuits,

despite assurances of confidentiality. Consequently, in such sensitive

areas, schools may have underreported or made conservative estimates.

In general, survey results confirmed our site visit observations.

Site Visits To illustrate and augment our survey results, we visited 10 districts:

Chicago, Illinois; Grandview, Washington; Montgomery County, Alabama;

13Misunderstanding of the accessibility legal requirements also may come into play. In a study of ADA

implementation, GAO found that 28 to 35 percent of the barrier removal efforts to comply with legal

requirements planned by owners and managers of establishments covered by ADA were not necessary.

See Americans With Disabilities Act: Effects of the Law on Access to Goods and Services

(GAO/PEMD-94-14, June 21, 1994).

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Pomona, California;

Ramona, California; Raymond, Washington; Richmond, Virginia; and

Washington, D.C. Selected to represent key variables, they varied in

location, size, and ethnic composition.

During these site visits, we interviewed central office staff, such as district

superintendents, facilities directors, and business managers; and school

staff, such as principals and teachers. We asked the central office staff

about their district demographics, biggest facilities issues, facilities

financing, assessment, maintenance programs, resources, and barriers to

reaching facilities goals.

In addition, in each district we asked district officials to show us examples

of “typical,” “best,” and “worst” schools and verified reliability of these

designations with others. In some small districts, we visited all schools.

We spoke with administration and staff in the schools we toured. We

asked the school staff about their school’s condition, repair and

renovation programs, and facilities needs for educational programs.

Classification

Variables

The following define the classification variables used for this study:

community type, school level, school size, minority enrollment, geographic

region, and proportion of students receiving a free or reduced lunch.

Community Type

Central City A large central city (a central city of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area (SMSA)) with population greater than or equal to 400,000 or a

population density greater than or equal to 6,000 per square mile) or a

mid-size central city (a central city of an SMSA, but not designated a large

central city).

Urban Fringe/Large Town Urban fringe of a large or mid-size central city (a place within an SMSA of a

large or mid-size central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census) or a large town (a place not within an SMSA but with a

population greater than or equal to 25,000 and defined as urban by the

Bureau of the Census).

Rural/Small Town Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined as

rural by the Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not within an

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

SMSA, with a population of less than 25,000 but greater than or equal to

2,500 and defined as urban by the Bureau of the Census).

School Level

Elementary A school that had grade six or lower or “ungraded” and no grade higher

than eighth.

Secondary A school that had no grade lower than the seventh or “ungraded” and had

grade seven or higher.

Combined A school that had grades higher than the eighth and lower than the

seventh.

School Size

Small A school with fewer than 300 students.

Medium A school with more than 299 but fewer than 600 students.

Large A school with 600 students or more.

Minority Enrollment The percentage of students defined as minority using the following

definition for minority: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or

Pacific Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto Rican,

Cuban, Central or South American, or other culture or origin); black (not

of Hispanic origin).

Geographic Region

Northeast Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Midwest Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

South Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee,

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

West Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada,

Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Proportion of Students

Receiving Free or Reduced

Lunch

The calculation is based on survey question 4 (“What was the total number

of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) students enrolled in this school around the

first of October 1993?”) and survey question 25 (“Around the first of

October 1993, how many applicants in this school were approved for the

National School Lunch Program?”).

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Table II.1: Sampling Errors Greater

Than 5 Percent

Page of first

occurrence Description of estimate

95-percent

confidence

interval (percent)

3 Total accessibility dollars spent—$1.5 billion ± 19.5

2 Pie chart—last 3 years

Accessibility ± 5.1

2 Pie chart—next 3 years

Accessibility

Asbestos

Other

± 13.6

± 6.5

± 19.4

3 Total accessibility dollars needed—$5.2 billion ± 14.9

5 Average spent for below average spenders—$8,000 ± 5.8

5 Average last 3 years—$40,000 ± 19.3

6 Proportion of schools’ spending in District of

Columbia—7 percent ± 5.8

6 Proportion of schools’ spending in New Mexico—69

percent ± 9.2

6 Proportion spending not needed, New York—40

percent ± 10.0

6 Hawaii—60 percent above average ± 17.3

6 California—one-third above average ± 10.9

6 New Jersey—one-third above average ± 15.1

6 Northeast, above average spending ± 6.4

8 Next 3 years, 93 percent ± 6.6

8 Next 3 years, 34 percent ± 9.4

8 Average needed to spend—$124,000 ± 14.6

8 Average for below average—$34,000 ± 5.1

8 One-third above average

8 Connecticut ± 18.9

8 Hawaii ± 18.9

8 Maryland ± 15.7

8 Massachusetts ± 15.9

8 New Jersey ± 13.1

8 Pennsylvania ± 17.6

8 Wisconsin ± 12.6

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Table II.2: Sampling Errors for State

Tables Table

State III.1 III.2 IV.1 IV.2

Alabama B B B B

Alaska B C B B

Arizona B B B B

Arkansas B A B B

California B C B B

Colorado C C B D

Connecticut C D C D

Delaware D C C C

District of

Columbia

B A B C

Florida C C C B

Georgia B B C C

Hawaii C D C D

Idaho B B B B

Illinois B C B B

Indiana B B B C

Iowa C B B C

Kansas B B B B

Kentucky C B C C

Louisiana B B B B

Maine C B C C

Maryland C A C D

Massachusetts C E C D

Michigan C C C B

Minnesota C C B C

Mississippi B B B A

Missouri B B C B

Montana C B B C

Nebraska C B C B

Nevada B A B B

New Hampshire C D C E

New Jersey C D C C

New Mexico B B B B

New York C C B C

North Carolina B B B B

North Dakota B B B B

Ohio C C B B

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix II 

Technical Appendix

Table

State III.1 III.2 IV.1 IV.2

Oklahoma B A B A

Oregon B A B B

Pennsylvania C C C D

Rhode Island C C C D

South Carolina B B B C

South Dakota B C B B

Tennessee B C B C

Texas B B B B

Utah B B B B

Vermont C D B C

Virginia B B C B

Washington B B B B

West Virginia B C B C

Wisconsin C C C C

Wyoming C C C B

KEY

A = 5 percent or less

B = greater than 5 percent to 10 percent

C = greater than 10 percent to 15 percent

D = greater than 15 percent to 20 percent

E = greater than 20 percent to 25 percent

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility

in the Last 3 Years

Table III.1: Money Reported Needed

and Spent on Accessibility in the Last

3 Years, State Analyses

Percent of schools reporting

State

Number of

schools

No money

spent

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

No money

needed

Alabama 1,116 24.4 47.9 2.7 25.0

Alaska 435 34.3 37.1 9.3 19.4

Arizona 956 32.5 44.5 11.9 11.1

Arkansas 998 18.6 58.6 2.0 20.7

California 6,662 33.7 34.6 18.3 13.4

Colorado 1,321 40.9 36.4 10.7 12.0

Connecticut 839 40.0 23.6 11.6 24.7

Delaware 136 26.2 59.5 7.1 7.2

District of Columbia 148 91.8 6.9 0.0 1.3

Florida 1,791 32.1 39.1 17.8 11.0

Georgia 1,577 12.9 57.0 10.8 19.3

Hawaii 207 34.9 16.2 25.3 23.7

Idaho 548 27.4 38.6 4.7 29.4

Illinois 3,504 20.0 36.5 10.3 33.3

Indiana 1,728 25.0 48.3 16.4 10.3

Iowa 1,324 28.4 44.8 6.3 20.5

Kansas 1,399 27.4 50.3 7.9 14.4

Kentucky 1,099 30.4 37.1 7.0 25.5

Louisiana 1,304 29.6 50.4 10.2 9.7

Maine 672 17.0 57.4 5.0 20.7

Maryland 887 50.1 41.5 1.9 6.5

Massachusetts 1,472 48.8 18.1 8.8 24.4

Michigan 2,735 21.3 45.3 14.1 19.4

Minnesota 1,339 25.3 39.3 18.9 16.5

Mississippi 896 16.9 57.3 4.1 21.7

Missouri 1,824 18.1 59.2 6.9 15.8

Montana 736 28.3 36.5 4.8 30.3

Nebraska 1,220 29.1 40.2 12.4 18.3

Nevada 343 42.1 48.0 1.0 8.9

New Hampshire 392 27.5 29.4 8.1 35.1

New Jersey 1,963 20.9 34.4 18.8 25.9

New Mexico 633 17.8 58.9 10.2 13.1

New York 3,575 15.2 30.9 13.5 40.4

North Carolina 1,776 15.6 59.7 8.0 16.7

North Dakota 531 31.9 38.9 4.2 25.0

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility

in the Last 3 Years

Percent of schools reporting

State

Number of

schools

No money

spent

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

No money

needed

Ohio 3,198 53.1 37.4 5.3 4.2

Oklahoma 1,616 22.7 56.9 2.9 17.6

Oregon 1,149 32.5 60.7 3.5 3.3

Pennsylvania 2,486 32.0 33.1 10.5 24.4

Rhode Island 287 17.4 38.5 14.7 29.4

South Carolina 958 29.2 35.9 4.6 30.3

South Dakota 524 23.0 33.6 7.7 35.7

Tennessee 1,358 38.6 28.5 7.4 25.5

Texas 5,300 14.2 51.9 8.1 25.9

Utah 625 20.0 63.9 4.2 11.9

Vermont 293 29.2 28.3 8.4 34.1

Virginia 1,613 27.3 54.7 5.2 12.8

Washington 1,644 25.2 43.4 7.2 24.2

West Virginia 798 36.5 27.2 7.1 29.2

Wisconsin 1,565 24.5 47.8 12.2 15.5

Wyoming 393 28.9 34.6 6.6 30.0

aAverage = $40,000 per school.

Table III.2: Schools’ Reported

Spending on Accessibility in the Last 3

Years, State Analyses

Percent of schools reporting

State Below averagea spending Above average spending

District of Columbia 100.0 0.0

Nevada 98.0 2.0

Arkansas 96.6 3.4

Maryland 95.5 4.5

Oklahoma 95.2 4.8

Alabama 94.7 5.3

Oregon 94.6 5.4

Utah 93.8 6.2

Mississippi 93.4 6.6

Maine 92.0 8.0

Virginia 91.3 8.7

North Dakota 90.2 9.8

Missouri 89.6 10.4

Delaware 89.3 10.7

(continued)

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility

in the Last 3 Years

Percent of schools reporting

State Below averagea spending Above average spending

Idaho 89.1 10.9

South Carolina 88.7 11.3

Montana 88.4 11.6

North Carolina 88.2 11.8

Iowa 87.7 12.3

Ohio 87.6 12.4

Kansas 86.5 13.5

Texas 86.5 13.5

Washington 85.9 14.1

New Mexico 85.3 14.7

Georgia 84.1 15.9

Kentucky 84.1 15.9

Wyoming 84.0 16.0

Louisiana 83.1 16.9

South Dakota 81.4 18.6

Nationwide average 80.8 19.2

Alaska 79.9 20.1

Wisconsin 79.6 20.4

Tennessee 79.5 20.5

West Virginia 79.4 20.6

Arizona 78.9 21.1

New Hampshire 78.4 21.6

Illinois 77.9 22.1

Colorado 77.2 22.8

Vermont 77.1 22.9

Nebraska 76.5 23.5

Michigan 76.3 23.7

Pennsylvania 76.0 24.0

Indiana 74.7 25.3

Rhode Island 72.4 27.6

New York 69.6 30.4

Florida 68.7 31.3

Minnesota 67.5 32.5

Massachusetts 67.3 32.7

Connecticut 67.0 33.0

California 65.4 34.6

New Jersey 64.6 35.4

Hawaii 38.9 61.1

(Table notes on next page)

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility

in the Last 3 Years

aAverage = $40,000 per school.

Table III.3: Money Reported Needed

and Spent on Accessibility in the Last

3 Years

Percent of schools reporting

Characteristic

Number of

schools

No money

spent

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

No money

needed

Community type

Central city 20,605 35.1 36.5 10.6 17.8

Urban fringe/large

town 19,043 27.0 42.7 12.4 17.9

Rural/small town 32,167 22.6 46.1 8.4 22.9

Geographic region

Northeast 11,980 26.4 31.4 12.3 30.0

Midwest 20,893 28.1 43.4 10.4 18.1

South 23,371 24.2 48.4 7.3 20.1

West 15,653 31.7 40.7 12.2 15.4

School size

Small (1-299 students) 19,401 30.5 39.7 5.9 23.9

Medium (300-599

students) 30,274 27.8 44.4 9.0 18.8

Large (600+ students) 22,222 23.9 42.2 15.3 18.6

School level

Elementary 51,004 28.2 42.1 8.8 20.9

Secondary 18,319 24.6 44.2 14.0 17.2

Combined 2,574 28.9 36.4 8.6 26.1

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

Less than 20 percent 15,969 26.9 42.2 13.5 17.3

20 to less than 40

percent 15,283 25.7 46.4 8.5 19.4

40 to less than 70

percent 15,346 29.3 41.5 9.4 19.8

70 percent or more 13,941 25.2 43.7 8.8 22.3

Proportion of minority students

Less than 5.5 percent 27,430 27.4 44.0 8.1 20.5

5.5 percent to less

than 20.5 percent 15,660 24.8 45.3 10.4 19.5

20.5 percent to less

than 50.5 percent 13,736 27.2 45.0 10.9 16.9

50.5 percent or more 14,860 29.8 34.6 12.8 22.8

aAverage = $40,000 per school.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix III 

Schools’ Reported Spending on Accessibility

in the Last 3 Years

Table III.4: Other Characteristics of

Schools That Reported Spending on

Accessibility in the Last 3 Years

Percent of schools

reporting

Characteristic

Number of

schools

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

Community type

Central city 9,702 77.5 22.5

Urban fringe/large town 10,499 77.4 22.6

Rural/small town 17,534 84.5 15.5

Geographic region

Northeast 5,232 71.9 28.1

Midwest 11,247 80.7 19.3

South 13,029 86.8 13.2

West 8,275 76.9 23.1

School size

Small (1-299 students) 8,845 87.1 12.9

Medium (300-599 students) 16,152 83.1 16.9

Large (600+ students) 12,785 73.4 26.6

School level

Elementary 25,966 82.7 17.3

Secondary 10,659 75.9 24.1

Combined 1,157 80.9 19.1

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

Less than 20 percent 8,904 75.7 24.3

20 to less than 40 percent 8,393 84.4 15.6

40 to less than 70 percent 7,809 81.6 18.4

70 percent or more 7,323 83.2 16.8

Proportion of minority students

Less than 5.5 percent 14,286 84.5 15.5

5.5 percent to less than 20.5 percent 8,725 81.3 18.7

20.5 percent to less than 50.5 percent 7,674 80.5 19.5

50.5 percent or more 7,049 73.0 27.0

aAverage = $40,000 per school.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3 Years

Table IV.1: Money Estimated Needed

for Accessibility in the Next 3 Years,

State Analyses

Percent of schools reporting

State

Number of

schools

No money

needed

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

Amount

needed

unknown

Alabama 1,184 26.9 38.6 3.8 30.7

Alaska 428 23.3 41.1 13.1 22.5

Arizona 1,030 14.0 61.2 12.1 12.7

Arkansas 998 39.2 41.9 2.8 16.1

California 7,024 21.9 42.2 12.1 23.7

Colorado 1,329 18.1 52.1 17.3 12.6

Connecticut 903 35.4 17.4 21.9 25.4

Delaware 153 15.7 60.4 13.5 10.3

District of Columbia 143 4.4 37.8 55.6 2.2

Florida 1,917 19.2 42.1 5.6 33.0

Georgia 1,485 35.3 35.1 7.1 22.5

Hawaii 220 21.6 19.8 14.2 44.4

Idaho 565 24.0 46.2 7.1 22.8

Illinois 3,682 22.7 54.5 10.5 12.3

Indiana 1,750 21.3 52.9 16.7 9.2

Iowa 1,407 22.2 44.0 14.2 19.6

Kansas 1,437 23.3 47.5 13.4 15.7

Kentucky 1,150 37.2 30.6 11.1 21.1

Louisiana 1,326 18.8 55.5 12.1 13.6

Maine 693 36.7 43.4 7.8 12.1

Maryland 911 14.6 28.2 29.8 27.3

Massachusetts 1,668 29.5 27.9 23.9 18.6

Michigan 2,975 23.8 49.6 5.5 21.1

Minnesota 1,397 20.8 48.6 23.0 7.6

Mississippi 935 24.8 55.0 0.5 19.7

Missouri 1,941 21.7 55.8 6.1 16.5

Montana 800 37.2 29.1 7.4 26.3

Nebraska 1,189 22.2 48.8 14.0 14.9

Nevada 339 19.2 66.4 6.1 8.2

New Hampshire 406 41.0 28.8 12.7 17.6

New Jersey 2,242 20.7 44.8 25.3 9.2

New Mexico 658 11.7 59.5 16.0 12.9

New York 3,712 46.1 25.7 8.6 19.7

North Carolina 1,823 23.7 53.5 14.5 8.3

North Dakota 543 31.1 39.0 5.3 24.6

(continued)

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3 Years

Percent of schools reporting

State

Number of

schools

No money

needed

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

Amount

needed

unknown

Ohio 3,427 10.8 57.9 11.9 19.3

Oklahoma 1,672 28.8 56.1 4.4 10.7

Oregon 1,167 4.6 67.5 15.2 12.6

Pennsylvania 2,369 38.1 25.2 13.7 23.1

Rhode Island 295 40.3 27.7 12.1 20.0

South Carolina 976 37.4 35.0 6.1 21.5

South Dakota 526 22.8 35.5 7.5 34.2

Tennessee 1,476 33.3 22.9 10.2 33.7

Texas 5,448 27.2 43.6 7.4 21.9

Utah 666 13.4 71.6 11.1 3.8

Vermont 291 52.1 35.9 3.2 8.7

Virginia 1,675 21.3 50.3 11.0 17.4

Washington 1,689 32.4 46.2 11.2 10.2

West Virginia 836 31.2 33.8 7.9 27.1

Wisconsin 1,650 24.3 36.7 19.6 19.3

Wyoming 392 17.8 60.1 6.7 15.4

aAverage = $124,000 per school.

Table IV.2: Schools’ Estimated

Spending on Accessibility in the Next

3 Years, State Analyses

Percent of schools estimating

State Below averagea spending Above average spending

Mississippi 99.2 0.8

Arkansas 93.7 6.3

Oklahoma 92.7 7.3

Vermont 91.7 8.3

Nevada 91.5 8.5

Alabama 91.1 8.9

Missouri 90.2 9.8

Michigan 90.0 10.0

Wyoming 89.9 10.1

Florida 88.2 11.8

North Dakota 88.1 11.9

Idaho 86.7 13.3

Utah 86.5 13.5

Texas 85.5 14.5

(continued)

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3 Years

Percent of schools estimating

State Below averagea spending Above average spending

South Carolina 85.0 15.0

Maine 84.7 15.3

Illinois 83.8 16.2

Arizona 83.6 16.4

Georgia 83.2 16.8

Ohio 82.9 17.1

South Dakota 82.7 17.3

Louisiana 82.2 17.8

Virginia 82.0 18.0

Delaware 81.7 18.3

Oregon 81.6 18.4

West Virginia 81.1 18.9

Washington 80.5 19.5

Montana 79.7 20.3

Nationwide average 79.1 20.9

New Mexico 78.8 21.2

North Carolina 78.7 21.3

Kansas 78.0 22.0

California 77.7 22.3

Nebraska 77.7 22.3

Indiana 76.0 24.0

Alaska 75.9 24.1

Iowa 75.6 24.4

Colorado 75.1 24.9

New York 75.0 25.0

Kentucky 73.4 26.6

Rhode Island 69.7 30.3

New Hampshire 69.5 30.5

Tennessee 69.2 30.8

Minnesota 67.9 32.1

Wisconsin 65.2 34.8

Pennsylvania 64.8 35.2

New Jersey 63.9 36.1

Hawaii 58.2 41.8

Massachusetts 53.9 46.1

Maryland 48.6 51.4

Connecticut 44.3 55.7

District of Columbia 40.5 59.5

(Table notes on next page)

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3 Years

aAverage = $124,000 per school.

Table IV.3: Money Estimated Needed

on Accessibility in the Next 3 Years Percent of schools reporting

Characteristic

Number

of

schools

No

money

needed

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

Accessibility

requirements

unknown

Community type

Central city 21,663 21.6 44.5 14.1 19.8

Urban fringe/large town 19,698 20.1 46.1 14.5 19.2

Rural/small town 33,463 31.3 42.6 8.3 17.7

Geographic region

Northeast 12,577 36.4 30.1 15.5 18.0

Midwest 21,924 21.0 50.4 12.0 16.6

South 24,110 27.1 42.7 8.9 21.2

West 16,307 20.9 48.4 12.2 18.5

School size

Small (1-299 students) 20,457 29.5 42.6 8.6 19.3

Medium (300-599

students) 31,679 25.2 45.8 10.1 18.9

Large (600+ students) 22,782 22.4 43.0 16.6 18.0

School level

Elementary 53,375 25.9 44.5 10.6 18.9

Secondary 18,890 23.9 43.5 15.0 17.6

Combined 2,654 29.1 38.8 9.0 23.0

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

Less than 20 percent 16,516 25.1 45.8 12.5 16.5

20 to less than 40

percent 15,686 26.1 44.0 9.7 20.2

40 to less than 70

percent 15,921 23.6 45.9 12.0 18.5

70 percent or more 14,570 25.7 44.8 11.0 18.4

Proportion of minority students

Less than 5.5 percent 28,456 28.2 43.9 9.9 18.1

5.5 percent to less than

20.5 percent 16,138 26.8 44.8 11.4 16.9

20.5 percent to less

than 50.5 percent 14,308 20.3 46.5 12.6 20.6

50.5 percent or more 15,794 24.1 41.5 14.4 19.8

aAverage = $124,000 per school.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix IV 

Schools’ Estimated Accessibility Spending

Needs in the Next 3 Years

Table IV.4: Other Characteristics of

Schools That Reported Spending on

Accessibility

Percent of schools

reporting

Characteristic

Number of

schools

Below

averagea

spending

Above

average

spending

Community type

Central city 12,694 75.9 24.1

Urban fringe/large town 11,940 76.1 23.9

Rural/small town 17,049 83.6 16.4

Geographic region

Northeast 5,735 65.9 34.1

Midwest 13,683 80.7 19.3

South 12,454 82.7 17.3

West 9,882 79.9 20.1

School size

Small (1-299 students) 10,473 83.3 16.7

Medium (300-599 students) 17,701 81.9 18.1

Large (600+ students) 13,580 72.2 27.8

School level

Elementary 29,436 80.8 19.2

Secondary 11,050 74.4 25.6

Combined 1,269 81.2 18.8

Proportion of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

Less than 20 percent 9,645 78.5 21.5

20 to less than 40 percent 8,422 81.9 18.1

40 to less than 70 percent 9,217 79.3 20.7

70 percent or more 8,134 80.2 19.8

Proportion of minority students

Less than 5.5 percent 15,301 81.6 18.4

5.5 percent to less than 20.5 percent 9,071 79.8 20.2

20.5 percent to less than 50.5 percent 8,456 78.7 21.3

50.5 percent or more 8,867 74.3 25.7

aAverage = $124,000 per school.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Appendix V 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209

Staff

Acknowledgments

D. Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

Ella Cleveland, Senior Evaluator

Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Evaluator

Deborah L. McCormick, Senior Social Science Analyst

Edna M. Saltzman, Subproject Manager

Kathleen Ward, Senior Analyst

(104818) Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-73 Accessibility for Disabled
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100