Performance audit, Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT

ARIZONA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

Report to the Arizona Legislature

By the Auditor General

October 1987

87- 10

DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA

AUDITOR GENERAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

October 14, 1987

LINDA J. BLESSING, CPA

DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL

Members of the Arizona Legislature

The Honorable Evan Mecham, Governor

Dr. Barry L. Griffing, Superintendent

Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind

Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit

of the Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind. This report is in response to

the July 26, 1985, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.

The report addresses the need for ASDB to cooperate more fully with Arizona's

Educational Community. For example, ASDB has bypassed local districts in

admitting students, and has not adequately cooperated with Department of

Education efforts to ensure compliance with State and Federal special education

laws. The report also cites the need to improve controls over agency

operations. Some trust fund expenditures, for example, appear questionable and

excessive.

My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.

Staff: William Thomson

Peter N. Francis

Jerome E. Miller

Mark Syracuse

Dan Summers

Respectfully submitted,

qpq. Dou s R. Norton

Auditor General

2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE @ SUITE 700 @ PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 @ ( 602) 255- 4385

SUMMARY

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the

Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) in response to a July 26,

1985, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. The performance

audit was conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised

Statutes 5341- 2351 through 41 - 2379.

The Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind was established in 1929 and is

responsible for the education of the sensory impaired. ASDB programs serve more

than 800 sensory impaired children and their parents throughout the State. ASDB

operates the Schools for the Visually and Hearing Handicapped, the Arizona

Diagnostic Treatment and Education Center ( ADTEC), the headquarters for the

Preschool and Outreach programs in Tucson, and a day school for the deaf in

Phoenix.

Local School Districts Are Not Adequately Involved

In the Placement Of Students At ASDB ( see pages 11 - 20)

ASDB statutes governing admissions and placement of students need to be amended

to ensure compliance with prevailing Federal and State laws. Although the

requirements of Federal and State law dictate substantial local district involvement

in the placement of children at ASDB, local districts have been bypassed by ASDB in

placing students at the school. For example, the Tucson Unified School District had

104 students enrolled at ASDB during school year 1986- 87. Yet, an Auditor General

survey revealed the district was aware of only six students enrolled at the school.

The lack of local district involvement in placement decisions at ASDB causes

several major problems. First, the State could possibly jeopardize Federal special

education funds due to noncompliance with Public Law 94- 142. Second, some

districts might be interested in developing or expanding programs i f they were

aware of the number of students from their districts who needed specialized care.

Finally, the State could be paying for additional educational costs that would

otherwise be paid by individual school districts.

ASDB has also violated State law by defying the Arizona Department of Education

( ADE) on some enrollments. State law requires ADE to approve payment vouchers

before students can be enrolled at ASDB. Although the Arizona Department of

Education has identified some students who do not belong at ASDB and denied the

vouchers, the school continued to enroll these pupils. Such action may leave ASDB

officials liable for reimbursement of the cost incurred to provide educational

programs for these students.

ASDB Improperly Enrolled

Nonresidents Tuition- Free ( see pages 21 - 24)

ASDB has enrolled nonresident students without charging tuition for the last five

school years. ASDB enrolled eight such students in the 1986- 87 school year.

Evidence gathered by the Attorney General's office indicates that parents obtained

guardians for the children solely to circumvent the Schools tuition requirements.

According to the families involved, ASDB employees suggested a way to circumvent

the School's tuition requirements to one family and obtained a guardian for the child

of another.

Despite being informed by the Attorney General's Office that enrollment of the

students was illegal, the school continued the practice. As a result, ASDB is

violating Federal and State laws. ASDB's disregard of the Attorney General's

advice places school officials in a position of possible personal liability for

approximately $ 163,000 in unpaid tuition.

ASDB Should Expand Programs to Serve Multiply Handicapped

Students, And Should Further Develop Its Role As A

Resource For Local School Districts ( see pages 25 - 31)

ASDB needs to expand efforts to meet the educational needs of sensory impaired

students who have other handicapping conditions. In many cases, ASDB is better

able to provide programs for these students than local districts, yet our review

indicates that the School is reluctant to accept these students. To address this

issue, consultants hired by our Office recommend that ASDB clarify i t s admissions

criteria, and be more open to accepting students with other handicapping conditions.

ASDB also needs to increase its efforts to serve as a Statewide resource to local

districts. Our consultants stated that the expansion of programs and services

beyond the main campus is essential i f ASDB is to serve as a Statewide resource.

Some examples of these programs and services include expansion of diagnostic

services provided to the school districts, parent and family education programs for

families from outlying areas, early identification of minority sensory impaired

students, summer programs in independent living for students, professional

in- service training, and development of special curriculum and materials for use in

public school settings.

ASDB's Board Needs Po Be

~ estructuredT o Improve Coordination

With The Public School Community ( see pages 33 - 37)

ASDB needs to restructure its board to improve coordination with the public school

community. The current board makeup does not provide adequate links with the

educational community. Although the superintendent of public instruction is an

ex- officio member, neither Arizona Department of Education nor other public

education officials are represented at ASDB board meetings. Other states with

autonomous boards have addressed the need for links by specifying representation on

the school's board of directors. Membership includes the public special education

community, other experts in the field of the education of the sensory impaired, and

parents.

In addition, ASDB's quorum requirement needs to be increased. Current statutes set

ASDB's quorum requirements at only two members, which makes the ASDB board

very vulnerable to open meeting law violations. Increasing the board's quorum

requirement to a majority of the board would remedy this problem.

Financial Controls Over Some Expenditures

Should Be Strengthened ( see pages 39 - 43)

ASDB needs to improve control over Trust Fund expenditures. ASDB uses the

earnings from Trust Fund monies to finance expenditures not provided for by the

State General Fund. Although the trust agreements specify that expenditures from

the Fund should benefit the education of the sensory impaired, some expenditures

appear to be gifts or excessive in nature. For example, money was spent to

purchase floral bouquets and relish trays for former employees and the

superintendent's in- laws. Trust Fund monies were also used to finance meals and

entertainment. To address this problem, the Board of Directors should adopt

specific guidelines to set forth the appropriate use of Trust Fund monies, and better

control Trust Fund expenditures.

In addition, ASDB administrators filed erroneous travel claims during the past two

fiscal years. ASD 6' s superintendent and the two associate superintendents

submitted travel claims seeking reimbursement for dinners which had previously

been paid out of Trust Funds. The board of directors should require reimbursement

of the amounts erroneously claimed for dinner expenses.

ASDB's Food Service Building Is A

Safety And Health Hazard ( see pages 45 - 49)

ASDB's food service building is a hazard to public safety and health. The building is

at least 50 years old, and used extensively by students and staff. Many of the

building's components are either deteriorating or inadequate. Several engineering

reports document the building's structural problems. Also, the building has a faulty

electrical system, an inadequate fire alarm system, and a deteriorating plumbing

system.

The State faces potential financial lability because of the building's condition.

According to an official from the insurance section of the Department of

Administration's Risk Management Division, because the State is aware of the

safety and health hazards and has not corrected them, it could be held liable from

any injuries resulting from these hazards.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUNSET FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FINDING I: LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY

INVOLVED IN THE PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS AT ASDB . . . . . . 11

Local D i s t r i c t s Should Be A c t i v e l y

Involved I n Placements A t ASDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Local D i s t r i c t s Are Bypassed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Department Of Education Has Not E f f e c t i v e l y

Challenged ASDB's Autonomy Over Admissions . . . . . . . . 17

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

FINDING 1 1 : ASDB IMPROPERLY ENROLLED SOME NONRESIDENT

STUDENTS TUITION- FREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

ASDB I s Improperly E n r o l l i n g

Nonresidents Tuition- Free . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Enrollment P r a c t i c e Results I n

V i o l a t i o n Of Law And Unpaid T u i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

FINDING 1 1 1 : ASDB SHOULD EXPAND PROGRAMS TO SERVE

MULTIPLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS, AND ASDB SHOULD

FURTHER DEVELOP ITS ROLE AS A RESOURCE FOR

LOCALDISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Role Of Special Schools Has Changed . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ASDB Could Do More To Meet The Needs

Of T h e M u l t i p l y H a n d i c a p p e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

ASDB Needs To Expand I t s Role

As A Statewide Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FINDING I V : ASDB'S BOARD NEEDS TO BE

RESTRUCTURED TO IMPROVE COORDINATION WITH

THE PUBLICSCHOOLCOMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Changing Role Requires More Coordination . . . . . . . . 33

ASDB Board Needs To Be Restructured . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Quorum Requirement Needs To Be Increased . . . . . . . . 35

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

FINDING V: FINANCIAL CONTROLS OVER SOME EXPENDITURES

SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Trust Fund Expenditures Are Not

A d e q u a t e l y C o n t r o l l e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Improper Travel Claims Were F i l e d . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

FINDING V I : ASDB'S FOOD SERVICE BUILDING IS A

SAFETY AND HEALTH HAZARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Condition of Food Service B u i l d i n g

P u t s s t a t e A t Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

State Should Take C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 48

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

S t a f f i n g Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

AGENCY RESPONSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

APPENDICES

Consultants' Report

Emp l oyee Survey

Legal Opinions

LlST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1 - ASDB Programs And Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

TABLE 2 - ASDB Revenues And Expenditures

( unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

TABLE 3 - School D i s t r i c t Knowledge

o f ASDBEnrollments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TABLE 4 - ASDB Board O f D i r e c t o r s Dinner

Expenses For F i s c a l Years 1985- 86

And 1986- 87 ( unaudited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

TABLE 5 - Frequency Of Duplicate Reimbursements

By ASDBAdministrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3

TABLE 6 - Student To Teacher Ratios A t State

Schools For The Deaf Or B l i n d For

1986- 87 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2

TABLE 7 - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P o s i t i o n s A t Other Schools

For The Deaf And The B l i n d . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3

LlST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - Crack I n Beam Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

FIGURE 2 - Chipping And Cracking Around

Support Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona

State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) in response to a July 26, 1985,

resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This Performance Audit

was conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes

$ 541 - 2351 through 41- 2379.

In 1910, the Congress made a 100,000 acre land grant to schools and asylums for the

deaf and blind in Arizona. In 1913, the Arizona Legislature established a department

connected to the University of Arizona for the education of the deaf and blind. In

1929, the Legislature separated this department from the University of Arizona and

reconstituted it as an independent agency located in Tucson. A t that time, the

Legislature also transferred control of the proceeds from the land grant to ASDB.

ASDB is governed by a board of Directors. The board consists of five members

appointed by the Governor. In addition, the governor and superintendent of Public

Instruction serve as ex- officio members. The Board of Directors appoints a

superintendent to oversee the daily operations of the school.

ASDB's statutory purpose has remained relatively unchanged since its establishment

as a separate agency. The most recent mission statement written by ASDB's Board

of Directors further defines the School's purpose:

. . . to promote and maintain an educational opportunity of adequate scope and

quality for sensory impaired children in Arizona which will lead to an adult life

of independence and self- sufficiency; a meaningful personal, family, and

community life; and a useful, productive occupational life.

ASDB has a good reputation in the field of education of the sensory impaired. It is

accredited by the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf and the

National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually

Handicapped Persons. Moreover, directors of other states schools for the sensory

impaired praised ASDB's policy on communication with hearing impaired students, its

curriculum and outreach services. Parent support for the school is also strong.

According to a recent survey of ASDB parents, the majority of the parents surveyed

were satisfied with the overall education program.

Programs And Services

To accomplish its purpose, ASDB operates several programs that serve more than 800

sensory impaired children and their parents throughout the State. In Tucson, ASDB

operates the Schools for the Hearing and Visually Handicapped, the Arizona

Diagnostic Treatment and Education Center ( ADTEC), and the headquarters for the

Preschool and Outreach programs. The Phoenix Day School for the Deaf ( PDSD)

operates in Phoenix. The Schools for the Hearing and Visually Handicapped provide

residential and day services to children aged 6 to 21 who are either solely sensory

impaired or mildly multiply handicapped. ADTEC serves moderate multiply

handicapped children, aged 6 to 21, in classroom settings, and performs educational

assessments. The Preschool program serves 4 and 5 year- olds in the Tucson and

Phoenix areas in classroom settings, while the Outreach program serves the families

of infants to 5- year- olds Statewide. PDSD serves hearing handicapped students from

the Phoenix metropolitan area who are aged 6 to 21. Table 1 shows enrollment in

each of ASDB's programs during the 1986- 87 school year.

Program

TABLE 1

ASDB PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

School for the Hearing Handicapped

School for the Visually Handicapped

ADTEC

classroom i n s t r u c t i o n

educational assessments

Preschool

Out reach

Phoenix Day School for the Deaf

Number

Served

Budget And Personnel

In addition, to General Fund appropriations, ASDB receives funds from several other

sources. These include Federal grants, earnings from land trust and privately

established trust funds, donations, and tuition payments from out of state student

enrollments. Also, ASDB receives voucher fund reimbursements from the Arizona

Department of Education. Table 2 shows ASDB's fund sources and expenditures for

fiscal years 1984- 85 through 1986- 87 as reported by the Arizona Financial

Information System ( A FIS).

ASDB was authorized to employ 456.9 full- time equivalent employees during fiscal

year 1986- 87, up from 391.5 in fiscal year 1985- 86 and 366 in fiscal year 1984- 85.

TABLE 2

ASDB REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

( unaud i ted)

FY 1984- 85 FY 1985- 86 FY 1986- 87

Revenues

Appropriations $ 7,393,663 $ 9,009,735 $ 10,042,301

State Aid ( ADE) 2,687,862 3,192,043 3,428,169

Intergovernmental 529,305 446,431 470,059

Charges for Services 86,917 25,468 10,681

Other 249,023 350,999 178,139

TOTAL $ 10.946.0SQ $ 13.043.776 $ 14,129.529

Expendi tures

Personal Se rv i ces

Employee Related Services

Professional and Outside

Servi ces

Trave l

Food

Other Operat i ng Expenses

Capital Out lay

TOTAL

( a ) Unable to determine 1 i ne i tern expendi tures f o r 1984- 85

Source: AFlS Revenue and Expenditure reports for f i s c a l

years 1984- 1985 through 1985- 86

Audit Scope and Objectives

Our audit of the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind focused on the fdlowing areas.

a Whether ASDB adequately involves local school districts in student

placements

a Whether ASDB's continued enrollment of non resident students is proper

a Whether ASDB's mission is changing

a The adequacy of ASDB's Board structure

a Whether ASDB's financial controls need to be strengthened

a The safety of ASDB's food service building

In addition, we addressed the 12 statutory Sunset Factors ( see pages 5- 9). in the

section Other Pertinent Information we discuss staffing patterns and organizational

climate at ASDB ( see pages 50- 53).

Our audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental

auditing standards.

The Auditor General and staff express their appreciation to the Board of Directors,

Superintendent and staff of ASDB for their cooperation and assistance during the

audit.

SUNSET FACTORS

In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 541- 2354, the Legislature

should consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the Arizona School

for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) should be continued or terminated.

1. The objective and purpose in establishing the Arizona School for the Deaf and

the Blind

ASDB was established to meet the educational needs of deaf and blind children

within the State of Arizona. A. R. S. $ 15- 1302 describes the purpose of the

school as an educational institution for " the physical, moral, and intellectual

culture and training of the classes of persons for whose benefit i t exists, so that

the children educated there may become self- sustaining and useful citizens."

The original intent in establishing ASDB was to provide educational

opportunities for sensory impaired children between the ages of 6 and 21. In

1983, ASDB adopted a modern mission statement to more appropriately express

the statutory goals and objectives in A. R. S. 515- 1302.8. The objectives of the

school have not changed since 1912, except to recognize that the school should

serve as a broader resource to the needs of sensory impaired students, family

and the community at large. As noted in Finding I l l ( page 29, ASDB could

move further in this direction and should expand efforts to serve the multiply

handicapped sensory impaired.

2. The effectiveness with which ASDB has met its objective and purpose and the

efficiency with which it has operated

According to different accreditation entities, ASDB provides excellent

educational programs for the sensory impaired population that it serves. ASDB

officials indicate that they have met their statutory objectives based on data

maintained on all graduates. ASDB data show that 87 percent of the students

who have completed ASDB programs since the 1982- 83 school year have

proceeded on to employment or post- secondary education. ASDB has also

developed an effective outreach program.

However, ASDB may not be efficiently using all Trust Fund monies. Some trust

fund expenditures appear questionable ( see Finding V, page 39).

3. The extent to which ASDB has operated in the public interest

The public served by ASDB includes the sensory impaired population throughout

the State of Arizona. ASDB is operating within the public interest by providing

services that would otherwise be absent or cost prohibitive to the residents of

Arizona. These services include early intervention programs, complete and

comprehensive educational assessments, and developmental and educational

curricula.

However, ASDBfs enrollment of nonresident students, lack of local district

input in parent initiated referrals, and the board of director's low quorum

requirement may not be in the best interest of the public or the students ASDB

serves. Although nonresident students are allowed to attend ASDB, the

Attorney General's office has determined that seven students are enrolled

tuition- free, in violation of statutes. The continued enrollment of the students

against the advice of legal counsel places the school and the board at serious

financial and legal risk ( see Finding Ill, page 21). In addition, the admission of

students to ASDB without adequate local district knowledge or involvement is

not consistent with the requirements of State and Federal law. As a result, the

State may be in violation of Federal law and may be placing Federal special

education monies in jeopardy ( see Finding I page 19). Further, ASDB's present

statutory quorum requirement of only two members does not serve the public

interest because it makes the board vulnerable to open meeting law violations

( see Finding IV, page 33).

4. The extent to which rules and regulations have been promulgated by ASDB are

consistent with the legislative mandate

According to ASDB's Attorney General representative, the School does not have

the authority to promulgate rules and regulations.

5. The extent to which ASDB has encouraged input from the public before

promulgating its rules and regulations and to the extent to which it has

informed the public of its actions and their expected impact on the public

Since ASDB has not promulgated any rules and regulations, this factor does not

apply.

6. The extent to which ASDB has been able to investigate and resolve complaints

that are within its jurisdiction

ASDB's enabling legislation does not establish a formal complaint review

process. Public Law 94- 142 and State statutes authorize ASDB along with the

Arizona Department of Education to conduct due process placement hearings to

resolve any disagreements pertaining to student admissions.

7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of

State government has the authority to prosecute actions under its enabling

legislation

ASDB's enabling legislation does not establish such authority.

8. The extent to which ASDB has addressed deficiencies in its enabling statutes

which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate

In the past several years, ASDB has been active in proposing legislation to

address perceived deficiencies in the following areas.

0 School personnel policy and criminal background checks

0 Summer teacher training and curriculum development

0 Regional service center cooperatives

0 Clarifying provisions for the removal of the superintendent

0 Providing a tuition fund for students whose parents refuse or are unable

to Pay

9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of ASDB to adequately

comply with the factors listed in the sunset law

Based on our audit work, we recommend that the Legislature consider the

following changes to ASDB's statutes.

a Amend A. R. S. $ 915- 1342 and 15- 1343, to clearly conform with

prevailing Federal and State laws ( see Finding I, page 11).

a Amend A. R. S. $ 15- 1321. A, increasing the size of the board. In

addition, the Legislature should establish specific board representation

( see Finding IV page 33).

0 Amend A. R. S. $ 15 - 1322. C, increasing the board's quorum size ( see

Finding IV, page 33).

10. The extent to which the termination of ASDB would significantly harm the

public health, safety or welfare

Termination of ASDB could impact the welfare of the sensory impaired students

which it serves. If ASDB were closed, the state would lose an invaluable

resource. The School provides a host of services that are especially important

to rural school districts. I t would be extremely costly for some of these

districts to establish special programs for one or two children, or to pay for

services in private facilities.

11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by ASDB is appropriate

and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropriate

Since ASDB is not a regulatory agency, this factor does not apply

12. The extent to which the Agency has used private contractors in the

performance of its duties and how the effective use of private contractors

could be accomplished

ASDB currently uses private sector contractors for the following services.

Parent Advisors

Psychiatric Services

Student Transportation

Copying Service

Ophthalmological Services

Auditory Evaluations

Dental Services

Physical Therapy

Investment Counseling

Medical Services

Student Accident Insurance

Interpreting Services

ASDB officials indicate that they use private contractors to perform duties that

would be cost prohibitive for them to attempt, or to perform duties for which

the School lacks knowledge or expertise. They also state that as the cost to

educate a sensory impaired student increases and the budget appropriations

decrease, ASDB will continue to identify areas for private contracting. We did

not identify any other areas for ASDB's use of private contractors.

FINDING I

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY INVOLVED IN THE

PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS AT ASDB

Local school districts are not actively involved in the placement of students at the

Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB). Although both State and Federal

laws require substantial involvement by a child's home school district, ASDB has

bypassed local districts i n i t s placement process. The Arizona Department of

Education has not effectively challenged the autonomy ASDB has asserted over its

admissions, or aggressively enforced prevailing State and Federal statutes.

Local Districts Should Be Actively

Involved In Placements At ASDB

Both Federal and State laws require that local school districts be actively and

adequately involved in the placement of students at ASDB. States receiving Federal

funds under Public Law 94- 142 enacted in 1975 must ensure all handicapped

children, including those who are sensory impaired, a free appropriate public

education. Under the " least restrictive environment" ( LRE) policy established by

Federal law, children should be educated in the school they would attend i f not

handicapped, and as close as possible to their home. The LRE concept is a Federal

initiative designed to encourage placing handicapped children with their non

handicapped peers. Moreover, the intent of placing children in the LRE is to

prevent wholesale segregation of handicapped individuals. Placement procedures

spelled out in Federal law require that the placement decision be made by persons

knowledgeable about the placement options and in conformity with the least

restrictive environment requirements. Placements must also be reviewed every

three years in accordance with these requirements.

Whether the local school district or a child's parents refer a student to ASDB, the

local school district should be actively involved in the placement process to ensure

that the requirements of Federal law are met. Local districts are the most familiar

with programs available in the child's home district. In fact, in many states, parents

are directed back to their local school district when they contact their state special

school to place their child.

State statutes also dictate substantial local district involvement in placement of

children at ASDB. A. R. S. Section 15- 764 requires the governing board of each

school district to provide special education and required support services for sensory

impaired children. These laws, enacted in 1981, are consistent with the least

restrictive environment policy in Federal law. A. R. S. 15- 764. A. 3. requires that

school districts:

To the extent practicable, educate [ sensory impaired] children in the regular

education classes. Special classes, separate schooling or other removal of

handicapped children from the regular educational environment shall occur only

if, and to the extent that, the nature or severity of the [ sensory impairment] is

such that education in regular classes, even with the aid of supplementary aids

and services, cannot be accomplished satisfactorily.

Thus, local districts need to be actively involved in decisions to place students in

ASDB programs because they are obligated by law to provide special education for

all handicapped children, including sensory impaired children within the school

district.

Although local school districts should be actively involved, they have been bypassed

by ASDB when making admission and placement decisions. Local school districts

have l i t t l e involvement in, and are often unaware of, many placements at ASDB. As

a result, ASDB may be serving at State expense some students who could be

provided services in their local districts or closer to their homes.

Local districts not actively involved - Local districts have not been adequately

involved in the placement of most students who are currently served at ASDB. In

the majority of cases reviewed, parents have initiated placement of their children at

the School. In these cases, ASDB has conducted the diagnostic evaluations and

developed an individualized education program required by law with l i t t l e or no local

district involvement.

According t o ADE, an ASDB s t a t u t e - A. R. S. 515- 1343 - also implies involvement of

l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s when determining t h a t students cannot acqui re appropriate

education i n common schools.

Only recently, in August 1986, did ASDB institute a policy of inviting district

representatives to attend initial placement conferences and three year placement

reviews. However, this involvement may be inadequate and insufficient. For

example, one local district special education administrator stated the following.

We have often had very l i t t l e lead time or prior notification of [ placement]

meetings. Until this year, we were often not even involved in reviews. This

year we have increased our involvement but our comments are not always

totally or accurately reflected in the conference reports.

In several states, districts conduct diagnostic evaluations and develop individualized

education plans for students before the student is placed in a state school, even

when parents, not the local district, initiate the placement. In these states, local

districts provide information to parents on placement options and alternatives.

Another local district special administrator with students at ASDB stated that this

procedure should be followed in Arizona.

Parents should be required to be informed by the local district of program

placement options. . . prior to placement at any state or private agency.

The following case examples illustrate how local districts have been bypassed by

ASDB in placing students at the school.

o A student attended the Center for Hearing Impaired Children ( CHIC) from

February 1976 until June 1979. CHlC is a preschool operated jointly by ASDB

and the Easter Seal Society. The child enrolled at ASDB in September 1979 and

has been at ASDB since that time. The child's district of residence, Marana,

has never been informed that the child is attending ASDB and has not

participated in any placement reviews.

o A 13- year- old child was enrolled in public school hearing impaired programs in

another state from March 1981 until mid- 1985. In August 1985, the child was

placed at ASDB. The child resides in the Tucson Unified School District

( TUSD), which has a program that served 126 hearing impaired children during

the 1986- 87 school year. There is no indication that TUSD was involved in the

placement process or is aware that the child is being served at ASDB.

o This student was enrolled at CHlC from September 1979 until December 1980.

From December 1980 until April 1982, he attended a school for the deaf in

another state. His parents contacted ASDB by letter in March 1982 in

anticipation of a move back to Arizona. The student was enrolled at ASDB in

April 1982 and has been at ASDB since that time. There is no evidence that the

child's district of residence, Flowing Wells, was involved in the placement

decision or is aware that he attends ASDB.

Because local d i s t r i c t involvement in ASDB's placement process has been so limited,

many school d i s t r i c t s are unaware that sensory impaired students living within their

boundaries are enrolled in ASDB programs. As shown in Table 3, for example,

Tucson Unified School District, which has 104 students at ASDB's Tucson campus,

was aware of only six students enrolled at the school. Phoenix Union High School

District personnel were aware of only 11 o f i t s 38 students enrolled.

Some students may be inappropriately enrolled - Because local d i s t r i c t s are not

adequately involved in the placement process, some students may be attending

ASDB who could be provided an educational program in their home districts. As

noted on page 17, for example, the Arizona Department of Education has identified

three students who could be provided a suitable program in their home school

districts.

TABLE 3

SCHOOL DISTRICT KNOWLEDGE OF ASDB ENROLLMENTS

Schoo l Students

D i s t r i c t ( a) Enrol led A t ASDB ( b)

Tucson Un i f i ed 104

Phoenix Union 38

Glendale Union 25

Amphitheater 2 4

Sunnys i de Un i f i ed 2 1

Washington Elementary 18

Paradise Val ley 15

Marana Unified 11

Deer Val ley 10

Cartwright Elementary 9

Phoenix Elementary 8

Glendale Elementary 8

Tempe Union 8

Flowing Wells 8

Dysar t 7

Students

School D i s t r i c t

Knew Were A t ASDB

6

11

4

unknown ( c )

4

0

1

4

unknown ( c )

0

2

2

5

1

unknown ( c )

Students

Served I n

D i s t r i c t Programs

198

6 1

27

29

9

6 4

3 7

1

18

14

11

2 1

2 2

5

27

( a) These school d i s t r i c t s are those w i t h t h e highest enrollment o f c h i l d r e n a t ASDB.

( b ) Figures represent students e n r o l l e d through May 1987.

( c ) D i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s did not know how many c h i l d r e n from t h e i r respective d i s t r i c t s

were e n r o l l e d a t ASDB.

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from ASDB student f i l e s and

school d i s t r i c t special education o f f i c i a l s .

In addition, some school districts might be interested in developing or expanding

special programs i f they were aware of the number of students from their districts

who were enrolled in ASDB programs. According to one special education

administrator, his district established a program for the sensory impaired within the

district a few years ago because a group of parents did not want to send their

children to Tucson.

Placement Costs - Any inappropriate or unnecessary placement of students at

ASDB may also represent transfers of cost from local districts to the State. There

are no financial incentives to either place a student in a local district program or to

develop a local program, because the State picks up the full cost of educating

students attending ASDB.

Arizona does not require districts to pick up any tuition cost for students enrolled at

ASDB. A. R. S. Section $ 15- 765. A allows school districts to enroll children at any

State supported institution at no cost. This provision was placed in statute prior to

the passage of Public Law 94- 142 which established total district responsibility for

the education of all handicapped students. According to several State officials

A. R. S. Section $ 15- 765 was not modified or changed after the passage of Public Law

94- 142 to require local districts to provide financial responsibility. Therefore, the

State is still required to pick up all education cost of children enrolled as ASDB.

In some states, districts are required to pay at least part of the cost of placing a

pupil in the state school for the sensory impaired. For example, in California

districts must pay a percentage of the cost to educate a child in the state special

school. Kansas requires local school districts to provide transportation for children

enrolled in the state special school. Local school districts in Connecticut must

provide partial tuition payment to educate multiply handicapped students. This

discourages districts from unnecessarily placing students in a state facility.

Instituting a similar requirement in Arizona might be a means of both ensuring

placement decisions are appropriate, and ensuring that local districts are actively

involved in placement decisions. Districts would have to be informed of the number

of their students enrolled at ASDB i f they were paying part of the costs of that

enrollment.

Arizona Department Of Education Has Not Effectively

Challenged ASDB1s Autonomy Over Admissions

The Arizona Department of Education ( A DE) has n o t e f f e c t i v e l y challenged the

autonomy ASDB has asserted over i t s admissions, or aggressively enforced

compliance with prevailing State and Federal statutes. ASDB erroneously cites

school statutes governing admissions as its basis for claiming complete autonomy

over its admissions and placement decisions. The Arizona Department of Education,

which has the responsibility and authority to enforce both State and Federal special

education statutes, has not taken s u f f i c i e n t steps to bring ASDB into compliance.

ASDB erroneously claims autonomy - ASDB argues that i t s statutes allow the

school to control its admissions. However, other more recent provisions supercede

these statutes.

ASDB o f f i c i a l s claim that statutes give the school complete autonomy over its

admissions. These statutes, which were originally enacted in 1929, do not prescribe

any role for local d i s t r i c t s nor require any local d i s t r i c t involvement in the

placement process. A. R . S. Section 515- 1342 establishes the ASD B board's

authority over its admissions.

A. Except when otherwise provided by law and subject to the provisions

thereof, the board shall have control of admissions to the school.

ASDB's assertion of admissions autonomy is so steadfast t h a t t h e school has defied

the Arizona Department of Education in three cases in which the ADE has disagreed

with its admission decisions and denied the voucher funding. The student's local

school d i s t r i c t informed ASDB and the ADE officials that it could provide suitable

programming for the three students. The d i s t r i c t also f e l t that they were the " least

restrictive environment" for the students, thus meeting the d i s t r i c t ' s obligations to

comply with the Federal law. ADE concurred with the district, and therefore,

disapproved the voucher request. However, ASDB disagreed in two cases because it

felt, ASDB was the most appropriate program. The other student's enrollment at

ASDB was continued due to what school officials described as parental choice. In

these cases, ASDB has continued to enroll students despite ADE's disapproval. ( 1 )

ASDBfs defiance of the Arizona Department of Education's voucher denial and its

assertion of complete autonomy, however, is contrary to prevailing State law.

According to A. R. S. $ 15- 1203. A:

No child may be placed for the purpose of special education in an institution

unless the institution has applied for and had issued a voucher . . .

A. R . S. $ 15- 1204. D gives the special education director of the Arizona Department

of Education authority to develop requirements for the approval of vouchers. This

authority enables ADE to monitor the placement of children and ensure compliance

with Federal and State laws. ADE denied the three vouchers because it determined

the child's home school district could provide an adequate educational program. In

an opinion dated April 7, 1987, Legislative Council concluded that ASDB does not

have the authority to defy the Arizona Department of Education.

ASDB has not been given the power either expressly or by implication under

A. R. S. 915- 1342 to overrule the department of education division of special

education and enroll a pupil after denial of a voucher. I t is restricted in

admitting students and is expressly prohibited from doing so under A. R. S.

91 5- 1 203.

Continued enrollment of these students at ASDB violates State law and could

ultimately jeopardize receipt of Federal funds."' In addition, according to

Legislative council, ASDB officials could be held liable for reimbursement of costs

incurred to provide educational programs for the students involved.

ASDB o f f i c i a l s t o l d us one reason f o r continued enrollment of the students was

because the Arizona Department o f Education d i d not p r o v i d e t h e school w i t h s p e c i f i c

g u i d e l i n e s on how t o proceed i n t h i s matter. They also t o l d us the school d i s t r i c t

supported p l a c i n g the students a t ASDB. However, f u r t h e r review o f ASDB

correspondence and an i n t e r v i e w w i t h an ADE o f f i c i a l shows t h a t ASDB d i d receive

s p e c i f i c guidance. ASDB records also show the school d i s t r i c t d i d not support

p l a c i n g the students a t ASDB.

( 2 ) Pub1 i c Law 94- 142 provides t h a t the Federal government may w i t h h o l d s t a t e special

education monies f o r non- compl iance w i t h i t s p r o v i s i o n s . Present1 y, Arizona

receives about $ 16.4 m i l l ion i n Federal s p e c i a l education monies.

ADE enforcement ineffective - The Arizona Department of Education has not

exercised all of its authority to bring ASDB's admissions and placement process into

compliance with Federal and State laws. Additional steps could be taken to ensure a

higher level of local district involvement and participation.

As the State educational agency, the Arizona Department of Education has

authority to enforce all requirements of Public Law 94- 142. The Department is

required to prescribe policies and procedures in its annual program plan, including

sanctions, the State uses to ensure compliance with Federal laws and regulations.

One procedure, the voucher approval process prescribed in State law, gives the

Arizona Department of Education some control over ASDB placement decisions.

Attempts to bring ASDB procedures into compliance with law have been

unsuccessful. Use of voucher disapprovals as an enforcement tool has been limited,

and, as noted above, ineffective. ADE appears to have been reluctant to take

aggressive enforcement actions because of ASDB's status as an independent agency

with separate statutes governing its admissions process. ( 1)

The Department could take additional steps to ensure compliance with Federal and

State statutes. First, it could more extensively exercise i t s authority to disapprove

vouchers. In addition, ADE could request the Attorney General's office to pursue

reimbursement of State funds spent improperly to provide programs for students

disapproved by the Department.

Finally, ADE has not fulfilled its responsibility to adopt policies or interagency

agreements governing parent initiated referrals at ASDB. Under authority granted

by Federal law, ADE could clearly spell out the role local districts must play in

developing program plans and placing students at ASDB. Other states have

developed policies and procedures that require direct local district involvement in

student placement at the State school and without this participation, placement

cannot and will not occur.

( ' 1 ADE has increased i t s compliance monitoring o f ASDB since the 1984- 85 school year.

ASDB and ADE s t a f f conducted a s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g study between A p r i l 29 and May 1,

1987. The study uncovered several areas requi r i n g c o r r e c t i v e action, i n c l u d i n g the

assurance that ASDB students are placed i n the l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment. I n

a d d i t i o n , ADE has developed and p i l o t e d expanded LRE monitoring steps f o r

implementation i n the 1987- 88 school year.

19

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ASDB statutes governing admissions and placement should be amended to

conform clearly with prevailing Federal and State laws.

2. The Arizona Department of Education should promulgate policies or rules

specifying how parent initiated referrals should be handled by ASDB. These

policies or rules should ensure active local district involvement in the

evaluation and placement of students under consideration for admission to

ASDB, and the development of individualized education programs.

3. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S $ 15- 765 to require local school

districts to pay part of the costs of enrolling students at ASDB.

4. The Arizona Department of Education should enforce compliance with State

and Federal laws governing placement of students at ASDB. The following

actions should be considered.

0 The voucher approval process should be used more extensively when students

could be served in their home districts

0 Noncompliance with Department actions should be referred to the Attorney

General's office for enforcement and recovery of any funds improperly

expended.

5. ASDB should not continue to enroll students whose vouchers have been rejected

by ADE.

FINDING II

ASDB IMPROPERLY ENROLLED SOME NONRESIDENT STUDENTS TUITION- FREE

The Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) is improperly enrolling

some nonresident students tuition free. As a result, ASDB officials are violating

State and Federal laws.

ASDB Is Improperly Enrolling

Nonresidents Tuition Free

ASDB has enrolled some nonresident students tuition- free for at least the last five

school years. This has been accomplished by obtaining guardians to avoid the

nonresident tuition requirements.

ASDB first enrolled nonresident students tuition- free in the 1982- 83 school

year. '" The school enrolled eight such students in the 1986- 87 school year. Five

of the students lived at the Tucson campus, even though their guardians lived within

the day program busing radius. ASDB officials said that, to the best of their

knowledge, the school intends to enroll the students for the 1987- 88 school year.

A l l the students enrolled during the 1986- 87 school year had court- appointed

guardians who are residents of Arizona.

Evidence gathered by the Attorney General's Office indicates that students' parents

obtained guardians for their children solely to circumvent the School's tuition

requirements. According to the families involved, ASDB employees even suggested

ways to circumvent the school's tuition requirements to one family and obtained a

guardian for the child of another.

I n contrast, f i v e other nonresident students paid t u i t i o n t o attend the school

during school years 1982- 83 through 1986- 87. E n r o l l i n g nonresidents a t ASDB i s not

contrary t o State law. A. R. S. 515- 1345.8. s t a t e s , " Children from other states and

countries may have the b e n e f i t of the school . . . by advance payment t o the

superintendent of an amount f i x e d by the board."

Case histories of two children illustrate how these students were enrolled.

Case I

The student is a 10- year- old hearing impaired student. Her parents, who live in

Nogales, Sonora, heard of ASDB from friends and a television program. She was

first enrolled at ASDB on November 17, 1982, with no mention of tuition,

student visas or guardianship being required. An ASDB employee was appointed

guardian on April 2, 1985, two and one- half years after initial enrollment.

Although the " guardian" lives in Tucson, the student resides at the ASDB

campus, and returns to her parents1 home for summers and extended vacations.

Case II

The student is a 19- year- old visually impaired student from Hermosillo,

Sonora. His mother heard of ASDB while she was working at the School for the

Deaf and Blind in Hermosillo, Sonora. She was informed by an ASDB employee

that her son could attend ASDB tuition- free i f an Arizona resident were

appointed guardian. The student was first enrolled at ASDB on August 15, 1984,

the same day his guardianship was awarded to a Tucson resident. Again,

although the " guardian" lives in Tucson, the student lives at the ASDB campus.

He is fully supported by his parents and returns to his parents home in

Hermosillo, Sonora, for extended vacations.

In addition, an uncle who resides in Arizona told audit staff that he was initially

asked by ASDB officials to become the guardian for his nephew so the child could

attend ASDB. The uncle obtained guardianship of the child but later became

concerned that he was participating in something illegal. He told ASDB officials of

his desire to give up guardianship, and ASDB officials replied that they would take

care of the matter. The student now has a different guardian.

However, obtaining guardians solely to avoid the requirement to pay nonresident

tuition is not legally valid. In an opinion dated April 27, 1987, Legislative Council

stated:

The parents of those children [ in question1 may not change their child's

residency [ or domicile] in Mexico simply by having a resident of this state

appointed as guardian of their child. ( Brackets added)

In the same opinion, Legislative Council concluded that:

The children in question, whose parents are Mexican Nationals who reside in

Mexico and intend to have their children reside in Mexico on completion of

their education are nonresidents of this state and may not attend ASDB tuition

free.

Enrollment Practice Results In

Violation Of Law And Unpaid Tuition

ASDB's practice of enrolling some nonresident students tuition- free violates State

and Federal law. According to the Attorney General's office and Legislative

Council, this practice may also leave ASDB officials liable for unpaid tuition.

Even after ASDB's Attorney General representative repeatedly informed school

officials that enrolling the students tuition free was improper, ASDB officials

continued the enrollment practice. Between July, 1986, and October, 1986, the

Superintendent and the Attorney General's office communicated back and forth in

writing at least ten times on the matter. In addition, on August 18, 1986, in a

telephone conversation with Arizona's Attorney General the Superintendent was

informed not to enroll the students without the payment of tuition, and i f the

school did so against the advice of the Attorney General, the Superintendent and

Board would be placing themselves at legal risk.'" The school never required the

payment of tuition as advised by its Attorney General representative. ASDB

officials felt that A. R. S. 915- 1346 gave the agency the authority to enroll the

students tuition free. ( 2) The citation reads:

A l l persons from six through twenty- one years of age, whose parents or

guardians are residents of this state, may attend the school for the deaf and

blind.

Nonetheless, tuition- free enrollment of the students in question is improper.

Obtaining guardians solely for the purpose of avoiding tuition is not legally valid.

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Attorney General's O f f i c e advised the school o f the proper

procedures t o f o l l o w i n o b t a i n i n g the t u i t i o n t o ensure t h a t the students1 l e g a l

r i g h t s would not be v i o l a t e d . The agency did not f o l l o w these i n s t r u c t i o n s , but

instead dismissed the students from school c i t i n g t h e i r l a c k o f a l e g a l Arizona

residency. This a c t i o n was immediate1 y challenged by t h e A t t o r n e y General I s

O f f i c e , ADE o f f i c i a l s , and ASDB's p r i v a t e counsel as a v i o l a t i o n o f due process and

the students' c i v i l r i g h t s . The students were r e i n s t a t e d t o avoid l i t i g a t i o n .

( 2 ) Rather than f o l l o w the Attorney General I s advice, the Superintendent sought

l e g i s l a t i v e changes t o agency s t a t u t e s . C l a r i f y i n g provisions eventual1 y enacted

i n HB 1251, however, are v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o the provisions o f A. R. S. Section

515- 824, Subsection B, paragraph 2, which was the basis f o r t h e A t t o r n e y General's

o r i g i n a l advice. Therefore, HB 1251 d i d not resolve t h e problem.

ASDB's actions also appear to violate Federal law. According to an Immigration and

Naturalization Service ( INS) official, only one of the foreign students has a student

visa. Therefore, only that student is legally allowed to attend school in this

country. "' According to ASDB's Attorney General representative, since ASDB

officials know that six of the students are attending school in the United States

illegally and have not acted to correct the situation, the officials may be violating

Federal criminal statutes.

Additionally, the enrollment of nonresident students in violation of State statutes

results in unpaid tuition. Approximately $ 480,000 in tuition has gone unpaid since

the first nonresident student was enrolled tuition- free; and $ 163,000 has been unpaid

since the school's Attorney General representative notified ASDB officials that such

enrollment is improper. This willful disregard of Attorney General advice places

ASDB officials in a position of potential personal liability for the $ 163,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ASDB should discontinue the practice of enrolling nonresident students

tuition- free.

2. The Attorney General should investigate the possibility of recovering the unpaid

t u i t i ~ n . ' ~ )

( ' 1 However, even i f a l l the students had student v i s a s , ASDB would not be allowed t o

e n r o l l them since the school i s not authorized by the INS t o accept f o r e i g n

students. The INS o f f i c i a l t o l d us t h a t the INS sends ASDB a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r

a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o admit f o r e i g n students w i t h student visas every year and has done

so f o r the l a s t 10 years. The same o f f i c i a l said ASDB has never returned the

a p p l i c a t i o n s t o the INS.

( 2) A copy of t h i s f i n d i n g and recommendations have been forwarded t o the Attorney

General's o f f i c e f o r f u r t h e r action.

FINDING Ill

The Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind's ( ASDB) mission and role needs to

further change in response to requirements of current laws governing the education

of the sensory impaired. ASDB's programs serving the multiply handicapped should

be expanded. In addition, ASDB needs to increase its efforts to serve as a Statewide

resource to local districts.

To assist us in our audit of ASDB, we hired a team of consultants to study the

mission and role of the school and to recommend any changes needed. The team

consisted of nationally recognized experts in the field of education of the sensory

impaired. Some members of the team are current or former leaders in the national

association that accredits schools for the deaf. A l l team members have extensive

experience either as directors of special schools, state education officials with state

level responsibilities, or academic officials and researchers in the field. The entire

consultant report, which addresses a number of critical issues facing ASDB, is

presented in Appendix 1.

Role - O. f Special Schools

Has Changed

The implementation of Public Law 94- 142 and the increased emphasis on the " least

restrictive environment" policy in Federal law has called into question the

traditional role of special schools such as ASDB. The notion that handicapped

students should be educated " to the fullest extent possible'' with nonhandicapped

students requires that placement decisions, which prior to the law could be made

more autonomously, now must be weighed and considered against Federal

requirements. The special school, which once could operate independently, now

finds itself part of a larger educational community, representing a portion of the

spectrum or continuum of services available to the sensory impaired child. The new

environment in which special schools operate, furthermore, creates a need to

develop new working relationships with the state educational authority, public

school systems, and other community agencies.

National trends away from utilization of state operated schools have forced schools

to reevaluate their mission and role, and to restructure their programs to meet the

needs of their state. Many have had to adjust their programs in response to public

policy changes and national trends. State operated special schools, in general, are

serving smaller populations than in past years, yet services offered are more

diverse, specialized and demanding. Many state schools have become the focal point

for development of programs for the more multiply handicapped and other students

more difficult for local districts to serve. In addition, a major emphasis of state

operated agencies in many states has been on providing comprehensive centralized

resources upon which local district programs can draw for many purposes, such as

diagnostic support, curriculum materials, and training for teachers and parents.

ASDB Could Do More To Meet The

Needs Of The Multiply Handicapped

In response to the changing role ASDB now finds itself in, ASDB should expand efforts

to meet the educational needs of sensory impaired students who have other

handicapping conditions. Our consultants found that ASDB should increase the

number of its mu1 t i ply handicapped admissions and assist local districts in meeting

the needs of multiply handicapped students served locally.

Both the Tucson and Phoenix campus deviate from the national norms regarding the

percentage of multiply handicapped students. Nationally, 29 percent of hearing

impaired students ( " have additional conditions, generally mental handicaps,

that require educational accommodations. Although the Tucson campus reports that

46.5 percent of its students have additional handicapping conditions, this percentage

is largely attributable to a high percentage of students reported to have

emotional- behavior problems. A t the same time, the Tucson campus reports a

relatively low rate for mental retardation ( 4.7 percent). In addition, the Phoenix

campus reports few multiply handicapped students. After reviewing student profile

data on current ASDB students, the consultants concluded ASDB should be serving

more students with mental handicaps.

No significant data were a v a i l a b l e f o r the visually impaired.

The low number of handicapped students at the Phoenix campus may be partly

attributable to the absence of any special program for multiply handicapped students

in Phoenix. ASDB has recognized this gap in services and has requested funding to

develop a program in Phoenix.

Moreover, ASDB's more general admission criteria may indicate a reluctance to

admit severely multiply handicapped students. According to our consultants, these

criteria do not state admissions criteria in measurable terms, nor do they set forth

other handicapping conditions that would be admissible. Some other schools, by

contrast, have established clear and measurable admissions criteria and work more

closely with local districts to evaluate and meet the needs of the multiply

handicapped. ASDB's vague criteria may reflect an underlying fear that the school

could become a " custodial facility" for students who cannot clearly show they could

benefit from the school's educational programs.

As noted by our consultants, however, in many cases ASDB has better qualified

personnel and resources than local districts for meeting the needs of students who

have additional handicapping conditions. The school should be more open to

admissions of these students. ' ) Our consultants do not envision that this

change would make ASDB a " custodial facility" because the total number of such

students needing services should be small, at least for the near future.

ASDB Needs To Expand Its

Role As A Statewide Resource

According to our consultants, ASDB should develop its role as a statewide resource to

the public school community. The school needs to redirect its programs and develop

a variety of services that would be useful to local districts. In addition, it needs to

develop links to local districts, and a strategic plan that identifies its place in the

spectrum of programs and services serving the sensory impaired.

( I ) I n the absence of a developed program a t ASDB, l o c a l d i s t r i c t s must e i t h e r place

severely m u l t i p l y handicapped students i n p r i v a t e programs o r , i n a t l e a s t one case,

pay ASDB f o r speci a1 programming. ADE provided Paradise Valley School D i s t r i c t

federal funds to pay ASDB i n excess of $ 44,000 for one semester to admit and develop

programming f o r a severe1 y mu1 ti pl y handi capped sensory impai red student. The

student i s now e n r o l l e d i n ASDB's ADTEC program.

Redirect and develop programs - While the quality of existing services provided by

ASDB are excellent and should be maintained, the school could play a leadership role

in developing new efforts to meet the needs of the sensory impaired statewide.

ASDB should develop innovative programs and provide a variety of technical services

to local districts.

Expanding programs and services beyond the main campuses would be consistent with

the regional services concept established by Senate Bill 1251 enacted in 1987. Some

examples of these programs and services follow.

0 Expansion of ASDB's Arizona Diagnostic Treatment and Education Center

( ADTEC) Services - ASDB's ADTEC facility could continue to assist in

evaluation and assessments. The consultants point out that ADTEC is the agency

with the appropriate resources for providing services to the more severely

handicapped sensory impaired students who do not have access to adequate

services in the local education authority.

0 Parent and family education programs - The School could establish parent and

family education programs that would be beneficial for families living far from

the main campuses. Such programs would enable families to acquire knowledge

and skills needed to support and complement their children's education. Similar

programs have been established at Gallaudet University and other special schools

throughout the country.

0 Early identification of minority sensory impaired students - The consultants

suggest that increased attention should to be devoted to minority sensory

impaired students. This could be achieved through early identification programs

and the development of creative programs within the studentst home districts.

In addition, ASDB could play a leadership role in bringing educational

opportunities to sensory impaired Native Americans. ASDB is the only special

school in the country with significant numbers of such students to pioneer in both

on- campus and outreach programs.

0 Extended school year - ASDB could develop programs to make broader use of

existing campus facilities. Such programs would make the Phoenix and Tucson

campuses available for summer programs in independent living training for the

sensory impaired, teacher training and workshops.

e In- service training - Programs could provide training for support service

personnel who work with the sensory impaired ( e. g., counselors, psychologists,

social workers, etc.).

( I Development of special curricula and materials for use in public schools.

e Support services for local district programming - ASDB could provide assistance

to LEAS. The programs could include workshops to share information and

practices helpful in teaching content areas such as mathematics and social

studies, access to computer bulletin boards and electronic mail network systems,

and the development of extracurricular activities such as outdoor education,

music, drama and the arts.

Links needed - ASDB needs to develop closer ties to the educational community i t

serves. The consultants noted that if the school intends to be responsive to its

constituencies, it must overcome its isolation from the traditional campus setting

and develop links with community service agencies, local districts and other State

agencies, including the Arizona Department of Education.

Although ASDB has excellent programs, in the past it has operated autonomously

from the larger educational community. According to our consultants, the Schoolls

commitment to the tenets of Public Law 94- 142 has been " inconsistent and

arbitrary." The result has been a tentative and often strained relationship between

ASDB and other educational agencies rather than positive and professional

collaboration. As we note in Finding 1, ( page 11) communication with local districts

has been poor, and coordination and cooperation with the Arizona Department of

Education has been lacking.

There are several ways ASDB could improve links with the educational community.

Our consultants recommend that ASDB work more closely with local school districts

in placement decisions, and develop agreements with local schools to provide

placement options for ASDB students in integrated public school settings. These

efforts would promote dialogue between ASDB and local districts.

Other ways ASDB could develop linkages with other agencies follow.

e ASDB could work closely with local districts and the Arizona Department of

Education on problems with the voucher funding process.

e Working with the State vocational rehabilitation services, post- secondary

education programs and other community agencies would improve transitional

services for students. Students looking for employment, for example, need

counseling and assistance.

a Coordination with the higher education community is needed to provide training

for teachers of the sensory impaired. More teachers are needed to educate

sensory impaired students with additional handicapping conditions.

Development of a strategic plan would be a useful way for ASDB to redefine its

role as part of a larger educational community and to establish a systematic

schedule to achieve its goals. Our consultants noted that ASDB is at a crossroads in

its history and needs to plan its future direction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ASDB should develop programs for the more multiply handicapped sensory

impaired students. In addition, ASDB should establish clear and measurable

admissions criteria for the multiply handicapped, and work more closely with

local districts to evaluate and meet the needs of the multiply handicapped

sensory impaired.

2. ASDB should take the following steps to address its changing mission and role.

a. Provide specialized technical services to the local districts in the areas of

diagnostics and evaluation, in- service training, workshops and

development of extracurricular activities.

b. Develop links with community service agencies, local districts and other

State agencies serving the sensory impaired student. This would allow

ASQB to become a part of the broader educational community.

c. Implement new programs and provide technical services to local school

districts. Programs should include family education programs for families

who live beyond the radius of the main campus, and outreach programs for

sensory impaired minority students.

d. Provide campus programs year round. ASDB could make the campus

available for summer programs in independent living training, vocational

training, work study experience, family education, and vocational training

for sensory impaired adults.

FINDING IV

ASDB'S BOARD NEEDS TO BE RESTRUCTURED TO IMPROVE

COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOL COMMUNITY

Restructuring the Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) Board of

Directors should improve coordination and relationships with the broader

educational community that ASDB serves. In contrast to practices in other states,

ASDB's links to the broader educational community are weak. In addition, the

board's quorum requirement needs to be amended to reduce the board's vulnerability

to open meeting law violations.

Changing Role Requires

More Coordination

ASDB's changing mission and role indicates a need to strengthen links and

relationships to the educational community that ASDB serves. As noted in Finding

Ill ( page 25), in the future ASDB should move increasingly toward serving as a

Statewide resource to public schools. ASDB should become more involved in

assisting local districts in developing and improving the quality of their programs for

the sensory impaired. This will require greater knowledge of local programs, and

on- going communication and interaction with the broader educational community.

State and Federal laws governing admissions of students also indicate a need for

more coordination and communication with the educational community. Public Law

94- 142 enacted in 1975, and State laws that followed in subsequent years, require

establishment of guidelines governing admissions, knowledge of program options

available, and coordination between local districts and ASDB. Currently, a lack of

communication and coordination exists, as evidenced by the fact that more than 274

students are enrolled at ASDB without their local districts' knowledge ( see Finding I,

page 11). The requirements of Public law 94- 142 and the need i t creates for

multijurisdictional coordination were not in effect when ASDB was established in

1929.

Other states have recognized the need to develop strong links between their schools

for the sensory impaired and the educational community. In fact, 60 percent of

state supported special schools throughout the country are under the organizational

authority and direction of the state education agency. Special schools have found

this reporting relationship especially beneficial in monitoring compliance with least

restrictive environment requirements of Federal law ( see Finding 1, page 11). In

addition, this interaction facilitates stronger communication between the special

school and the local districts.

ASDB Board Needs

To Be Restructured

ASDB's current governance structure does not provide adequate links with the

educational community. Neither the Arizona Department of Education nor other

public education representatives participate on ASD B's board of directors. In

contrast, other states have established stronger relationships with the educational

community through their governance structures.

Educational community not represented - Neither the Arizona Department of

Education ( ADE) nor other educational representatives actively participate on

ASDB's board. Currently, the board consists of five appointed members. The

Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction also serve ex- officio;

however, neither attend board meetings. School statutes do not require that any of

the appointed members of the board represent the educational community, nor that

members be knowledgeable in the area of education of the sensory impaired.

Representation from the Arizona Department of Education is necessary. Public Law

94- 142 requires the State educational agency to adopt, monitor and enforce all laws

regarding placements in special schools. Membership of an ADE official on the

board of directors could help ensure communication, and proper enforcement and

compliance of all applicable Federal and State laws. In fact, recognizing the need

for Arizona Department of Education participation, ASDB created an ex- officio,

nonvoting board position for a representative of ADE based in Tucson. However,

this ADE representative does not often attend board meetings, in part because of

scheduling conflicts, lack of voting privileges, and her limited role.

Arizona could amend the current statutes and provide for the Superintendent of

Public Instruction to appoint a designee to serve on the board. This would give ADE

a meaningful role on the board and resolve the scheduling conflicts faced by the

Superintendent with her many responsibilities.

An additional option is to enlarge the board and specify representation that could

include the public special education community, other experts in the field of

education of the sensory impaired, and parents. This is a common practice among

the other states with boards. Most of these boards are larger, ranging in size from

seven to 30 members, and require specific board representation. For example, the

two Texas boards each consist of three sensory impaired members, three parents,

and three professional educators. Mississippi's board includes a parent of a deaf

child, a parent of a blind child, and professionals in both the hearing and visually

handicapped field. Similar requirements or modifications could be considered in

Arizona.

Quorum Requirement

Needs To Be Increased

ASDB's low quorum requirement also needs to be increased to reduce the board's

vulnerability to open meeting law violations. Raising the quorum requirement would

have the additional benefit of increasing meeting attendance and board member

participation.

A. R. S. Section 915- 1322. C establishes that two members of the board constitute a

quorum. In this regard, ASDB's statutes differ from the general provisions of A. R. S.

91- 216.8 which provides that a majority of a board shall constitute a quorum, unless

expressly declared otherwise by law ( as in the case of ASDB). If these general

provisions were applicable, ASDB's quorum requirement would be four members.

A two- member quorum makes the ASDB board very vulnerable to open meeting law

violations. The provisions of A. R. S. 938- 431 et. seq. require that boards and

commissions post notices of official meetings, establish agendas, and keep minutes

available for public inspection. If two ASDB board members converse over any

agency business - whether over the telephone, at dinner, or while traveling to and

from meetings - the two members may constitute a meeting of the board, and all

the attendant requirements of the open meeting law must be met. The best way to

eliminate this potential vulnerability is to increase the quorum requirement.

According to ASDB officials, the school had intended to seek legislation to increase

the quorum requirement, but the change was somehow overlooked.

Increasing the board's quorum requirement may have the additional benefit of

improving attendance at board meetings. Over the past two years, attendance at

board meetings has been poor. A review of board minutes showed that an average of

only three members attended board meetings. A t six meetings, only two members

were present to discuss and vote on such important matters as the schaol's budget

and contracts for professional services.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Legislature should consider:

r enlarging the size of ASDB's board from the present five appointed

members

r allowing the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a designee to

serve on the Board with full voting rights

r specifying other representation requirements for appointed members who

could include public school representatives, professionals in the field of

education of the sensory impaired, and parents

2. The Legislature should amend A. R. S. 51322. C to provide that a majority of the

board shall constitute a quorum.

3. As an alternative, the Legislature may wish to consider placing ASDB under the

organizational direction and authority of the Arizona Department of Education.

FINDING V

FINANCIAL CONTROLS OVER SOME EXPENDITURES

SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED

Financial controls over expenditures should be strengthened. The Arizona State

School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) has not adequately controlled disbursements

from its Trust Fund accounts. In addition, ASDB administrators filed travel claims

for reimbursements for dinners that had previously been paid by Trust Fund monies.

As of July 1987, ASDB has approximately $ 1.25 million in Trust Funds. The earnings

from the trusts ( in excess of $ 122,000 for fiscal year 1985- 86) are used for several

accounts. Generally, trust fund earnings are used to finance the following.

o staff professional development

0 residence hall refurbishing

o development and improvement of recreational programs

0 design and construction of campus playgrounds

0 Board of DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund

The budgets for these accounts are established by ASDB's superintendent and two

associate superintendents. The budgets are then submitted to ASDB's board of

directors for review and approval.

Trust Fund Expenditures Are

Not Adequately Controlled

Expenditures from ASDB's trust funds lack sufficient control. Several expenditures

appear to be questionable or excessive in nature. The board of directors has not

adopted specific guidelines for spending Trust Fund monies.

Some expenditures appear inappropriate - Some expenditures from ASDB's Board

of DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund may be questionable or excessive in

nature. A review of ASDB's accounting files for the past two fiscal years revealed

the following expenditures.

0 Relish tray $ 50 - The superintendent purchased a relishlluncheon tray for his

mother- in- law in lieu of flowers in memory of her husband.

Sympathy bouquet ($ 51) - The superintendent purchased a floral bouquet for the

executive director of an outside foundation. The superintendent justified the

expense as a " board precedent."

Memorial bouquet ($ 77) - The superintendent purchased a floral arrangement in

memory of a former ASDB superintendent's wife. The superintendent justified

the expense as a " board precedent."

Silver retirement trays ($ 545) - According to ASDB's superintendent, employees

with at least 10 years of service may receive this retirement gift. The

superintendent justified the expense as an ASDB custom.

Dinner for NAC members 1 ) ($ 822) - ASDB's superintendent hosted a

dinner for 33 people, including the spouses of several ASDB employees, board

members and a NAC team member. The bill included $ 192 for 16 bottles of

wine. The superintendent justified the expense citing N A C requirements for

such events.

Workshop dinner ($ 127) - The director of the Phoenix Day School for the Deaf

( PDSD) hosted a dinner for agency staff participating at summer workshops held

on the PDSD campus. He was reimbursed for the dinner from PDSD's

D iscret ionary Trust Fund account.

Workshop dinner ($ 100) - The superintendent purchased dinner for ASDB staff

attending a communications workshop in Tucson. The expense was reimbursed

through the Board of DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund.

Lunch meeting ($ 40) - The superintendent met with the director of the

Foundation for the Blind and paid for the meal out of the Board of

DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund.

Lunch meeting ($ 39) - The superintendent met with Arizona Department of

Education officials and paid for the meal out of the Board of

DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund.

( l ) NAC i s the National Accreditation Council f o r Agencies Serving the B l i n d and

Visual 1 y Handicapped.

In addition, ASDB's board of directors usually precedes its regularly scheduled

meetings with a dinner. As many as sixteen people may attend the dinners: five

board members, ASDB's superintendent, two associate superintendents, six ASDB

directors, one assistant director and the personnel officer. The dinners are paid out

of the Board of Directorslsuperintendent Discretionary Fund. The following table

summarizes Board dinner expenses for the past two fiscal years.

TABLE 4

ASDB BOARD OF DIRECTORS DINNER EXPENSES

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985- 86 AND 1986- 87

( unaud i ted)

Fiscal Year 1985- 86 Amount

Fiscal Year 1986- 87 Amount

Cost Per Person ( a )

Cost Per Person ( 3 )

( a) Based on 16 people attending each dinner. However, according to ASDB board minutes, an

average of only three board members attended regularly scheduled meetings. As a

r e s u l t , the cost per person could be higher.

Source: Compiled by Auditor General staff from ASDB accounting files for fiscal

years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87.

According to the table, these dinner expenses range from $ 5 per person to $ 27.19

per person. The more expensive dinners seem excessive when compared to the

Department of Administration's ( DOA) per diem dinner limitation of $ 10.

No specific guidelines for trust fund expenditures - ASDB's board of directors has

not established sufficient financial controls over expenditures from Trust Fund

accounts. "' For example, the board's Trust Fund expenditure policy, revised

in 1984, describes the Board of DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund purpose

as " to defray expenses of certain events or items deemed appropriate . . . by the

Board of Directors or Superintendent." As previously discussed, the board approves

a lump sum for the account but does not conduct periodic reviews of expenditures to

verify their propriety.

Improper Travel Claims

Were Filed

ASDB administrators filed erroneous travel claims during the past two fiscal years.

On 14 occasions, ASDB's superintendent and two associate superintendents

submitted travel claims seeking reimbursement for dinner when they did not incur

any out- of- pocket expenses. These dinners were purchased by the superintendent

and charged to the Board of DirectorslSuperintendent Discretionary Fund. In

effect, the administrators were reimbursed for their dinners from the Discretionary

Fund and should not have filed a claim with the DOA. When questioned by Auditor

General staff, the individuals agreed they erred and said that restitution would be

made. The following table summarizes the occurrences.

( ' 1 I n a d d i t i o n , ASDB4s 1 atest Auditor General f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t ( August 1987) found

other accounting weaknesses. Duties o f maintaining bank accounts and cash drawers

s t i l l are not segregated. This deficiency was a l s o p o i n t e d o u t i n an Auditor

General l e t t e r o f recommendations t o ASDB dated August 1982.

TABLE 5

FREQUENCY OF DUPLICATE REIMBURSEMENTS BY ASDB ADMINISTRATORS

FEBRUARY 1986 THROUGH MAY 1987

Administrator Number of Occurrences Amount

Super i n tenden t 4

Assoc. Super. for Curriculum 7

Assoc. Super. for Business - 3

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from ASDB accounting records

for f i sca I years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ASDB's board of directors should increase financial controls over Trust Fund

expenditures by:

a. Adopting specific guidelines for purchases from the Board of

DirectorsISuperintendent Discretionary Fund.

b. Requiring the superintendent to report all expenditures from the

Discretionary Fund at each regularly scheduled board meeting.

2. In any case where meals are purchased with trust funds, the board of

directors should consider using DOA per diem limits as a guideline for

reasonable expenditures.

3. The board of directors should require the superintendent and associate

superintendents to reimburse ASDB for the amounts erroneously claimed for

dinner expenses.

FINDING VI

ASDB'S FOOD SERVICE BUILDING IS A SAFETY AND HEALTH HAZARD

The Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB) Food Service building is

a hazard to public safety and health. The poor condition of the building constitutes a

potential liability to the State. Therefore, the State should correct the problems as

soon as possible.

ASDB's food service building, which is at least 50 years old, is used extensively by

students and staff. According to the food service supervisor, a maximum of 259

students and staff use the facility during meals. Food service staff use the building

to prepare more than 550 meals a day during the week. In addition, live- in bus

drivers are housed directly above the dining area.

Condition Of Food Service

Building Puts State A t Risk

The food service building is in serious disrepair, and presents a threat to the health

and safety of both students and staff who use it."' The State could be financially

liable for any injuries caused by accidents resulting from the building's condition.

Food service building in poor condition - Many of the building's components are

either deteriorating or inadequate. The problems fall in one of the following four

categories: 1) structural, 2) electrical, 3) fire control and 4) plumbing. Inspection

reports issued by an engineering firm and the Department of Administration's ( DOA)

Loss Control Section indicate that replacement of the facility is the best alternative

for correcting those problems.

Structure - The foundation of ASDB's food service building is deteriorating. This

presents a safety hazard to the students and staff who use the facility.

0 A beam in the building's foundation directly beneath the kitchen and preschool

area is cracked. In addition, the bases of supports placed under the cracked

Since the completion of the a u d i t , t h e school's auditorium has been closed because of

s t r u c t u r a l problems. School o f f i c i a l s are uncertain i f the b u i l d i n g can be r e p a i red

or i f i t must be replaced.

beam are spalling. Several engineering reports document the building's

structural problems. One report, dated May 1987, notes that " cracks were seen

along a horizontal support beam and the ceiling." According to another report,

dated August, 1984, continued support cracking will result in a redistribution of

weight on the other building supports and other structural elements. This will

place undue stress on those building supports. As a result, there may be a danger

of the building collapsing. Also, the consultants are concerned about a cracking

concrete beam. This beam's failure could also cause the building's collapse. The

report recommends " that immediate planning be commenced to construct a new

facility and vacate and demolish the existing building in the near future."

Electrical System - The building's electrical system is also faulty. This increases the

chance for fire or electrical shock.

According to DOA Facilities Management, the load on the electrical system

appears to exceed capacity. Moreover, a water leak directly above electrical

light fixtures in the dish room causes water to collect inside these fixtures.

These conditions create potential fire and shock hazards. The facility's lack of

sufficient electrical capacity also forces the removal of existing equipment when

new equipment is installed, to maintain the proper electrical load.

Fire Control - The food service building's fire control system is also inadequate. This

constitutes a safety hazard for the building's occupants.

a The building's alarm system is substandard. Further, exit signs, emergency lights

and fire extinguishers and a fire hose are either missing or misplaced. As a

result, people inside the building might have difficulty evacuating the building

and are inadequately protected from fire. The threat of serious injury is

increased because most of the building's occupants have sensory impairments.

Plumbing - The building's plumbing is also deteriorating. As a result, there is a

potential for a public health hazard.

Only one of the building's three sewer lines is still functioning, and it handles all

the building's sewage. Moreover, ASDBts food service Supervisor suspects that

the remaining sewer line may be deteriorating beneath the food serving line. He

also stated that a break in the sewer line would force closure of the facility's

remaining restrooms and could force temporary closure of the entire facility i f

sewage were to back up onto the floor.

FIGURE 1

CRACK IN BEAM IN FOUNDATION

OF ASDB'S FOOD SERVICE BUILDING

FIGURE 2

< H41R" 6" QN4; AND CRACKING AROUND BASE

, "" lf2POHT PLACED BENEATH CRACKED BEAM

State would be held liable for injury - The State faces potential financial liability

because of the condition of ASDB's food service building. Because the building is in

poor condition there is the chance for death, injury or illness. Since the building is

used heavily, such an accident could involve many students and staff. According to

an official from the Insurance Section of D 0 A's Risk Management Division, because

the State is aware of the safety and health hazards and has not corrected them, i t

could be held liable for any injuries resulting from these hazards.

State Should Take

Corrective Action

The State should immediately take steps to correct the problems with ASDB's food

service building. Although there is general agreement that the building should be

replaced, ASDB can take interim steps to improve the building's safetl

ASDB officials have done a good job of preventive maintenance on r,. e food service

building; however, the building needs to be replaced. The Loss Control report

commended ASDB for its efforts to maintain the building, but both i t and a report

issued by Facilities Management suggest that the facility be replaced. Further,

interviews with Executive Budget Office and Joint Legislative Budget Committee

officials indicate a concensus that the building should be replaced, though an official

from Loss Control stated that the current facility can be used while the new building

is constructed. The estimated cost of a new building is $ 1.7 million.

ASDB officials requested replacement funds in fiscal years 1986- 87 and 1987- 88. Is

date, the State has appropriated $ 90,000 for the design of a new facility, and ASD2

has issued a request for proposals for an architect. Further, the State appropriated

an additional $ 301,000 in building renewal funds in fiscal year 1986- 87, which ASDB

could use to correct the fire safety inadequacies. Approximately $ 1.6 million more

will be needed to complete construction of the building.

Until the new facility is built, ASDB should take actions to reduce the chance for

accidents in the food service building. ASDB should implement safety

recommendations made by DOA's Loss Control section after a recent inspection

tour. The most important of these are:

e installation of class A fire alarm systems on the first and second floors

a installation of emergency lights and exit signs in the corridor of the second floor

dormitory

a repair of the water leak above the light fixture in the first floor dish room

a recharging and conspicuous placement of fire extinguishers on the second floor

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Legislature should appropriate the funds necessary to replace ASDB's food

service building as soon as possible.

2. The State should immediately correct:

m inadequate fire alarms, emergency lighting and exit signs

0 water leak above light fixture

e uncharged or poorly placed fire extinguishers

e other problems identified in the Loss Control report

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

During the course of our audit, we developed other pertinent information in the

following areas: 1) The Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind ( ASDB)

staffing levels and 2) ASDB's organizational climate. The information on staffing

levels was developed at the request of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

ASDB's Staffing Levels Appear Consistent

With Other Special Schools

ASD B's teacher and administrative staffing levels appear consistent with other state

schools for the sensory impaired. ASDB has 70 full- time teaching positions ( ' ) for

its hearing handicapped programs and 18 full- time teaching positions for its visually

handicapped programs. For the 1986- 87 school year, ASDB's enrollment was 599

students. This results in a student to teacher ratio of greater than 6 to 1. When

compared to other states responding to an Auditor General staffing survey, ( 2 )

ASDB has the highest student per teacher ratio. This information is summarized in

Table 6. Moreover, ASD B's percentage of administrative positions is consistent with

other states with combined schools for the deaf and the blind.

( ' ) These f u l l time teaching positions are academic teaching positions and do not

include a r t , music, physical education, vocational education or other non academic

teaching positions.

(') Auditor General s t a f f sent surveys to 14 states with special schools and received

responses from 11 s t a t e s .

TABLE 6

STUDENT TO TEACHER RATIOS

AT STATE SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF OR THE BLIND

1986- 87 SCHOOL YEAR

Programs for the Hearing Handicapped

Ful I Time

State Enrollment Teachers ( a) Teacher- Rat i o

Cal i f o r n i a - R ( b )

West V i r g i n i a

F l o r i d a

Colorado

Kansas

Minnesota

Washington

Kentucky

Cal i f o r n i a - F ( c )

AR I ZONA( d)

Program for the Visually Handicapped

State

South Dakota

West V i r g i n i a

Kansas

Texas

Ok l ahoma

Mi nnesota

Colorado

Washington

F l o r i d a

AR l ZONA

Enrollment

Ful I Time

Teachers

Student/

Teacher Rat i o

( a ) D i r e c t classroom i n s t r u c t i o n o n l y . Does not i n c l u d e p h y s i c a l

education, music, a r t o r vocational education teachers.

( b) C a l i f o r n i a School f o r the Deaf, Riverside campus

( c ) C a l i f o r n i a School f o r the Deaf, Fremont campus.

( d) Enrollment f i g u r e does not i n c l u d e students i n ADTEC and outreach

programs.

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from survey

responses o f various s t a t e special school

superintendents.

ASDB's total staffing level ( 456.9 full- time equivalent employees) is the highest

when compared to combined schools for the deaf and the blind in Colorado, Florida,

Minnesota and West Virginia. However, its 8 percent of administrative staff

positions is about average among the four combined schools responding. Table 7

compares ASDB's administrative staffing levels to other states with combined

schools for the deaf and the blind.

TABLE 7

ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS AT OTHER STATE

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

Admi n . Total % Admin. of Students/

State Pos i t ions S t a f f Total S t a f f Admin. Pos.

Mi nnesota 6.00 196.00 3.06

West V i r g i n i a 21 . OO 234.00 8.97

Florida 40.00 444.00 9.01

Colorado 16.00 176.00 9.09

AR l ZONA 38.00 456.90 8.36

Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from responses o f s t a t e

special school administrators.

Although the percentage of ASDB's staff classified as administrative appears to be

in line with other state schools for the sensory impaired, a realignment of certain

positions at ASDB's Tucson campus may need further study. For example, the

Department for the Deaf at ASDB's Tucson campus has three principals for 181

students, while Phoenix Day School for the Deaf has two principals for 192 hearing

impaired students. However, according to the consultants hired by our office, an

agencywide review of staff responsibilities and duties would be necessary to

determine accurate staffing needs.

Employees Identified

Upper Management Problems

A survey of ASDB employees disclosed that personnel working in the school are

dissatisfied with several aspects of their work environment. Employees expressed

the most concern with communication within the school, personnel policies and

practices, and the Superintendent's management style.

As part of our audit, we administered an organizational climate survey to solicit

employee attitudes and concerns that could impact the School's efficiency and

effectiveness. Employees were asked to express agreement or disagreement with 20

statements about the work environment at ASDB. An opportunity for open ended

comments was also provided. A random sample of 200 of ASDB's 600 employees

received the questionnaires. One hundred twenty ( 60 percent) responded to the

survey. See Appendix II for a technical discussion of the survey methodology,

analytic techniques and results.

Responses to the questionnaire indicated employee dissatisfaction and concern in

the following areas. ( 1 )

a Communication - employees tended to feel that they do not receive enough

information from top management and that management does not listen to the

recommendations of qualified staff personnel.- Employees also expressed

dissatisfaction with the amount of cooperation among various programs within

the school. As a group, ASDB faculty members expressed stronger concern in

this area than other employees.

a Personnel policies and practices - Employee responses indicated

dissatisfaction with school personnel policies and a lack of knowledge of

grievance procedures. In addition, employees tended to view the ASDB's

Management By Objectives ( M BO) process as ineffective. Open ended comments

suggested the MBO process, although good in theory, was not being applied in a

useful way.

I n a d d i t i o n , o u r consultants i n d i c a t e d t h a t there were many expressions o f concern

regarding ASDB's management. These included ( a) some on- campus personnel as well as

parents consider the s t r u c t u r e t o be " top heavy;" ( b) some described t h e t o p

management's sty1 e as heavy- handed and non- parti c i p a t o r y ; ( c ) of f- campus

organizations and agencies described the ASDB management s t y l e as not conducive t o

e f f e c t i v e communication.

a Superintendent's style - Responses to several questions and open ended

comments related to upper management indicated dissatisfaction with the

superintendent's managk'ment and leadership style. Employees lacked

confidence in the fairness and honesty of management. Many employees,

including faculty and administrators, expressed concern about the

superintendent's style of management, which was described by some as

" authoritarian" or " dictatorial."

Finally, although not mentioned as frequently as an area of concern, some

employees also expressed dissatisfaction with ASDB's physical plant, facilities and

equipment.

WR l TTEN RESPONSES TO THE AUD l TOR GENERAL ' S REPORT

ARIZONA STATE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

0

ARIZONA STATE SCHOOL

for the DEAF and the BLIND

-- --

BARRY L. GRIFFING, Ed. D., Superintendent

October 8, 1987

Mr. Douglas Norton

Auditor General

2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Dear Mr. Norton:

Attached are responses from the Board of Directors to the audit

conducted on the performance of the Arizona State School for the

Deaf and the Blind.

We believe that the review was inadequate in several ways. It

is our belief that the review did not sufficiently study areas

of concern. There was virtually no study of issues with the

Board of Directors, the Superintendent, Associate Superinten-dents,

or Program Directors. Additionally, staff were unwilling

to meet with us even upon our request and scheduling meetings to

do so.

The study employed a team of outside consultants to assist with

the review. While this may be a standard procedure in such re-views,

it remains to be explained why the outside consultants'

visit was not scheduled with the Board of Directors or with

school officials. The work of the consultants had no input from

either the Board of Directors, the Superintendent or Associates.

Most Program Directors did not even know they were in Arizona

and aiding the review of ASDB.

In our judgment, these oversights created obvious process bias

which then skewed the findings and results of the review. Recom-mendations

based upon partial or insufficient data generally

prove to be biased and inaccurate.

Findings and recommendations in No. 1 and No. 2 tend to be a

result of the bias and error of an inadequate review. These are

very complex legal, program, and children's rights issues which

certainly warranted a quality review. The ASDB Board of Direc-tors

and school officials do not deny these issues are problem

areas which require proper resolution; however, solutions from

the audit review appear to be based upon a biased, surface study

of the actual issues and with little regard for children's

rights.

1200 West Speedway Boulevard P. O. Box 5545 Tucson, Arizona 85703- 0545 ( 602) 628- 5357

Mr. Douglas Norton

We concur with the general program development and service roles

recommended in Finding No. 3 of the review. We believe that the

MHSSI program and the SIMH program require expansion. Our con-cern

is the context of this finding and its recommendation. The

context conveys that ASDB has not pursued program development

for multiply handicapped sensory impaired children when the

facts demonstrate a program development leadership role by the

Board of Directors and school officials for several vears.

Similarly, this finding fails to acknowledge the resource servic-es

role( s) advocated by the ASDB Board of Directors. The consul-tant

team's recommendations are appropriate, but apparently did

not bother to ascertain the school's policy position in this re-gard.

In other words, had we been asked, the context of this

recommendation could have been more appropriate.

Findings No. 4 and No. 5 and the recommendations suggests appro-priate

areas of review and consideration; but as with most of

the other areas, the study included almost no input from the

Board of Directors and school officials. The context of these

issues is inadequate as a public report.

We were, frankly, disappointed that the audit did not address or

reference the comprehensive facility issues confronting ASDB on

the Tucson campus. We certainly concur with replacing the kitch-en

complex, but believe an adequate study on facility issues

would have, and should have, led to far more comprehensive recom-mendations.

In summary, Mr. Norton, we were disappointed in the way in which

the audit was conducted and with its failure to study issues ade-quately.

We had sincerely hoped that the audit would put cer-tain

issues into a proper context; and would develop appropriate

findings and recommendations. It is particularly disheartening

to be reviewed for performance and to be cast in a context or

reference which conveys that we have not acted in a responsible

manner.

L o c a l S c h o o l Districts Are Not A d e q u a t e &

I n v o l v e d In--' I+ he P l a c e m e n t o f S t u d e n t s A t ASUB

T h ? r e h a s b e e n , a n d continues t o b e , some c o n t r o v e r s y l n v ~ r -

t u a l l y e v e r y s t a t e r e g z r d i n g t h e p t o v ~ s l o n s o f f e d e r a l l a w l n

r e q a r d s t o ? e n s t r e s t r l c t ~ v o e n v i r o n m e n t ( a . k . a . mainstream-r

n g ) . The l s s u e s 2s t o p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l Idw ( P . L .

9 4 1 4 2 ) , r e l a t e d f e d e r a l regulations, e n t e r m e s h e d w l t h e x l s t ~ n g

: t a t e s t a t u t e s , d o e s p o s e a c o m p l e x s e t o f i s s u e s . T h i s t o p i c

1s c u r t e n t l y 3 m a l o r i s s u e b e f o r e n C o n q r e s s i o n a l C o r n m i s ~ i ~ o~ nn

t h e Education o f t h e U e a f .

The n a r r d t l v e ~ n t h s s s e c t l o n s t a t e s t h a t " ASDE's a s s c r t ~ o n o f

a d m i s s i o n s a u t o n o m y i s S O s t e a d f a s t t h a t t h e s c h o o l h ~ dsef ied

t h e A r l z o n a D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t r o n i n t h r e e c a s e s l n w h i c h t h e

ADE h a s d i s a g r e e d with i t s a d m l s s l o n d e c l s l o n s . . . I I Use o f t h e

word " d e f ~ e d " i s incorrect l n t h a t we h a v e s o u g h t t o s e c u r e

p o l l c y t l a r l f t c a t i o n a n d t o s e c u r e l e g a l g u l d a n c e w l t h t h e

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e r n t h e t h r e e c a s e s r e f e r e n c e d . We do

n o t a g r e e w ~ t ht h e l e g a l b a s l s u p o n w h l c h t h e v o u c h e r s w e r e d l s -

a p p r o v e d . I n t h e s e e a s e s , t h e disapproval a p p e a r s t o b e c o n -

t r a r y t o w h a t t h e f e d e r a l l a w r e q u l r e s o f a n a d m i s s i ~ n p r o c e -

d u r e , disregards " a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s " o f LEA o p t 1 o n s , a n d d l s r e -

q a r d s t h e o v e r r l d l n g r u l e o f a p p l i c a t l a n a s s e t f o r t h l n C . F . R .

3 0 0 . 5 5 2 a n d explanations i n comment sections. The r u l e m a n d 3 t e c

p r i m a r y r o n s i d e r a t ~ o n b e g l v e n t o t h e i n d l v r d u a l c h l l d ' s n e e d c .

T h e s e w a r r a n t a particular p l a c e m e n t t o p r o v r d e t h e m o s t a p p r o -

p r ~ a t ee n v i r o n m e n t t o r e s p o n d t o s p e c l f l e d n e e d s . The F e d e r a l

r e g u l a t i o n s do n o t c o n t e m p l a t e a simplistic a p p r o a c h t o LRE b y

p l a c l n g c h ~ l d r e nl n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s o r r e q u l a r s c h o o l s . The c o n -

s i d e r a t l o n m u s t a l s o i n c l u d e t h e r e v i e w o f p o t e n t l a l h a r m f u l

e f f e c t s Q t h e c h l l d o r En t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e s e r v l u w h l c h

h e o r s h e n e e d s ( C . F . R . 3 0 0 . 5 5 2 d ) .

A more a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t f o r t h l s i s s u e 1s t o d e s c r i b e t h e s u b -

s t a n t l v e p o l l c y a n d l e g a l l s s u e a b o u t w h l c h t h e r e a r e b a s l c d l s -

a g r e e m e n t s . We f u l l y a g r e e t h a t t h e i s s u e s m u s t b e r e s o l v e d .

The narrative 1s s k e w e d ~ n discussing t h e i s s u e of LEA p a r t i c l p a -

t l o n l n p l a c e m e n t s a t ASDB. W h r l e t h e r e p o r t d o e s n o t e t h a t

ASDB l n s t l t u t e d a p o l l c y o f l n v l t r n g d l s t r l c t representatives t o

p l a c e m e n t meetings, lt 1s l n e r r o r t o s a y s u c h p a r t l c l p a t i o n 1s

o n l y f o r t h r e e - y e a r r e v i e w s .

A more a d e q u a t e r e v i e w i n t o t h r s m a t t e r w o u l d h a v e shown t h a t

ASDB a n d DOE s t a f f a g r e e d on some p r o c e d u r e s t o p r o m o t e a n d

d e v e l o p m u t u a l professional d e c l s l o n s o n m o s t a p p r o p r r a t e p l a c e -

m e n t ; l n f u l l consideration o f p l a c e m e n t o p t i o n s a n d l e a s t r e -

s t r i c t l v e e n v i r o n m e n t r e q u l r e m e n t s . F u r t h e r , t h a t ASDB, i n

f a c t , h a s p r o c e e d e d t o c a r r y o u t l t s p a r t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t f o r

a l l ~ n t a k ee n r o l l m e n t s a n d f o r a l l t h r e e - y e a r r e e v a l u a -

t r o n s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , LEAs w e r e n e v e r a d v l s e d o r c o m m u n l c s t e d

w l t h b y DOE t o f u l l y implement t h l s p o l l c y . DOE was s u p p o s e d t o

p r o v l d e g u l d e l l n e s a n d d l r e c t l o n f o r LEA/ ASDB m u t u a l p l a c e m e n t

proceedings.

I t 1s u n f o r t u n a t e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e a u d l t r e p o r t c h o s e t o u s e l n -

d l v l d u a l s t u d e n t e x a m p l e s o f how ASDB h a s b y p a s s e d d l s t r l c t s r n

p l a c e m e n t s d a t l n g b a c k t o 1 9 7 6 . T h e s e e x a m p l e s a r e f o r t h e m o s t

p a r t f o r s e r v l c e s t o p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n f o r whom t h e r e w e r e no

s e r v l c e s ~ n d l s t r l c t s u n t l l r e c e n t l y . I n f a c t , d l s t r l c t s w e r e

~ r o h l b l t e d f r o m s p e n d l n g d r s t r l c t money f o r p r e s c h o o l c e r v ~ c c s

u n t l l r e c e n t l y . I n o r d e r t o a s s u r e t h a t l o c a l d l s t r l c t s w e r e

d j + J a r e o f handicapped p r e s c h o o l e r s , ASDB a n d ADE a g r e e d t h a t f o r

e v e r y c h l l d r e p o r t e d a n n u a l l y on O c t o b e r 1, t h e d l s t r l c t of r e s l -

d e n c e w o u l d b e ndmed. ADE a g r e e d t o s h a r e t h l s l n f o r m a t l o n w l t h

a l l districts. T h l s p r a c t r c e continues t o d a y a n d t h e ASDB

assumption h a s a l w a y s b e e n t h a t d l s t r r c t s a r e l n f o r m e d o f a l l

p r e s c h o o l e r s t h r o u g h t h l s p r o c e s s .

I t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o b l e m o f n o t l n c l u d l n g d l s -

t r l c t s 1s n o t o n e o f l o n g standing. I n t h e S p r l n g o f 1 9 8 6 , r s s u e

o f LRE a n d d l s t r l c t p a r t i c l p a t r o n was discussed a n d a n a g r e e m e n t

was r e a c h e d f o r f u t u r e - l m p l e m e n t a t l o n :

( 1 . ) ASDB w o u l d l n v ~ t ed l s t r l c t s t o p a r t l c l p a t c ~ n p l a c e m e n t

c o n f e r e n c e s a t a l l ~ n t a k e s a n d t h r e e - y e a r r e e v a l u a t l o n f ( this

w d s ~ m p l e m e n t e d ) . N o n - p a r t l c l p a t l o n b y d l s t r l c t s was d l s c u s k ; e d

a s a c o n c e r n b u t n o t a n o v e r r l d l n g f s c t o r f o r t h e p r o c e s s of

p l a c e m e n t .

( 2 . ) The Multi- D~ sclpllnary C o n f e r e n c e ( M D C ) was a f f ~ r m e dt o b e

t h e g r o u p o f p e o p l e w l t h l n w h l c h a p l a c e m e n t d e c l s l o n was t o b e

m a d e . T h e d l s t r l c t representatives w e r e p a r t l c 1 p n n t . s and p a r t

o f t h e d e c l s l o n f o r p l a c e m e n t . D l s s e n t l n g o p l n l o n s o r v o t e s

w e r e t o b e h a n d l e d a s l n a n y MDC, t h e dissector c o u l d r e p o r t

t h e l r o p ~ n l o n w l t h l n t h e r e c o r d , b u t a d l s s e n t l n g v o t e , e v e n f o r

t h e d l s t r l c t , w o u l d n o t r e v e r s e t h e d e c l s l o n .

( 3 . ) ASDB was t o b e i n v i t e d t o MDCs f o r s e n s o r y i m p a i r e d c h l l -

d r e n i n d i s t r i c t s t o r e v i e w p l a c e m e n t o p t i o n s . ( A s w l t h # 1,

ASDB was n o t r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d o r participate f o r t h e p l a c e m e n t

t o o c c u r . )

( 4 . ) ADE was t o communicate t h e a b o v e a g r e e m e n t w l t h a 1 1 d l s -

t r l c t s v l a w r l t t e n l e t t e r .

ASDB l m p l e m e n t e d # 1 a b o v e l m m e d l a t e l y . ADE ~ m p l e m e n t e d # 2 b y

d l s a p p r o v l n g v o u c h e r s b a s e d on a d l s t r l c t d l s s e n t l n g o p l n l o n

( n o t b a s e d on c h l l d ' s n e e d s ) . ASDB n e v e r p a r t l c l p a t e d w l t h d l s - .

t r l c t s b e c a u s e ADE d l d n o t c o m m u n l c d t e t h r s a g r e e m e n t a s

described l n # 4 . I n J u l y o f 1 9 3 7 , ADE c h a n g e d t h e s c o p e o f # I

dnd # 2 b y r e q u l r l n g d l s t r l c t s t o p a r t l c l p a t e a n d a g r e e w l t h ASDB

p l a c e m e n t a n d communicated t h a t p r o c e s s t o t h e d l s t r l c t s ~ n a

statewide m e e t l n g a n d l e t t e r l n S e p t e m b e r o f 1 9 8 7 . The l a t t e r

c h a n g e i n r e q u i r e m e n t s was d o n e w i t h o u t b e n e f i t of collaboration

o r r e v ~ e w of l m p a c t on t h e p r o c e s s , e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n , o r

b e n e f r t t o d l s t r ~ c t sa nd agencies.

ASDB c a n d e m o n s t r a t e ~ t fsu l l commitment t o p l a c e m e n t c o m p l l -

a n c e , and B good f a l t h e f f o r t t o d e v e l o p c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s

with DOE a n d a 1 1 LEA s t a f f , e s p e c i a l l y i n admissions and p l a c e -

m e n t s .

We 3 r e c o n t ~ n u i n g o u r e f f o r t s t o p r o m o t e and d e v e l o p m u t u a l (; on-s

l d e r a t i o n s of p l a c e m e n t o p t ~ r s n s w l t h LEA p r o q r a m a d m l n ~ s t r a

t o r s . R e c e n t l y , t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e B o a r d , t h e S u p e r l n t e n f ? e n t ,

and s t a f f met w l t h S t a t e Superintendent B l s h o p and h e r s t a f f t o

d e v e l o p a g r e e m e n t s .

We a r e c o n c e r n e d w l t h t h e s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t " some s t u d e n t s may be

a t t e n d ~ n g ASDB who c o u l d be p r o v l d e d a n educational p r o g r a m i n

t h e l r home d l s t r l c t " . I t a p p e a r s t h l s s t a t e m e n t o m i t s c r l t l c a l

c o n s ~ d e r a t r o n s , e . g . , t h e law r e q u i r e s a p r o g r a m t o b e a p p r o p r i ~

ate, and t h e law r e q u l r e s t h a t lt b e b a s e d on a n i n d l v ~ d u a l

c h l l d ' s n e e d s . ASDB p r o g r a m s c o u l d w e l l h a v e b e e n d e t e r m r n e d

f o r individual c h l l d r e n t o be " most appropriate" l n r e f e r e n c e t o

law a n d s t a t e g u l d e i i n e s .

The r e v l e w , ~ . n comparing o n e e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m w l t h a n o t h e r ,

s u g g e s t s t h a t any s e n s o r y l m p a l r e d c h r l d c o u l d b e a p p r o p -

r l a t e l y s e r v e d l n 3 3 p r o g r a m . T h i s p e r c e p t i o n 1s c o m p l e t e l y

c o n t r a r y t o f e d e r a l Law ( C . F . R . 3 0 0 . 5 3 0 - 3 0 0 . 5 3 4 ) w h l c h r e q u i r e s

a means of d e t e r m i n i n g a n i n d i v l d u a l c h i l d ' s n e e d s r e l a t i v e t o

p l a c e m e n t .

I n o r d e r t o o v e r c o m e v a s t l y d l s c r e p a n t p r o g r a m f e a t u r e s , A r i z o n a

n e e d s t o d e v e l o p and p r o m o t e r e q u l r e d minlmum p r o g r a m s t a n d a r d s

l n t h ~ sr e g a r d . ASDB h a s p r o p o s e d p r o g r a m s t a n d a r d s ~ n t h e a r e a

of t h e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e s e n s o r y l m p a l r e d and submitted t h e s e t o

t h e DOE l n 1 9 8 5 . A d d l t l o n a l l y , ASDB h a s , w l t h l n S B - 1 2 5 1 ,

C h a p t e r 3 6 3 ( 1 9 8 7 ) w o r k e d t o w a r d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a d e l l v e r y

s y s t e m w h l c h p r o v l d e s a c c e s s f o r a l l s e n s o r y ~ m p a l r e d c h i l d r e n

t o a l l p r o g r a m o p t l o n s . T h i s s y s t e m w l l l g u a r a n t e e a n a p p r o p r 1 -

a t e p l a c e m e n t o p t l o n f o r e a c h c h i l d .

The r e c o m m e n d a t r o n s associated w i t h F l n d l n g I s h o u l d p r o v i d e a n

a n a l y s l s t o b e d e r l v e d f r o m c h a r g i n g s c h o o l districts t u l t l o n .

Such a n a l y s l s would show t h a t i n many c a s e s children's n e e d s b e -

come s e c o n d a r y t o c o s t s . The recommendations s h o u l d a l s o r e -

f l e c t a c r i t l c a l n e e d f o r ADE and ASDB t o d e v e l o p ~ n t e r g o v e r n -

m e n t a l a g r e e m e n t s t h a t c l e a r l y d e f l n e m u t u a l l y a c c e p t a b l e r o l e s

and p r o c e d u r e s t h a t w i l l a s s u r e c o m p l i a n c e w l t h r e g u l a t i o n s and

q u a l l t y education f o r s e n s o r y l m p a l r e d c h l l d r e n .

ASDB I m p r o p e r l r E n r o l l e d Some N o n r e s i d e n t

- S t u d e n t s T u l t l o n - F r e e

T h e r e a r e two y e a r s o f e f f o r t on t h e p a r t o f ASDB a d m l n ~ s t r a t i o n

a n d B o a r d o f D l r e c t o r s t o a d d r e s s and r e s o l v e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r

~ s s u e . T t I S g r o s s l y ~ n c o r r e c tt o characterize officials a n d

b o a r d memScrs a s u n c o o p e r a t l v e a n d i n " w i l l f u l d l s r e q a r d o f

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s a d v l c e " .

The r e c o r d w o u l d show t h a t t h i s i s s u e was f i r s t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e

s c h o o l a d m l n l s t r a t ~ o n d u r l n g t h e 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 s c h o o l y e a r b y a n a s s i c * -

t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . A f t e r a g e n e r a l discussion, t h e S u p e r i n -

t e n d e n t specifically a s k e d f o r d l r e c t l o n f r o m t h e o f f l c e o f t h e

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l on two ways w h l c h t h e q u e s t i o n c o u l d b e r e -

s o l v e d . F l r s t , we a s k e d t h a t t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e p r o -

vide u s w i t h guidelines o r s u g g e s t e d r e v l s l 3 n s on a d m l s s i o n p o l l -

s i e s w h l c h m l g h t c l a r l f y t h e r e s i d e n c y o f s t u d e n t s who had g u a r d -

l a n s a w a r d e d b y t h e c o u r t s . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

was g r v e n a c o p y o f a a m i s s l o n p o l l c i e s t o d r a f t r e c o m m e n d e d r e v i -

s l o n s o r a m e n d m e n t s . We a r e s t i l l w a l t ~ n g f o r t h a t a s s i s t a n c e

two s c h o o l y e a r s L a t e r .

S e c o n d , we a s k e d t h a t t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f l c e o f f e r s u g -

g e s t e d c h a n g e w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e s ( A . R . S . 1 5 - 1 3 4 6 ) l f t h e s t a t -

u t e s w e r e d e t e r r n ~ n e d t o be ~ n a d e q u a t e t o s a f e g u a r d a l l e g e d

a b u s e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a v o l d l n g t u l t l o n t o t h e s c h o o l a n d

s t a t e . The s c h o o l r e c e l v e d no r e s p o n s e t o e l t h e r o f t h e s e r e

q u e s t s . A t t h e b e g l n n ~ n g o f t h e n e x t s c h o o l y e a r , 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 , t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t l v e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l r e ~ u e s t e dt h a t a b o a r d m e e t i n q

d e a l w i t h t h e l s s u e o f guardianship r e s i d e n c y o f c e r t a l n s t u -

d e n t s t o b e r e e n r o l l e d i n ASDB p r o g r a m s . I n A u g u s t o f 1 9 8 6 , t h e

Superintendent w r o t e t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l r e v i e w i n g o u r p r e v l -

o u s r e q u e s t s f o r l e g a l a s s l s t a n c e , and r e s t a t i n g t h a t we n e e d e d

s p e c l f ~ cr e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s . The r e c o r d of

t h e B o a r d s h o w s t h a t t h e B o a r d o f D r r e c t o r s w e r e p r e p a r e d t o r e -

c e l v e a d v l c e a n d direction f r o m t h e r e p r e s e n t a t l v e A t t o r n e y

G e n e r a l ~ n ways t o amend i t s a d m l s s i o n p o l l c y . The r e p r e s e n t a -

t l v e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f f e r e d no a d v l c e o r d l r e c t l o n o r r e c s m m e n -

d a t l o n s . We a s k e d f o r s u g g e s t e d l a n g u a q e t o amend t h e e x i s t i n g

s t a t u t e . A d d l t l o n a l l y , we a s k e d l n a f o r m a l o p i n i o n r e q u e s t

( R 8 6 - 1 1 4 ) t h a t t h l s l e g a l m a t t e r b e reviewed. To d a t e no r e -

s p o n s e h a s b e e n r e c e l v e d .

A t t h e A u g u s t , 1 9 8 6 , m e e t i n g of t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s , t h e r e p - -

r e s e n t a t l v e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a s s e r t e d t h a t s e v e r a l c h i l d r e n w e r e

illegally e n r o l l e d . C o n t r a r y t o n a r r a t i v e 1n t h i s s e c t i o n o f

t h e r e v i e w , ASDB o f f i c i a l s d i d n o t " c o n t i n u e t h e e n r o l l m e n t p r a c -

t i c e " . I n f a c t , t h e n e x t m o r n i n g , f o l l o w i n g t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c -

t o r s m e e t i n g , t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t n o t i f i e d t h e s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s '

g u a r d i a n s t h a t " e n r o l l m e n t a s a n o n - t u i t i o n s t u d e n t h a d b e e n d e -

t e r m i n e d t o b e l l l e g a l " . I t was q u i t e c l e a r t o t h e S u p e r i n t e n -

d e n t t h a t c o n t i n u e d e n r o l l m e n t w o u l d o n l y e x t e n d t h e

t h r e a t e n e d liability i n s u c h e n r o l l m e n t s .

B l L l l n g guardians f o r t h e t u l t l o n f o r c u r r e n t a n d p a s t e n r o l l -

ment y e a r s a p p e a r e d t o b e a p o l n t o f l e g a l d l s p u t e - on t h e o n e

h a n d t h e representative A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l was a d v l s l n q t h e s c h o o l

t o l s s u e s u c h b l l l l n g s t o g u a r d l a n s / p a r e n t s ; a t t h e s a m e t ~ m e

o t h e r c o u n s e l was a d v l s l n g n o t t o do s o S s s e d o n A . R . S . 1 5 - 1 3 4 6

v h l c h was h e l l e v e d t o b e t h e operative s t a t u t e ~ n s t e a d o f A . R . S .

15 8 2 4 ( B ) ( 2 ) .

R e l a t e d assertions l n t h e d l s c u s s l o n a t t h e A u g u s t B o a r d o f

I l l r e c t o r s m e e t l n g s t a t e d t h a t s o m e o n e on t h e ASUB s t a f f w d s did

11- 19 n a t u r a l p a r e n t s f r o m M e x l c u l n s e c u r l n g g u a r d l a n s h l p s f o r

t h e p u r p o s e o f e s c a p l n g t h e p a y m e n t o f t u l t l o n . Y e t , when t h e

S u p e r l n t e n d e n t o f f e r e d t o l n v e s t l g a t e a n d t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a d m l n -

l s t r a t l v e a c t l o n , t h e A t t c r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f l c e w o u l d n o t , o r

c o u l d n o t , provide a n y ~ n f o r m a t ~ oonr a s s ~ s t a n c e . The B o a r d

President a n d S u p e r l n t e n d e n t a s k e d f o r r d e n t l f ~ c a t l o n o f p e r s o n s

on s t a f f r e p o r t e d t o h a v e a s s r s t e d p a r e n t s a n d q u a r d l a n s .

The r e v l e w f o o t n o t e s t h a t t h e I. N. S. h a s f o r t e n y e a r s s e n t a p -

p l r c a t l o n s t o ASDB a n d o t h e r w i s e a t t e m p t e d t o h a v e t h e s c h o o l

s e c u r e s t u d e n t v l s a s e v e r y y e a r . A g a l n , we h a v e b e e n t o t a l l y u n -

a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s O f f l i e w h l c h ~ n d l -

v l d u a l ( s ) w l t h l n ASDB h a s had c o n t a c t w l t h t h e I . N . S . o f f i -

c l a i s . The c u r r e n t S u p e r l n t e n d e n t a n d h l s s e c r e t a r y h a v e n o t

had e v e n a t e l e p h o n e c o n t a c t w l t h I. N. S. f o r f l v e y e a r s . ( What

o c c u r r e d w l t h t h e p r e v r o u s superintendents 1s u n k n o w n . ) We

h a v e , a g a l n , o f f e r e d t o ~ n v e s t l q a t e a n d t a k e c o r r e c t l v e m e d s u r e s

~ f ~, n f a c t , s t a f f h a v e d r s r e g a r d e d questions o r d l r e c t l o n s o f

I . N . S . o f f l c l a l s . W l t h o u t s p e c l f ~ c s p r o v l d e d b y t h e

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s Office, l t 1s v ~ r t u a l l yim possible t o c o r r e c t

a l l e g e d l m p r o p e r m a n a g e m e n t .

I n t h e S e p t e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 8 7 l e t t e r l n d l c a t l n g r e v l s l o n s t o t h e p r e -

l l m l n a r y r e p o r t d r a f t a n d c o m m e n t s on o u r S e p t e m b e r I S , 1987

m e e t l n g , t h e A u d l t o r G e n e r a l ' s O f f l c e reaffirms ~ t sst a t e m e n t

t h a t I . N . S . h a s s e n t a p p l l c a t r o n f o r m s t o ASDB a n n u a l l y f o r t e n

y e a r s a n d t h e y h a v e n e v e r b e e n r e t u r n e d . I n f a c t , lt f u r t h e r em-p

h a s l z e s " t h a t I . N . S . s t r l l m a l n t a l n s t h a t l t s e n d s a p p l l c a t l o n s

t o Mr. R l s l o v a t ASDB e v e r y y e a r a n d h a s continued p r o v l d l n q

t h e s c h o o l w l t h a p p l l c a t l o n s f o r t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s " . T h l s

s t a t e m e n t 1s u n t r u e a n d c o u l d n o t b e s u p p o r t e d i f r e q u l r e d t o do

s o . Mr. R l s l o v , a s s t a t e d a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 8 7 m e e t l n g .

h a s h a d one s e r l e s o f conversations w l t h I . N . S . o f f