Report No. 2007-85
December 2007

Complete Audit Report

The following findings were included in our audit report on the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education – Safe Schools Grant Program.

The Safe Schools Act, passed in 1996, provides for alternative education grants. The department is to award grants to school districts to assist in providing alternative education services for students with disruptive behavior (violent, abusive, or chronically disruptive) who are not adequately served in the traditional classroom. Two types of grants are authorized: competitive first-year grants and non-competitive second and third-year continuation grants. The school districts apply for the grant funds on an annual basis, and priority is given to continuation grants. A single school district, a two-district partnership, or a consortium of three or more districts may apply for grants.

From fiscal year 2002 to 2006, the department also awarded pilot safe schools grants to selected school districts for alternative education services. These pilot grants were to help school districts develop best practices in alternative education to serve as models for other districts.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (department) needs to improve its oversight and management of its Safe Schools Grant Program. Our audit found that state laws, regulations, and department guidelines applicable to this grant program were routinely ignored, and the results or impact of this program are unknown or unsubstantiated. Since fiscal year 1997, the state has spent over $71 million on this grant program.

The General Assembly has decreased the program funding by almost 70 percent since the program was implemented in 1997. As noted in Appendix A to this report, appropriations decreased to $3.1 million in fiscal year 2007 from $10 million in fiscal year 1997. As a result, the department has reduced the type of services funded by the program and the program is serving fewer students.

Grants were awarded to 270 school districts from 1997 to 2007. According to department records, the grant program served approximately 2,800 and 53,700 students in fiscal years 2007 and 2006, respectively. The number of students served decreased in fiscal year 2007 because the pilot grant program was terminated and grants for prevention services were not available. Almost 45,000 students received prevention services in fiscal year 2006. In addition to providing grants to school districts, the department spent grant funds on grant-related items and services, such as grant reader travel expenses, grant management software, printing, and promotional expenses.

Our audit found that the department has not developed a formal, comprehensive method to evaluate whether the grant program is working as intended and is addressing students with disruptive behavior. The department has little assurance that grant funds are used effectively because they do not formally evaluate whether the individual school districts met their stated goals, objectives, or benchmarks each year, or that the grant program is adequately providing alternative educational opportunities for violent, abusive, or chronically disruptive students, as required by state law and regulations.

The pilot program was never evaluated for its effectiveness or necessity. As noted above, the pilot grants were to help the school districts to develop best practices to serve as a model project for other school districts. During the five fiscal years 2002 to 2006, the department paid almost $4.5 million to 18 school districts for pilot programs. Additionally, the department did not award the grant funding on a competitive basis and the program was not handled in accordance with state regulations or addressed in the department's administrative manuals. Also, the department did not document adequate reasons or benefits for handling the two programs differently.

The department does not adequately review school districts’ grant expenditures to determine if the expenditures are allowable and proper, or if the local match requirements and approved budget amounts are met.

The department may not have always ensure that all school districts received fair and equitable treatment and were given the opportunity to participate in the program. Of the 270 school districts awarded grants, 20 school districts have received approximately $17.7 million (approximately 25 percent of the total grant funds) and received funding for 5 to 11 years. In addition, many other school districts have also received funding longer than provided in state regulations. Overall, 79 school districts received grant funds for 7 to 11 years and 85 school districts received grant funds for 4 to 6 years. In addition, the department frequently changed the grant requirements including the type of grants/services allowed, grant period, and local match rate. The department did not adequately document their reasons and rationale for these changes.

In fiscal year 2006, a 20 school district "mega-consortium” grant was awarded without requiring a competitive process. No other first-year grant applications were accepted that year. The department subsequently awarded the mega-consortium continuation grants in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, and the grant awards totaled $430,000, $426,000, and $453,500, in fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. Additionally, these grant amounts exceeded the maximum allowed for a consortium of three or more school districts, as provided in the applicable administrative manuals.

Complete Audit Report