Annual evaluation, At-risk Preschool Expansion Program

              ANNUAL EVALUATION
AT- RISK PRESCHOOL EXPANSION PROGRAM
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
January 1996
Report 96- 1
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA OFFICE OF THE
nVDlTOR GENERI\ L
AUDITOR GENERAL
January 24,1996
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY 1IUOI7ORGENEI1IL
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
The Honorable Lisa Graham Keegan
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, an Annual Evaluation of the At-
Risk Preschool Program. This report is in response to the provisions of Session Laws 1994,
9th Special Session, Chapter 2, Section 30.
This is the first in a series of reports. Reports are scheduled to be released annually on or
before December 31. Our evaluation study finds that the Arizona Department of Education
( ADE) has designed a program that has the potential to provide quality preschool
experiences for at- risk children. The program guidelines are consistent with nationally
recognized standards in early childhood education. However, we found that the process
of allocating and distributing at- risk preschool funds could be improved to target areas most
in need of at- risk services. In addition, ADE has not allocated the necessary resources to
assist districts in implementing the program or to provide monitoring to assure that
programs meet the guidelines. Finally, it is recommended that the ADE's proposal to move
the program into an early childhood state block grant be postponed until the 1997- 98 school
year to allow for adequate planning.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clanfy items in the report
This report will be release to the public on January 25,1996.
Sincerely,
D~ UR. W Nor ton
Auditor General
2910 NORTH 44TH STREET . SUITE 410 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 m ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 3 3 3 - FAX ( 602) 553- 0051
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has completed the first- year program evaluation of the
At- Risk Preschool Expansion ( ARPE) Program administered by the Arizona Department of
Education ( ADE). The evaluation was conducted pursuant to A. R. S. 515- 715. This report is
the first in a series of reports that the Office of the Auditor General will prepare annually
for the Program. ~ u n dfso r the Program are currently appropriated through fiscal year
1995- 96.
The AWE is targeted at four- year- old children in Arizona who are at risk of failing in
school. The AWE was created by Laws 1994, 9th Special Session, Chapter 2 with 1994- 95
and 1995- 96 appropriations of $ 10 million for each year. These appropriations are in
addition to approximately $ 2.6 million per year in at- risk preschool pilot project
appropriations. The legislation allows public schools, federally funded programs, and private
day care providers to provide direct services using these monies.
Approximately $ 14.7 million of at- risk preschool monies have been distributed to 103 school
districts for the 1995- 96 school year. These funds are projected to serve approximately 4,900
children in 172 public school classrooms, 64 Head Start classes, 30 special education classes,
and 66 private provider sites.
The Arizona Department of Education's
At- Risk Program is Designed to Follow
Nationally Recognized Standards and Goals
( See pages 9 through 13)
The Arizona Department of Education has designed a program that has the potential to
provide quality preschool experiences for at- risk children. The Arizona program compares
favorably to other state- funded programs across the nation and is consistent with current
standards in early childhood education. Three program guidelines, however, need ongoing
assessment to assure the Program meets its potential.
To assure that quality programs are implemented and that children sewed by the ARPE are
given the ongoing support they need to succeed in school, we recommend that the ADE
and the Early Childhood Advisory Council ( ECAC) continually reevaluate and update
standards when appropriate for maximum group size, staff- to- child ratios, and teacher
qualifications.
Fund Distribution Process Should
Be Modified to Ensure Limited
Funds Are Spent in Most Needy Areas
( See pages 15 through 22)
The ADE has created an allocation and distribution process that has not taken into account
the percentages of at- risk children in an area or the existence of similar preschool services.
Instead, the ADE allocated monies to all districts that serve kindergarten to grade 3 children
regardless of the districts' relative needs for at- risk preschool programs. The result is that
many districts received allocations that are too small to be effectively used. Further, some
districts with low relative need for at- risk services received large grants while districts with
high need continue to have limited at- risk preschool services available. The ADE also made
an error in calculating allocations. This error resulted in some districts receiving higher or
lower allocations than they should have under the formula created by the ADE.
In addition, the ADE adopted income- eligibility guidelines for the Program that do not
allow for enrolling children who are " at risk" for reasons other than income. Other criteria
for at risk could include dominant language other than English, language delay, mother's
age at child's birth, and parents' education. Furthermore, the ADE established a maximum
amount per child that can be spent by any district, The maximum amount is lower than
what is recommended by experts, and may limit districts' capacities to offer programs that
fully meet local needs
When making allocations for the 1996- 97 school year, the ADE should consider the specific
needs of each school district. The ADE should revise the AWE allocation and distribution
processes to ensure that funds are directed to the areas most in need. The ADE also needs
to expand its eligibility to include at- risk criteria other than income, and should consider
eliminating its per- child expenditure limits.
The At- Risk Preschool Program
Lacks Adequate Monitoring
( See pages 23 through 26)
Problems exist in ARPE's monitoring. First, the ADE has assigned fewer than 2 full- time
equivalent positions ( FTEs) to provide administration plus program and fiscal monitoring,
and technical assistance and staff development to the 103 school districts awarded grants.
Second, school districts, many with limited early childhood expertise on staff, have the
responsibility to monitor all ARPE interventions, including Head Start- based and private
provider- based programs receiving ARPE monies. Third, while districts are expected to
provide staff development for preschool staff, they have generally failed to budget for the
effort.
To address these problems, the ADE should invest a larger percentage of the AWE
appropriation for resources to provide monitoring, staff development, and technical
assistance during the early years of implementation. Experts stress the importance of these
activities in the early years to ensure that programs are effective and a good investment of
public monies.
At- Risk Preschool Expansion
Program Started Slowly
( See pages 27 through 30)
AWE'S distribution of funds to school districts has been delayed. None of the $ 10 million
1994- 95 appropriation for expansion of at- risk preschool programs was expended during the
1994- 95 school year. The 1995- 96 school year began with no AWE funds having been
distributed and most programs did not begin to serve children until after the school year
started. The delay resulted from a change in ADE administration and the multiple layers
of approval the AWE requires.
ADE has proposed including the AWE in an early childhood block grant Because of ADE's
difficulties in rapidly planning and implementing the AWE, we recommend that the ADE
postpone implementation of this change until the 1997- 98 school year. The ADE should use
the 1996- 97 school year to effectively plan the new process including developing a
comprehensive request for proposal and an appropriate formula to allocate and distribute
funds.
iii
Table of Contents
Paqe
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Finding I: The Arizona Department of
Education's At- Risk Program is
Designed to Follow Nationally
Recognized Standards and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Arizona At- Risk Program Design
Compares Favorably to Early Childhood
Programs in Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Arizona At- Risk Preschool
Guidelines Consistent with
National Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Three Areas Need
Ongoing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Finding II: Fund Distribution Process
Should Be Modified to Ensure Limited
Funds Are Spent in Most Needy Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Allocation Process Results in Districts
Receiving Allocations That Are Too Small
to Support Comprehensive Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ADE Needs to Direct Resources to
Most Needy Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Inclusion of Ineligible Children in
Estimating Numbers of Children
Results in Allocation Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table of Contents ( conlt)
Finding I1 ( con't)
Income as Sole Indicator of At Risk
Excludes Some At- Risk Preschoolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Eliminating Expenditure Limits
Would Enhance District Flexibility
in Implementing At- Risk Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Finding Ill: The At- Risk Preschool
Program Lacks Adequate Monitoring . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . 23
Program Monitoring and
Staff Development Necessary
forQualityContro1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ADE Has Not Committed Resources
for Program Monitoring or Staff Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
School Districts with Limited Staff
and Expertise Are Responsible for
Monitoring Private and Federal Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Districts Do Not Include
Staff Development in Their
Preschool Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Finding 1V: At- Risk Preschool
Expansion Program Started Slowly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Implementation Slowed
by Funding Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Changes in Leadership and Interpretation
of Legislation Create Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table of Contents ( conlt)
Finding IV ( con't)
Multiple Layers of Approval
Slow Down Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ADE Proposes Early
Childhood Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Other Pertinent Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Statutory Annual
Evaluation Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Agency Response
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a- i
Figures
Figure 1 At- Risk Preschool Appropriations
Fiscal Years 1991 through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2 Number of Districts Applying for
At- Risk Preschools Monies According
to Size of Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
vii
Tables
Table 1 Distribution of Allocations to 198
Eligible Districts That Serve Children
in Kindergarten to Third Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2 At- Risk Preschool Programs Approved
in 1995 by the State Board of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3 Comparison of Arizona At- Risk Program
to 22 Other States' Programs on a
Variety of Design Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4 Arizona Preschool Guidelines in Comparison
to Minimum Standards for Quality
Preschool Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 5 Distribution of ARPE Site
byTypeofPravides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 6 Distribution of ARPE Allocations and
Approved Grants by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a- iii
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has completed the first- year program evaluation of the
At- Risk Preschool Expansion ( ARPE) Program administered by the Arizona Department
of Education ( ADE). The evaluation was conducted pursuant to A. R. S. 915- 715. This report
is the first in a series of reports that the Office of the Auditor General will prepare annually
for the Program. Funds for the Program are currently appropriated through fiscal year
1995- 96.
Literature Shows Quality Preschools
Are Effective for At- Ris k Children
Quality preschool programs have been shown to be a good investment The often cited,
Michigan- based Perry Preschool Project has studied the effects, over a significant period of
time, of a quality preschool, and many of the Perry Preschool findings have been
corroborated by other studies. This research has identified the following benefits to
individual adults who, as children, were served by a quality preschool:
Greater likelihood of graduating from high school
Lower probability of receiving special education services while in school
Lower prooability of being involved in the criminal justice system
Higher income
Greater likelihood of home ownership
Greater chance of being employed
Less chance of being a welfare recipient
The ongoing Perry Preschool research shows that for every $ 1 spent on preschool for at- risk
children there is benefit to the child, plus there is a cost avoidance of $ 7.16 ( through age 27)
to the public. Using the Perry Preschool researchers' recommended spending level of $ 5,500
per child, the investment in preschool would reap a total of $ 33,880 savings per child to
society through age 27. The Perry Preschool researchers' estimated cost avoidance comes
from a variety of factors, including:
Savings in schooling, primarily due to reduced need for special education services
Savings in welfare assistance
Savings to the criminal justice system
II Savings on in- court and out- of- court settlements for would- be crime victims
In addition, as adults, former preschool participants contribute to society through higher
taxes because they have higher earnings.
In summary, quality preschool programs have been characterized not only as programs that
promote educational, social, and health development, but also as programs that help prevent
violence, delinquency, and crime.
History in Arizona
Laws 1990, Chapter 345 established a pilot grant program to be used for providing
preschool services to at- risk preschool children. As a result of this law, ten schools began
operating pilot at- risk preschool projects during the 1990- 91 school year. The number of
schools providing at- risk preschool projects expanded to 33 the following school year with
the addition of 23 schools. In 1994, the Legislature significantly expanded the at- risk
preschool program through Laws 1994, 9th Special Session, Chapter 2, which was
accompanied by a $ 10 million increase in the appropriation. The 1994 revision also added
a provision that allows private day care providers, in addition to federally funded programs
and public schools, to provide direct services under the program. In accordance with the
legislation all at- risk preschool funds are distributed to school districts who then reimburse
private and federal contractors for services they provide. The " at- risk preschool expansion"
program, or ARPE, is used in this report to distinguish the Program expanded by the 1994
legislation from the at- risk pilot project created in 1990.
In addition, Laws 1995, lst Special Session, Chapter 4, placed the ARPE into a block grant
with four other state- funded programs: full- day kindergarten, kindergarten to grade 3 at- risk
( K to 3 at- risk), dropout prevention, and @ led support. The block grant became effective
with fiscal year 1995- 96.
The legislation defines specific responsibilities of the State Board of Education and the ADE
concerning policy decisions and administration of the At- Risk Preschool Program. In
addition, there is a legislated role for the Early Childhood Advisory Council. The 1995 Block
Grant legislation also gave the Joint Legislative Budget Committee @ L, BC) responsibility for
reviewing the distribution process. Finally, school districts are given some responsibilities
to administer the Program ( see Appendix A, pages a- i through a- ii, for a discussion of each
of these entities' legislated roles).
Arizona Targets Children from
Low- Income Families
While the legislation targets the Program at four- year- old children in Arizona who are at
risk of failing in school, the ADE has further narrowed it to children of low- income families.
The Program is aimed at poor children as a recent U. S. General Accounting Office study
reports these children are less likely to attend preschool, are more likely to be part of
immigrant families or families who do not speak English; families where the most educated
parent has less than a high school diploma; families where parents do not work; and single-parent
families. All these factors are associated with high risk of failing in school and its
related outcomes: unemployment, welfare dependence, and criminal behavior.
In Arizona, 9.6 percent of children live in extreme poverty, and 34 percent of all children
live in or near poverty. For the 1995- 96 school year, there were approximately 33,000
children eligible for the Program based on family income.
Appropriations
The appropriations for at- risk preschool increased from $ 600,000 in 1990- 91 to the current
funding level of over $ 12.5 million per year. The 1994 legislation significantly expanded the
At- Risk Program by adding $ 10 million to the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 pilot
program appropriations of approximately $ 2.6 million per year. Figure 1 ( see page 4)
provides an overview of program appropriations.
Figure 7
At- Risk Preschool Appropriations
Fiscal Years 1991 throuah 1996
Expansionm 10,000,000 10,000,000
Total $ 600,000 $ 1,6OO, OOC $ 2,601,700 $ 2,602,600 $ 12,605,000 $ 12,606,000
Source: State of Arizona Appropriations Reports for Fiscal Year 1992, 1993, 4994, and 1995.
Fund Allocation Process
The ADE created a process for distributing AWE funds that included the following steps:
1) Determine which districts are eligible to receive ARPE funds
2) Compute an allocation for each eligible district'
1 While ADE determined an " allocation" amount for each district, districts did not receive monies until
completed applications were submitted to the ADE and approved by the State Board of Education.
3) Now each eligible district of its allocation, and provide directions to complete an
application if the district wished to receive the funds
4) Complete and submit applications for the ARPE by interested districts
5) Review applications by the ECAC and the ADE
6) Approve applications by the State Board of Education; and
7) Distribute funds to the districts that submitted applications for their allocations
The ADE determined that the 198 public school districts that serve children in kindergarten
through grade 3 are eligible for at- risk preschool funds. Since union high school districts do
not serve children in kindergarten to grade 3, they were not included in the process.
District allocations were calculated by the ADE based on the estimated number of age- and
residence- eligible children as required by the legislation, and at- risk eligible as defined by
a family income that meets federal free- or reduced- lunch eligibility. The Department used
these estimates to compute a maximum grant amount for each district. The formula is based
on the estimated number of eligible children in each district, the total number of eligible
children in the State, and the total amount of funds available for distribution across the
State? The ADE based the 1995- 96 allocations on an amount of $ 17.5 million available for
distribution. Of this total, $ 5 million is carryover from the nonrevertible unspent 1994- 95
expansion apvropriation, $ 2.5 million is from the pilot program appropriation for 1995- 96,
and $ 10 million represents the new 1995- 96 expansion appropriation.
Using the formula, 196 of the 198 districts received allocations; two districts did not have
eligible children. The distribution of allocations is provided in Table 1 ( see page 6).
Approximately $ 452 was allocated for each eligible preschooler. The ADE expects that only
10 to 20 percent of eligible children will be served with these funds.
The ADE provided each of the 196 districts eligible to receive an allocation with an AWE
application package. Districts had to complete the application package and return it to the
To assure continuity in the at- risk preschool pilot programs, the Department adopted an adjustment
in the basic allocation. Districts that received at- risk preschool funds as part of the pilot program were
eligible for at least their fiscal year 1994- 95 pilot program funding amount. For example, one district
that has been operating a pilot program for several years received a grant of . approximately $ 55,000
for 1995- 96 that will continue the existing pilot program. Without the adjustment for an existing
program, the district would have received only $ 7,675. Seven districts received allocations based on
their pilot status that were greater than would have been received based on a straight allocation
method. The ADE has not determined if and how funding for pilot programs will be continued after
1995- 96.
Table 1
Distribution of Allocations to 198 Eligible
Districts That Serve Children
in Kinderqarten to Third Grade
Total of
Allocations to
Elilqible Districts
$ 0
$ 1 to $ 1,006
$ 1,001, to $ 5,068
$ 5,001 to $ 10,000
$ 10,001 to $ 30,000
$ 30,001 to $ 63,000
$ 63,001 to $ 500,000
More than $ 500,000
Total
Number of Districts
with Allocation
in this Ranlqe
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the Arizona Department of Education.
ADE by September 25,1995, in order to receive their allocation? One hundred three of the
196 districts submitted applications for their allocated monies. Representatives of the ECAC
and the ADE reviewed applications that were approved by the State Board of Education
prior to the release of any funds. The balance of the AWE funds from the 93 districts that
did not submit applications was redistributed to the participating school districts in
November using a new formula.
Program Status
AWE funds were distributed to school districts beginning in September 1995. Most AWE
sites did not begin operation until after the start of the 1995- 96 school year. The approval
process resulted in the distribution of funds as shown in Table 2 ( see page 8). Approved
program budgets range from $ 4,626 to $ 1,554,854, with a median of $ 65,119. All 15 counties
received allocations. See Appendix B ( see page a- iii) for a distribution of funds by county.
Applications were reviewed and processed as they were received by the ADE. Applications were
reviewed and Board approved as early as August 28,1995.
Evaluation Scope and Methodology
This report contains findings in the following areas:
The Arizona program's consistency with national trends and early childhood standards
Problems that arose in the allocation and distribution of At- Risk Preschool monies
The need for more technical assistance, monitoring, and staff development
The Program's slow start and the implications for ADE's proposal of a new way to
block grant the program
The methods used in compiling this report include reviews of school district applications;
interviews; literature review; content analysis of ADE documents and files including the
AWE application instructions; and direct observation. This report covers the Program from
the enactment of Laws 1994, 9th Special Session, Chapter 2 ( June 1994) through the State
Board's approval of all initial applications for AWE funds ( October 1995).
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, and the management and staff of the Anzona Department of Education, for
their cooperation and assistance throughout the evaluation.
Type of
AtRisk
Preschool
- Grant
AWE
Projects
CO
Pilot Projects
Continued
Total
Total
Number
sf
Districts
Table 2
At- Risk Preschool Programs Approved in
1995 bv the State Board of Education
Children Children Chiklren
Sewed Served Sewed Children Children
Total by by by Sewed Sewed
Dollars Public Public Head Head Special Special by bY
to Be School School Start Start Ed. Ed. Private Private Other Other
Distributed Sites - Sites Sites Sites Sites.
" " Other sites" are sites that could not be clearly identified as private or public schools or federally operated.
b Consists of pilot districts that submitted for pilot program allocations only; these districts received no monies above their pilot mounts.
Total dollar figure for all pilot. programs including pilot grants for districts that also submitted applications for ARPE funds.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of district applications for the AWE and data provided by the Arizona Department of Education.
FINDING I
THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S
AT- RISK PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO FOLLOW
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS AND GOALS
The Arizona Department of Education has designed a program that has the potential
to provide quality preschool experiences for at- risk children. The Arizona program is
consistent with other state- funded programs across the nation and current standards
in early childhood education. Three program guidelines, however, need ongoing
assessment to assure the Program meets its potential.
Arizona At- Risk Program Design
Compares Favorably to Early
Childhood Programs in
Other States
Arizona is among at least 32 states that as of 1991- 92 fund preschool programs, and the
Arizona program compares favorably to other state- funded programs across the nation.
The ARPE is similar to state trends in several respects, and includes some positive
elements that are relatively unique. Two of Arizona's design factors, however, appear
to negatively diverge from other states.
The Arizona program parallels other states' programs in several ways, such as allowing
for state dollars to support preschool services in a variety of settings including private
preschools, federal programs, and public schools. In addition, Arizona, like most other
western states with preschool programs, uses no state funds to directly supplement Head
Start.' Like most other states, Arizona's ARPE model requires comprehensive
programming which includes health and dental screenings. Table 3, page 10, contrasts
the Arizona program to other states' programs on a variety of factors. Further, the ARPE
has unique strength in comparison to most other state programs in a number of ways.
The ARPE addresses some of the needs of working parents, or parents involved in
education or training. Individual programs may provide transportation, and are required
to address the linguistic needs of children and families.
1 The federally funded Head Start program that has historically served three-, four-, and five- year- old
" at- risk" preschoolers is well established in many parts of the country and has a well- developed
administration, infrastructure, standards, and recommended curricula. Some states have chosen to build
on this experience by using state funds to supplement federal dollars and expand Head Start.
Table 3
C~ mparisono f Arizona At- Risk Program to 22 Other
States' Programs on a Variety of Desiqn Factors
a A Child Development Associate Credential ( CDA) requires 120 dock- hours in early childhood education and 480 hours of
experience with children.
Source: Based on a 1994 Children's Defense Fund report of 23 state prekindergarten initiatives in the early 1990s.
In other states, one- third report little or no efforts to meet the needs of working parents
whose children were eligible for their programs; less than one- half of the programs help
parents overcome transportation problems; and about half make no special accommoda-tions
to meet the needs of children and families whose primary language is not English.
There are two significant areas in which the Arizona program negatively diverges from
national trends. First, the ARPE has some of the lowest preschool teacher qualifications
of any of the states that report preschool credential requirements ( see page 13 for further
discussion). Second, income eligibility is the only criteria for determining if a child is
at risk in the Arizona program, which could cause some at- risk children to be excluded
( see Finding 11, pages 15 through 22).
Arizona At- Risk Preschool
Guidelines Consistent with
National Standards
Arizona's specific guidelines meet standards developed by leading child education and
childcare programs. In 1993, the Early Childhood Advisory Council ( ECAC) developed
Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs ( Guidelines), which outline
12 major goal areas. As shown in Table 4 on page 12, these 12 goal areas are consistent
with current standards in early childhood education and childcare.
Further, the Department has incorporated these goals into its fund application process.
As part of the application for funding, each district that operates an at- risk program was
required to specify the activities, processes, or techniques to be implemented to achieve
each of the 12 goals. Applicants were also required to specify time lines for each activity,
the person responsible, and the evaluation criteria for each goal.
Three Areas Need
Ongoing Assessment
While the Arizona program addresses the necessary elements of a quality preschool
program, it should be noted that in three very important areas - group size, staff- to-child
ratios, and teacher credentials, Arizona's standards fall in the low range of the
national standards. Currently, the Arizona guidelines are as lenient as possible while
still being within the national standards. If programs do not meet the guidelines in these
areas, they may not produce the positive outcomes for participating children that are
the Program's goal.
Table 4
Arizona Presch~ oGl uidelines in C~ mparisonto
Minimum Standards for Qualitv Preschool Programs
Goal 2: Preschool pro-
Guidelines from the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Performance standards for the federally funded Head Start Program.
Recommendations made to the National Association of State Boards of Education,
Standards from the National Research Council, Institute of Medicine.
Guidelines from the National Early Childhood Program Accreditation.
The Arizona Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Guidelines from the National Association for the Education of Young Children; Performance
Standards for the federally funded Head Start Prograny. Recommendations made to the National Association of State Boards
of Education; Standards from the National Research Council, Institute of Medicine; Guidelines from the National Early Childhood
Program Accreditation; and The Arizona Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs.
Experts consistently state that the factors most important in the creation of quality preschool
programs are group size, staff- to- child ratios, and teacher quality. In Arizona:
Group size is at the maximum of 20 - smaller group sizes are important for young
children. Group size recommendations for four- year- olds range from 16 to 20.
Staff- to- child ratios of 1 to 10. This is the maximum within the recommended range of
1 to 7 through 1 to 10.
Teacher qualifications are some of the lowest in comparison to other states. A 1991- 92
survey of state preschool programs found that Arizona was one of only six states that
allowed teachers with only a Child Development Associate Credential ( CDA) to teach
preschool. Since 1991- 92, a number of states have raised their qualifications for early
childhood educators while Arizona's standards have remained unchanged.
RECOMMENDATION
The ADE and the ECAC should continually reevaluate and update standards for the
following three areas to assure that they promote effective preschool programs:
Maximum group size,
Staff- to- child ratios, and
Teacher qualifications
FINDING II
FUND DISTRIBUTION PROCESS SHOULD
BE MODIFIED TO ENSURE LIMITED FUNDS
ARE SPENT IN MOST NEEDY AREAS
The ADE has created an allocation and distribution process for at- risk preschool monies
that has not taken into account districts' relative need for at- risk programs and the
availability of existing services within districts to meet those needs. By not focusing on these
factors, the ADE has spread funds too thin to allow many districts to implement quality
programs. In addition, the ADE made an error in calculating allocations that resulted in
some districts receiving larger allocations and some districts receiving smaller allocations
than they should have if the ADE had accurately applied the formula it developed. The
ADE also instituted income guidelines for program participation that resulted in some at-risk
children being excluded from the Program. Finally, in order to allow districts the
flexibility they need to meet the specific needs of their at- risk population, the ADE should
remove the maximum per- child limit on expenditures.
Background
The following elements of the at- risk preschool program are specified by A. R. S. 515- 715:
Schools ( are) to provide preschool services to at- risk preschool children who have reached the age
of four by September I of the current year and who reside in the school attendance area.
Services must at a minimum ficus on pupils who are not succeeding in the school environment
. . . and may include children who do not qualijij for special education services . . . who exhibit
characteristics of attention deficit disorder or learning patterns attributable to prenatal substance
abuse.
H A school is eligible to apply@ a preschool project if it has been identifid by the state board of
education as having a large percentage of pupils in kindergarten programs and grades one
through three who are at risk of not succeeding in the educatim system.
The ADE added the following provisions to the ARPE:
A family income criteria in addition to age and residence eligibility for the program. The
family income guidelines correspond to the federal government free lunch income
eligibility guidelines.
A ' hot to exceed funding" of $ 3,150 per child per 180 days of service.
WMe the State significantly expanded at- risk preschool services in 1994, the current funding
level cannot provide services for all children who qualdy. Based on the methods used by
the ADE in allocating the AWE monies, only about 1 out of 7 children ( 14 percent) who
are income eligible for the Program can actually be served by it,
Allocation Process Results in
Districts Receiving Allocations
That Are Too Small to Support
Comprehensive Programs
ADE has determined that all school districts that serve kindergarten to grade 3 children
are eligible for at- risk preschool expansion ( ARPE) funds, regardless of relative need.
As a result, limited funds have been spread too thin to allow districts to implement
quality programs.
Process results in large number of small allocations - One hundred and ninety- eight
school districts were included in ADE's allocation of ARPE funds. Of these 198 districts,
the allocation method resulted in 196 districts being eligible to receive fiscal year 1995-
1996 grants in amounts ranging from $ 46 to $ 1.5 million.' Many district allocations were
too small to support even one child. Further, as shown in Figure 2 ( see page 17), the
size of the allocations impacted the likelihood that school districts would apply for
funding and the smaller the allocation, the less likely the district was to apply.
Two districts had no age- and income- eligible children,
16
Figure 2
Number of Districts Applying for At- Risk Preschools
Monies Accordinq to Size of Allocation
-
Budget Size L$ e1s, 0s0 t0h an $ 1,001 to $ 5,001 to $ 10,001 to $ 30,001 to $ 63,001 to More than
$ s, ooo $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ 63,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000
No. of Districts0 Total
with Allocations 12 26 28 39 25 58 8 196
No. of Districts
Submitting
A~~ lications 0 3 7 19 19 47 8 103
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information provided by the Arizona Department of Education.
Allocations are not sufficient to szcpport programs - The allocations provided are not
sufficient to allow districts to implement quality programs. ADE has estimated districts
need at least $ 63,000 to support a classroom. However, as shown in Figure 2/ only 34
percent ( 66) of the 196 districts received allocations in excess of $ 63,000. Districts with
insufficient funds to support a classroom must use other placement options to serve at-risk
children. The requirement that district applicants collaborate with private and
federal childcare providers in serving the needs of at- risk preschoolers could be one
solution to the problem. However, there are a number of factors that limit the extent
to which collaboration is feasible:
Many of the 130 districts with allocations of less than $ 63,000 have no private
childcare providers in the district. In addition, 92 have no Head Start program, 46
have no special education preschools, and 46 have neither.
Where Head Start and special education programs do exist, these providers must:
still meet group size and staff- to- child ratio guidelines and may already be
operating at the maximums; consequently, they may not have the space for children
supported by ARPE funds.
The maximum expenditure figure is lower than the dollar amount needed to
support children in some Head Start programs.'
Special education placement can be problematic since special education classrooms
are only required to operate for 6 hours per week, contrasted to the 15 hours per
week that ARPE requires.
ADE Needs to Direct Resources
to Most Needy Districts
Instead of distributing funds to almost all districts, ADE needs to direct its resources
to the most needy districts. ADE should follow statutes requiring that monies be
directed at schools with high percentages of at- risk children. In addition, ADE should
take into account existing programs to further target monies and more effectively
provide at- risk preschool programs.
1 Statutes require targeting of funds - A. R. S. $ 15- 715 requires that allocations be
! awarded to schools with high percentages of at- risk children. Specificallyl A. R. S. $ 15- 715
indicates:
"?; he grants shall be disbursed by the state board of education to school districts to be
used in individual schools to provide preschool services to at- risk children. . . A school
is eligible to apply fw a preschool project if it has been identijied by the state board of
education as having a large percentage of pupils . . . who are at- risk of not succeeding
in the educational system . . . the department shall make a list of qualihing at- risk
attendance areas available to the public. . . the state board shall select schools to receive
grants, "
At least one of the eight Head Start providers is absorbing expenses above the $ 3,150 because of its
commitment to working with the ARPE to provide quality preschool services to children. This same
Head Start program is raising its maximum class size from 18 to 20 to accommodate ARPE children.
While ADE originally intended to direct monies toward only those schools with large
numbers of at- risk children, it later decided to include all districts. In October 1994 the
Board did identify eligible schools according to the percentage of at- risk pupils under
the Request for Proposal process. Under this system, only 88 districts would have been
eligible for funding. However, ADE later, without formal Board approval, changed to
an allocation/ application process, which made all 198 districts eligible for allocations,
regardless of percentages of at- risk children. Further, of the 103 districts that applied
for their at- risk allocations, 41 did not have an ADE- defined ' school with high
percentages of at- risk children.
ADE needs to take into account existing sentices - In addition to using percentages
of at- risk students in its distribution decisions, ADE should also consider existing
services so that funds can be directed to areas with the greatest unmet need. Current
funding levels of the ARPE limit the number of children that can be served and, given
this constraint, it is important to target the funds to areas that most need at- risk
preschool programs. By taking into account other services and the statutory
requirement of directing services to schools with high percentages of at- risk children,
the ADE can target monies to more effectively address the needs of the most at- risk
areas.
Of the variety of existing programs, Head Start programs are most like the ARPE in
terms of target group, and should be taken into account when distributing ARPE funds.
Head Start is specifically targeted at preschoolers, and there is significant overlap
among the children that are eligible for the ARPE and the Head Start programs. 1 All
four- year- old children who meet Head Start family income guidelines meet ARPE
income guidelines. Analysis of the ADE allocation/ distribution process shows that the
ADE has distributed funds to several districts where up to 100 petcent of all eligible
children are being served by Head Start or one of several other publicly funded
programs that target at- risk preschoolers. 2 In districts where almost all eligible children
are served, there is little or no need for ARPE monies. In contrast, there are districts
with high percentages of at- risk children but no Head Start program. In these districts
only about 14 percent ( 1 in 7) of the eligible population will be served, and only
through the ARPE. These districts and the children they serve could benefit from
additional ARPE funds.
1 Head Start funds are distributed by the federal government to local contractors. There are 8 state
contractors and 13 tribal Head Start contractors in Arizona. Head Start programs often operate in
district classrooms, but districts do not have administrative, fiscal, or program control of Head Start.
Federal and state special education funds go through the ADE to local districts.
Seven districts appear to have more children served by Head Start than ADE estimates are eligible
for the at- risk program. This may occur due to an imprecision in either the Head Start reports and/ or
the ADE estimates.
Inclusion of ineligible Children
in Estimating Numbers of Children
Results in Allocation Errors
The ADE used a different criteria in estimating eligible children than they used for
determining children's eligibility for the Program. This resulted in some districts
receiving larger or smaller allocations than they would have received if estimates were
based on the same criteria.
The ADE used several factors to estimate the number of four- year- olds in each district
who are at risk of failing in school. They used the number of children in each district
who are eligible to receive a free or reduced- priced lunch, along with factors regarding
each district's average percentage of growth and student. counts. Funds were allocated
based on these calculations; however, children were eligible only if their family's
income was within the free- lunch income guidelines. Free- lunch income eligibility is
$ 1,642 per month for a family of four for the 1995- 96 school year. Reduced- lunch
eligibility for a family of four is $ 2,336 per month.
Estimation based on including the higher income children results in districts receiving
allocations that differ from the amounts they would have received if the estimations
were based on lower income children only. While all districts were affected in varying
degrees by this error, in one case a district received an allocation of $ 88,000 more than
it should have, and another district received about $ 55,000 less than it should have if
the formula that was created by the ADE had been accurately applied.
Income as Sole Indicator
of At Risk Excludes Some
At Risk Preschoolers
ADE needs to expand its definition of " at- risk" to ensure it includes all statutorily
required groups. ADE currently assesses eligibility for the At- Risk Program based solely
on family income. However, ADE's decision to use income- based eligibility criteria to
enroll children in the ARPE will exclude some children for whom the Program was
established. For example, a child " who exhibit( s) characteristics of attention deficit
disorder or learning patterns attributable to prenatal substance abuse," ( A. R. S. 515- 715,
Ch. 7 Â  I), but whose family income exceeds the guidelines, would not be eligible.
The ADE selected low income as the only measure of a child being at risk because it
reports that there is a high correlation between low income and school failure and
because it is convenient, easy, and quick to use. The inappropriate exclusion of at- risk
preschool children whose families do not meet the income guidelines could easily be
overcome by allowing the income requirements to be waived where appropriate, or
expanding the eligibility criteria.
Eliminating Expenditure Limits
Would Enhance District Flexibility
in Implementing At- Risk Programs
ADE needs to consider lifting its limit on per- child expenditures to allow districts the
flexibility needed to meet their at- risk populations' specific needs. ADE currently has
limited state fund expenditures to a maximum of $ 3,150 per child. However, the
expenditure may not be sufficient to cover comprehensive service costs in all parts of
the State and is lower than the funding levels recommended by early childhood
experts.
ADE's current expenditure cap is not sufficient to meet the needs of all schools
throughout the State. For example, 8 of 32 pilot programs spent more than this amount
per child during the 1993- 94 school year.' In addition, 18 districts have submitted
applications with higher per- child expenditures, with the balance being covered by the
districts. However, districts that cannot supplement the ADE funds are in danger of
offering low- quality programs.
The $ 3,150 ADE- imposed maximum expenditure per child is also lower than the
funding level recommended for similar programs. The ADE figure compares to a $ 5,500
cost per child that is recommended by the Perry Preschool researchers, $ 5,500 that is
recommended by a National Head Start Association Silver Ribbon Panel, and a 1992
federal Head Start program expenditure per child of $ 4,100. Early childhood experts
report that these higher expenditure levels are needed to support:
Individualized instruction conducted by qualified preschool educators that promotes
intellectual, social, and emotional growth
The child's health through the early identification of health problems during physical,
vision, hearing, and dental screenings, and a nutrition component including a meal
and a snack
Parent involvement in education, program planning, and program operation
A social services component that helps families assess their needs and identify ways
to meet them
While the ARPE should provide individualized learning and include parental
involvement in its children's preschool experience, its funding levels will support only
limited health and social services and may not support more highly trained staff.
1 One of the 33 pilot programs had not submitted its 1993- 94 completion report as of October 5,1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADE should revise the ARPE allocation and distribution process for the 1996- 97 school
year to:
1. Comply with state statute by allocating at- risk funds to district or school service areas
only if they have high percentages of at- risk children
2. Take into account existing services when developing a distribution process for ARPE
funds
3. Use the same criteria for estimating eligible children as for determining children's
eligibility for the Program
4. Expand eligibility to include at- risk criteria other than income
5. Remove the maximum per- child expenditure
FINDING Ill
THE AT- RISK PRESCHOOL PROGRAM
LACKS ADEQUATE MONITORING
During the early implementation of a program, quality control through program
monitoring and staff development are important to assure its success. However, the
ADE has not devoted adequate resources to provide administration plus program and
fiscal monitoring, and technical assistance and staff development to the 103 school
districts that have been awarded grants. In addition, school districts, many with limited
early childhood expertise on staff, have the responsibility to provide technical assistance
to all ARPE programs including school- based, Head Start- based, and private provider-based
programs. Finally, while districts are expected to provide staff development for
preschools, they have generally failed to budget for the effort.
Program Monitoring
and Staff Development
Necessary for Quality Control
Program monitoring and staff development are important components of a successful
program. Monitoring helps ensure that programs meet the guidelines established to
maintain quality while staff development helps to ensure the children's needs are being
met.
Benefits of program monitoring - Program monitoring, particularly in the program's
early years, is a key element in assuring quality. A 1994 Children's Defense Fund study
of prekindergarten programs stresses the importance of early program monitoring.
Through the monitoring process it is possible to identify programs that are in need of
improvement and allow technical resources to be targeted to those programs, and to
identify and eliminate poor quality programs. It may be essential for states to
periodically visit or evaluate their local programs to make sure they are providing
quality services.
Guidelines or requirements alone are not sufficient in and of themselves. Monitoring
is important in preschool programs to assure that programs use developmentally
appropriate practices ( DAP), and that teachers have training in and receive ongoing in-service
training in DAP. Program monitoring can also help to assure that group size
and teacher- to- child ratios are within the standards and that all 12 goals outlined in
Finding I ( see pages 9 through 13) are being addressed. The failure to provide adequate
program monitoring for quality assurance can have at least two negative consequences:
Children receive services in settings that have little or no positive impact on their
development
Public funds are spent on services that are not high quality.
On- site visits are one important element of monitoring for program quality and
compliance with program guidelines. At least eight other states, including Colorado and
California, have established extensive program monitoring of their preschool programs.
The monitoring assures that programs meet the minimum guidelines that have been
designed to assure quality,
State- sponsored staf development and technica E assistance help local programs provide
quality - State- sponsored staff development and technical assistance can assure that
districts and other providers have access to the resources they need to meet the
guidelines. Technical assistance can help districts access resources in their own
communities.
Staff development can be a critical tool in building staff competence and knowledge of
best practices, fully communicating the program's goals, and unifying the staff. Staff
development should occur at all levels within the system, and program managers as
well as teachers need to learn about the various domains of appropriate preschool
practice. Without adequate staff development, programs are more likely to use
inappropriate practices, and may fail to meet the needs of the children being served.
ADE Has Not Committed
Resources for Program
Monitoring or Staff Development
With only 1.8 full- time equivalents ( FTEs) in the ADE to administer the ARPE at 103
school districts, it is not likely that comprehensive program monitoring, technical
assistance, and staff development will occur. In addition, the ADE has not set aside
funds to support state- sponsored activities through contracted services.
As the Program has grown over the past two years, administrative costs and FTEs have
remained essentially level. In addition, the administration for at- risk preschool has been
at a lower level than for two similar programs in the same division. Less than 1 percent
of all at- risk preschool funds are used by the ADE for program administration
compared to about 7 percent and 5 percent for 2 similar programs. The limited number
of FTEs that are supported through administrative monies are also responsible for
assuring that the districts are in fiscal compliance with the program guidelines, as well
as the program's general administration.
While ADE is the most appropriate entity to oversee the State's ARPE program, statutes
do not require state- level program monitoring. Further, the ADE does not believe that
it has a sole in monitoring. It believes that school districts are accountable for program
quality and use of state funds.
Historically, the ADE has provided staff development for early childhood educators.
During the 1994- 95 school year the ADE offered five staff development and four
program advisory sessions. No staff development activities are planned for 1995- 96.
This decreased commitment to training seems poorly timed given the expansion of
state- funded programs and their need for qualified staff. The ADE has not set aside any
ARPE funds for such training activities.
School Districts with Limited Staff
and Expertise Are Responsible for
Monitoring Private and Federal Providers
As currently designed, the only quality assurance monitoring for the private and Head
Start providers will come from school district staff. In addition to limited staffing at the
ADE, school districts in Arizona lack on- staff expertise in early childhood education.
Even larger school districts report they have limited staff with the knowledge and
credentials necessary to plan and administer an early childhood program. The school
districts report that they are not well staffed and do not know how they will be able
to assure quality in district- based services, let alone at other sites. Districts'
responsibility for monitoring private providers appears to have prevented at least one
district from applying for at- risk funds.
Monitoring of private providers is particularly important because:
Childcare regulations are less strict than early childhood guidelines. For example,
Department of Health Services childcare standards are less strict than the ADE's
Early Childhood Guidelines regarding teacher qualifications, adult- to- child ratios,
child group size, and the provision of a variety of developmentally appropriate
activities during the day.
Childcare providers have indicated they may have difficulty in meeting the
guidelines within the maximum dollar amount allowed.
The inclusion of private childcare providers and federal providers in the Program
increases the importance of quality monitoring. Research suggests that good early
childhood programs can take place in any setting that has the necessary financial and
physical resources and an adequate number of qualified staff. Research also shows,
however, that there is variation in the quality sf programs across types of sites. A U. S.
Department of Education- sponsored study conducted by Abt Associates, Inc., the RMC
Research Corporation, and the Development Assistance Corporation found that
childcare center- based programs tended to have lower quality ratings and % lave a higher
percentage of classrooms at the lower end of the quality range than programs operated
by public schools and Head Start.
Districts Do Not Include
Staff Development in Their
Preschool Budgets
A review of ARPE budgets approved by the ADE and the State Board of Education
reveals that few districts budget to provide for preschool staff development activities.
While districts should provide for staff development under the guidelines, their failure
to budget for these activities, and the lack of state- sponsored activities, will prevent
most sites from having the staff development that is necessary to assure that programs
implement best preschool practices in the classroom.
RECOMMENDATION
The ADE should ensure that adequate resources are made available for:
Monitoring all program sites for quality
Staff development and technical assistance
FINDING IV
AT- RISK PRESCHOOL EXPANSION
PROGRAM STARTED SLOWLY
ARPE has been slow in its distribution of ARPE funds to school districts, resulting in delays
in program implementation. The primary causes of the delay were the changes in ADE
administration, and the multiple layers of approval required prior to fund distribution.
Given the past problems in implementing the program, the planned revision of the
distribution process to an early childhood block grant should be delayed one year to allow
adequate planning to occur.
Implementation Slowed
by Funding Delays
School districts have not received ARPE funds in a timely manner. ARPE legislation was
passed in June of 1994, allocating an additional $ 10 million per year to at- risk preschool
programs. Because the funding did not go into effect until September 1994, the ADE did not
expect to expend any funds until the second half of 1994- 95. However, other than the $ 2.5
million for the existing pilot programs, no at- risk funding expenditures were made during
the 1994- 95 school year. Further, the 1995- 96 school year began with no AWE funds having
been distributed, and most school districts did not begin to serve children until after the
school year started. The first distribution of funds did not occur until September 1995.
Changes in Leadership and
Interpretation of Legislation
Create Delays
A pri& ary cause of delays in funding distribution was ADE's leadership change resulting
from the November 1994 election, which led to an agency reorganization in January 1995,
and included a change in philosophy. Consequently the ADE made major changes in the
ARPE's design. While much planning and work had been put into the ARPE by the
previous administration, most of the planning was discarded and the process was begun
anew with the incoming administration. The former administration had developed a RFP
process resulting in 33 program proposals. This RFP process, which was modeled on the
method that had been used in allocating pilot program funds in 1990- 91, was abandoned
by the ADE more than six months into the process, and the current administration
developed and implemented an application process. The extensive amount of time that was
originally put into developing an RFP was duplicated with the change to the application
process. Since the legislation that created the ARPE allows for multiple interpretations,
processes developed by both administrations have been deemed by the Attorney General's
Office to be consistent with the law.
Different interpretations of specific areas of the ARPE legislation resulted in program design
changes from the former to the current administration, both sf which devoted significant
time to clarifying each of these issues:
The correct way to implement the program specific to assuring compliance with the
statutory requirements of private provider participation
Defining districts' and schoolss eligibility for the funds
Developing a fund- distribution mechanism
Developing fund- application guidelines
Determining the Early Childhood Advisory Council's correct role in the process.
After addressing these issues, the ADE then had to go through the following steps.
Select criteria for estimating the number of at- risk children.
Estimate the number of at- risk children in the State and in each district
Determine a dollar amount to be allocated on the basis of the eligible child count,
Determine how to take into account pilot program funding.
In addition, the placement of the Program into a block grant as a result of Laws 1995, 1st
Special Session, Chapter 4, created additional effort on the ADE's part, Whde ADE was still
in the. process of allocating funds for 1995- 96, it was also required to determine how the
block grant should be administered.
Multiple Layers of Approval
Slow Down Implementation
The ADE, the ECAC, the State Board of Education, and the JLBC all have statutory
responsibilities for reviewing the process. Overall, the ADE has worked with a number of
entities to design the ARPE. While each entity has added something to the quality of the
process, their involvement has slowed implementation.
The ADE had the primary responsibility for developing the process for ARPE fund
distribution. In its attempt to assure statutory compliance, it has had to consult with each
of the other entities at some stage in the process. Each contact with another entity took time
and significant effort. At each stage the ADE staff had to provide the other entity with
extensive information that often raised questions, which the ADE then took time to address.
For example, delays from the ECAC occurred when members expressed concerns over the
application process.
In an apparent attempt to speed up the process, the ADE did not submit the application
process to the Board for review and approval.
ADE Proposes Early
Childhood Block Grant
The ADE has proposed that the ARPE be placed into a new early childhood block grant for
the 1996- 97 school year. This new block grant proposal has the potential to result in many
changes in early childhood education. However, the ADE has not demonstrated an ability
to quickly, efficiently, and effectively implement a new system of funding programs. Given
the sigruficance and size of the proposed block grant, it is recommended that the block
grant not be implemented until the 1997- 98 school year.
In its September 1,1995, block grant report to the JLBC, the ADE proposed that the at- risk
preschool program be placed into an early childhood block grant that would also include
the full- day kindergarten, k- 3 at- risk, and family literacy programs. Based on fiscal year 1996
appropriations for these four programs, the total amount that would be distributed under
the block grant is approximately $ 20,000,000.1
As of December 1, 1995, the ADE proposed a competitive block grant through an RFP
process. Grants would be awarded in a minimum amount of $ 60,000 to serve at least 15
preschoolers. Individual sites could spend up to $ 80,000 to provide services to 20
preschoolers. The plan would require each provider to offer appropriate adult education
services to parents/ guardians of the children served. The Program would target children
ages three to five. While the focus would be on the preschooler, the proposal incorporates
many of the concepts of intergenerational family literacy programs such as the federal Even
Start program and Arizona's Family Literacy program. The ADE proposes that the block
grant be implemented for the 1996- 97 school year. No program currently funded under the
four separate programs would be funded unless it competed for and received funding
under the competitive block grant process.
This proposal to place these four programs into one block grant has merit, but also the
potential to result in some negative consequences for at- risk programs. For example, the
proposed block grant does not specifically target at- risk children and could redirect services
1 The ADE proposes to include the federally funded Even Start program funds in the state block grant.
If approved by the federal government, the total dollar amount would be $ 21.1 million.
29
that were designed to target at- risk preschoolers to all preschoolers. In addition, some
districts that currently operate programs report that if there is a break in funding for early
childhood programs, they may not reestablish the programs due to the time, effort, and
money involved in activities such as recruiting and training staff and furnishing classrooms.
In addition, for the service providers, this would be the third method for applying for AWE
funds in less than two years.
Finally, the delays ADE experienced in starting ARPE suggests that the ADE may not be
in a position to implement the block grant for the 1996- 97 school year. It should also be
noted that extensive planning is necessary to implement a statewide educational block grant
and to appropriately allocate $ 20 million in funds. The ADE has limited experience with
state block grants and has limited staff available to plan and administer the block grant,
RECOMMENDATION
If the ADE's proposed early childhood block grant is approved, the block grant should not
be implemented until the 1997- 98 school year. The 1996- 97 school year should be used as
a planning year by the ADE to:
1. Prepare a comprehensive request for proposal
2. Develop an allocation/ distribution formula that addresses districts' and schools' relative
need for the program.
3. Ensure that there is no unnecessary disruption or interruption in funding for early
chddhood programs
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of the evaluation we obtained other pertinent information about the
at- risk preschool program.
Expansion of State- Funded
Preschool May Displace
Existing Head Start Programs
An unanticipated consequence of the expansion of the at- risk preschool program is that
some districts with large allocations are finding it necessary to move Head Start
classrooms out of public school sites. Some Head Start directors have reported that they
are competing with ARPE classes for space and will have to relocate existing classes to
make room in school districts for the ARPE classes. Head Start will relocate the classes
when possible, or will close classes if they are unable to find suitable space. The ARPE
may worsen the scarcity of classroom space that already exists. A national study found
that of 1,300 Head Start programs that tried to rent or purchase space in the 1992- 93
school year, about two- thirds had difficulty doing so. With a statewide school enrollment
growth rate in Arizona of approximately 5 percent per year, classroom space is at a
premium.
Many Head Start programs offer quality preschool services. The displacement of existing
Head Start programs will not contribute to the ADE's goal of serving as many children
as possible, and may result in the elimination of existing quality programs while limiting
the options for preschool placements in the districts that are affected by this problem.
Four- Year- Old Age Eligibility
Limits Ability to Use Funds in
Collaboration with Other Programs
The statutory requirement that children be four years old on September 1 to be eligible
for the program limits the ability of local service providers to use the funds in
collaboration with other programs. For example, the family literacy program enrolls
parents and their three- or four- year- old children in an intergenerational literacy
program. While some family literacy programs support the early childhood component
of their family literacy program with ARPE funds, the requirement that children must
be four years old limits the family literacy program's ability to serve parents with three-year-
olds.
STATUTORY ANNUAL
EVALUATION COMPONENTS
Laws 1994, 9th Special Session, Chapter 2, 530, requires that the Auditor General conduct
an annual program evaluation of the At- Risk Preschool Project and provide the evaluations
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, and the
Governor on or before December 31,1995, and each year thereafter. We provide a response
to each evaluation requirement.
1. lnformation on the number and characteristics of the children and the families of
the children participating in the program.
Based on an analysis of school district applications for the Program, approximately 4,900
children will be served by the at- risk preschool program during the 1995- 96 school year.
This estimate does not include children served by the money that was distributed
through a mid- year allocation.
Demographic characteristics for 1995- 96 are not yet available. They will be reported in
our second annual evaluation.
2. lnformation on the number of public schools, private day care operators, and
federally funded preschools participating in the project.
Based on the AWE applications that were approved as of the October 23, 1995, State
Board of Education meeting, Table 5 ( see page 34) presents the distribution of providers
for the 1995- 96 program.
3. lnformation on the average cost for each participant.
Based on the applications received, a total of $ 14,760,602 ARPE dollars will be spent to
support approximately 4,900 children in AWE placements during the 1995- 96 school
year. This results in an average projected per- child cost of $ 2,826. This figure does not
take into account in- kind costs.
Cost per child for 32 of the 33 pilot programs for the 1993- 94 school year was $ 2,816
with a median over all programs of $ 3,048, ranging from $ 1,179 to $ 6,325:
Approximately 4.46 percent of the total approved expenditures are for local
administrative costs.
--
1993- 94 completion report was not on file for one program.
i Table 5
Distribution of ARPE Site
by Type of Provider
I Type of Provider Number of Classes
School Districts
Special Education classes ( located in school
districts and may be supported by federal, statej
and local funds)
Private day care operators
Federally funded preschools
Other
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information provided by the Arizona Department of Education, and
district applications for the ARPE.
4. Information concerning the scholastic performance of previous participants in the
project including but not limited to:
( a) The performance of past participants on nationally standardizednorm- referenced
achievement test,
Past participants from the first year of the pilot program are now in grade four.
The ADE reports that standardized tests are not routinely given until grade 4, Test
data will be analyzed for children whom districts have identified were in the pilot
program. The ADE did not keep records that would iden* any children who
participated in the pilot program, making it necessary to go back to the districts to
identdy participating children. Not all districts have been able to provide this
information. Standardized test analysis should be provided in our second annual
report.
( b) The performance of similar students who did not participate in the project.
See response to ( a) above.
( c) The performance of all students in the same grade at each of the schools at
which the program was operated.
See response ( a) above.
5. A summary of the program information required to be provided under section 26
of this Act.
The Arizona Department of Education has designed an application package for the at-risk
program that requires districts to provide information in the following areas:
An assessment of the needs of the at- risk preschool children who reside in the school
attendance area.
An assessment of the academic and readiness needs of children in the at- risk
program. This is the first part of the Promam Services Narrative Descri- p tion section
of the application.
The most appropriate number of days and hours per week during which the
Program will operate. Districts must report the number of sessions per day, number
of hours per session, and number of days per week for each site on the At- Risk
Preschool Services Overview section of the application.
Child care needs, including nutrition. Districts must address nutritional services
under goal 9.0 of the At- Risk Preschool Service Plan section of the application.
A proposal detailing a program specifically designed to provide assistance to the at-risk
preschool pupils.
A description of the procedures used to identdy the at- risk children. In the
Application Directions the ADE has defined eligibility as residing in the district,
being four years old as of September 1, and being eligible for the federal free lunch
program. Districts are to use a screening process to prioritize children in the event
that they have more applications for the Program than they have spaces.
A description of clearly defined goals for meeting the academic and readiness needs.
Districts must address these areas in the At- Risk Preschool Service Plan section of
the application.
A description of the instructional approach to be used in meeting the identified
needs of the at- risk preschool pupils that is developmentally appropriate and
consistent with nationally recognized standards of early childhood education.
Districts must address this issue in Goal 2.0 and Goal 3, O of the At- Risk Preschool
Service Plan section of the application.
A list of the staff qualifications and experience. The Guidelines for Com- p rehensive
Early Childhood Programs provide minimum qualifications for staff. In addition,
districts must address this issue in Goal 1.0 and 5.0 of the At- Risk Preschool Service
section of the application
A plan for the provision of in- service training for personnel involved in the preschool
project. Districts must address this issue in Goal 5.0 of the At- Risk Preschool Service
section of the application.
A description of the service delivery model including the extent to which the project
will collaborate with other at- risk preschool programs in the district attendance area.
Districts must address this issue in Goal 11 of the At- Risk Preschool Service Plan
section of the application.
A plan showing how the programs developed under this Act will be articulated with
existing programs in kindergarten programs and grades one through three. This area
is addressed through Goals 1.0 and 11.0 of the At- Risk Preschool Service Plan
section of the application.
A plan for involving families of at- risk preschool pupils in the Program. Districts
must address this issue in Goal 4.0 of the At- Risk Preschool Service Plan section of
the application.
The application was approved by the Early Childhood Advisory Council. The
application process was not approved by the State Board of Education.
6. An evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the pilot project based on perfor-mance-
based outcome measures including the subsequent scholastic performance
of participants.
This area cannot be addressed at this point As described under item 4 of this section,
outcome data is not yet available for analysis. Preliminary information on the overall
effectiveness will be presented in our second annual report.
7. Recommendations regarding the effectiveness of the project.
Based on the analyses provided in Finding II ( see pages 15 through 22) it is recommend-ed
that the ADE revise the ARPE allocation and distribution process for the 1996- 97
school year to:
1. Comply with state statute by allocating at- risk funds to districts, or schools, only if
they have high percentages of at- risk children.
2. Take into account existing services when developing a process for distribution of
ARPE funds.
3. Use the same criteria for estimating eligible children as for determining children's
eligibility for the program.
4. Expand eligibility to include at- risk criteria other than income,
5. Remove the maximum per- child expenditure.
Also, based on analyses provided in Finding III ( see pages 23 through 26) we further
recommend that the ADE ensure that adequate resources are made available to:
rn Monitor all program sites for quality
Provide staff training and technical assistance
8. Recommendations regarding the continuation of the program.
The ADE has designed a preschool program that follows nationally recognized
standards and goals. However, outcome evaluation results, including the information on
scholastic performance, are not yet available to determine whether the Program should
be continued.
9. Any other information or evaluative material that the Auditor General determines
to be useful in considering the programmatic and cost- effectiveness of the project.
This report provides information on problems with the ADE allocation process
Finding I1 ( see pages 15 through 22). These issues have the potential to affect the
programmatic and cost- effectiveness of the project.
REFERENCES
Abt Associates ( 1993). Life in presclzool: Volume One of an Observational Study of Early
Childhood Progranzs for Disadvantaged Four- Year- Olds, Final Report. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates Inc.
Adams, G. and Sandfort ( 1994). First Steps, Promising Futures: State Prekindergarten
Initiatives in the Early 1990' s. Children's Defense Fund.
Annie E. Casey Foundation ( 1995). Kids Count Data Book. Baltimore, MD: Annie E.
Casey Foundation.
Berrueta- Clement, John R., L. J. Schweinhart, W. S. Barnett, A. S. Epstein, and D. P.
Weikart ( 1994). Changed Lives - The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths
Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI.: The High/ Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Carnegie task force on meeting the needs of young children ( 1994). Starting Point:
Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of
New York.
King, J. ( 1994). Meeting the Educational Needs of At Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of
Three Models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16( 1), 1- 19.
Levin, H. ( 1974). Equal Education Opportunity and the Distribution of Educational
Expenditure, in Kopan, A. and Walberg, H. ( Eds.). Rethinking Educational Equality.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company.
Levin, H. ( 1989). Financing the Education of At Risk Students. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 11( 1), 47- 60.
National Conference of State Legislatures ( 1995). Early Childhood Care and Education:
An Investment That Works. Washington, D. C.: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Schweinhart, Lawrence J., and D. P. Weikart ( 1993). " Success by Empowerment: the
High/ Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27," young children, November,
1993, 54- 58.
Agency Response
State of Arizona
Department of Education
1 Lisa Graham
Superintendent of
public Instruction 1
January 22, 1995
Mr. Douglas Norton
Arizona State Auditor General
2910 N. 44th St., Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 850 18
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your annual program evaluation of the At-
Risk Preschool program which was conducted pursuant to Laws 1994, Special Session,
Chapter 2, 530. I wish to extend my appreciation to your staff for their professional
demeanor during the review.
I am committed to high quality comprehensive educational programs that encompass:
accessibility and high achievement by students throughout Arizona; provide for local
control, which includes as much as possible for program design by school districts and
schools; provide for parent involvement, which includes avenues for parents to choose
the types of programs best suited for their children; and programs which provide for
partnering opportunities with community based organizations and business.
The Preschool Expansion Program administered by the Arizona Department of Education
is such a program.
I agree with Finding I that The Arizona Department of Education has designed a program
that has the potential to provide quality preschool experiences for at- risk children in
Arizona.
C 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 602- 542- 4361
Detailed comments on findings and recommendations are attached to this letter.
I would like to bring to your attention the following specific points:
1. An error is noted on page 5, second paragraph, which summarizes funding as "$ 10
million is carryover from the nonrevertible unspent 1994- 995 expansion appropriation,
$ 2.5 million is fiom the pilot program appropriation and $ 5 million represents one half of
the new 1995- 1 996 expansion appropriation." The correct figures are as follows: $ 12.5
million is from the 1995- 1996 appropriation and $ 5 million is carryover from the
nonrevertible 1994- 1995 appropriation.
2. I disagree that the Preschool fund distribution process did not take into account the
percentages of at- risk children. Funds were allocated to school districts based on their
level of poverty, as determined by Free and Reduced Lunch data fiom school districts.
Poverty is the most consistent factor associated with a child's " at- riskness". Poor
children have many of the other elements of " at- riskness". To this point, the report on
page 3 cites a recent U. S. General Accounting Office study which reports that " these
children ( poor) as less likely to attend preschool, and are more likely to be part of
immigrant families or families who do not speak English; families where the most
educated parent has less than a high school diploma; families who do not work; and
single parent families. All these factors are associated with high risk of failing in school
and its related outcomes: unemployment, and welfare dependence and criminal
behavior."
3. The section in Finding I1 under the heading " Inclusion of Ineligible Children in
Estimating Numbers of Children Results in Allocation Errors" is misleading and could be
misinterpreted by the reader to mean that schools received, in some instances less funding
and in others funds to serve ineligible children. The report cites " a school district
received an allocation of $ 88,000 more than it should have, an another district received
about $ 55,000 less than it should have if the formula that was created by the ADE had
been accurately applied." It is our understanding that both districts are large districts with
allocations greater than $ 1 million.
" Allocation" consists of setting a maximum level of available funding to school
districts, using standard criteria, for them to apply for. "' Funding" is determined and
approved based on an application, by the district, to the department. Part of that school
district application includes the identification of the eligible number of students to be
served by the program. 6bPayments" to school districts are made based on the approved
application.
The formula, used by the department in its allocation process, used Free and Reduced
Lunch data on file at the department. Actual funding decisions were made based on the
number of eligible ( free lunch eligible) children, and type of program, identified by the
school districts in their application.
The data used by the department in preparation of allocations and that used by the
districts in applying for funds will differ because both reflect different time spans where
population shifts may have occurred. The department uses best available data on file at
the department and school districts use current data at their district at the time of
application. The potential for differences in counts between " allocation", " application"
and " funding" will always exist. Decisions on funding are made on school district counts
which are the most reliable and most current. Funds are not approved for the provision of
services to ineligible children.
The comparison in the report between the departments allocation which was made on
Free and Reduced Lunch Data vs. projected allocations, by the representatives of your
office, based on Free Lunch data could have merit only for the very specific period
compared ( assuming the comparison was for the same period) and does not relate to the
provision of services to eligible clients. We can not comment on the accuracy of $ 88,000
and $ 55,000 allocation comparisons for the two school districts because the data used to
make those comparisons have not been made available to us.
4. I disagree with the statement on page 25, second paragraph, which states " the ADE
does not believe that it has a role in monitoring". The ADE is very concerned about its
fiduciary responsibilities which include monitoring the implementation of programs to
ensure compliance with state statutes and regulations. However, school districts share a
similar fiduciary responsibility to monitor programs of their contractors. The role of the
ADE remains to monitor its contractors, which includes school districts. Part of this
monitoring includes an assessment of the district monitoring of their contractors.
Resources have been allocated for this purpose.
5. I disagree with that the Preschool application process was not approved by the State
Board. The State Board of Education approved the application process for the Preschool
program at the State Board meeting of June 26, 1995.
6. The emphasis on change in administration at ADE resulting in program delays is
misplaced. Preschool Expansion legislation was passed by the Arizona Legislature in
June of 1994. That law did not become effective until September 1994. This was after
the beginning of the school year. The Department initiated a Request for Proposal ( RFP)
on December 28, 1994, through the Arizona Department of Administration. Bids were
due to the Department of Administration by January 3 1, 1995. The process to follow was
a review of 40 proposals and decisions made on which proposals to fund. Those
decisions were still pending in mid March of 1995. The contract ending date on the RFP
was August 30, 1995. Irrespective of the change in administration, or the change in
direction, nine months had transpired since the legislation had passed and the program
had not been implemented. The RFP was canceled on March 17, 1995.
It should be noted that the RFP was for a summer program only, it was replaced with the
full year program.
Finally, I agree with language on the bottom of page 27 and the top sf page 28 which
states ...." Since the legislation that created the AWE allows for multiple interpretations,
the process developed by both administrations have been deemed by the Attorney
General's Office to be consistent with the law." Any statement or insinuation, in the
report, to the contrary is inappropriate and should be removed.
The focus of the At- Risk Preschool Program is to build local partnerships amongst
service providers, both public and private. This method of program development, which
seeks complimentary and effective partnerships between public and private agencies,
places the program at the vanguard of state- level early childhood programs. Clearly, the
program is poised to meet the challenges that the future holds for educational programs.
The ADE has discussed the details of program development with many agencies to
ensure statutory compliance and to provide the most effective program possible.
I am requesting that the report be modified where necessary. Staff from the department
are available to assist in any manner. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Ralph
Romero at 542- 7462. Once again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
//
Lisa Graham Keegan
Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Response to the Office of the Auditor General's Report
on the
Arizona At- Risk Preschool Expansion FY96
Arizona Department of Education
Lisa Graham Keegan, Superintendent
January 22,1996
Response to Introduction and Background Information
History in Arizona ( page 2). The Auditor General's Office states, in the last
paragraph, " The 1995 Block Grant legislation also gave the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee ( JLBC) responsibility for reviewing the distribution process. " The
Department of Education contends that the agreement between the JLBC and our agency,
gave the JLBC oversight of the distribution of funds among the five programs that were
consolidated into the fiscal year 1996 State Block Grant. The ADE monitors the
categorical assignment of program funds through budget amendment reports and, for
FY96, submits a monthly report to the JLBC concerning the assignment of program funds
within the parameters of the State Block Grant. It is our understanding that this does not
mean that the JLBC had oversight over the determination and assignment of program
allocations and awards to local school districts.
Arizona Targets Children fiom Low- Income Families ( page 3). The Auditor
General's Office states, " While the legislation targets the Program at four- year- old
children in Arizona who are at risk of failing in school, the ADE has further narrowed it
to children of low- income families. " There are many subjective factors that suggest a
child may be at risk of school failure and as specified in statute ( ARS 15- 715) school
districts may conduct assessment or diagnosis for developmental delays for the purposes
of providing the best early educational experience for specific children. However, the
ADE specified that family income is the most reliable, objective, and equitable measure
of at- risk student populations in determining state- wide allocations. Further, the low-income
factor is included in ARS as the primary definition of at- risk pupils.
Fund Allocation Process ( page 5). The Auditor General's Office states, " The
ADE based the 1995- 96 allocations on an amount of $ 17.5 million available for
distribution. Of this total $ 1 0 million is carryover @ om the nonrevertible unspent 1994-
95 expansion appropriation, $ 2.5 million is JFom the pilot program appropriation for
1995- 96, and $ 5 million represents one- half of the new 1995- 96 expansion
appropriation. The ADE plans to distribute the balance of the nonrevertible 1995- 96
appropriation in the 1996- 97 school year. " The Department of Education, through
internal agency planning and in testimony to the JLBC specified that the allocation and
awards of program funds for the current school year 1995- 96 would use $ 5 million of the
nonrevertible funds from 1994- 95 and the balance of those funds would be awarded in
1996- 97. The $ 2.5 million for the Pilot At- Risk Preschool programs was used to, at a
minimum, fully fund the pilot programs. As stated, the balance of nonrevertible funds
fiom 1994- 95, $ 5 million will be allocated and awarded to program service for the 1996-
97 school year.
Non- Eligible School Districts ( page 5). As stated in the report, "... I96 of 198
districts received allocations, two districts did not have eligible children. " The two
school districts in question are small and did not have any student population in the age-range
of the program services. The Auditor General's report could be interpreted by
readers that the two school districts may have had student populations, but were not at-risk
of school failure. The ADE contacted the school districts to verify that no student
population for the program services exists, and this was found to be true.
Application Due Date and the Review Process ( page 5- 6). The Auditor General's
report states, " Districts had to complete the application package and return it to the ADE
by September 25, 1995, in order to receive their allocation. " The At- Risk Preschool
Program application, developed by the ADE, that was distributed to school districts
included the program application, lists of licensed child care centers in their attendance
areas, lists of federally- funded preschool programs in their attendance areas and a budget
planning packet with instructions. School districts had three " deadlines" to submit the
application on behalf of their community service providers and themselves. These
deadlines coincided with State Board of the Education meetings and allowed for a review
period by the Early Childhood Advisory Council. The final deadline was September 25,
1995, however the subsequent months had submission dates, review processes and
approval activities by the State Board of Education. The first award was granted by the
State Board of Education August 28, 1995 and the first program payments were made on
or about August 20,1995.
Response to Finding I
" The Arizona Department of Education's At- Risk Program is designed to follow
nationally recognized standards and goals. "
Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs. As specified in ARS the
Early Childhood Advisory Council, an advisory group to the State Board of Education,
developed program guidelines. Over a period of two years, community members,
education professionals, parents, and business and civic leaders determined what is best
for young children in Arizona. In the fall of 1993, the State Board of Education adopted
the Guidelines as the service model for the Arizona At- Risk Preschool program. To date,
local school districts and community- based organizations have used the Guidelines to
implement the At- Risk Preschool program in their communities. The Guidelines include
specifications for the administration, community partnerships, family education and
service, as well as educational preschool services.
Response to Finding I1
" Fund distribution process should be modiJied to ensure limited funds are spent in most
needy areas. "
Background ( page 15). The Auditor General's Report states, " The ADE added
the followingprovisions to the ARPE: ( a) A family income criteria in addition to age and
residence eligibility for the program. The family income guidelines correspond to the
federal governmentfiee lunch income eligibility guidelines. " The report suggests that the
ADE developed arbitrary eligibility requirements without authority. The aforementioned
eligibility criteria were stated specifically in statute. The eligibility criteria were: the
definition of " at- risk pupil", included the primary characteristic is economic deprivation
( Laws 1989, Ch. 273, sec. I), the age requirement of four year old prior to September 1 of
the current year ( 9th SS, section 26), and child and family residence within the school
district attendance area ( 9th SS, section 29)
Allocation Process to Districts ( page 16). One hundred and ninety- eight school
districts were allocated program funds to develop an application for collaborative
program services under the specifications of the At- Risk Preschool program. As
indicated in the Auditor General's report 66 school districts were allocated more than
$ 63,000 dollars to implement this program in partnership with federally- funded
preschools and child care providers that are licensed by the Department of Health
Services. Of the remaining 130 school districts and their communities, 64 were allocated
more than $ 10,000 to implement the program. The remaining 66 small and isolated
school districts ( ARS 15- 901) were allocated less than $ 10,000 to augment existing
community services. Two small, isolated school districts were not projected to have any
four- year- old children in attendance area for the 1995- 96 school year and consultation
with local administrators verified this finding.
Allocations are not sufficient to support programs ( page 17). School districts and
community- based organizations are compelled to enter into formal agreements with
federally- funded program or child care centers in their school attendance areas. The
program funds were not intended solely to create new classrooms, but to extend and
expand upon existing preschool services. This method of program expansion yields the
maximum amount of program availability for the allocated amount of program funds.
Local administrators and community leaders have discretion to create child and family
services through collaboration with community preschool programs that have the capacity
to comply with the Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs. As
previously addressed in the Auditor General's report, the Guidelines closely reflect the
program practices of Head Start and other nationally recognized early education
programs.
Targeting Funds to Needy Districts( page 18- 19). The intent of the allocation of
program funds was to provide all school districts and communities in Arizona with an
equal opportunity to submit an application to participate in the At- Risk Preschool
program. One hundred ninety- six school districts and their surrounding communities
were offered the opportunity to submit a program application with the support of the
ADE staff and members of the Early Childhood Advisory Council. Fifty- three percent of
all eligible school districts, 103 programs, were awarded preschool funds during the fall
of 1995. As suggested on page 16 of the Auditor General's report, " ADE has determined
that all school districts that serve kindergarten children to grade 3 children are eligible
for at- risk preschool expansion ( ARPE) funds, regardless of relative need. As a result,
limited funds have been spread too thin to allow districts to implement quality programs.
The At- Risk Preschool Program awards mirror the population patterns for young children
and their families across Arizona. All school districts have preschool- age children who
are at risk of limited school success. Using low- income as an objective and equitable
funding facto, the ADEr focused higher percentages of available program funds to those
school districts and communities that have high numbers of at- risk preschoolers. School
districts and their community partners were to design and implement a preschool program
that was appropriate to the needs of the children in their school attendance areas. The
application and review process that was conducted by the ADE staff, in conjunction with
the Early Childhood Advisory Council members, set a course to develop quality
preschool programs through partnerships among school districts, federally- funded
programs and child care centers.
Each program implementation design, from 1994 to the current 1995 program, targeted
program h d s to those school attendance areas with high levels of poverty that indicate
high numbers of at- risk children. Broadening the number of eligible school districts and
their community partners provided the opportunity for greater access to children and
families. Also, the 1994 program model used school and child data from 1992- 93 to
determine at- risk percentages in school districts. As previously stated, poverty ( as
indicated by free and reduced lunch eligibility) in local school districts is the most
reliable and valid method of project program eligibility. Also, this objective measure
allows local programs to determine individual child eligibility and provide parents the
freedom to select from a variety of preschool programs.
During the June 26, 1995 meeting of the State Board of Education, a public presentation
to the members of the Board, included the program specifications, the lists of eligible
participants and the state- wide funding allocations. At that time, it was explained that a
funding allocation was not a program award. School districts and their community
organizations were provided the allocation amount as a fiscal guideline to develop the
scope of work for their At- Risk Preschool program. School districts acting on behalf of
their communities submitted program applications to the ADE for review by staff
specialists and members of the Early Childhood Advisory Council. Included in this
application is a services overview form on which local administrators, must delineate
their eligible population and propose a preschool program accordingly. The Auditor
General's report stated, " ADE has distributed funds to several districts where up to 100
percent of all eligible children are being served by Head Start or one of several other
publicly fundedprograms that target at- riskpreschools. " The footnote on page 19 of the
report suggests that these percentages may be due to inaccurate child attendance records
of publicly funded preschool programs. The ADE must rely upon the population
estimates that are included in the application forms. The accuracy of these forms is
monitored by ADE staff and the scope of services is regularly reviewed through program
and budget amendments submitted by local school districts on behalf of their service
providers.
During regularly scheduled, public meetings of the Early Childhood Advisory Council
recommendations for program awards were discussed and votes were conducted
regarding program awards. A contract for program awards was presented in August,
September and October to the State Board of Education for their approval.
Inclusion of Ineligible Children ( page 20). This section of the report is
misleading and could be misinterpreted by the reader to mean that schools received, in
some instances, less funding and in others funds to serve children who are not eligible for
program services. The Arizona At- Risk Preschool program used poverty as indicated by
aggregated school data on free and reduced lunch eligibility as a percentage factor in the
funding formula. A projection of kindergarten through grade three student population for
the 1995- 96 school year was developed to determine a projection of four- year old
children in each school attendance area. Variance in the ADE projections for the current
school year may have occurred in the formula allocation process due to extreme growth
or decline among the eligible student population in communities, or changes in family
income levels among the eligible student population. Allocating funds to a school district
does not imply that a program award will be made. School districts were required to
analyze their eligible population with respect for their program allocation and then submit
the information as part of their annual application. The program funds allocated to school
districts and community organizations in their attendance area, amounted to
approximately 16 percent of the need in their attendance area.
Income Eligibility ( page 20). There are many well- researched factors that
influence the success or failure of young children in school. These factors are often
subjective, self- reported or intrusive on the lives of parents, children and families. The
most reliable and objective at- risk characteristic is the family income. Other factors like
parents' education level, the primary language of the household, employment history,
single- parenthood, and the age of the mother at the time of the child's birth, are
subjective factors related to the objective measure of family income. Research suggests
that poverty and failure to experience early educational success are highly correlated.
Since the ADE specified that preschool services be child- specific, based on income
eligibility to support parent choice ( 9th SS, section 29), each child participating in the
program is eligible and no children that are ineligible are receiving services. As specified
in ARS 15- 715, school districts have discretion in admitting children to the programs
based upon measured intelligence, diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder ( ADD), or the
diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ( FAS) or prenatal exposure to other illicit
substances. These handicapping conditions are difficult to assess in preschool- age
children and require medical prognoses to make an accurate assessment.
Further, the application of family income eligibility has been successful for more than 30
years in the federally- funded Head Start program. The income eligibility criterion that
was established by the ADE is approximately 20 percent above the poverty level that is
used by Head Start programs. This " gray area of eligibility" allows young children and
families that do not qualify for Head Start service, to qualify for the state- funded At- Risk
Preschool program. In summary, income eligibility is objective, specific to the needs of
children in our state, and allows parents greater freedom to select programs that best serve
their children.
Program Expenditure Guidelines ( page 21). The Arizona Department of
Education specified that no more than $ 3,150 was to be spent per child during a school
year. This guideline did not include any capital expenditures that may be proposed by
school districts and their community partners in their annual program application for
review by the ADE program staff. Rather than focus on nationally aggregated data from
early childhood programs throughout the country, the ADE staff reviewed the historical
budget expenses from the 27 school districts that implemented the state- funded Pilot At-
Risk Preschool program for the past four years. Moreover, consideration was given to
other preschool programs in Arizona, as well as in the four corner states. For example,
the historical expenditures of the Pilot At- Risk Preschool program indicate that the
average expense per child has been less than $ 2,700 per child per year. The Colorado
State Department of Education limits program expenditures to $ 2,000 per child for a
variety of preschool and child care program services. The Arizona Special Education
Preschool program offers approximately $ 2,500 per child through a combination of state
funds calculated from average daily membership and federal program funds. The
Arizona At- Risk Preschool program compares favorably to other Southwestern early
childhood programs, and based upon a review of the FY96 program budgets the majority
of participating school districts and service providers are spending less than $ 3,150 per
pupil. Although, more money for young children in preschools or removing expenditure
guidelines may appear to be favorable, national data for higher program expenditures
does not consider the variable costs of program operation. To achieve an accurate
analysis of national program expenditures consideration is suggested for the following:
regional variance of personnel costs, variable monthly costs of program operations,
variable costs for transportation and other regional factors.
The Arizona Department of Education is consistently seeking methods of funding school
districts accurately and equitably. Through collaborative program analysis with Head
Start programs, special education preschools and licensed child care data provided by the
Department of Health Service we hope to achieve a more accurate measure of community
need and appropriate program funding.
Response to Finding I11
" The At- Risk Preschool Program lacks adequate monitoring. "
Monitoring and Staff Development ( page 23). The Arizona Department of
Education is committed to its fiduciary responsibilities in program monitoring and in
supporting school districts and community agencies in developing local preschool
initiatives that are complimentary to existing child and family services. The focus of
state- level technical assistance is to assist local administrators in integrating their
preschool program into the overall educational mission of their community and to
develop a level of program understanding that will build into ownership, autonomy, and
program independence. Following the final program awards by the State Board of
Education, two program specialists have been assigned to work with school districts and
community service providers. The ADE fully supports community program
development, effective and equitable program implementation and parental involvement.
ADE Resources ( page 24). The Pilot At- Risk Preschool program has operated for
the past four years with $ 2.5 million being awarded to local school districts. During the
9th Special Session of the Arizona Legislature in June of 1994, the At- Risk Preschool
program was expanded by 400 percent to an annual funding level of $ 12.5 million in
assistance to community- based programs. Also, with the program expansion, HB 2002
compelled local school districts to diversify program services through the development of
partnerships with eligible service providers that could include federally- funded
preschools and licensed child care centers. The development of various program sites
within communities empowers parents to determine the placement of their children that
will best suit their educational level and developmental need.
The Arizona Department of Education is meeting the challenge of program support
through several initiatives under the specifications set forth in the Improving America's
Schools Act ( IASA). Those activities include the development of Consolidated School
Districts Plans with specific sections addressing early childhood programs and
Collaborative School District Technical Assistance and Program Review Teams.
Additionally, building partnerships with existing community agencies presents challenges
for educational continuity and overall quality of preschool programs. The ADE currently
has three full time professionals whose primary responsibility is technical assistance and
support to local school districts implementing the At- Risk Preschool program. One full-time
secretary and one full- time fiscal clerk are devoted to the daily operations of the
Early Childhood Unit, that is a part of the Academic Support Division. Members of the
Academic Support Division administer many federal programs that include Title I, Title
I1 and Title VI, as well as Bilingual Education, Migrant and Indian Education programs,
and Even Start programs. Each of these federal initiatives impacts on Early Childhood
programs and those resources are available to support the Preschool Program within the
ADE and in local school districts.
In December 1995, the Academic Support Division sponsored a large technical assistance
conference, of more than 600 educators, parents, and administrators, incorporated the key
features of the aforementioned state and federal education programs. The Academic
Support Division, that includes the Early Childhood Unit, dedicated three days of
technical assistance and training for administrators on a wide range of topics, including
six sessions addressing the At- Risk Preschool Expansion. This conference provided
many administrators and teachers an event that was time- and cost- effective. During the '
first three months of 1996, eight regional training events will be conducted to address
local program development and block grant funding from the state.
School District Expertise ( page 25). The Arizona At- Risk Preschool Expansion is
in its first year of operation in 103 school districts. The program serves four- year- old
children that have distinct developmental needs that are different from services typically
offered by public schools. Furthermore, school districts are compelled by statutes to
enter into partnerships with private and public agencies in order to provide program
options for parents. The challenges that are part of program implementation are
formidable in this case and school districts are making every effort to develop exceptional
programs. With rapid program expansion, teacher availability is a concern. However, the
Guidelines for Comprehensive Early Childhood Programs suggests a range of credentials
that are appropriate for various jobs in the preschool program. School districts and their
community agents are making every reasonable effort to meet or exceed the staff
requirements established in the Guidelines that were adopted by the State Board of
Education in 1993.
Budgets for Staff Development ( page 26). Staff members of the Academic
Support Division communicate every working day with school district's involved with
the At- Risk Preschool Expansion. Local program goals and objectives, as well as
program budgets, are analyzed and modified to best serve children and families within
existing statute and policies. Local staff development activities for the At- Risk Preschool
program will include in- service teacher workshops that school districts conduct for
themselves, as well as training events that are conducted by early childhood professional
organizations and educational institutions that engage in formal teacher training.
Although staff development is an important component for these programs, the majority
of resources in this first year program have been dedicated to program start- up costs
including facilities and materials, enrolling children and parents in the program and staff
recruitment among several service providers in each community. Also, many school
districts are electing to " absorb" staff development costs for the first several year in order
to expedite program development and to serve the most young children possible.
Response to Finding ZV
" At- Risk Preschool Expansion Started Slowly. "
The change in the administration of the Arizona Department of Education in January
1995 was not the primary cause for delays in program implementation. The program
funds were increased, through one legislative action, by 400 percent and the
specifications of program implementation at the local level changed to include both
public and private preschool service providers in school district plans ( 9th SS, section
29). These significant program changes, along with several legal questions that arose
during the implementation process, and the multiple reviews of local program
applications made necessary the extension of the implementation time line.
Implementation Slowed by Funding Delays ( page 27). House Bill 2002 ( 1994)
included program specifications and funds to expand the At- Risk Preschool program into
a state- wide initiative. The funds were not made available to the Department of
Education until September 1994. In October 1994, the State Board of Education
approved a program implementation plan that had two key components. First, they
approved a proposal and award process that was to be administered by the Procurement
Office at the Department of Administration, Second, the first " Request for Proposals"
would be for service providers to conduct a summer program in 1995 and a second
" RFP" would be for the 1995- 96 school year.
In March 1995, the RFP process was stopped by the ADE and a plan was developed, over
the next two months that would develop a single application process for school districts
and their community agencies. Working in conjunction with community leaders, early
childhood experts, and the Early Childhood Advisory Council it was determined that the
ADE would use an application process directed to local school districts acting on behalf
of federally- funded preschools and licensed child care centers in their school attendance
areas. In June 1995, the State Board of Education approved a process for program
application, review, and approval that was consistent with existing program statutes and
policies that involved the Early Childhood Advisory Council in the application review
process. In August 1995, the State Board of Education made the first set of program
awards to 28 school districts, based on a recommendation from the Council. In the
following months, program awards were made to school districts throughout Arizona and
the reallocation of uncommitted program funds was made in November 1995. To date,
all available At- Risk Preschool Program funds for FY95 have been awarded to 103
school districts and 2 county superintendents acting on behalf of smaller school districts
working as county consortia.
Changes in Leadership and Interpretation of Legislation Cause Delays ( page 27).
The Department of Education has developed a model of funding distribution, program
application review and program awards that is consistent with the specifications of HB
2002 ( 9th SS, 1994) and with the policies of the State Board of Education. Furthermore,
internal ADE program processes are consistent with the administration of federal and
state programs that preceded the At- Risk Preschool program. The interpretation of the
law has not notably changed from the 1994 program model to the current model.
Emphasis was placed on HB 2002, sections 28 and 29, that call for school districts to
conduct local administrative duties and to reimburse public and private providers on
behalf of participating children and families. The " Request for Proposals" that was
conducted by the Department of Administration yielded 40 program applications to
conduct a summer program for preschoolers. A second RFP was going to be necessary to
fund programs for the 1995- 96 school year. This was determined to be burdensome for
local service providers and costly to the State.
Multiple Layers of Approval Slow Down Implementation ( page 28). The
Department of Education has created an application for local school districts to create
community partnerships with federally- funded preschools and licensed child care centers.
In most cases, the amount of funds that will be transferred between school districts and
their local agencies, on behalf of participating parents, is greater than $ 10,000.
Therefore, procurement processes must be conducted by local school administrators, as
well as contract approval by local school boards.
When an application is sent to the ADE, staff specialists and fiscal specialists review for
accuracy and compliance with existing statutes and policy. Members of the Early
Childhood Advisory Council review the applications, noting their recommendations, and
then submit the program to the State Board of Education for program awards. These
reviews are in keeping with mandatory statutory requirements. The JLBC does not
review individual program applications or specific awards to school districts. However
the JLBC is provided with monthly reports concerning the categorical movement of
program funds among the five educational programs included in the State Block Grant
FY96.
The goal of the ADE was to include the Early Childhood Advisory Council, an advisory
group to the State Board of Education, in the entire process. The Council recommended
the application document, the review process and the method of determining school
district allocations to the State Board of Education. These recommendations were made
following two public meetings conducted for the purpose of program implementation. As
previously mentioned in this response, the State Board of Education, during its
June 26, 1995 meeting was informed of the changes in the application process and was
presented with a packet of information that included: ( a) the program allocations that
would be used by school districts to plan their scope of program services, and ( b) the lists
of eligible service providers in their school attendance areas.
ADE Proposes Early Childhood Block Grant ( page 29). The early childhood
block grant program, entitled Parents and Children in Extraordinary Education ( PACE),
is in its development stages. As a significant part of program development, school
district administrators, community members and parents have been included in
discussions of program specifications. At this time, the proposal that is outlined in the
Auditor General's report does not contain the most current form of the PACE program.
The significant aspects of the PACE program are: ( a) locally determined scope of work,
( b) services to children between the ages of three years to grade three, ( c) the final
minimum and maximum funding levels would be established after the FY97 allocation is
determined, ( d) consolidation of the at- risk preschool, full- day kindergarten and K- 3
academic assistance programs in order to reduce administrative work burdens in schools
and community organizations, ( e) development of a higher degree of program articulation
with existing federal and state educational programs. The ADE is committed to
providing an early childhood block grant program, specifically PACE, for the 1996- 97
school year and is ready to provide an immediate program application process pending
the approval of the state's education budget for FY97.
Response to Other Pertinent In formation
Program Displacement ( page 31). The issue of available classroom space in
communities, schools and neighborhoods is an on- going an issue in Arizona due to rapid
program implementation, state- wide population growth rates and student mobility rates.
In program applications for the current school year, school districts and the community
partners were required to conduct a needs assessment in order to prepare budgets and
program activities that do not extend beyond the capacity of their facilities. School
districts and community service providers were directed to conduct their needs analysis
with respect to existing program services that were conducted in their school attendance
areas. Significant program growth, comparable to the increase in funding that occurred in
1994, will impact upon available classroom locations for all service providers. There are
some school districts and communities in Arizona that have limited classroom
availability. However, state- wide classroom capacity in both public and private
preschools has not be reached.
Age Eligibility Limits Program Collaboration ( page 31). The Department of
Education consistently seeks methods of creating educational programs that are congruent
and complimentary with other state and federal programs that have similar program
goals. The child age eligibility that is specified in ARS 15- 715 restricts some children
from participating in the program. However, when broadening the eligibility criteria, the
characteristics of the participants diversifies and the study of program results may be
impacted. The Department of Education suggests that adding three- year- old children as
eligible participants in the program would be beneficial to the administration and
implementation of the program. These educational benefits for individual children would
outweigh any negative impact on the research conducted on the program's overall
performance,
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Legislated Roles of The Board of Education,
Department of Education, Early Childhood Advisory Council,
Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and School Districts in
the Administration of the At- Risk Preschool Program
All legislated roles except for the JLBC are found in A. R. S. 515- 715. Specific sections and
subsections are noted in parentheses.
The responsibilities of the Board of Education include:
Disbursing preschool funds ( 1, A).
Establishing requirements for application, evaluation, reporting, and reapplication ( 1,
A).
E Selecting schools to receive grants ( 1, A).
Developing a list of public schools, private day care operators, and federally funded
preschool providers that have been selected to participate in the project, and to
distribute the list to all school districts in the State ( 28, D).
The Department of Education is responsible for:
Making public a list of qualifying school attendance areas ( 1, A).
Developing an annual self- reporting data format for school districts ( 1, A, 4).
Reviewing annual reports, making on- site visits, and notifying districts that are out
of compliance with the district's approved proposal ( 1, B).
Providing technical assistance to bring districts into compliance ( 1, B),
E Developing a procedure by which school districts reimburse private day care operators
or federally funded preschools participating in the Program ( 29, A).
Disbursing funds to districts for reimbursement to private and federal providers ( 29,
B).
a- i
The Early Childhood Advisory Council ( ECAC) consists of 13 members appointed by
the State Board of Education. Members of the E