Performance audit, Arizona Department of Education, Early Childhood Block Grant Program

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
September 2001
Report No. 01-19
Early Childhood Block
Grant Program
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT
OF
EDUCATION
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee
composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Ken Bennett, Chairman
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Vice-Chairman
Senator Herb Guenther Representative Robert Blendu
Senator Dean Martin Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Senator Peter Rios Representative Barbara Leff
Senator Tom Smith Representative James Sedillo
Senator Randall Gnant (ex-officio) Representative James Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Carol Cullen—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Channin DeHaan—Team Leader
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
September 4, 2001
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. Jaime A. Molera
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Early
Childhood Block Grant administered by the Arizona Department of Education. This
evaluation was conducted pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. §15-1251. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this evaluation to provide a
quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Department of Education plans to implement all of the
recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on September 5, 2001.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has completed an evaluation
of the Early Childhood Block Grant (grant) administered by the
Arizona Department of Education (Department). This evaluation
was conducted pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. §15-1251.
One goal of this evaluation was to determine if the money was
used to fund particular programs; for instance, enrichment pro-grams
for kindergarten through third-grade at-risk students.
However, no such patterns were identified. This report provides
information on the use of grant monies and how the Department
has overseen the grant during the three-year period from July 1,
1998 to June 30, 2001.
The grant provides money to public
school districts and charter schools
(grantees) for early childhood edu-cation.
It began in the 1990-91
school year as the At-Risk Preschool
Pilot Project, and it changed to a
block grant in 1996, allowing grant-ees
to spend grant monies on sev-eral
different programs. The num-ber
and types of programs included
since 1996 have varied. It now includes three programs—at-risk
preschool, full-day kindergarten, and kindergarten through third
grade.
From fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001, appropriations have re-mained
stable at approximately $19.5 million annually. The De-partment
passes most of this appropriation through to school
districts and charter schools. The amount of money allocated to a
school district or charter school is based on the number of chil-dren
who are eligible for free lunches. This is an indicator some-times
associated with identifying students who are at academic
risk.
Early Childhood
Block Grant’s
current programs
  At-risk preschool;
  Full-day kindergarten;
and
  Kindergarten through
third grade.
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Monies Have Been
Consistently Used for Both
Instruction and Preschool
(See pages 11 through 15)
Use of grant monies by school districts and charter schools has
been relatively consistent in fiscal years 1999-2001. Across the
three programs, grantees chose to spend most of the money on
instruction, rather than on operations, support services, capital
outlays, or other expenses. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, more
than 75 percent of the monies were spent on instruction. Grant-ees
project spending $15 million in fiscal year 2001 in instruction.
Within instruction, they chose to spend most of the money on
teachers’ and aides’ salaries and benefits.
Among the three programs, most grant monies were dedicated
to preschool. Each year, approximately half of the grant monies
were dedicated to preschool. About one-third of the grant mon-ies
were dedicated to kindergarten through third grade and the
rest to full-day kindergarten. However, monies dedicated to pre-school
have declined compared to 1995, when the money could
be used only for preschool. In fiscal year 2001, 54 grantees pro-jected
they would spend $9.7 million on preschool compared to
103 districts that participated in the $12.6 million At-Risk Pre-school
Program in 1995.1
Department Should Continue
Efforts To Reduce
Unspent Monies
(See pages 17 through 21)
At the end of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, grantees returned ap-proximately
$1 million. Most of this money, nearly 75 percent,
came from approximately 20 grantees. This money must be re-turned
to the State General Fund and is not available to pay for
other early education needs.
1 Fiscal year 2001 amounts are based on estimated expenditures.
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The reasons monies are returned lie mainly with the grantees,
who may fail to take the necessary steps allowing them to alter
their approved spending plans, or who may be unaware from
their own internal accounting systems that money is still avail-able.
The Department has taken steps to help reduce the problem
and should focus its efforts on grantees who return the largest
amounts.
Department Should Continue
to Develop Eligibility
And Notification Policies
(See pages 23 through 25)
Although statutes require grantees who provide preschool ser-vices
to comply with several eligibility and notification require-ments,
the various methods that grantees use do not necessarily
ensure that these requirements are met. Further, the Department
of Education does not have policies in place to help grantees en-sure
that preschool children supported by grant monies are ac-tually
eligible for the program. The Department also does not
have policies to help ensure that grantees adequately notify pre-schools
about their rights and opportunities to participate. The
Department has recently begun to develop such policies and
needs to continue to do so.
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background..................... 1
Finding I: Monies Have Been
Consistently Used for Both
Instruction and Preschool...................... 11
Grantees Use Most of the
Money for Instructional Costs.................................. 11
More Grant Money Was
Dedicated to Preschool
Than Other Levels..................................................... 13
Finding II: Department Should
Continue Efforts to Reduce
Unspent Monies ...................................... 17
Although Amount of Unspent
Monies Is Not Unreasonable, Monies
Are Not Available for Other Early
Education Needs....................................................... 17
Several Factors Contribute
to Unspent Monies.................................................... 18
The Department’s Continued
Assistance Is Needed to
Overcome Obstacles................................................. 20
Recommendations .................................................... 21
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
Finding III: Department Should
Continue to Develop Eligibility
And Notification Policies ........................ 23
Eligibility and Notification
Requirements Are Not
Being Fully Met......................................................... 23
Continued Development Of
Policies Is Needed..................................................... 24
Recommendation...................................................... 25
Agency Response
Tables
Table 1 Early Childhood Block Grant
Appropriations for
Early Childhood Education
Years Ended June 30, 1991
through 2001............................................ 2
Table 2 Early Childhood Block Grant
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001 (Unaudited).................... 4
Table 3 Early Childhood Block Grant
Range Allocations
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000,
and 2001................................................... 6
Table of Contents
vii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concl’d)
Page
Tables (Concl’d)
Table 4 Early Childhood Block Grant
Total and Eligible Number of Children
Years Ended June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001......................................... 7
Table 5 Early Childhood Block Grant
Expenditures by Budget Category
Years Ended June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001......................................... 12
Table 6 Early Childhood Block Grant
Expenditures by Instruction Subcategory
Years Ended June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001......................................... 13
Table 7 Early Childhood Block Grant
Total Money Budgeted to Preschool
Years Ended June 30, 1995 and
June 30, 2001............................................ 15
Figures
Figure 1 Early Childhood Block Grant
Allocation Formula
As of July 2001......................................... 5
Figure 2 Early Childhood Block Grant
Estimated Expenditures by Grade
Years Ended June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001......................................... 14
viii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has completed an evaluation
of the Early Childhood Block Grant (grant) administered by the
Arizona Department of Education (Department). This evaluation
was conducted pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. §15-1251.
One goal of this evaluation was to determine if the money was
used to fund particular programs; for instance, enrichment pro-grams
for kindergarten through third-grade at-risk students.
However, no such patterns were identified. This report provides
information on the use of grant monies and how the Department
has overseen the grant during the three-year period from July 1,
1998 to June 30, 2001.
Grant History
and Purpose
The grant, which provides money to public school districts and
charter schools (grantees) for early childhood education, has un-dergone
a number of major
changes since its inception. It be-gan
in the 1990-91 school year as
the At-Risk Preschool Pilot Project,
supporting preschools in ten
school districts for children at risk
of failing once they entered kin-dergarten.
The program expanded
to 33 districts the following year. In
1994, the Legislature allowed pri-vate
day-care centers and federally funded preschools to partici-pate.
In 1995, the Legislature combined the program with four
others—full-day kindergarten, kindergarten to third grade sup-port,
dropout prevention, and gifted support. In 1996, the Legis-lature
removed dropout prevention and gifted support, leaving
three programs to share the monies.
The program also assumed its current block grant form in 1996,
under Laws 1996, Ch.1, §8. Under a block grant, the authority for
spending decisions moves from the state to the local level.
Grantees decide whether to use the money for at-risk preschool,
Early Childhood
Block Grant’s
current programs
  At-risk preschool;
  Full-day kindergarten;
and
  Kindergarten through
third grade.
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
or to supplement full-day kindergarten1 or half-day kindergarten
through third grade for all public school children, and they de-cide
which specific costs to cover. For instance, a grantee receiv-ing
$15,000 may decide to use the money for a teacher’s salary,
for classroom supplies and materials, or both.
Appropriations
The General Fund is the grant’s only revenue source and, as il-lustrated
in Table 1, General Fund appropriations have risen
steadily since the grant was first introduced as the At-Risk Pre-school
Pilot Program in fiscal year 1991. From fiscal year 1991 to
fiscal year 1995, when appropriations rose from $600,000 to $12.6
million, the program was focused exclusively on at-risk pre-school.
1 Full-day kindergarten is an optional program provided by some districts
and charter schools. The program provides at least two hours of service in
addition to the minimum two hours of kindergarten that the State requires.
Parents are sometimes required to pay a fee for the optional program.
Table 1
Early Childhood Block Grant
Appropriations for Early Childhood Education
Years Ended June 30, 1991 through 2001
Year
Total
Appropriation
1991 $ 600,000
1992 1,600,000
1993 2,601,700
1994 2,602,600
1995 12,605,000
1996 22,911,400
1997 14,466,000
1998 19,475,300
1999 19,483,200
2000 19,489,300
2001 19,489,800
Source: Auditor General staff summary of information in the State of Arizona
appropriations reports for the years ended June 30, 1991 through 2001.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
In fiscal year 1996, when the Legislature combined the at-risk
preschool program with four other programs, appropriations
rose to $22.9 million. In fiscal year 1997, when dropout preven-tion
and gifted support were removed, appropriations declined
to $14.4 million. Finally, during the most recent three fiscal years,
appropriations have remained stable at approximately $19.5 mil-lion.
As shown in Table 2 (see page 4), the Department of Education
passes most—but not all—of the appropriation through to school
districts and charter schools. The grant’s legislation requires the
Department to set aside 2 percent of the appropriation to cover
its costs for administering the grant (see Table 2). In fiscal year
1999, approximately $1.6 million was returned to the General
Fund, and in fiscal year 2000, approximately $1.2 million was re-turned.
The returned money includes money the schools re-turned
along with some monies that had been set aside for ad-ministration,
some monies that had been set aside for grants to
charter schools established during the fiscal year,1 and monies
that grantees did not claim.
Grant Eligibility
and Administration
The amount of money allocated to an individual school district
or charter school is based on the number of children in kinder-garten
through third grade who are eligible for free lunches, an
indicator sometimes associated with identifying students who
are at academic risk. Any school district or charter school with at
least one kindergarten through third grade student eligible for
free lunch during the previous year is eligible to receive an allo-cation.
If a grantee does not have a count of free-lunch-eligible
children, perhaps because the school is a new charter school, the
statute allows the Department to determine the allocation using
the percentage of children that are eligible statewide. This per-centage
is the number of children in kindergarten through third
grade eligible for free lunch divided by the total number of chil-
1 In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the Department chose to set aside $200,000 to
provide allocations to charter schools that opened during the course of the
fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001, the Department reduced the set-aside
amount to $150,000, because not all of it had been spent the previous years.
Allocations are based on
the number of children
in kindergarten through
third grade who are eli-gible
for free lunches.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
dren in kindergarten through third grade. Figure 1 (see page 5)
shows the formula the Department uses to calculate each
grantee’s allocation.
Table 2
Early Childhood Block Grant
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
(Unaudited)
1999 2000 2001
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimated)
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $19,488,646 $19,489,300 $19,494,800
Expenditures and other uses:
Aid to other governments and organizations: 1
Distributions 18,746,118 18,922,929 19,073,700
Reversions to the Arizona Department of Education (1,130,095) (992,608)      
Net aid to other governments and
organizations 17,616,023 17,930,321 19,073,700
Personal services and employee-related 126,590 202,547 198,900
Professional and outside services 100,183 56,498 61,400
Travel 592 8,394 19,000
Other operating 37,896 48,456 122,000
Equipment 18,063 10,149      
Total expenditures 17,899,347 18,256,365 19,475,000
Reversions to the State General Fund 1 1,589,299 1,219,242
Operating transfers out      13,693  19,800
Total expenditures and other uses $19,488,646 $19,489,300 $19,494,800
1 Amount passed through to school districts and charter schools reduced by amounts returned to the Depart-ment
and subsequently reverted to the State General Fund. The reversions to the State General Fund include
monies returned from the schools and other unspent monies. The 2001 Reversions to the Department is un-known
until October 2001, when the entities submit their closeout reports and the reversions.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS) Accounting Event Extract
File, Status of Appropriations and Expenditures, and Administrative Adjustment Activity Summary reports for the
years ended June 30, 1999 and 2000; the Arizona Department of Education’s Early Childhood Block Grant Com-pletion
Report Log for the years ended June 30, 1999 and 2000; and Department-provided estimates for the year
ended June 30, 2001 (actual amounts were not available at the time of this report).
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Each spring, the Department allocates the money for the next fis-cal
year and notifies each grantee of its allocation amount. Over
the last three fiscal years, grants ranged from $150 to $1,848,744
with 234 to 315 grantees receiving allocations. See Table 3 (page
6) for the number of grantees receiving allocations within differ-ent
ranges over the last three fiscal years.
To receive the allocation, the grantee must submit a project
summary telling the Department two things about how it will
spend the money:
n How the money will be divided among the three programs
eligible for funding: preschool, full-day kindergarten, and
kindergarten through third grade. For instance, a grantee
who receives $1,000 could decide to spend $500 for full-day
kindergarten and $500 for kindergarten through third grade.
n What kinds of costs will be covered. For instance, the grantee
receiving the $1,000 could decide to use $500 toward the cost
of a teacher’s benefits, $200 for supplies, and $300 for books.
If a grantee finds that it cannot spend the monies as planned, it
can amend its project summary. A grantee can make amend-ments
up to 90 days before the fiscal year ends. If the proposed
spending does not relate to early childhood education, the De-partment
will not approve the amendment.
Figure 1
Early Childhood Block Grant
Allocation Formula
As of July 2001
District or charter school’s
number of eligible children
Total number of eligible children
in Arizona
x Early Childhood Block Grant
dollars available
= Grantee’s
allocation
Example:
1,182
126,336
x $19,073,700 = $178,454
Source: Auditor General staff summary of information from the Arizona Department of Education, Student Services
Division.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A grantee must also submit a report telling the Department how
it actually spent the allocation. This report, called a Completion
Report, is due within 90 days from the end of the fiscal year. If a
grantee does not spend all of its money, the money is returned to
the Department, and it reverts to the General Fund at the end of
the fiscal year.
Grantees Report Satisfaction
with the Department
Most grantees are satisfied with the Department’s administration
of the grant. When all 275 grant coordinators were asked about
their experiences with the fiscal year 2001 allocation and applica-tion
processes, 73 percent and 87 percent, respectively, reported
that they were satisfied with the experience. Specifically, grant-ees
mentioned that the staff at the Department had been helpful
and responsive to their needs and that the online application had
simplified the application process.
Table 3
Early Childhood Block Grant
Range Allocations
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
1999 2000 2001
Less than $1,000 8 13 20
$1,001 to $5,000 52 75 95
$5,001 to $10,000 26 39 40
$10,001 to $30,000 55 62 67
$30,001 to $50,000 21 13 16
$50,001 to $100,000 29 35 36
$100,001 to $500,000 33 33 33
Greater than $500,000 10 10 8
Total 234 280 315
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of 1999 and 2000 Early Childhood Block
Grant data from the Arizona Department of Education’s Grants Manage-ment
online system and information from the 2001 allocation spreadsheet
compiled by the Arizona Department of Education, Student Services Divi-sion.
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Number of Grantees and
Eligible Students
The number of grantees included in the allocation process has
risen each year, mainly because of the rise in the number of char-ter
schools. The total number of grantees rose from 234 in fiscal
year 1999 to 315 in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 1999, grantees
included 50 charter schools, or 22 percent of the total. By fiscal
year 2001, grantees included 125 charter schools, or 40 percent of
the total.
Although more grantees are receiving allocations, the percentage
of eligible children statewide has stayed relatively stable. As Ta-ble
4 shows, the percentage has ranged from 45 percent to 51 per-cent
in fiscal years 1999 through 2001.
Scope and Methodology
Evaluation work focused on the distribution of grant monies,
grantees’ expenditures, and the Department’s monitoring of pre-school
providers. Because the grant is not required to support a
specific program beyond the general designation of early child-hood
education, one goal of this evaluation was to determine if
the money was used to fund particular programs; for example,
enrichment programs for kindergarten through third-grade at-risk
students. If so, then subsequent evaluations could determine
Table 4
Early Childhood Block Grant
Total and Eligible Number of Children
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
Number of Children
in Kindergarten through Third Grade
Year Eligible Total
Percentage
Eligible
1999 106,664 237,051 45%
2000 125,606 248,228 51
2001 126,336 268,103 47
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data compiled by the Arizona
Department of Education, Student Services Division.
Introduction and Background
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
the impact of this money on student outcomes. However, no such
patterns were identified in this report.
This report presents three findings as follows:
n Distribution of monies by types of costs and among the three
types of programs.
n The need for the Department to continue efforts to reduce
unspent monies.
n The need for the Department to develop uniform eligibility
and notification policies for preschools.
A multi-method approach was used in collecting and analyzing
data for the evaluation. Methods included:
n Analysis of the grants management data—Evaluators ana-lyzed
data from the Department’s grants management system
for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to determine changes in grant
size, estimated and actual spending, and the amount of un-spent
money.
n Survey—A survey was developed to collect information
about experiences with the grant from a population of 275
early childhood education coordinators who received alloca-tions
in fiscal year 2000. Two hundred nine (76 percent) coor-dinators
responded. The survey focused on the theoretical as-pects
of block grants, including flexibility and authority in the
use of grant monies. It also asked about specific experiences
with the application process.
n Analysis of fiscal year 2001 applications—Two hundred
thirty fiscal year 2001 applications were analyzed for amounts
budgeted to preschool, full-day kindergarten, and kindergar-ten
through third grade, as well as the services and items that
grantees expected to purchase with the monies. Information
on preschool budgeting was compared to information in the
Annual Evaluation of the At-Risk Preschool Expansion Pro-gram,
Office of the Auditor General, State of Arizona, January
1996 (Report No. 96-1).
Introduction and Background
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Document Review—Department of Education documents
and correspondence were reviewed for information regard-ing
the allocation and application processes and policy and
monitoring of preschools. In addition, evaluators examined
the Department’s Web site.
Acknowledgements
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Super-intendent
of Public Instruction, the staff of the Department of
Education’s Student Services Division, and public and charter
school staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the
evaluation.
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I MONIES HAVE BEEN
CONSISTENTLY USED FOR BOTH
INSTRUCTION AND PRESCHOOL
Use of grant monies by school districts and charter schools has
been relatively consistent over the three-year evaluation period
(fiscal years 1999-2001). In terms of types of costs covered, grant-ees
chose to spend most of the money on teachers’ and aides’
salaries and benefits. With regards to the programs funded, ap-proximately
half of the grant monies were dedicated to pre-school,
about one-third to kindergarten through third grade, and
the rest to full-day kindergarten. However, less money is dedi-cated
to preschool now compared to fiscal year 1995, when the
block grant was created.
Grantees Use Most of
the Money for
Instructional Costs
During the three-year evaluation period, most monies have been
spent on instruction. Grantees decide whether to use the money
for preschool, full-day kindergarten, or kindergarten through
third grade, but they also have to decide what specific costs they
will cover with the money. When deciding what costs to cover,
grantees can choose from five categories defined in the Uniform
System of Financial Records, a manual required by statute, which
provides the minimum internal control policies and procedures
to be used by Arizona’s school districts.
n  Instruction—teachers’ and aides’ salaries, textbooks, instruc-tional
aids including software.
n  Support services, students—counselors’, psychologists’,
and social workers’ salaries, dentists, doctors, library books.
n  Support services, administration—superintendents’, prin-cipals’,
and clerical salaries, lawyers, accountants (limited to 5
percent of grant amount).
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n  Operation of non-instructional services—cooks’ and
bookstore staff salaries, food.
n  Capital outlays—improvement of grounds, replacement of
equipment, acquiring buildings.
As Table 5 shows, most monies were expended for instruction.
In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, over 75 percent of the monies were
spent on instruction. Actual spending for 2001 is not available,
but instruction accounts for over 75 percent of expected spend-ing.
Within the instruction category, most of the money is spent on
salaries and benefits for teachers and aides, as Table 6 (see page
13) shows. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, more than three-fourths
of instruction money was spent on salaries and benefits. In fiscal
year 2001, grantees expect to spend more than 75 percent of in-struction
money on salaries and benefits.
In fiscal year 2001, in-struction
costs comprise
79 percent of expected
expenditures.
Table 5
Early Childhood Block Grant
Expenditures by Budget Category
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
Budget Category 1999 2000 2001a
Instruction $13,672,,833 $13,523,352 $14,970,988
Support services—students 2,928,628 3,106,415 3,236,485
Capital outlay 837,577 1,136,476 453,434
Operation of non-instructional services 75,928 60,993 94,707
Support services—administrationb 175,198 113,455 111,478
Total $17,690,164 $17,940,691 $18,867,092
a Fiscal year 2001 amounts are based on estimated expenditures.
b Statutorily restricted to 5 percent of the total budget.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of 1999 and 2000 Early Childhood Block Grant data from the Arizona
Department of Education’s Grants Management Online System and information from early Childhood Block
Grant applications for 2001 compiled by Auditor General staff.
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
More Grant Money Was
Dedicated to Preschool
Than Other Levels
In fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, more monies were dedicated
to preschool than to full-day kindergarten and kindergarten
through third grade. However, this is less than the monies dedi-cated
to preschool in 1995, the last year that all of the monies had
to be used for preschool.
As Figure 2 (see page 14) shows, between fiscal years 1999 and
2001, expected spending for preschool ranged from about $9.7
million to $10.4 million, or from 52 percent to 55 percent of total
monies available. Expected spending on kindergarten to third
grade was between 30 and 32 percent of the total; and expected
spending for full-day kindergarten between 13 and 16 percent.
Table 6
Early Childhood Block Grant
Expenditures by Instruction Subcategory
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
Subcategories 1999 2000 2001a
Salaries $ 8,734,728 $ 9,049,371 $ 9,811,357
Benefits 1,569,611 1,542,961 1,906,706
Professional services 413,927 364,612 449,896
Property services 4,735 4,053 5,424
Other services 1,731,545 1,423,026 1,826,518
Supplies 1,199,231 1,114,633 935,266
Other expenses 19,056 24,696 35,822
Total $13,672,833 $13,523,352 $14,970,989
a Fiscal year 2001 amounts are based on estimated expenditures.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of 1999 and 2000 Early Childhood Block Grant data from
the Arizona Department of Education’s Grants Management Online System and Early
Childhood Block Grant data from the Student Services Division’s 2001 Allocation
Worksheet.
Nearly $10 million in
grant money was dedi-cated
to preschool in
fiscal year 2001.
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Although the largest total share of grant monies was dedicated
to preschool, most grantees did not plan to spend monies for this
purpose. In fiscal year 2001, only 54 grantees out of 315 dedicated
monies to preschool. However, these 54 grantees tended to be
bigger districts with larger numbers of eligible students and lar-ger
grant allocations. For example, Mesa Unified School District
budgeted $1,050,194 for preschool. Similarly, Flowing Wells Uni-fied
District received an allocation of $127,511, all of which it
budgeted to preschool.
Smaller districts and charter schools generally did not dedicate
grant monies to preschool. Only two of the 125 charter schools
budgeted grant monies for preschool in 2001.
Although more than half of the grant monies were expected to
be spent on preschool, the total grant dollars dedicated to pre-school
are less than the amounts dedicated in 1995 when the
Figure 2
Early Childhood Block Grant
Estimated Expenditures by Grade1
Years Ended June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
1999 2000 2001
Preschool Full-day kindergarten Kindergarten through third grade
1 Actual spending by grade level is not available; therefore, the amounts spent for each year are estimates.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data compiled by the Arizona Department of Education, Student Services
Division.
Finding I
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
grant was a program covering only preschools. As Table 7
shows, the number of districts budgeting grant monies for pre-school
has declined, as have the total grant dollars dedicated to
preschool.
Table 7
Early Childhood Block Grant
Total Money Budgeted to Preschool
Years Ended June 30, 1995 and June 30, 2001
1995 2001a
Preschool money $12,600,000 $9,748,076
Number of grantees 103 54
a Fiscal year 2001 amounts are based on estimated expenditures.
Source: Annual Evaluation of the At-Risk Preschool Expansion Program, Office of
the Auditor General, State of Arizona, January 1996 (Report No. 96-1) and
Auditor General staff analysis of information compiled from 2001
applications.
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II DEPARTMENT SHOULD
CONTINUE EFFORTS TO
REDUCE UNSPENT MONIES
At the end of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, grantees returned ap-proximately
$1 million to the Department. Although the overall
amount of unspent money is not unusual, nearly half of the re-turned
monies came from only five grantees. Returned monies
must be reverted to the State General Fund and, therefore, are
not available to fund other early education needs. Grantees indi-cate
that the primary reasons for unspent monies are turnover in
key positions, communication problems between grant and ac-counting
staff, and failure to alter approved spending plans. The
Department has taken steps to help grantees reduce the amount
of unspent monies; however, it should work to specifically assist
grantees who return large amounts of money.
Although Amount of Unspent
Monies Is Not Unreasonable,
Monies Are Not Available for
Other Early Education Needs
In both fiscal years 1999 and 2000, grantees returned about $1
million, or between 5 and 6 percent of the money allocated.1
Overall, this is not an unreasonable amount of unspent money
for a block grant. However, since the grant receives State General
Fund appropriations, unspent monies must be reverted back to
the State General Fund yearly. Consequently, the monies are not
available to fund other early education needs.
The amount of unspent money is not unusual for a block grant—
The overall amount of money that was unspent is not alarming
when compared to other block grants. Two other block grants
report similar or higher amounts of unspent monies at year’s
end. An official for Arizona’s State Vocational Block grant re-
1 Fiscal year 2001 Completion Reports were not due until after this report
was completed. As a result, returns for the year could not be assessed.
Grantees returned ap-proximately
$1 million
each year.
Finding II
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ports that the average amount carried forward over three years
was 17 percent. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices
executive report for the fiscal year 1998 Community Ser-vices
Block Grant reports that the states carried forward ap-proximately
6 percent of the total monies available.
However, most of the unspent monies came from only a small
number of grantees. In fact, each year nearly 75 percent of the
returned monies came from approximately 20 grantees. In fiscal
year 1999, the top 5 grantees returned a total of $515,900, and an-other
16 grantees accounted for an additional $306,992. In fiscal
year 2000, the top 5 grantees returned a total of $417,139, and an-other
15 grantees returned at least $10,000 each, accounting for
an additional $311,248.
Unspent monies must be reverted to the State General Fund and
are not available for other uses—The grant’s only revenue
source is a lapsing appropriation from the State General Fund
and any unspent monies must be returned to the Fund. When
the grantees return monies to the Department after the close of
the fiscal year, the Department is required to revert the monies to
the State General Fund and, therefore, the monies are not avail-able
for other early education uses. Consequently, early educa-tion
needs may go unmet.
Several Factors Contribute
to Unspent Monies
Grantees reported various obstacles that kept them from spend-ing
their entire allocations. Evaluators contacted the grant coor-dinators
for ten grantees who returned money in fiscal year
2000.1 Evaluators also analyzed information on unspent monies
from completion reports. Some of the reasons identified for re-turning
money included the following:
n Turnover in key positions—Six of the grantees reported
that they had new grant coordinators. One grantee reported
that the previous grant coordinator had left during the mid-dle
of fiscal year 2000 and the position remained unfilled un-
1 Of the grantees contacted, five returned the largest amounts among all
grantees and five others returned 75 percent or more of their allocations.
Each year, nearly 75 per-cent
of the returned mon-ies
came from approxi-mately
20 grantees.
Finding II
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
til fiscal year 2001. Further, another reported that the grant
coordinator position had remained unfilled for ten months
during fiscal year 2000. During that time, no one was moni-toring
the spending of the allocation. As a result, the grantee
was unaware that money was left to be spent and had to re-turn
the money.
n Lack of communication among grantee staff—Even when
there is a grant coordinator, organizational structure may re-strict
spending. Many of the grantees have business offices
that are separate from their program offices. The business
manager in the business office may maintain the budget for
the grant monies, but the responsibility for spending the
available money belongs to the grant coordinator. If there is a
lack of communication between the business and program
offices, the program office may be unaware that there is
money available. One coordinator said that centralized
budget monitoring was the primary reason for unspent
money in her district. The finance department maintained
expenditure records, and she was unaware of the year-to-date
expenditures during the fiscal year. When she became
aware of the unspent money, it was too close to district dead-lines
to make any changes.
n Budgets not amended to allow for changes in spend-ing—
When grantees cannot spend monies in ways the De-partment
initially approved, they have the opportunity to al-ter
their initial plans through an amendment process. This
process allows the grantee to use monies that were otherwise
limited to spending on one budget line (e.g., salaries) to an-other
(e.g., supplies). When monies are available in one line
and not moved to another through the amendment process,
the grantee has to return the unspent monies at the end of the
fiscal year and cannot use them for other purposes. Eighteen
of the 20 grantees who returned over $10,000 in fiscal year
2000 did not use the amendment process.
Turnover and lack of
communication contrib-ute
to unspent monies.
Finding II
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Department’s Continued
Assistance Is Needed to
Overcome Obstacles
The Department has taken steps to ensure that grantees spend
their full allocation and do not have to return money at year-end.
The Department should continue these efforts and provide fur-ther
assistance to grantees who return more than $10,000 at year-end
to help reduce the amount of unspent money.
The Department has taken some steps to reduce unspent
money—During fiscal year 2001, the Department began to take
steps to ensure that grantees spend their full allocation. These
efforts include the following:
n Reminding grantees about the amendment process—
Grantees can amend their project summaries if they are un-able
to use their allocation as planned. As the deadline to
make amendments approached, the Department sent a
memo reminding grantees of the deadline. The memo en-couraged
the grantees to examine their project summaries
and determine whether they can spend the money as
planned. It reminded grantees that if they had overbudgeted
in one area, they could move the extra monies to an area
where they could be used.
n Encouraging communication between program and
business managers—During the year, the Department also
encouraged grant coordinators to keep in contact with the
business managers. Of the ten grantees who were asked
about unspent monies, six said that during the current fiscal
year they were working more closely with their district busi-ness
offices to ensure that their grant monies are spent.
The Department should focus on grantees who return over
$10,000—The Department should continue its current efforts for
those grantees who return small amounts of money. However, in
order to greatly reduce the amount of money grantees return to
the Department, and ultimately the State General Fund, further
assistance is necessary for those grantees who return large
amounts of money. Approximately 20 grantees each year re-turned
over $10,000. The Department should identify those who
To reduce the amount of
unspent money, the De-partment
should focus on
grantees who return over
$10,000.
Finding II
21
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
return the largest amount of money in fiscal year 2001 and assist
them in identifying barriers to spending.
Recommendations
1. The Department should continue to provide all grantees with
reminders about spending and the amendment process, and
to encourage communication between business and grant of-fices.
2. The Department should work with those grantees who re-turn
large amounts of money to reduce the amount of money
that they return.
22
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
23
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING III DEPARTMENT SHOULD
CONTINUE TO DEVELOP
ELIGIBILITY AND
NOTIFICATION POLICIES
Although statutes require grantees who provide preschool ser-vices
to comply with several eligibility and notification require-ments,
the various methods that grantees use do not necessarily
ensure that these requirements are met. Further, the Department
of Education does not have policies in place to help grantees en-sure
that preschool children supported by grant monies are ac-tually
eligible for the program. The Department also does not
have policies to help ensure that grantees adequately notify pre-schools
about their rights and opportunities to participate. The
Department has recently begun to develop such policies and
needs to continue to do so.
Eligibility and Notification
Requirements Are Not
Being Fully Met
Grantees face eligibility or notification requirements under the
statute. For two requirements, grantees have developed their
own approaches to complying, which leave potential gaps in en-suring
that statutory requirements are met.
¾ Limited assurance that only eligible children receive ser-vices—
Grantees are required to verify income eligibility for
participation, but some grantees do not obtain proof of in-come.
Use of preschool monies is restricted to services for
children who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch because
their families’ incomes are below a certain level. Data gath-ered
by the Department indicates that most grantees keep
Thirty-three percent of
grantees who provide
preschool do not keep
proof-of-income eligibil-ity
on file.
Finding III
24
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
proof-of-income on file, but 33 percent do not. Twelve per-cent
do not require documentation and verify income only
through self-reported information. As a result, the grantees
cannot be sure that the students are truly eligible for the pro-gram.
Another 21 percent report examining proof-of-income
documents at registration but do not keep them on file.
n Notification to private and federal providers varies
greatly—Grantees are required to provide all federally
funded or private child care providers within the district or
within ten miles of the charter school with the information
necessary for them to provide services to eligible children
and receive reimbursement through the grant. Grantees are
not consistent in the extent to which they comply with this
requirement. Department data indicates that most of the
grantees notify eligible providers as required. However, 14
percent of the grantees notify a provider only when a parent
expresses interest and 2 percent notify only a limited number
of accredited providers.
Continued Development
Of Policies Is Needed
To ensure that grantees are using appropriate means to verify
eligibility and notify providers of the preschool programs, the
Department should continue to develop policies for grantees to
follow. The Department collected data on grantee methods of
ensuring compliance during the fiscal year 2001 application
process, and intends to use this information to establish policies
that it has begun drafting. The Department should ensure that
policies include such things as whether grantees must maintain
documentation of proof-of-income; acceptable proof-of-income
documents; and acceptable means of notifying private and fed-eral
providers about grant participation.
Finding III
25
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendation
1. The Department should continue to develop policies for
monitoring compliance with legislative requirements. The
policies should require grantees to keep eligibility documents
on file and define the acceptable types of documents. They
should also define acceptable ways to notify private and fed-eral
providers about the grant.
26
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
State of Arizona
Department of Education
Jaime A. Molera
Superintendent of
Public Instruction
August 29, 2001
Ms. Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
2910 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
We appreciate the efforts of your staff in the evaluation of the Early Childhood Block Grant
(ECBG). Early Childhood Education programs are critical in preparing young children for
school and supporting their educational success. The Auditor General’s evaluation report
provides objective recommendations that will strengthen the program’s accountability and
enhance program quality.
Our response to the evaluation report is listed below. We have responded to each finding and
recommendation specifically, and then provided general comments regarding the report.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS
FINDING I
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to. No audit recommendations accompany this
finding.
FINDING II
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendations will be
implemented.
ADE’s Progress in Reducing Reverted Funds
ADE has implemented a procedure to reduce unspent funds since fiscal year 2000. The table
below shows the extent to which ADE has reduced the amount of ECBG funds returned to the
State General Fund.
1998 1999 2000
Total Budgets
(Allocations &
Amended Interest) $19,036,115.53 $18,858,961.65 $19,173,123.52
Funds Returned $1,608,912.18 $1,130,094.66 $992,607.95
Percent
of Allocation Returned 8.45% 5.99% 5.18%
These data show that from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000, the amount of unspent funds
declined by $616,304.23, or 38% less was returned in fiscal year 2000 than was returned in
fiscal year 1998. For fiscal year 2001, 36 completion reports have been received as of August
28, 2001. To date, LEAs have returned $3,157.99 as compared to $17,803.39 returned by the
same LEAs in fiscal year 2000. This is approximately 82% less than was returned by these
LEAs during fiscal year 2000. This reduction is the direct result of ADE efforts to make LEAs
aware of unspent funds, to provide technical assistance in guiding LEAs to either amend or not
accept these funds, and to reduce barriers that result in unspent funds. In fiscal year 2001, for
example, ECBG staff placed phone calls to 96 LEAs, or 34% of the total LEAs funded in fiscal
year 2000.
In addition to the steps described above, ADE will implement a procedure to use LEA carryover
funds in a reallocation process as described in the Uniform System of Financial Records (USFR),
Section V1-F-6. This will further reduce unspent funding.
Unmet Need for Early Education in Arizona
It is important to point out, that the very nature of the mandated formula allocation process for
the ECBG virtually guarantees that some funds will go unspent. While we agree that this may
contribute to some early education needs going unmet, we believe that meeting early education
needs in the state of Arizona requires a broader vision.
Due to the flexibility of a block grant, and the limited fund ing available, Arizona serves less
than 5% of its four year old population through the ECBG. Moreover, Arizona’s preschool
children have a number of risk factors for early school failure. In fiscal year 2000, 38% of
ECBG preschool children spoke a language other than English as their primary language; 21%
lived with a single mother; 40% had a mother who did not graduate from high school; and at
least 11% of families received some form of public assistance. These are factors identified by
the US Department of Education (The Condition of Education 2000) as placing children at risk
of being behind on measures of reading and mathematics skills and general knowledge at
kindergarten entrance.
We recognize the importance of utilizing all funding available for early education. However, we
also realize the ability to actually resolve the issue of unmet early education needs would require
legislative change to direct adequate funding targeted specifically for preschool and full-day
kindergarten programs.
FINDING III
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendations will be
implemented.
ECBG Policy Manual
ADE has been developing a ECBG policy manual since fiscal year 2000 that will be published in
the fall of 2001. The ECBG Policy Manual is organized around the statutory requirements in an
attempt to highlight those requirements to grantees and to provide guidance related to those
requirements. In the section on preschool eligibility, ADE will include more specific direction
on how LEAs should document eligibility and will require that grantees keep eligibility
documents on file. In the section on contracting with private and federal providers, ADE will
include more specific direction related to ways that LEAs can notify private and federal
providers about the grant.
GENERAL COMMENTS
ADE Efforts to Monitor and Enhance Program Quality and Effectiveness
ADE’s Early Childhood Programs, in the Student Services Division, administers the ECBG.
Early Childhood Programs’ state mandated strategic plan goals focus on customer service and
monitoring for program quality and effectiveness. LEAs typically combine ECBG funds with
other funding sources to provide preschool, full day kindergarten, and K-3 services.
Consequently, our efforts to monitor and enhance program quality and effectiveness with ECBG
administrative funds may affect early childhood programs in the state in general, in addition to
programs and children funded directly by the ECBG. Examples of these efforts are outlined
below.
1. ECBG Application – A new on-line application for ECBG funds was developed and
implemented starting in fiscal year 2001 that collects information about how grantees’
programs meet statutory requirements and the services provided.
2. Site Visits – In the last two fiscal years, 52 preschool classrooms (approximately 27% of the
total number of sites funded all or in part by the ECBG) have received one full-day site visit
and were monitored for quality using the detailed and nationally recognized “Early
Childhood Environment Rating Scale (1998)”. In fiscal year 2001, six full day kindergarten
classrooms, funded all or in part by the ECBG, were visited for the full day. ADE developed
the FDK Rating Form to complete, as a description of the program offered, during site visits.
3. “Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs” – ADE, in collaboration
with the state Early Childhood Consortium, has revised and will re-publish this document. It
outlines the elements of quality and comprehensive services (e.g., meals, health screenings)
that should be found in Arizona preschools.
4. ECBG Resource Book – This folder includes a wide variety of information about LEAs
funded all or in part by the ECBG, such as the number of children funded, a list of private
preschool providers and charter schools, demographic characteristics of participants,
preschool assessment, & historical information about ECBG funding.
5. Early Childhood Education Endorsement for Teachers – ADE has provided leadership on
a task force working currently to reinstate the early childhood education endorsement for
teachers. Program quality improves when classrooms are staffed with teachers specifically
trained in early childhood education.
6. Visibility in National Groups and Committees – ADE participates in the early childhood
community on a national level in order to stay abreast of new information, policies, research,
and innovations in other states that could benefit early childhood programs in Arizona.
7. Training Opportunities for Grantees – In April 2000, ADE hosted a validator training by
the National Association for the Education of Young Children in order to assist preschool
programs in expediting the accreditation process. In February 2001, ADE provided a literacy
training for preschool teachers and administrators through the University of Washington.
This training provided participants with materials and videos in Spanish and English to help
teachers and parents improve young children’s literacy skills through their interactions with
them. These trainings were open to the Arizona early childhood community in general.
8. Administration Funds Used to Enhance Quality & Customer Service – ECBG
administrative funds have also been used for professional development for ECBG grantees,
to provide support for programs to become accredited (Early Childhood Quality
Improvement Project), and to fund the development of the ECBG on-line application to make
the application process easier for grantees.
9. Preschool Program Evaluation – ADE conducted detailed descriptive analyses of program
services and child outcomes for fiscal year 2000. The findings have been presented locally
and nationally. To date, numerous organizations and individuals have requested and been
provided with evaluation data. Plans are underway to conduct follow-up studies of the
progress of elementary school children who attended preschool programs funded all or in
part by the ECBG, in addition to the annual evaluations. A summary and graphs of the
findings from fiscal year 2000 are presented below.
ARIZONA ECBG PRELIMINARY PRESCHOOL EVALUATION (1999-2000)
PROGRAM
• 61 School Districts
• 13 Counties (of 15)
• 200 Preschool Sites
• 50 Private Providers
• 3869 Children
SAMPLE
• 44 School Districts
• 11 Counties
• 112 Preschool Sites
• 13 Private Providers
• 850 Children
(of 2021 = 42%)
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
52% boys 48% girls
54 months at
pretest
(range = 36-68 months)
61 months at
posttest
(range = 44-75 months)
67% Hispanic
6% NativeAmerican
1% Asian American
21% White
3% African American
2% Other
62% spoke English
(includes “both”)
37% spoke Spanish
1% spoke Other
FAMILIES
INCOME
• 17% <$10,000
• 42% $10,001-$20,000
• 30% $20,001-$30,000
• 11% $30,001-$50,000+
[59% <= $20,000]
[89% <= $30,000]
EMPLOYMENT
• 89% of fathers were
employed
• 43% of mothers
were employed
FAMILIES
MOTHER’S
EDUCATION
• 40% <high school or
some high school
• 31% high school grad.
• 23% some college
• 6% AA or BA / BS
[Father’s education was very similar.]
FAMILY
STATUS
• 70% had both parents
in the home
• 21% had single
mothers
• 9% had other situations
(e.g. grandparents)
PreK SuccessTM Percent
Correct Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Language Problem
Solving
Motor Total
Pretest
Posttest
Percentage of Children at
PreK SuccessTM Benchmark
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Language
(Low SES)
Total
(Low SES)
Total
(Middle SES)
Pretest
Posttest
Descriptive data from PreK SuccessTM, a standardized assessment used by preschool programs funded all or in part
by the ECBG, show that preschool children gained an average of 22.4% on the language sub-scale, 22.3% on the
problem-solving sub-scale, 17.9% on the motor sub-scale, and 20.9% overall. For the total PreK SuccessTM score,
20% more preschool children met the benchmark for their chronological age at the end of the school year than met
that benchmark at the beginning of the school year, and 31% more children met the benchmark for the language sub-scale
at the end of the school year than did at the beginning of the school year.
Quality educational programs and services are provided to Arizona’s children
through the ECBG.
As mentioned above, LEAs typically combine ECBG funds with other funding sources to
provide preschool, full day kindergarten, and K-3 services. Nevertheless, without ECBG
funding, LEAs would not be able to provide the majority of these services. Consequently, it is
our hope that our efforts to continue to measure the benefit of services funded all or in part by
the ECBG will adequately show the value of these services. Furthermore, we welcome
additional efforts by other agencies to provide information about the impact of the grant on
children, families, and schools.
For example, the primary goal of comprehensive, quality programs for disadvantaged preschool
children is to help them attain a level of competence that is equivalent to their more advantaged
peers by the time they formally enter school. In what ways do such programs benefit children
who attend them, as compared to their peers who do not? Also, the primary goal of full day
kindergarten is to provide additional educational experiences that could not be provided in the
amount of time offered in a half-day program. How do children who attend full day kindergarten
compare to their peers who attend half-day kindergarten? Based on findings, should the State
consider funding full day kindergarten? Finally, LEAs who choose to use their ECBG funds to
supplement their kindergarten through 3rd grade services often target these funds for specific
programmatic purposes. For example, a LEA may hire an additional teacher with ECBG funds
specifically to reduce class size, or it may purchase and implement a particular literacy
curriculum. What is the impact of reducing kindergarten through 3rd grade class size on
children’s learning? How effective is the implementation of a particular literacy initiative in
helping children meet the Arizona State Standards?
There are a number of national studies and studies completed by individual states that address
these questions and clearly show benefits of comprehensive, quality preschool for disadvantaged
children, full day kindergarten, and K-3 supplementary programs (e.g., reducing class size).
Nevertheless, we believe that evaluation data related to Arizona programs in particular is needed.
Again, we thank you and your staff for your time and resource investment, as well as expertise,
in producing this report. As quality early childhood programs continue to be strengthened, so
grows our investment in Arizona’s children.
Sincerely,
Jaime A. Molera
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona Department of Education
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
01-10
Future Performance Audit Reports
Department of Public Safety—Highway Patrol
Arizona Department of Corrections—Arizona Correctional Industries
Board of Nursing
Department of Building and Fire Safety
00-21 Universities—Funding Study
00-22 Annual Evaluation—Arizona’s
Family Literacy Program
01-1 Department of Economic Security—
Child Support Enforcement
01-2 Department of Economic Security—
Healthy Families Program
01-3 Arizona Department of Public
Safety—Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) Program
01-4 Arizona Department of
Corrections—Human Resources
Management
01-5 Arizona Department of Public
Safety—Telecommunications
Bureau
01-6 Board of Osteopathic Examiners in
Medicine and Surgery
01-7 Arizona Department
of Corrections—Support Services
01-8 Arizona Game and Fish Commission
and Department—Wildlife
Management Program
01-9 Arizona Game and Fish
Commission—Heritage Fund
01-10 Department of Public Safety—
Licensing Bureau
01-11 Arizona Commission on the Arts
01-12 Board of Chiropractic Examiners
01-13 Arizona Department of
Corrections—Private Prisons
01-14 Arizona Automobile Theft
Authority
01-15 Department of Real Estate
01-16 Department of Veterans’ Services
Arizona State Veteran Home,
Veterans’ Conservatorship/
Guardianship Program, and
Veterans’ Services Program
01-17 Arizona Board of Dispensing
Opticians
01-18 Arizona Department of Correct-ions—
Administrative Services
and Information Technology