In October 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act, which reauthorized education programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), revised and expanded drug education under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, which is title IV of ESEA. The purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is to create a comprehensive program to support National Education Goal Seven, which is “by the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.” School year 1995-96 was the first school year in which the program was in effect. Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants have some of the broad characteristics of block grants that we have identified in previous work. For example, the act authorizes federal aid for a wide range of activities within a broadly defined functional area; recipients have substantial discretion to identify problems, design programs, and allocate resources; federally imposed requirements are limited to those necessary to ensure that national goals are being accomplished; and federal aid is distributed on the basis of a statutory formula. For such grants, accountability plays a critical role in balancing the potentially conflicting objectives of increasing state and local flexibility, while attaining certain national objectives. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is discussed as part of Education’s strategic plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). The Results Act requires executive agencies, including Education, to develop a 5-year strategic plan that includes long-term strategic goals, establish annual performance goals, and report on progress toward those goals and objectives. Education’s draft strategic plan for 1998-2002 includes an objective for safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. Education’s statement of core strategies for achieving this objective make it clear that Safe and Drug- Free Schools will play a major role. In addition, the program is specifically cited in one of the six performance indicators that Education has chosen for assessing accomplishment of this objective. These indicators are to slow recently increasing rates of alcohol and drug use among school-aged achieve continuous decreases in criminal and violent incidents in schools by students between now and 2002; realize continuous improvement in the percentage of students reporting negative attitudes toward drug and alcohol use between now and 2002; improve prevention programs by having the majority of LEAs participating in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program use prevention programs based on Education’s principles of effectiveness by 1999; ensure, by 1999, that all states collect data statewide on alcohol and drug use among students and violence in schools; and increase significantly by 2000 the number of teachers who are appropriately trained to address discipline problems. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, like other Education programs, is subject to other federal laws and generally applicable regulations in the use of its funds and program operations. For example, the Education Department General Administrative Regulations apply to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program as well as other grant programs. These regulations establish uniform requirements for administering Education grants and principles to determine costs for activities assisted by the Department. In addition, the Single Audit Act requires each state to conduct annual independent audits of programs in the state that receive federal funds. Some aspects of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program are also affected by the general provisions of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. In particular, the Improving America’s Schools Act authorizes states to submit a single application for several federal education programs rather than separate program-specific applications. The new consolidated application process, which began with school year 1995-96 funds for Education programs, including the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, is intended to enhance program integration and reduce SEAs’ administrative burden. The Improving America’s Schools Act also requires Education to establish procedures and criteria under which a SEA may submit a consolidated application or plan. Education’s guidelines state that the consolidated plan should provide a framework for determining, within the context of a state’s school reform plan and other reform initiatives, how the federal programs in the consolidated plan will be used to help all children reach the state’s academic achievement goals. Education’s guidance for the consolidated applications requires states to include some, but not all, of the information required in comprehensive state plans by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. States must include in their consolidated application their criteria for selecting LEAs for supplemental high-need funding, their plans for spending the 5-percent set aside for state-level program activities, and their process for approving local plans for funding. While the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program’s explicit goal is to reduce drug use and violence in schools, other programs are also likely to influence progress toward this national goal. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence- prevention programs funded by the federal government. For example, in fiscal year 1995, 70 federal programs were authorized to provide either substance abuse-prevention or violence-prevention services or both to the youth they serve. Thirty-four of these programs could provide both types of prevention services. Education, which administers the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, along with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, administered most of these programs, 48 in all, but the rest of the programs were disbursed among 10 other federal agencies or entities. For these 70 programs, the fiscal year 1995 appropriations for services to youth totaled at least $2.4 billion. Multiple programs dispersed among several agencies creates the potential for inefficient services and ineffective use of funds. Although we have not fully examined these multiple programs, the implications of having multiple, unintegrated substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs might be like those for employment training programs—an area we have examined. In fiscal year 1995, we identified 163 federal employment training programs located in 15 departments and agencies. We recently concluded that consolidating these programs could probably reduce the cost of providing job training services because of the efficiencies achieved by eliminating duplicative administrative activities. Furthermore, consolidating similar programs could improve opportunities to increase service delivery and effectiveness. During the past several years, some members of the Congress, in response to constituents’ concerns, have questioned how some states and localities have used funding under both the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act programs. Allegations about misuse of funds have spanned diverse areas of program operation, from curriculum content to administrative expenses. In particular, questions have been raised about the extent to which these funds can be used to support programs, such as comprehensive health education programs, of which drug prevention is just one part; the types of activities sponsored by schools, such as alcohol-free dances; and expenditures for materials, such as pencils and tee-shirts imprinted with drug- and violence-prevention messages (see app. I for the results of our examination of some allegations). The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act establishes accountability mechanisms at the federal, state, and local levels. In combination, these mechanisms provide accountability for both spending funds (financial accountability) and reaching national, state, and locally defined goals (program accountability). The act specifies no mechanisms for direct federal oversight of local activities. Rather, the act’s mechanisms for federal oversight of the program focus on state-level programs and activities, while relying on state actions for local program oversight. The act establishes four types of accountability mechanisms: (1) an application process that requires approval of state and local plans; (2) state monitoring of LEAs’ programs; (3) reports on national, state, and local program effectiveness; and (4) LEAs’ use of advisory councils to develop program plans and assist program implementation. Education executes two of the four actions required by the act for ensuring accountability in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program: approving state plan applications and reporting on national, state, and local program effectiveness. The act requires Education to review and ensure that state plans for Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs conform with federal requirements before providing funding to a state. The act also directs Education to use a peer review or similar process in reviewing state plans and provides detailed requirements for the contents of the state plan. For example, under the act, states must include in their plans (1) measurable goals and objectives for their drug- and violence- prevention programs, (2) a description of state-level program activities, (3) their plans for monitoring LEAs’ programs, and (4) the state’s criteria for identifying high-need districts that will receive supplemental funding for drug- and violence-prevention programs. The act also requires Education to gather data about school violence and drug abuse and to assess the effectiveness of drug- and violence- prevention activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program and other recent federal initiatives. Education expects to report the results of these assessments, along with its recommendations, to the Congress by January 1998. The act also requires, indirectly, that Education collect data from states on the effectiveness and outcomes of state and local programs. That is, under the act, LEAs must provide the state with information about their programs’ effectiveness, which states must then use in their required reports to Education. Under the act, states must use application approval, program monitoring, and reporting as accountability mechanisms for ensuring that Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs conform with federal requirements. States must review applications from LEAs to determine if they are eligible for funding. Through the application process, states must ensure that each LEA receiving funds has (1) measurable goals for its drug- and violence- prevention program, (2) objectively assessed students’ current use of drugs and alcohol as well as violence and safety problems in its schools, and (3) developed plans for a comprehensive drug- and violence- prevention program. The comprehensive plan must describe how the LEA will use its funds; coordinate its efforts with communitywide efforts and other related federal, state, and local programs under this or other acts; and report progress toward the LEA’s drug- and violence-prevention goals. In addition, states may also require the submission of other necessary information and assurances. The act requires each state to monitor local program implementation and report to Education on its progress toward its drug- and violence-prevention goals. Although the act lists several general oversight responsibilities for states, it does not clearly specify actions states must take to meet these responsibilities. For example, although states must monitor local program implementation, the act leaves states to determine how to do this. In addition, it authorizes states to develop their own reporting requirements for LEAs and determine when LEAs must report on their programs. The act requires LEAs to consult with local or substate regional advisory councils in developing applications for state funds. These councils also regularly review program evaluations and other relevant material and make recommendations to LEAs for improving drug- and violence- prevention programs. In addition, these councils distribute information about drug- and violence-prevention programs, projects, and activities conducted by LEAs and advise LEAs on coordinating such agency activities with other related programs, projects, and activities as well as on the agencies administering such programs, projects, and activities. Education’s General Administrative Regulations require the state to oversee the LEA programs to ensure that such advisory councils are used as intended. Because the focus of our analysis was to describe and assess the accountability measures used at the federal and state levels, we did not assess how these advisory councils operate at the local level. The act, in addition to establishing actions federal, state, and local agencies must take to ensure accountability, has some requirements for program content and the types of activities permitted under the law. These requirements are broadly stated, permitting significant discretion at the state and local levels. The act also includes some prohibitions on how funds may be used and restricts Education’s activities regarding curriculum that may be used in state and local programs. Local drug- and violence-prevention programs under the act must be comprehensive. The act requires that comprehensive programs be designed for all students and employees. Programs for students must be designed to prevent use, possession, and distribution of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs; prevent violence and promote school safety; and create a disciplined environment conducive to learning. For employees, the program must be designed to prevent the illegal use, possession, and distribution of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs. The act also requires these comprehensive programs to include activities that promote the involvement of parents and coordination with community groups and agencies. The act identifies a wide range of programs and activities that a LEA may include in its comprehensive program, though the act does not limit LEAs to the examples it provides. For example, programs noted as permissible include comprehensive drug prevention; comprehensive health education, early intervention, student mentoring, and rehabilitation referral programs that promote individual responsibility and offer techniques for resisting peer pressure to use illegal drugs; and before- and after-school recreational, instructional, cultural, and artistic programs in supervised community settings. Activities allowed for these programs include the distribution of drug- prevention information; professional development of school personnel, parents, and law enforcement officials through activities such as workshops and conferences; implementation of strategies that integrate services to fight drug use such as family counseling, early intervention activities to prevent family dysfunction and enhance school performance; and activities designed to increase students’ sense of community such as community-service projects. Funds may also be used for metal detectors, safe-passage zones—crime- and drug-free routes students may take to and from school—and security personnel; such uses, however, are limited to no more than 20 percent of a LEA’s funds and are allowed only if a LEA has not received other federal funding for these activities. The law explicitly prohibits use of program funds for construction (except for minor remodeling), medical services, or drug treatment or rehabilitation. Materials used in Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs must convey a clear and consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other drugs is wrong and harmful. The Secretary of Education may not prescribe the use of any specific program curricula but may evaluate the effectiveness of the curricula and strategies used. Most of the funds for state and local drug- and violence-prevention programs must be distributed to LEAs. From the funds awarded to SEAs for state and LEA grant activities, SEAs may reserve no more than 5 percent for statewide activities and no more than 4 percent for program administration. The remaining funds (at least 91 percent) must go to LEAs; in school year 1995-96, this amounted to $313 million. Thirty percent of this amount, $94 million in school year 1995-96, must go to LEAs that the state has determined have the greatest need for additional funds to carry out drug- and violence-prevention programs. The act requires states to provide these supplemental funds to no more than 10 percent of the state’s LEAs, or five such LEAs, whichever is greater. Education uses several mechanisms to execute its responsibilities for ensuring program accountability. Some of these mechanisms are required by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act; others are required or permitted under other generally applicable laws and regulations such as the Single Audit Act and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations. Some of these activities—such as the application review process—are intended to ensure that program activities and expenditures comply with federal requirements. Others seek to determine if programs are addressing national goals. State and local plans form the basis for Safe and Drug-Free Schools accountability. States cannot get Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds without submitting a plan consistent with the act and approved by Education. Education reviews states’ plans for compliance with the act and other federal requirements and for program quality. In addition, state plans provide Education with detailed information on what states want to accomplish with their funding and their program management strategy. Our review of Education’s files on 16 state plans for school years 1995-96 and 1996-97 showed that Education, as required by the act, reviewed state plans and required states to revise plans that did not conform with the law’s requirements before disbursing funding to the states. Education reviewed each application to ensure the completeness and sufficiency of the information provided. When reviewers identified missing or inadequate information, they asked the states to provide additional information, and Education notified states on time that they would receive their grant awards. For school year 1996-97, states submitted their plans on time, and Education again reviewed the plans for conformity with federal requirements. Although Education sometimes requested additional information from states before awarding Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding, the Department also approved some state plans conditionally. In these cases, Education specified in states’ grant award documents additional time—1 year—for them to revise their plans to conform with federal requirements. Education established procedures for its review of state plans and provided its staff with checklists and other forms on which to document the results of these reviews. These procedures varied little for the 2 years encompassing our review. Education documented the results of its review in departmental records, including at least a copy of each state’s plan, the reviewers’ comments, material from each state responding to Education’s request for supplemental information, and grant award documents. In both years, Education’s review included checks for compliance with the act. For example, Safe and Drug-Free Schools program staff initially reviewed plans, checking to make sure each state plan had all of the law’s required assurances, signatures, and plan components. Education asked states whose plans did not pass this review to supply the missing information. Program staff also read state plans, documenting any planned activities that failed to conform with or fully satisfy federal requirements. Program staff then shared the results of this review with state officials, requested additional information, or suggested plan revisions. Education also reviewed state plans for quality as part of its plan approval process for the 2 years we reviewed. For school year 1995-96 plans, Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools program staff conducted this review and raised questions with state officials about a variety of program quality issues such as the planned program’s ability to address assessed needs. For school year 1996-97 plans, Education used a peer review process, with program staff from various Office of Elementary and Secondary Education programs as reviewers along with external experts. Education’s process for the quality review was essentially the same for 1996-97 plans as it had been for 1995-96 plans. Education also monitors states’ activities. Monitoring activities include state and local visits, reviews of state audit findings, and investigations by Education’s Inspector General (IG). Each monitoring visit involves an initial visit to a SEA; subsequent visits to local school districts may also be a part of the monitoring visit. Until September 1994, Education’s on-site monitoring visits were program specific; that is, they were made only to review Drug-Free Schools’ state and local program activities. In school year 1993-94, Education conducted program-specific monitoring reviews in three states; in school year 1994-95, Education conducted two such reviews. The Department used a variety of criteria to select states for on-site reviews, including complaints. In September 1994, however, Education changed the way it conducted on-site monitoring reviews. The Department’s new process—called an integrated review process—uses an entire team of Education officialsrepresenting all the federal education programs in which a state participates to review a state’s use of federal aid to reach its educational goals. Education piloted this integrated review process in school year 1994-95, visiting five states. In school year 1996-97, Education visited 20 states to conduct integrated reviews, which included reviews of Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs. In addition, the Department has in the past visited states to resolve allegations of impropriety related to the use of funds under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Education did so in West Virginia in 1992 and in resolving adverse audit findings in Michigan in 1994. In West Virginia, Education received a complaint letter from a parent and directed the state superintendent of education to investigate. Education officials twice visited West Virginia—first in 1992 and again in 1994—in response to complaints about the curriculum used in one LEA’s Drug-Free Schools program. As part of their review, federal officials interviewed state and local education officials and reviewed relevant curriculum materials. In Michigan, state auditors questioned some LEA expenditures under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. The findings were reviewed by Education’s IG and the program staff. The Department sustained some findings but disallowed others. (See app. I.) Education also uses its reviews of state audit findings and on-site IG reviews to stay informed of state activities. Each year, states’ federally funded programs must be independently audited as part of the federally required single state audit process. These audits—which may include the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program—identify specific findings, such as expenditures not allowable under the authorizing legislation. These findings are resolved by the Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, who sustains or rejects the findings after considering information provided by the auditor and auditee. The single state audits have uncovered improper and questionable expenditures in state and local programs. For example, state auditors in Michigan uncovered questionable state expenditures of federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding. Their findings triggered a state legislative review of the program. In the last 3 fiscal years, Education’s IG has conducted two studies of activities under Drug-Free Schools. A citizen’s complaint prompted a 1995 audit of certain financial matters in the administration of the West Virginia program. In response to the complaint, Education’s IG sought to determine if one of West Virginia’s regional education service agencies was administering its Drug-Free Schools program in compliance with applicable federal acts and regulations. More recently, in February 1996, the IG issued a report describing the programs offered in nine local Drug-Free Schools programs in eight states. Although the IG work plan for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 includes no audits of any Safe and Drug-Free Schools activities, the 1997-98 draft work plan includes two audits of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act activities. The first audit would examine the use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds and the amount of such funding reaching the classroom. The second audit would review program performance indicators. In addition, Education issued an audit supplement in June 1996 providing further guidance that will be used, for example, when states audit Safe and Drug-Free Schools activities. The supplement, which pertains to several Education programs amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act, will be used immediately by the states to conduct audits of school year 1995-96 program grantee activities. Suggested audit procedures include reviews of funded activities, expenditures, and other related records to determine whether Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds were used for any prohibited activities. As required by the act, Education is gathering information about the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Overall, Education’s data collection and evaluation activities comprise a (1) national evaluation of drug- and violence-prevention activities, including those funded under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program; (2) national data collection on violence in schools; (3) national survey to gather information about local program improvement activities; and (4) compilation of state-level reports on program effectiveness and progress toward state- and locally defined goals for drug and violence prevention. Education plans to provide information from these components, except the survey of LEAs, to the Congress in January 1998. No date has been established for reporting results of the local survey. Education, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice, has begun to evaluate the impact of violence-prevention programs as required by the act. The evaluation is designed to describe the types of activities funded with federal violence-prevention moneys, including Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds, and to identify the most promising practices among these activities. To acquire this information, the evaluation will compare matched pairs of schools with similar characteristics, but dissimilar safety profiles, to determine why the schools differ on certain safety measures. The evaluation should provide information about the effectiveness of specific interventions, officials told us, such as peer mediation, as well as broader influences on program effectiveness, such as school order and organization and class size. It will not describe the effectiveness of specific Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs nationwide. In addition to evaluating violence-prevention programs, Education, through its Center for National Education Statistics, is gathering descriptive data on violence in the nation’s schools. The data were obtained by survey from a nationally representative sample of schools and, in conjunction with existing national databases, will provide detailed information on the extent and nature of violence in schools. Although not required by the act, Education officials told us they plan to survey a nationally representative sample of LEAs participating in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program to examine program improvement at the local level. The survey, designed to gain information about LEAs’ assessment of program effectiveness and their use of such information in ongoing program implementation, will ask LEAs to report the goals and objectives established for their Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs and the measures they use to assess progress toward these goals. Though plans for the survey have not been completed, Education officials report that this survey should be the first of periodically administered surveys to obtain this information. The state-level reports on program effectiveness required by the act are likely to be the primary source of information about Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs’ effectiveness, both nationally and locally. Education— though not required to do so—has provided states with suggested program performance indicators that may be used to assess and report program effectiveness. However, it is uncertain to what extent data from these indicators will provide information about the effectiveness of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs. First, states do not have to use Education’s indicators but may develop and use their own indicators. Second, though the indicators were made available to states in draft form in August 1996, states did not receive the completed data collection instrument until December 1996. As a result, variability in state data collection efforts may prevent some states from providing the desired information, and Education officials acknowledge this. Expecting difficulties in aggregating data from the state-level reports, the Department is working with a private contractor to categorize and summarize the data. Education officials expect state data to conform more closely with Education’s performance indicators, they said, as states become more familiar with the form and have a chance to adjust their own data collection systems. Although the act requires reports every 3 years, Education is providing states with a mechanism to furnish yearly information. Education has no information yet to estimate how many states, if any, will provide information more often than every 3 years. Nearly all states use approved local plans as the primary means for ensuring a local program’s compliance with the act’s requirements as well as a variety of other methods. States’ use of the plans to ensure compliance often begins when LEAs submit their plans for state approval, with states using the approval process to ensure that a LEA’s planned program conforms with the act’s requirements. Once local plans have been approved, state officials monitor local programs, they said, using site visits, telephone contacts, and reviews of reports submitted by LEAs of their program activities and expenditures. A few states reported using a combination of these methods to oversee local programs. States must approve local plans before a LEA may receive its Safe and Drug-Free Schools grant. State approval, however, is not automatic. Ninety-six percent of the state officials responding to our survey said some LEAs had to revise their plans to obtain state approval. A plan could be judged unacceptable for minor or rather major reasons, state officials told us. For example, a plan lacking all the appropriate signatures might require only minor revisions. Other plans, however, such as those lacking measurable goals and objectives or those with budgets that were incongruent with the planned program activities, might require more substantial revision. Most local plans, however, are eventually successfully revised and gain state approval. In school year 1995-96, only a small percentage of LEAs did not receive Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding because their plans were not approved, state officials told us. The act requires states to use a peer review or other method of ensuring the quality of applications. More than half the states use a peer review process. Officials in 29 states told us they use a peer review process; in 19 of those states, the peer reviewers’ decisions are binding. The composition of peer review panels varies by state. In some states, peer review panel members include representatives from the LEAs. Georgia and Virginia, for example, are among the states that reported using LEA representatives as peer reviewers. In other states, such as Colorado, Alabama, and Idaho, peer reviewers come from diverse groups such as the SEA’s staff, Safe and Drug-Free Schools advisory group, and local drug-prevention experts. States that reported using no peer review panel told us that SEA officials review and approve local plans. In the states we visited, officials use their review of local plans to ensure that LEAs’ planned activities conform with the act’s requirements. West Virginia’s coordinator told us that she reviews each local plan for compliance. In Michigan, state officials must certify in writing that each approved local plan conforms with the act’s requirements. We heard similar anecdotal evidence when we spoke with our survey respondents. For example, officials in Arizona and Nebraska also reported reviewing local plans for compliance as part of the local plan approval process. States reported that they monitor local activities and expenditures, in accordance with the act, using a variety of mechanisms, such as site visits and document reviews. Most state Safe and Drug-Free Schools officials who use site visits to monitor said site visits are the most effective method for monitoring LEA activities. Documents reviewed by states include program and expenditure reports from LEAs. States use the local plan to monitor program compliance as well as to develop the framework for site visit observations. A few state officials also cited several barriers to monitoring local activities. The most prominent of these are resource shortages, that is, lack of staff and time. State officials oversee local programs by visiting LEAs, reviewing LEAs’ program and expenditure reports, as well as making phone contacts. In school year 1995-96, state officials in 48 states and Puerto Rico reported making more than 1,900 site visits to local programs; 18 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia used site visits more frequently than any other oversight method. Although 22 states reported making regular site visits, 12 states selected the sites they visited randomly. Nineteen states reported visiting sites on the basis of LEA requests or complaints. States also selected sites to visit on the basis of other criteria such as the need for technical assistance, the amount of carryover funds, and whether the LEA had received additional funding because it was considered “high need.” When asked how often they expected to perform site visits to local programs, 16 states that performed site visits in school year 1995-96 said they expected to visit each local program once every 3 years. Only 3 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico expected yearly visits; 19 states said they expected to visit programs every 3 to 4 years. Site visits include a wide range of activities, from reviewing program records to on-site observations, state officials told us. Most of the states that conducted site visits in school year 1995-96, however, reported the following common activities: examining program and financial records; reviewing the local curriculum; and interviewing staff, students, and parents. In addition to site visits, state officials in 31 states and the District of Columbia said they oversee local programs by reviewing documents provided by LEAs. Nine states reported this as the most often used monitoring method. Only five states reported using phone calls or technical assistance contacts as the most often used method for monitoring local activities. (See table III.6 in app. III.) The states we visited use most of the mechanisms cited by our survey respondents to monitor LEAs’ program activities and expenditures. For example, Michigan and West Virginia use site visits and reviews of LEAs’ program and expenditure reports to ensure that programs are implemented in compliance with the act. West Virginia’s coordinator told us she also uses telephone contacts as a monitoring mechanism. Virginia’s coordinator, citing staff shortages as the reason the state could not visit sites in school year 1995-96, said the state relies on its review of LEA expenditure reports to monitor LEA programs. Although the three states’ local reporting requirements differ somewhat, each state requires LEAs to submit an annual progress report, including information on their programs’ activities and expenditures as well as expenditure reports. State officials have established standard policies and procedures for site visits, our research revealed. Michigan’s Office of Drug Control Policy, for example, has developed a “Local Program Review Guide” that SEA staff must use when monitoring LEA sites. The guide has specific questions about the local program’s characteristics, such as curriculum content, parental involvement, and the local advisory council. The state reviewer must document findings for each characteristic. The guide also specifies the type of documentation to be used. West Virginia has also written policies and procedures to guide monitoring practices. In addition to reviewing program records, West Virginia’s State and Drug-Free School coordinator said she conducts interviews with local program administrators and actually observes program activities. Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, she told us, she also plans to include a review of local vouchers in her site visit activities in response to a recommendation by the state auditor. As permitted under the act, all states we surveyed had established reporting requirements for LEAs receiving Safe and Drug- Free Schools funds. Generally, states most often rely on annual reporting, although a few states require semiannual or monthly reporting. For example, 36 states reported that they require LEAs to provide an annual progress report. Three states require more frequent reports. Twenty-eight states said they require an annual expenditure report; 17 states require LEAs to report on their expenditures more frequently. In addition, seven reported that they require monitoring reports of LEAs when the LEAs visit program sites. In addition to these requirements, most states require LEAs to submit a report documenting their expenditures before the state releases funding to them. Twenty-six of the states distribute funds on a reimbursement basis, they said. LEAs use their own funds to pay program costs and are later reimbursed for their expenditures by the state. The timing and information requirements of these reports vary, with some states requiring a more detailed explanation of spending than others. For example, Michigan Safe and Drug-Free Schools officials require LEAs to report just the total amount of money spent as of the date the state requests reimbursement. In contrast, South Dakota requires LEAs to send in copies of their vouchers before being reimbursed for program funds, according to state officials. States must obtain information from LEAs for the required triennial reports to Education describing the implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, and progress of state-level and LEA-operated programs. At the time of our survey, however, many states had little information about the extent and nature of program evaluation activities at the local level. For example, of those state officials who reported local evaluation activities, many did not know the number of LEAs conducting evaluations or the objectives and activities of the LEA evaluations. In addition, we asked state officials what information they planned to include in their triennial reports. Many of the state officials who responded to this question told us they either had not determined what information they would include in their report or that they would include whatever information Education required of them. As permitted under the act, SEAs and LEAs use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for a variety of activities. Although states often require LEAs to report on their expenditures, the reported data are seldom routinely aggregated to provide a statewide picture of Safe and Drug-Free Schools spending. State officials do not aggregate expenditure data, they told us, because no reporting requirement exists for them to do so. Although states use their program funds to provide a variety of services, in most states, training and technical assistance for LEA staff and others, including parents, is a frequent investment (see fig. 2 and table III.2 in app. III). Forty-five states and Puerto Rico said they use a portion of their state program funds in this way. Other categories of expenditures reported by many states include curriculum development and acquisition (32 states), violence prevention (27 states), and state-level program evaluation (22 states). Other activities reported included demonstration projects (18 states) or activities to provide cost-effective programs to LEAs (20 states). LEAs provide a broad range of activities to students with Safe and Drug-Free Schools program funds, according to state officials (see fig. 3). These activities include drug-prevention instruction (provided by 91 percent of the LEAs) and violence-prevention instruction (provided by 68 percent of LEAs) and staff training on new drug-prevention techniques and use of new curriculum materials; special one-time events, such as a guest speaker, or drug- and alcohol-free social activities, such as a dance or picnic; parent education/involvement; student support services, such as counseling and referral services; and curriculum development and acquisition. Ninety-one percent of LEAs provide drug-prevention instruction. Staff training is the next most offered activity, with 77 percent of districts reporting such training. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs funded by the federal government. The major purpose of the programs is to help the nation’s schools provide a disciplined environment conducive to learning by eliminating violence in and around schools and preventing illegal drug use. States and localities have wide discretion in designing and implementing programs funded under the act. They are held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives they set as well as for the federal dollars they spend. As permitted under the act, states and localities are delivering a wide range of activities and services. Likewise, accountability mechanisms have been established and appear to be operating in ways consistent with the act. The lack of uniform information on program activities and effectiveness may, however, create a problem for federal oversight. First, with no requirement that states use a consistent set of measures, the Department faces a difficult challenge in assembling the triennial reports so that a nationwide picture of the program’s effectiveness emerges. Second, although Education provides a mechanism for states to report information annually, under the act, nationwide information on effectiveness and program activities may only be available every 3 years, which may not be often enough for congressional oversight. The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of this report, and we incorporated, where appropriate, technical clarifications it suggested. In addition, the Department expressed concern about our observations on the multiple programs designed to address youth violence and drug abuse. In the Department’s view, “the discussion of the numerous Federal programs designed to reduce or eliminate youth drug use or violence treats the topic too generally. While other Federal programs may address various aspects of these two very serious problems, we know of no other Federal program that provides widely available, sustained support to schools to prevent or reduce youth drug use or violence. The draft fails to provide detailed information about these other, numerous Federal programs, and reaches a tentative conclusion about duplication and effectiveness that is not supported by this draft report.” We did not revise our reference to the multiple programs in response to this comment because (1) we state only that the potential for duplication exists among these multiple, nonintegrated programs and (2) we also state that we did not fully examine these programs to document the extent to which this may be true for drug and violence programs. In addition, this background information provides what we consider to be an important general context for considering the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. The additional detail about the other programs has been reported in our other products cited in the footnotes. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate committees and other interested parties. Please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L. Johnson on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. The key issue in this allegation—that the state improperly used federal drug education funding to implement a comprehensive health curriculum—resulted from a state legislative review of the Michigan Department of Education’s implementation of a comprehensive school health curriculum. The state review, which had been prompted by parents’ concerns about the curriculum content, uncovered questionable expenditures of federal drug-prevention funding under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act for curriculum materials not related to drug education as well as questionable fiscal practices. In addition to the legislative review, Michigan’s Director of Drug Control Policy conducted his own investigation. His review and that of the state auditor concluded that many of the expenditures for the comprehensive school health curriculum violated federal requirements for federal drug-prevention funding. As a result of the state auditor’s adverse audit findings, the U.S. Department of Education became involved. Federal officials reviewed the audit findings and issued final rulings on whether the expenditures under question violated federal requirements. Although state auditors questioned the expenditures for the comprehensive health curriculum, upon obtaining further information from state officials, Education found these expenditures acceptable. Education, however, did find that the Michigan Department of Education had violated other federal requirements in managing federal drug-prevention funding. The 1994 passage of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act contained an administrative provision that authorized the use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding and, retroactively, the use of Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding for comprehensive health programs. Between 1992 and 1994, members of the state legislature and the director of Michigan’s Office of Drug Control Policy charged Michigan state education officials with improperly using federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding to implement a statewide comprehensive school health program. The program, called the Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education, sought to educate students about maintaining health and included a drug education component. The program sparked controversy when parents statewide expressed opposition to their state representatives. In response to these complaints, state legislators launched their own inquiry. During their investigations, legislators came to question the appropriateness and legality of using federal Drug-Free Schools funding to implement a comprehensive health education program. In addition, they uncovered questionable administrative practices and expenditures made with Drug-Free Schools funding. In 1994, the Family Law, Mental Health and Corrections Committee of the Michigan State Legislature released a report of its investigation into the Michigan Department of Education’s management of federal Drug-Free Schools funding. The Committee examined seven issues, concluding that the Michigan Department of Education (1)”diverted” federal Drug-Free Schools funds “to activity not related to drug prevention” and (2) illegally restricted local school districts’ discretion in using their drug education funds. The Committee also concluded that “a history of poor grant management and oversight by the department of education” had occurred and found that greater accountability was needed to ensure the proper uses of public funds. Among its recommendations, the Committee called for performance audits of Drug-Free Schools grantees and state-level agencies involved with Drug-Free Schools program expenditures. The Committee’s findings echoed the findings of earlier investigations by the state’s Office of Drug Control Policy. Calling the Michigan Model’s implementation the “Michigan Morass,” the Director of the Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy asserted that the problem rested in “how funds diverted to it were obtained and administered,” especially federal Drug-Free Schools funds. The many problems cited by the director included questionable bidding practices on competitive contracts, potential “double-dipping” by state employees who served as both program coordinators and paid consultants, and the purchase of curriculum materials not directly related to the drug education components of the Michigan Model. According to him, these purchases included giant toothbrushes, a human torso model, dog bone kits, and bicycle pumps. Because of the state audit findings, the issue of the use of Drug-Free Schools funds for delivering a drug education program through a comprehensive school health curriculum came before the U.S. Department of Education for resolution. Specifically, state auditors had found that (1) the Michigan Department of Education failed to “appropriately document to what extent Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (Drug Free Schools) funds could be used to fund comprehensive health education programs in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements,” and (2) “the level of funding provided by to support the Michigan Model exceeds the relative weight of drug abuse education and prevention criteria contained in the Michigan Model.”Federal education officials did not sustain these findings. Education’s rejection of these findings rested on its analysis of the federal law, provisions of nonregulatory guidance, and a 1991 ruling by Education’s Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education on the issue. Citing federal nonregulatory guidance on this issue, Education pointed out that LEAs may include drug abuse education and prevention in a comprehensive health education program, but the expenditure of Drug-Free Schools funds is limited to the drug abuse education and prevention program components. Education also noted that the guidance did not “specify particular methods to be used in determining the proportionate share of a comprehensive health education program to be funded by the Drug Free Schools Act.” Referring to its previous ruling, Education said the Michigan Department of Education had demonstrated through an analysis of the Michigan Model’s curriculum content that the level of Drug-Free Schools funding for the Model was consistent with the Model’s level of drug abuse education and prevention content. Though the state auditor challenged the Michigan Department of Education’s methodology for determining program content, Education ruled that “the auditors provided no evidence to demonstrate that the methods used by the subcommittee were in violation of any statutory or regulatory requirements.” Education concluded, “Consequently, there is insufficient information to establish that the [Michigan State Department of Education] has violated the requirements contained in the [Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act] and other applicable regulations related to the proportionate use of these funds for the Michigan Model.” Though Education officials rejected auditors’ findings on the uses of Drug-Free Schools funds for implementation of the Michigan Model, it sustained audit findings on several other points. In brief, Education sustained audit findings that the Michigan Department of Education failed to (1) respect the broad discretion granted local grantees in developing their drug education programs, (2) ensure that LEA grant application requirements were fulfilled, and (3) evaluate programs in accordance with federal requirements. The Department required the state to take appropriate corrective actions. A LEA’s use of Drug-Free Schools funding to provide out-of-town training for members of its school/community coalitions led to concerns that these expenditures did not meet federal criteria. Although the Drug-Free Schools Act permitted a wide range of activities, state and local education agencies were also required to adhere to the Education Department’s General Administrative Regulations. These regulations include a requirement that costs be “necessary and reasonable” and discuss the allowability of certain kinds of costs. The state learned of the allegation when a caller reported the alleged misuse of funds to the Governor’s Fraud Hotline. The complaint was forwarded to the Virginia Department of Education’s internal auditor for an investigation, which included interviews with local officials and a review of county auditors’ report on the LEA’s expenditures. Ultimately, state officials concluded the expenditures were allowable under federal requirements but expressed concern about the appearance of fiscal impropriety. The entire matter was resolved without federal intervention. In 1995, the Governor’s Office, through its fraud hotline, received an allegation charging the Fairfax County Public Schools with the misuse of Drug-Free Schools funds. An anonymous caller to the hotline alleged that Fairfax County school district officials were using federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (Drug-Free Schools) funds for staff training sessions at an expensive summer resort. The call was referred to the Virginia State Department of Education’s internal auditor for investigation. State officials learned that the Fairfax County Public Schools had sponsored a total of 11 training sessions—each for 2-1/2 days—between March 1994 and April 1995 in St. Michael’s, Maryland. The sessions, designed to facilitate the formation of school-community coalitions to support and enhance school-based drug use prevention activities, trained community representatives, business owners, school board members, alternative school staff, and members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. In all, the district trained 876 individuals at a total cost of $181,397.71, or $207 per participant, according to Fairfax County public school officials. In the course of their investigation, state officials also learned that the district’s fiscal year 1994 expenditures had been audited to determine if Fairfax County Public Schools’ Drug-Free Schools and Communities grant was being administered in compliance with federal and state requirements. The subsequent audit report discussed the expenditures for the district’s training sessions in St. Michael’s. Auditors concluded that federal statutes had not been violated but stated the training sessions could be seen as excessive, unnecessary, and social in nature and cited Education Department General Administrative Regulations requirements that expenditures be “necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient administration of the grant.” The auditors cited the Regulations’ requirements that the grant not authorize expenditures for entertainment or social activities, including “costs for amusements, social activities, meals, beverages, lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities.” Although the auditors concluded that the training expenses had been reasonable—the room expenses were no more than an average hotel room in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and meals had been reasonably priced—they questioned the need to hold the training sessions out of state. On the basis of the local auditor’s findings and information obtained from district officials, Virginia State Department of Education officials concluded the costs for the St. Michael’s training sessions were reasonable. Though commending the LEA’s “School/Community Action Team” concept, state officials cautioned the district to take special precautions in guaranteeing that the district’s activities and expenditures were viewed by the school as necessary, reasonable, and consistent with the purposes of the Drug-Free Schools grant. The state fully reimbursed the district for each training session after the audit findings were discussed, and the state made procedural changes to avoid a similar incident in the future. The key issue in this allegation—that the state failed to ensure that local programs deliver a clear “no use” message and that locals comply with federal requirements for expenditures and financial management—has been addressed by federal reviews of state and local activities under the Drug-Free Schools Act. Regarding the lack of a “no use” message, federal officials found that insufficient evidence existed to support this claim. As noted previously, federal officials did observe instances of noncompliance with financial management requirements. However, both the SEA and the LEA have taken steps to correct these problems. In March 1995, the Chief Counsel of the House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice met with a West Virginia parent to discuss her concerns about drug education and prevention programs. In subsequent correspondence with the Chief Counsel, the parent reiterated her concerns, charging a lack of accountability on federal officials’ part in ensuring state and local compliance with the Drug-Free Schools Act. Local officials, she said, implemented a curriculum teaching “that only abuse of a drug is harmful, leading our youth to believe and implying that moderation and occasional use of cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol might be an acceptable choice for themselves.” The parent also said she had withdrawn her children from her district’s drug-education program but expressed concern for children still enrolled in the program. The parent’s letter to the Chief Counsel was not the first expression of her concern about West Virginia’s implementation of the Drug-Free Schools Act. For example, she asked federal officials in the U.S. Department of Education in 1991 to conduct a formal investigation of the QUEST curriculum used by her West Virginia school district, Jefferson County.Characterizing the curriculum as “non-directive,” she said she objected to the curriculum’s lessons in self-esteem and values clarification. The concerns she raised ultimately resulted in a program review by Education’s Drug-Free Schools officials and a limited-scope audit by Education’s Inspector General (IG). In addition, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, at this same parent’s request, reviewed the QUEST curriculum to assess its compliance with federal statutes. Both entities concluded that the curriculum violated no federal statutes. Federal officials performed two site reviews of Drug-Free Schools programs in West Virginia. The first, conducted in 1992, was performed in response to allegations that the county violated federal requirements when it failed to adopt and implement a program to prevent students’ use of illicit drugs and alcohol. As part of their review, federal officials interviewed appropriate state and local educational agency personnel and examined relevant texts and other materials. As a result of this review, a Department official concluded in September 1992 “that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Jefferson County does offer a drug prevention program for students in all grades.” Education officials conducted another review of West Virginia’s Drug-Free Schools program, focusing on SEA activities, in 1994. The review uncovered several problems with administrative practices, including the following: The West Virginia Department of Education incorrectly calculated LEA awards in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. LEA applications failed to require all the information and assurances specified by the federal statute. LEA applications did not, but should, include information that allowed the SEA to assess the use of Drug-Free Schools funds at the local level. The West Virginia Department of Education failed to separately account for program activities and expenditures versus administrative activities and expenditures. The West Virginia Department of Education may wish to require receipts or other evidence from LEAs before reimbursing funds for program activities. The report also noted significant improvements in the state’s monitoring of and technical assistance to LEAs. In addition, federal officials commended the West Virginia Department of Education on its peer review process. In 1995, Education’s IG performed a limited-scope audit of selected aspects of Regional Education Service Agency VIII’s (RESA VIII) administration of the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act programs to determine if the agency was administering the federal Drug-Free Schools program in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations. Overall, the IG found the agency’s internal controls for providing management with reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition and that transactions are executed in accordance with management’s authorization and recorded properly to permit correct financial reporting—sufficient for the Drug-Free Schools program. The IG cited two cases of material noncompliance with federal laws and regulations, however. First, RESA VIII had failed to fulfill requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984 by not conducting annual audits. Second, RESA VIII used an inappropriate indirect cost rate during fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 when it based its indirect cost on that of its fiscal agent, Berkeley County. The IG’s recommendations included instructions to both the RESA and the state. Recommendations to RESA VIII included (1) that the agency develop appropriate, reasonable indirect cost rates for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 and (2) obtain audits for all years required in accordance with the federal Single Audit Act and applicable regulations. The IG also recommended that the West Virginia Department of Education (1) cease requiring grantees of federal funds to use inappropriate indirect cost rates, (2) require RESA VIII to develop and submit to the West Virginia Department of Education its own indirect cost rate in accordance with federal requirements, and (3) require RESA VIII and all other RESAs to report to the Department their indirect cost rate audit results. To address your concerns about Safe and Drug-Free Schools’ accountability provisions and their implementation, we asked four questions: (1) What accountability measures are required under the act at the federal, state, and local levels? (2) What activities are used by Education for overseeing state and local programs? (3) How do SEAs ensure local programs’ compliance with the act? and (4) What specific uses are made of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding at the state and local levels? To determine what is required under the act, we reviewed relevant documents, such as the act and its legislative history, relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, and other related legislation. To assess what actions Education is taking, we followed up on allegations of impropriety in three states (Michigan, Virginia and West Virginia), reviewing documentation and interviewing state and local officials involved in the original incident and in the investigation and resolution (see app. I for a description of each of these site visits). We also reviewed documents at Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and interviewed Department officials. In addition, we reviewed Department of Education state files for 16 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These state files included documentation, such as a copy of the state’s plan, the reviewers’ comments, materials from the state responding to Education’s request for supplemental information, and grant award documents. States were selected using a stratified, random sample. To select states for site visits, we used two main techniques to help identify allegations. First, we followed up on leads provided by correspondence to a member of the Congress. For example, a set of seven letters given to us alleged improper use of funds. We reviewed these letters and called all seven authors to clarify their complaints. On the basis of the letters and phone calls, we eliminated six of these allegations from our investigation because they concerned curriculum issues. Because the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act makes curriculum a state and local issue— the Secretary of Education is specifically prohibited from prescribing or proscribing specific materials or approaches—curriculum could not be used as a basis for inappropriate use of federal funds. We did visit the site of the seventh allegation—West Virginia. We also chose the West Virginia program because it had been audited by the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Education and was the subject of other Department of Education reviews, providing us with much information that could be reviewed in a relatively short time. Second, in reviewing the legislative history, we found that a floor debate in the House had mentioned a number of other allegations. One, the alleged misuse of funds in Virginia for training retreats held in a resort location in Maryland, had been the subject of investigations, giving us ample data to review. Therefore, we chose Virginia for a site visit. Finally, the use of Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act program funds in Michigan for a comprehensive health program had already prompted a large state-level investigation. We chose Michigan for a site visit because of the importance of this investigation. To determine what oversight was required and assess accountability activities at the state and local level, we surveyed the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico about their activities, receiving information from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Although we did not verify the data the states supplied us, we did review supporting documentation they provided and used our site visits to Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia to collect examples of how the law was being implemented and to observe accountability practices at the state and local level. Most information about state accountability, however, collected through the questionnaire and follow-up phone calls was reported by SEAs. Our work was conducted from February 1996 to May 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The tables in this appendix provide information, by state, on selected aspects of states’ Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs. Table III.1 provides the amount of each SEA’s school year 1995-96 allocation; tables III.2, III.3, III.4, and III.5 provide information on the activities funded by Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants. Information about state accountability mechanisms, such as methods used for monitoring and distributing funds, appears in tables III.6 and III.8. Table III.7 provides information on private school participation in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Table III.9 provides information on how states selected their neediest districts. Table III.3: Percent of LEAs in Each State Providing Selected Services, School Year 1995-96—Teacher/Staff Training, Drug-Prevention Instruction, Violence-Prevention Instruction, Curriculum Development/Acquisitions, and Student Support Services (continued) (continued) The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I. Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey. LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level. No knowledge. (continued) The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I. Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey. LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level. (continued) The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I. Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey. Some LEAs provided more than one other type of service. LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level. Telephone calls (monitoring) (continued) Telephone calls (monitoring) (Table notes on next page) Missing data. Number of private not-for-profit schools participating (continued) Missing data. Data were collected by state but were not aggregated at the state level. (continued) (continued) In addition to those named above, the following individuals made important contributions to this report: John Carney helped design the questionnaire, gather survey information from states, reviewed Department of Education files, wrote summaries of those reviews, and drafted sections of the report; D. Catherine Baltzell, Dianne Murphy Blank, and Deborah Edwards helped design the study and advised on methodology; Edward Tuchman helped gather survey data from states and, with Wayne Dow, provided survey analyses; and Linda Stokes and Sheila Nicholson helped gather survey information from states. In addition, Robert Crystal and Julian Klazkin performed the legal analysis and provided ongoing legal advice. 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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. 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.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the accountability measures the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires at the federal, state, and local levels; (2) the activities that the Department of Education uses for overseeing state and local programs; (3) how state education agencies (SEA) ensure local programs' compliance with the act; and (4) how Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is specifically used at the state and local levels. GAO noted that: (1) the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs funded by the federal government; (2) the act that authorizes the program requires four major types of actions to ensure accountability on the federal, state, and local levels: (a) an application process requiring approval of state and local program plans; (b) monitoring activities by state agencies; (c) periodic reports and evaluations; and (d) the use of local or substate regional advisory councils; (3) Education oversees state programs directly and local programs indirectly through required state actions; (4) working along with states, Education reviews, helps states to revise, and approves state plans; (5) Education has issued no program-specific regulations on the act; (6) Education does require states to conform to general and administrative regulations and advises states on program matters, such as allowable expenditures, through nonbinding guidance; (7) the Department may get involved in resolving allegations of impropriety in the use of funds; (8) no overall evaluations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program have been completed; (9) Education conducts evaluation activities designed to provide both descriptive and evaluative information about the programs; (10) Education's evaluative activities focus on broader aspects of program implementation; (11) Education is indirectly gathering information about the effectiveness of specific state and local programs through reports states must submit to Education every 3 years; (12) the lack of uniformity in what states report may create a problem for federal oversight; (13) nearly all states use the approved local plans to ensure local programs' compliance with the act's requirements; (14) states use local compliance with the approved plans as a way of ensuring that funds are spent on activities permitted under the act; (15) most states use both on-site visits and local self-reports to oversee local program activities; (16) local education agencies (LEAs) are also required to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs; (17) SEAs and LEAs use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for a variety of activities; (18) states mostly use their 5-percent set-aside for activities such as training and technical assistance; (19) ninety-one percent of LEAs provide drug-prevention instruction; and (20) staff training is the next most offered activity.