Special Education
Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5 Gao ID: GAO-02-394 April 25, 2002In fiscal year 2001, the federal government spent $7 billion on the following three special education grant programs: Special Education Grants to States (School-age Grants), Special Education Grants Preschool (Preschool Grants) and Special Education Grants for Infants and Families with Disabilities (Infants Grants). School-age and Preschool Grants are similar, except for the age ranges served, while Infant Grants differ in goals, performance objectives, performance measures, eligibility, and services. The key distinction between School-Age and Preschool Grants is that School-age Grants serve children ages three through 21, whereas Preschool Grants serve only children ages three through five. States receive funds from all three grants, and some states report they use both School-age and Preschool funds to provide the same range of services to children aged three through five. Although states receive funds from all three grants, local agencies may receive funds from only one grant, or from all three. Eighteen of the 19 states GAO reviewed reported that the range of services they provide to children ages three through five is the same as those they provide with Preschool Grants. Evaluations show that half the children who received preschool services (mainly speech and language therapy) no longer needed them on reaching school age. Consolidating the two grants would eliminate coordination problems, but it is unclear whether program efficiency would increase. At the federal level, Education is already administering School-age and Preschool Grants as one program. State and local officials said that consolidation would not significantly reduce administrative burden.
GAO-02-394, Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-394
entitled 'Special Education: Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children
Ages 0-5' which was released on April 25, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, U.S.
Senate Committee on Government Affairs:
April 2002:
Special Education:
Grant Programs Designed to Serve Children Ages 0-5:
GAO-02-394:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
School-Age and Preschool Grants Are Similar Except for Age Range
Served; Infant Grants Differ:
States Receive All Grants and Many Provide Services to 3 through 5 Year-
Olds with School-Age as well as Preschool Grants:
Grants‘ Impact Not Yet Evaluated, and Few Data Are Available on
Effectiveness of Special Education Programs for Young Children:
Some Local Coordination and Program Overlap Issues Exist:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Response:
Appendix: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Overview of Three Programs Serving Young Children with
Disabilities, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 2: Overview of Eligibility Criteria, Services Allowed, Goals and
Performance Objectives for Infant, Preschool, and School-age Grants for
Children with Disabilities:
Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Options for Addressing
Potential Overlap of Preschool and School-age Grants:
Figure:
Figure 1: Special Education Funding Sources:
Abbreviations:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
LEA: local educational agencies:
OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs:
SEA: state educational agency:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 25, 2002:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and
the District of Columbia:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Voinovich:
In fiscal year 2001, the federal government spent about $7 billion on
three special education grant programs mandated by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These grants are Special Education
Grants to States (School-age Grants), Special Education Preschool
Grants (Preschool Grants) and Special Education Grants for Infants and
Families with Disabilities (Infant Grants). This review is one of four
reports you have requested looking at overlap among early childhood
education and care programs.[Footnote 1] Our work has shown that if
such programs are designed to achieve similar outcomes for the same
target group and are not well-coordinated, the potential exists for
ineffective service delivery and administrative inefficiencies.
[Footnote 2] This potential exists for School-age Grants and Preschool
Grants because School-age Grants serve children ages 3 through 21 and
Preschool Grants serve children ages 3 through 5.
These three grant programs are not programs in the typical sense
because they do not carry out a distinct set of functions through their
own delivery systems. Instead, the programs serve as funding streams,
merging with much greater state and local resources to support state
and local programs. State and local programs supported by the three
grants served approximately 6.6 million children in fiscal year 2001.
Of these children, about 830,000 were receiving early intervention and
special education and related services”231,000 were under 3 years-old
and 599,000 were age 3 through 5.
Specifically, you asked us: (1) How similar are the goals/objectives,
performance measures, eligibility criteria, and the services allowed by
these programs? (2) Do states and local agencies receive funding from
more than one of these grants and, if so, do they use the funds to
provide the same range of services to children in the same age group?
(3) What is known about the effectiveness of these programs and of the
early interventions they fund? (4) What opportunities exist for better
coordination among the programs or consolidation of the programs to
achieve efficiencies?
To answer these questions, we reviewed pertinent documents, including
state monitoring reports issued by the U.S. Department of Education‘s
(Education) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which provided
detailed information about state and local efforts to implement
IDEA.[Footnote 3] We examined the grant application process and
administrative structure for each grant program, conducted interviews
with special education program officials and representatives from
special education stakeholder groups (parents and state directors of
special education), conducted comprehensive state-level interviews in
four states”Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Virginia”and conducted
structured telephone interviews with officials from 15 states.
[Footnote 4] We selected the four states for comprehensive interviews
based, in part, on recommendations from state-level officials and
others with a direct interest in these programs. We also considered
variations in how states administer these programs and selected states
that represented a variety of administrative structures and geographic
regions. For the telephone interviews, we selected at least 1 state
from each of Education‘s 10 regions. In order to obtain a wide range of
perspectives on program administration, we also considered which state
agency had been designated to administer Infant Grants. We performed
our work from June 2001 through February 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
School-age and Preschool Grants are similar, except for the age ranges
of children they serve, while Infant Grants differ from the other two
grants in goals, performance objectives, performance measures,
eligibility, and services. School-age and Preschool Grants share the
common goal of helping states provide access to high-quality education
for students with disabilities and use a single set of performance
objectives and performance measures to measure progress towards this
goal. Both grants pay for the same range of special education and
related services and require that children must be classified by the
state as having a disability in order to be eligible for these
services. The key distinction between the two grants is that School-age
Grants serve children ages 3 through 21, whereas Preschool Grants
generally serve children ages 3 through 5. In contrast, the goal of
Infant Grants is to help states provide a comprehensive system of early
intervention services to infants, toddlers, and their families to
enhance the development of infants and toddlers with disabilities and
those who are at risk of developmental delays. Infant Grants may be
used to pay for health and family services, such as tube feeding and
respite care, that are more comprehensive than those provided under the
other two grants, and for additional services to families that will
enhance their capacity to meet the special needs of their infants and
toddlers. To be eligible for services under Infant Grants, children
must be under age 3 and have a developmental delay or the potential to
develop one.
States receive funds from all three grants, and some states reported
they use funds from both School-age and Preschool Grants to provide the
same range of services to children aged 3 through 5. Although states
receive funds from all three grants, local agencies may receive funds
from only one grant, or from as many as three. Overlap can occur only
between School-age Grants and Preschool Grants, which fund the same
range of services for children ages 3 through 5. Eighteen of the 19
states we talked with reported that the range of services they provide
to children ages 3 through 5 using funds from School-age Grants, such
as counseling, speech pathology services, and physical therapy, is the
same as those they provide using funds from Preschool Grants. None of
these states could tell us how much of their School-age Grants they use
to pay for services for children ages 3 through 5, and federal
regulations do not require them to report this information. In general,
states could not provide us with this information because they account
for expenditures by budget function, such as salaries or
transportation, and not by individual services provided or ages of
children receiving services.
Little is known about the long-term effectiveness of these programs and
the early childhood interventions they fund. No evaluations of these
programs have been conducted that attempt to isolate the impact of
these three federal grant programs from the impact of other funding
sources. Education has three large studies under way that will have
some information on the outcomes for children who are enrolled in
special education preschool programs, but not on these programs‘
specific contributions to these outcomes. In addition, two state
evaluations that we reviewed described positive outcomes for children
who participated in preschool special education programs but could not
attribute these outcomes solely to program participation. These
evaluations show that about half the children who received preschool
services (mainly speech and language therapy) no longer needed them
when they reached school age.
We found some opportunities for better coordination of these grant
programs, but program officials told us that consolidating School-age
and Preschool Grants would not result in additional administrative
efficiencies. The lack of coordination that we did find existed at the
state and local level in situations where a child turned 3 before the
school year began, causing a gap between the services provided with
Infant Grants and those provided with School-age and Preschool Grants.
This occurred despite federal rules that allow funds from Infant Grants
to be used after the third birthday to pay for a free appropriate
public education until the beginning of the following school year and
required written plans for each child, to show how the transition
between the two programs will be managed. We were unable to determine
whether the overlap in age groups served by School-age and Preschool
Grants indicates poor coordination, because most of the states and
localities that we contacted do not track the sources of funds for
services for specific ages of children. Although consolidating these
two grants would eliminate the potential for poor coordination between
two separate grants by eliminating one of them, it is not clear that
this would result in increased program efficiency. At the federal
level, Education is already administering School-age and Preschool
Grants as if they were one program. State and local officials indicated
that although there are potential advantages and disadvantages to
consolidating the programs, overall, consolidation would probably not
result in a significant reduction in administrative burden.
Background:
The 50 states and the District of Columbia spent an estimated $50
billion on special education for children from birth through age 21 in
school year 1999-00. About 12 percent of this amount came from federal
funds, specifically IDEA grants (10 percent) and Medicaid funds (2
percent).[Footnote 5] (See fig. 1.) In addition to federal funds, other
sources are used to support the provision of special education and
related services for children with disabilities, such as state general
and special education funds, local funds, and private insurance.
Figure 1: Special Education Funding Sources:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Special Education Funding Sources:
State, local and private funds: 88%;
Federal funds: 12% (School-age grants, Preschool grants, Medicaid).
Source: Chambers, Jay G., et al., What Are We Spending on Special
Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance Report #1,
Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP), American Institutes for
Research, 2002.
[End of figure]
Under IDEA, three grants can fund services to children under age 6.
School-age Grants provide money to states to help them serve all
eligible children, ranging in age from 3 through 21.[Footnote 6]
Preschool Grants provide money to states to help serve 3 through 5-year-
olds with disabilities and require states to have policies and
procedures that assure a free appropriate public education for all 3
through 5-year-olds with disabilities as a condition for receiving
other IDEA funds for this age range. Infant Grants provide money to
states to serve children under age 3 who have developmental delays or a
condition that will probably result in a developmental delay, or at a
state‘s discretion, who are otherwise at risk of developmental delays.
[Footnote 7] Unlike the other two grants, Infant Grants provide
services to both children and their families, primarily in settings
that are not school-based. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Overview of Three Programs Serving Young Children with
Disabilities, Fiscal Year 2001:
Program[A]: School-age Grants;
FY 2001 appropriation: $6.3 billion;
Number of children served: 5,782,000 ages 6 through 21;
Comments: Established in 1965 under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and State Schools Act.
Program[A]: Preschool Grants;
FY 2001 appropriation: $390 million;
Number of children served: 599,000 ages 3 through 5[B];
Comments: Established in 1975 as an incentive program to encourage
states to serve 3 through 5 year-olds.
Program[A]: Infant Grants;
FY 2001 appropriation: $384 million
Number of children served: 231,000;
Comments: Established in 1986, but not implemented in all states until
1994.
[A] School-age and Preschool Grants are authorized under IDEA Part B
and are formally known as Section 611 grants and Section 619 grants,
respectively. Infant Grants are authorized under IDEA Part C.
[B] This includes children served under both School-age and Preschool
Grants.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Program overlap occurs when programs have the same goals, the same
activities or strategies to achieve them, or the same targeted
recipients. As noted in a House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee report, ’A certain amount of redundancy is understandable and
can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part of a management
strategy to foster competition, provide better service delivery to
customer groups, or provide emergency backup.“ [Footnote 8] Because
both School-age and Preschool grants can be used to serve the same
target recipients, children with disabilities ages 3 through 5, they
can be characterized as overlapping. However, this overlap does not
necessarily lead to duplication of services, which involves providing
identical services to identical target groups.[Footnote 9]
Education allocates funds from School-age, Preschool, and Infant Grants
to all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, based on
federal formulas. At the state level, School-age and Preschool Grants
are administered by the state educational agency (SEA), and Infant
Grants are administered by a designated lead agency, most frequently
the state‘s department of health or human services. A fixed portion of
School-age and Preschool grants may be retained for state-level
activities and program administration, although the majority of funds
from these grants are passed through SEAs to local educational agencies
(LEAs), generally school districts, according to a federally mandated
formula. Infant Grants may be distributed to local public and private
agencies by designated state lead agencies using state-developed
criteria.
Education‘s OSEP monitors activities funded by these grants and the
extent to which states comply with IDEA in a process known as
continuous improvement monitoring. Several states are selected each
year for in-depth monitoring, including on-site data collection, based
on various factors, such as when they were last monitored, information
from grant applications, and information on each state‘s status in
achieving improved results and compliance.
School-Age and Preschool Grants Are Similar Except for Age Range
Served; Infant Grants Differ:
School-age and Preschool Grants share the same goal, performance
objectives, and performance measures; fund the same range of services;
and have similar eligibility requirements except for the age-range
served, while Infant Grants differ from these grants in almost all
respects. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Overview of Eligibility Criteria, Services Allowed, Goals and
Performance Objectives for Infant, Preschool, and School-age Grants for
Children with Disabilities:
Programs: Infant Grants, Ages 0 to 3:
Criteria for service eligibility: Infants and toddlers who are
developmentally delayed or have a condition that will probably result
in a developmental delay or who are otherwise at risk of developmental
delay;
Services allowed:
* Family training, counseling, and home visits;
* Nursing, health, and nutrition services;
* Service coordination;
* Medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes;
* Occupational and physical therapy;
* Psychological and social work services;
* Vision, orientation, and mobility services;
* Speech-language pathology services;
* Devices to assist the disabled in daily living and audiology
services;
* Transportation services;
* Age appropriate special education instruction;
* Early identification and assessment services;
Goals: To enhance family and child outcomes through early intervention
services and to have states provide a comprehensive system of early
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families;
Performance Objectives:
* To provide services in settings, such as home or day care, that meet
children‘s individual needs;
* To enhance children‘s functional development.
Programs: Preschool Grants, Ages 3 through 5:
Criteria for service eligibility: Child with a disability (3 through
21), or with developmental delay (3 to 9 only) who, as a result, needs
special education and related services;
Services allowed:
* Student counseling and training, including rehabilitation counseling;
* School health services;
* Recreation services;
* Medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes;
* Occupational and physical therapy;
* Psychological and social work services;
* Vision, orientation, and mobility services;
* Speech-language pathology services;
* Devices to assist the disabled in daily living and audiology
services;
* Transportation services;
* Age appropriate special education instruction;
* Early identification and assessment services;
Goals: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting
state and local educational agencies to provide children with
disabilities access to high-quality education that will help them meet
challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent
living;
Performance Objectives:
* Preschool children enter school ready to learn;
* Better identify and serve children eligible for special education
before age 8;
* Children have access to the general curriculum and assessments;
* Students receive adequate support to complete high school and
transition successfully after high school;
* States address professional development.
Programs: School-age Grants, Ages 3 through 21:
Criteria for service eligibility: Child with a disability (3 through
21), or with developmental delay (3 to 9 only) who, as a result, needs
special education and related services;
Services allowed:
* Student counseling and training, including rehabilitation counseling;
* School health services;
* Recreation services;
* Medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes;
* Occupational and physical therapy;
* Psychological and social work services;
* Vision, orientation, and mobility services;
* Speech-language pathology services;
* Devices to assist the disabled in daily living and audiology
services;
* Transportation services;
* Age appropriate special education instruction;
* Early identification and assessment services;
Goals: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting
state and local educational agencies to provide children with
disabilities access to high-quality education that will help them meet
challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent
living;
Performance Objectives:
* Preschool children enter school ready to learn;
* Better identify and serve children eligible for special education
before age 8;
* Children have access to the general curriculum and assessments;
* Students receive adequate support to complete high school and
transition successfully after high school;
* States address professional development.
Sources: 34 C.F.R. Parts 300 and 303, and U.S. Department of Education
2000 Performance Report and 2002 Program Annual Plan, Volume 2:
Individual Programs.
[End of table]
School-age and Preschool Grants share the common goal of improving
results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local
educational agencies to provide children with disabilities access to
high-quality education that will help them meet challenging standards
and prepare them for employment and independent living. The two
programs use the same set of performance objectives and performance
measures. For example, one objective of both is that preschool children
with disabilities receive services that prepare them to enter school
ready to learn. As a performance measure for this objective, both
programs use an increase in the percentage of preschool children
receiving special education services who have readiness skills when
they reach kindergarten.[Footnote 10] These programs also pay for the
same range of special education and related services, such as physical
and occupational therapy and technology to assist the disabled, such as
voice-activated software. Special education and related services are
generally provided at school. To be eligible for these services,
children must be classified by the state as having a disability and as
a result of the disability need special education and related
services.[Footnote 11] The key distinction between the two grants is
that School-age grants serve children ages 3 through 21, whereas
Preschool Grants serve only children ages 3 through 5.
The goal, performance objectives, performance measures, eligibility
criteria, and types of services allowed for Infant Grants differ from
those for School-age and Preschool Grants. This grant is designed to
assist states in developing and implementing a statewide, comprehensive
system to provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers
with disabilities (and at a state‘s discretion those who are at risk of
experiencing developmental delays) and their families.[Footnote 12] The
goal of Infant Grants is to enhance children‘s functional development
and increase families‘ capacity to increase their children‘s
development using a comprehensive system of early intervention
services, including health services, such as tube feeding or
intermittent catheterization, and family training. Objectives are broad
and each has performance measures. For example, an increase in the
percentage of all children under age 3 receiving age-appropriate
services in nonschool settings is a performance measure for the
objective of providing services at home or in daycare, when
appropriate. To be eligible for services under Infant Grants, children
must be under age 3 and have a developmental delay or the potential to
develop one. Because of the age-specific developmental needs of infants
and toddlers, health and family services provided under Infant Grants
are more comprehensive than under the other two grants. These services
are provided primarily in nonschool settings, generally in the home or
at a day-care site.
States Receive All Grants and Many Provide Services to 3 through 5 Year-
Olds with School-Age as well as Preschool Grants:
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico receive grants
from each of the three programs, which they distribute to various local
public and private agencies.[Footnote 13] Whether a local agency
receives funds from any one grant depends on whether it is serving the
relevant age group. For example, the Roanoke Interagency Coordinating
Council in Virginia, which serves children from birth through age 2,
receives Infant Grants but not School-age and Preschool Grants.
However, many LEAs receive more than one grant. For example, the
Mapleton Local School District in Ohio received School-age and
Preschool Grants in School Year 2001-2002, while the South Washington
County School District in Minnesota received funds from all three
programs.
Many states use more than one grant to fund the same range of services
for 3 through 5 year-olds. Officials in 18 of the states we contacted
told us they may use School-age Grants to serve 3 through 5 year-
olds”the same group of children served by Preschool Grants. Only one of
the states we contacted, Alaska, does not permit School-age Grants to
be used to pay for services for preschoolers. Also, in a survey of SEAs
conducted by the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System,
37 SEAs reported that they use funds from School-age Grants to support
the provision of special education and related services for preschool
children with disabilities.[Footnote 14] Since they are not required to
track such information, none of the 19 states we contacted were able to
tell us the percentage of School-age Grant funds they used to provide
services for children aged 3 through 5, although officials in several
states said that the amount was small. Similarly, 18 of the 19 states
could not provide us with the percentage of children aged 3 through 5
who received services provided with School-age Grants.[Footnote 15]
Many states could not report the extent to which School-age Grants fund
services for 3 through 5 year-olds because of how expenditures are
tracked. The states we contacted reported they track expenditures by
budget functions, such as salaries or transportation, and not by
individual services provided or ages of children receiving services.
These states do not require LEAs to report expenditure data in a way
that would allow them to determine the extent to which School-age
Grants fund services for 3 through 5 year-olds, nor does IDEA require
it. Education requires only that states report the number of children
ages 3 through 5 collectively receiving special education and related
services under School-age and Preschool Grants. IDEA does not require
specific information about how many children are served under each.
Grants‘ Impact Not Yet Evaluated, and Few Data Are Available on
Effectiveness of Special Education Programs for Young Children:
The effectiveness of these grant programs has not yet been evaluated,
in part, because federal special education funds are only one source
used to pay for services for this age group. Rather than functioning as
operating programs, these grants add to the stream of funds supporting
on-going state and local programs.[Footnote 16] Therefore, it is
difficult to isolate the impact of federal funding for special
education from the impact of other funding sources.[Footnote 17]
Instead, studies have tended to focus on how IDEA is being implemented
and on the overall progress of children who receive special education
services, without directly attributing these outcomes to the receipt of
particular services.[Footnote 18]
In the 1997 amendments to IDEA, Congress mandated a full, national
assessment to determine the progress in the implementation of IDEA,
including the effectiveness of state and local efforts to provide a
free public education appropriate for the needs of students with
disabilities and to provide early intervention services to infants and
toddlers. In response to this mandate, OSEP has contracted with several
research organizations to complete a number of studies. None of these
studies will attempt to isolate the contribution of IDEA grants from
the effects of state and local efforts to improve outcomes for young
children; Congress did not prescribe such a stringent assessment of
program effectiveness.
Instead, three of these studies contracted by OSEP are outcome
evaluations, focused on describing the short-term and long-term
outcomes for young children enrolled in programs supported, in part, by
these grants. The National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study will
follow children entering early intervention services supported by
Infant Grants. The Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study will
follow children who received preschool special education services
through their experience in preschool and early elementary school. The
Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study is documenting the
experience of children enrolled in special education as they move from
elementary school to middle and high school. The results from these
studies will not be available for several years, although OSEP has
issued initial reports describing the demographic characteristics of
some study participants, their families, and schools.
In addition to these evaluations describing children‘s outcomes, OSEP
has contracted a study examining how these programs are implemented.
The Special Education Expenditure Project is intended to answer a
variety of questions on the characteristics of expenditures on programs
and services for preschool special education students. The first in an
anticipated series of reports derived from this project was issued in
March 2002 and provides an overview of special education spending in
school year 1999-2000 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
[Footnote 19] This report presents aggregate data on how much is spent
nationally and how these funds are allocated among broad program areas.
In particular, the report notes that preschool programs account for
about 9 percent of special education expenditures overall and that 8
percent ($4.1 billion) was spent on preschool programs operated within
public schools and 1 percent ($263 million) was spent on preschool
programs operated outside public schools.
In addition to the efforts now underway to evaluate outcomes and
expenditures on services for young children enrolled in programs
supported by IDEA grants, we found studies from two states”Delaware and
Pennsylvania”on the outcomes of children in special education preschool
programs. The Delaware study found that nearly half of the children who
participated in Preschool Grants-supported programs in Delaware between
1997 and 1999 were able to transition into the regular education
program by the time they were 6 and 7 years-old. The Delaware study
also found that children who participated in preschool special
education had significantly higher grades in kindergarten and first
grade than children with disabilities who did not and that the gap in
grades grew between kindergarten and first grade. The researchers
responsible for the Delaware study attributed the higher grades to the
children‘s participation in programs supported by Preschool Grants. The
Pennsylvania study found that fewer than half of the preschoolers who
participated in early intervention services in Pennsylvania between
1991 and 1995 were participating in school-age special education
programs between 1996 and 1997, leading researchers to suggest that
preschool early intervention services may have helped reduce the
severity of the developmental delay for some participating children.
Some Local Coordination and Program Overlap Issues Exist:
We found some opportunities for better local coordination between
programs funded with Infant Grants and preschool programs, but we were
unable to determine the extent to which overlap between School-age and
Preschool Grants may result in service duplication. We found evidence
of problems with the transition of 3 year-olds between local programs
funded with Infant Grants and preschool programs in 8 of 13 states for
which OSEP issued monitoring reports in the last 2 years. While we
could not ascertain whether overlap between School-age and Preschool
Grants results in service duplication, program officials indicated that
the overlap between School-age and Preschool Grants does not result in
administrative inefficiencies.
Some Coordination Problems Identified in the Transition from Infant
Grants Programs:
We found some lack of coordination between local programs funded by
Infant Grants and preschool programs, which can be funded by Preschool
or School-age Grants, in several states. Service gaps between programs
funded by Infant Grants and preschool programs can occur for children
who turn 3 before the beginning of the school year in which they can
start attending preschool. IDEA has addressed this problem by allowing
Infant Grants to be used after the third birthday to pay a free
appropriate public education until the beginning of the next school
year. Also, federal rules require that states develop written
transition plans for each child to show how the transition between the
two programs will be managed, and Education monitors and enforces these
rules. Specifically, the designated lead agency for the Infant Grants
must discuss with and train parents regarding future placements for
their child and have developed procedures to help the child adjust to a
new setting. To further coordinate this transition, the Infant Grants
statute requires that the lead agency, with the approval of the family,
must convene a conference among the Infant Grants lead agency, the
family, and the LEA at least 90 days before the child is eligible for
preschool services. In addition to the Infant Grants transition
requirements, the School-age Grants statute requires LEAs to
participate in transition planning conferences arranged by the lead
agency. Children should begin receiving services no later than their
third birthday.
In 2000 and 2001, OSEP identified problems in the transition from
programs funded by Infant Grants into preschool programs in 8 of the 13
states that it monitored for compliance with IDEA. OSEP monitoring
reports cited a range of problems related to transitions from programs
funded with Infant Grants into preschool that resulted in gaps in
services for preschoolers. Some of the problems cited include: not
holding transition planning conferences within 90 days of a child‘s
third birthday (6 states); the failure of local educational agency
representatives to attend these conferences, despite being invited to
do so (3 states); and providing inadequate information about the
transition process to parents (2 states). The lack of adequate
information resulted in confusion and unwillingness to cooperate with
service coordinators‘ requests on the part of some parents and forced
other parents to seek out preschool services on their own. In response
to these problems, OSEP has required corrective action plans for each
of the 8 states to address areas of noncompliance with IDEA related to
the transition from programs funded by Infant Grants into preschool
programs.
In addition to the problems cited in OSEP‘s monitoring reports, we
found some further evidence of problems when children leave Infant
Grants programs in our site visit to Ohio. One state official told us
that children and families may not receive needed services when they
transition from the state‘s Infant Grants programs into preschool
because preschool programs have more stringent eligibility criteria and
lack the family focus of early intervention programs funded by Infant
Grants. Also, a representative of the Ohio Coalition for the Education
of Children with Disabilities told us that some school districts did
not understand that they are legally required to provide services for
preschool children with disabilities.
These problems were not evident in the other states we visited.
Officials in Maine, Minnesota, and Virginia did not report a lack of
coordination between programs funded by Infant Grants and preschool
programs in those states. Transition issues for these programs appear
to have been eliminated in Maine and Minnesota because each state
operates a single program to provide early intervention and special
education services for children from birth through age 5. In those
states, programs funded with Infant Grants and preschool programs are
both operated through a single agency, rather than through two
agencies, as is the case with most of states.[Footnote 20] In Virginia,
transition issues have been minimized because the state requires public
education for children with disabilities beginning at age 2”a year
earlier than is required under federal law. More than two-thirds of
children receiving early intervention services in Virginia transition
into public preschool programs as soon as they become eligible.
Overlap in Ages Served by School-age and Preschool Grants Might Result
in Duplication:
Because of overlap between School-age and Preschool Grants, which can
both serve children ages 3 through 5, there is some potential for
service duplication if the two programs do not coordinate at the local
level. We were unable to further evaluate the extent to which
coordination problems may exist because there were no data available
that would allow us to do so, in that states are not required to
distinguish between funding sources when reporting the ages of children
served by School-age and Preschool Grants. Officials from the 4 states
where we conducted comprehensive interviews did not report any
coordination problems for these programs and were not able to provide
evidence about whether or not service duplication occurs. At the
federal level, there is no administrative overlap between School-age
and Preschool Grants because Education already administers these grants
as if they were one program. For example, Education requires a single
application for both programs and applies a single set of goals,
performance objectives, performance measures, and reporting
requirements to both programs.
Overlap between School-age and Preschool Grants could be addressed in a
number of ways, according to our analysis. Narrowing the age range
served by School-age Grants to ages 6 through 21 or consolidating the
two grants into a single grant, either with or without a reserved
amount of funds for preschool services, could eliminate overlap between
these programs. However, advantages and disadvantages exist for each
option. (See table 3).
Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Options for Addressing
Potential Overlap of Preschool and School-age Grants:
Option: 1. Narrow age range for School-age Grants to 6 through 21;
Advantages:
* Eliminates possibility of service duplication;
* Simplifies tracking of funds spent on 3 through 5 year-olds;
* Preserves targeted funds for 3 through 5 year-olds;
Disadvantages:
* States lose some flexibility (the ability to supplement Preschool
Grant funds with School-age Grant funds when serving preschoolers).
Option: 2. Consolidate School-Age and Preschool Grants into one Grant
(no reserved funds for preschool services);
Advantages:
* Eliminates possibility of service duplication[A];
* Simplifies tracking of funds spent on 3 through 5 year-olds;
* Increases the amount of flexible funds for states;
Disadvantages:
* No funds are targeted for preschool services;
* Possible reduction in services for 3 through 5 year-olds.
Option: 3. Consolidate School-Age and Preschool Grants into one Grant
(with reserved funds for preschool services);
Advantages:
* Eliminates possibility of service duplication[A];
* Simplifies tracking of funds spent on 3 through 5 year-olds;
* Preserves targeted funds for 3 through 5 year-olds;
Disadvantages:
* States may lose some flexibility (if the law prescribes fixed
allocations of funds for particular age ranges).
Option: 4. No change;
Advantages:
* Preserves targeted funds for 3 through 5 year-olds;
* Does not introduce new administrative requirements;
Disadvantages:
* Continued possibility of service duplication.
[A] This would not apply to states that currently administer the
programs as one, such as Maine and Minnesota.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
The first three options would ensure that children ages 3 through 5 are
eligible for services under only one program. The first option,
narrowing the age range for School-age Grants, has the advantage of
preserving targeted funds to serve preschoolers by continuing Preschool
Grants. However, under this option, states would lose the flexibility
that they now have to devote a greater share of federal special
education funds to serving preschoolers, if that is their priority.
The second option, consolidating School-age and Preschool Grants into a
single grant, has several advantages. It would eliminate potential
overlap for 3 through 5 year-olds, make it easier to track funds spent
on preschoolers, and may increase the ability of local school districts
to target federal special education funds to children of any age,
depending on local needs. However the last advantage could also be seen
as a disadvantage, potentially reducing services for preschoolers in
those local school districts where they are not considered to be as
high a priority as services for older children. State administrators
and parents told us they are concerned this option would eliminate
safeguards for targeted preschool funding and may lead to a reduction
in services for children ages 3 through 5, although states have been
required to provide special education services to children ages 3
through 5 since 1992 in order to be eligible for Preschool Grants and
other IDEA funds targeted to children ages 3 through 5 with
disabilities. State officials told us that serving preschoolers,
whether in special education or otherwise, is not a priority for all
local school districts, and expenditures of funds for 3 through 5 year-
olds would have to compete with the needs of older special education
students. School districts generally do not provide regular education
services to children ages 3 through 4. Moreover, as of November 2001,
39 states require kindergarten be offered to 5 year-olds, but only 12
require pupil attendance.[Footnote 21]
The third option, consolidating School-age and Preschool Grants into a
single grant, but reserving some funds for preschool services also
would eliminate potential overlap of IDEA grants for 3 through 5 year-
olds. However, this option has the advantage of preserving minimum
spending levels for preschoolers by including a set-aside provision in
the grant legislation. Depending on how the legislation is written, a
potential disadvantage to this option would be the loss of some
flexibility in how states may allocate funds for preschoolers and other
ages of children. This would occur if the legislation prescribes fixed
levels of spending for both age ranges. Nevertheless, some of the
officials and other interested parties that we contacted indicated
that, if the programs were to be consolidated, they would prefer
including a set-aside provision. Although there are potential
advantages to eliminating program overlap, overall, changes to the
current structure of federal grants for special education would
probably not result in a significant reduction in administrative burden
at the state and local levels. Retaining the current structure would
preserve targeted funds for preschoolers and not introduce different
administrative requirements, but the possibility of service duplication
would continue. Many of the state and local administrators with whom we
spoke indicated they do not see the need for any changes in the current
structure of these grants. In addition, Education officials have noted
a growing level of support for early intervention programs among
lawmakers, program administrators and child advocates, which, in their
opinion, justifies maintaining separate grants to support these
programs.
Concluding Observations:
The Department of Education has recognized that there is some potential
for a gap in services for 3 year-olds as they move from programs funded
by Infants Grants into preschool programs and requires that states and
local agencies minimize these service gaps by following federal
requirements for program coordination and transition planning. However,
we have seen evidence that in at least a few localities, states have
failed to ensure that federal regulations are being followed. Education
has addressed known transition problems by requiring these states to
develop and implement corrective action plans that will bring them into
compliance with IDEA.
Although there is overlap between School-age and Preschool Grants
because both allow for services to 3 through 5 year-olds, it is not
clear whether this overlap presents problems of service duplication or
unnecessary administrative burden that would indicate the need to
change how the grants are structured. Program experts and federal,
state, and local administrators that we interviewed did not report any
problems and there were no data available that would allow us to
determine the extent to which program overlap resulted in coordination
or administrative problems.
Agency Comments and Our Response:
We provided the Department of Education an opportunity to comment on a
draft of this report and received technical comments which we have
incorporated into this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of your
subcommittee, the Secretary of Education, and appropriate congressional
committees. Copies will also be made available to other interested
parties upon request. If you have questions regarding this report,
please call me at (202) 512-7215 or Eleanor Johnson, assistant
director, at (202) 512-7209. Other contributors are listed in the
appendix.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issue:
[End of section]
Appendix: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Regina Santucci (202) 512-6317, email: santuccir@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those above, Elspeth Grindstaff, Patrick DiBattista and
Jon Barker made major contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of
Adult Education and Literacy. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-348]. Washington, D.C.: 2002. March 29, 2002.
Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be Consolidated.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-657]. Washington,
D.C.: 2001. May 14, 2001.
Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess
Program Effects. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-
542]. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001.
Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging Effect
on School Readiness Difficult. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-171]. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2000.
Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting
Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-
78]. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.
Evaluations of Even Start Family Literacy Program Effectiveness.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-58R].
Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2000.
Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of
School Readiness Information. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-38]. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2000.
Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-97-146]. Washington, D.C.: August 29, 1997.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See: U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Education and Care:
Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-78] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 28, 2000); Bilingual Education: Four Overlapping Programs Could Be
Consolidated, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-657]
(Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2001); and Head Start and Even Start:
Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of Adult Education and
Literacy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-348]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the
Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-97-146]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997).
[3] Each year, OSEP monitors the implementation of IDEA in selected
states. We reviewed the latest reports, published in 2001 (monitoring
reports for Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, New
Jersey, and Ohio) and 2000 (monitoring reports for Arizona, Arkansas,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin). We also reviewed
older reports for Maine, Minnesota and Virginia.
[4] Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Illinois, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
[5] Chambers, Jay G., et al., What Are We Spending on Special Education
Services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance Report #1, Special
Education Expenditure Project (SEEP) (Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research, 2002). This amount does not include other
possible federal funding sources for special education such as Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Head Start,
Developmental Disabilities Grants, and Special Education Grants for
Infants and Families.
[6] However, states are not required to serve children with
disabilities ages 3 through 5 or 18 through 21 if these services are
not consistent with state law or practice or the order of any court.
[7] Currently 9 states”California, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and West
Virginia”serve children whom they consider to be at risk. The precise
definition of ’at-risk“ varies by state.
[8] H. Rpt. No. 104-861, p. 6.
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-97-146] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-78].
[10] Readiness skills include those skills that are presumed to enable
a child to be successful in kindergarten. Such skills include knowing
that print reads from left to right, recognizing letters and beginning
sounds, reading numerals, recognizing shapes, and being able to count
to 10.
[11] States, at their discretion, may also use the two grants to
provide services to children ages 3 through 9 experiencing
developmental delays as defined by the State and measured by
appropriate instruments and procedures. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(3)(B)(i).)
[12] Early intervention services are designed to meet the developmental
needs of an infant or toddler with a disability in any one or more of
the following areas: physical development, cognitive development,
communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive
development. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1432 (4).)
[13] The 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the Indian
Tribes receive School-age Grants and Infant Grants. The Freely
Associated States (Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau) are only
eligible for School-Age Grants under a special competition. Recipients
of Preschool Grants include the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
[14] Shelley deFosset, Section 619 Profile, 10th Edition (Chapel Hill,
N.C.: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NECTAS),
2001.)
[15] Arkansas reported that 59 percent of children aged 3 through 5
received special education and related services provided in part with
School-Age Grants.
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Grant Programs: Design Features
Shape Flexibility, Accountability and Performance Information,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-137]
(Washington, D.C.: Jun. 22, 1998).
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Education for Disadvantaged
Children: Research Purpose and Design Features Affect Conclusions Drawn
from Key Studies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-168] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31, 2000).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Childhood Programs: The Use
of Impact Evaluations to Assess Program Effects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-542] (Washington: D.C.: Apr.
16, 2001).
[19] Chambers, Jay G., et al., What Are We Spending on Special
Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000? Advance Report #1,
Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP) (Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research, 2002).
[20] Maine and Minnesota are among the 14 states that have chosen to
administer Infant Grants through their state educational agencies,
which also administer Preschool Grants. The remaining states and the
District of Columbia administer Infant Grants‘ programs through their
departments of health or human services.
[21] Education Commission of the States, State Notes: State Statutes
Regarding Kindergarten (Denver, CO: 2001).
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
