FY 2002

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
REPORT
U.S. Department of Education
 Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
21st Century Community Learning Centers.............................................................................................................................................2
Adult Education: State Grants and Knowledge Development..................................................................................................................6
Advanced Placement Incentives Program .............................................................................................................................................13
Aid for Institutional Development, Title III ..............................................................................................................................................14
Alaska Native Education Program .........................................................................................................................................................17
American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services .............................................................................................................................18
Arts in Education ...................................................................................................................................................................................20
Assistive Technology Program .............................................................................................................................................................22
Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program .............................................................................................................................24
Byrd Honors Scholarships Program ......................................................................................................................................................27
Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program .........................................................................................................................28
Civic Education .....................................................................................................................................................................................29
Comprehensive Centers Program ........................................................................................................................................................31
Demonstration and Training Programs .................................................................................................................................................33
Demonstration of Comprehensive School Reform ................................................................................................................................35
Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students With Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education .....................................................37
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Title V ..................................................................................................................................38
Eisenhower Federal Activities ...............................................................................................................................................................41
Eisenhower Professional Development Program .................................................................................................................................43
Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia ................................................................................................50
Even Start Family Literacy Program .....................................................................................................................................................53
Fund for the Improvement of Education ................................................................................................................................................56
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education .......................................................................................................................59
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) ..........................................................................61
Gallaudet University ..............................................................................................................................................................................64

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report iii

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) and Javits Fellowships .............................................................................69
Grants to States and Preschool Grants Program--IDEA Part B ............................................................................................................72
Helen Keller National Center (HKNC) for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults ..............................................................................................78
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program .....................................................................................80
Howard University .................................................................................................................................................................................82
Impact Aid .............................................................................................................................................................................................87
Independent Living Services Program ..................................................................................................................................................89
Indian Education ...................................................................................................................................................................................95
Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities--IDEA Part C .............................................................................................................................99
International Education and Foreign Language Studies Program ......................................................................................................103
Magnet Schools Assistance Program .................................................................................................................................................107
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Program ..............................................................................................................109
Migrant Education ...............................................................................................................................................................................110
National Activities--IDEA Part D ..........................................................................................................................................................116
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Statistics and Assessment .....................................................................................123
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) ................................................................................................125
National Technical Institute for the Deaf .............................................................................................................................................130
Native Hawaiian Education Program ..................................................................................................................................................132
Perkins Vocational and Technology Education (State Grants and Tech-Prep Indicators) ..................................................................133
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology ..........................................................................................................................140
Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected or Delinquent (N or D) ...................................................................................143
Projects with Industry Program (PWI) .................................................................................................................................................144
Public Charter Schools Program .........................................................................................................................................................146
Regional Educational Laboratories .....................................................................................................................................................148
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--State Grants Program and National Programs .....................................................................152
Smaller Learning Communities (Small, Safe and Successful High Schools) ......................................................................................156
Star Schools Program .........................................................................................................................................................................157
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (Including Supported Employment) ....................................................................................159

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report iv

Student Financial Assistance Policy ...................................................................................................................................................163
Student Financial Assistance Programs .............................................................................................................................................169
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants ................................................................................................................................................171
Technology Challenge Programs: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, and National
Activities ..............................................................................................................................................................................................172
Title I Grants for Schools--ESEA ........................................................................................................................................................179
Training Program ................................................................................................................................................................................185
TRIO Programs ...................................................................................................................................................................................188
Office for Civil Rights ..........................................................................................................................................................................190
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) .................................................................................................................................................193

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report v

 INTRODUCTION

The strategic goals and objectives set forth in the Department of Education’s FY 2002-2007 Strategic Plan form an overarching
context of broad outcomes that we believe should characterize American education. We believe that if we are successful, as a whole,
we will see increases in the related measures—measures that are in most cases for all children, whether or not they are individually
served by our programs. We believe that our success as an agency can be measured in the results of better education for all.
However, this kind of information does not always provide us with the tools necessary to determine the success of each of our
programs or the relationship between program-specific funding and results. For that, we need measures that are more specific to the
provisions of each particular program and to the audience it serves. This, too, is part of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). Thus, in addition to the measures specified in our FY 2002-2007 Strategic Plan, we have established measures and targets
for all of our major programs and many of our smaller programs. In some cases, we have set measures for a particular program
individually. In other cases, we have grouped similar programs and set measures for that cluster of programs.
The Department’s FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) reports on both the Department-level measures and
program measures and is located on our Web site at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/annualreport2002/. This document is a compilation of the
program performance reports, which contain the results on the program measures.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 1

 21st Century Community Learning Centers - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.287 - Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers

Goal 8: To enable public elementary and secondary schools to plan, implement, or expand extended learning
opportunities for the benefit of the educational, health, social service, cultural, and recreational needs of their
communities.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs will demonstrate educational and social benefits and exhibit positive
behavioral changes.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Achievement: Students regularly participating in the program will show continuous improvement in achievement through measures such as
test scores, grades, and/or teacher reports.
Assessment of
Targets and Performance Data Sources and Data Quality
Progress

Percentage of regular program participants whose Math/English grades increased from fall to spring. Status: Unable to Additional Source
judge Information: Grantee and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets performance reports.
Middle Middle Explanation:
or Middle or Middle Performance data are Frequency: Annually.
High or High High or High pending and expected Collection Period: 2002 -
Elementary Elementary School School Overall Overall Elementary Elementary School School Overall Overall in March 2003. 2003
Math English Math English Math English Math English Math English Math English Data Available: 2004
Validated By: No Formal
2000 43 45 36 37 39 41 Verification.
2001 43 46 37 39 40 43 45 45 45 45 45 45
Limitations: Data are
supplied by grantees.
Percentage of regular program participants whose achievement test scores improved from below grade level to at
or above grade level. Improvements: The Web-
based system for collecting
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
data from grantees is
Middle Middle continually subject to
or Middle or Middle modification on the request
High or High High or High of grantees in order to
Elementary Elementary School School Overall Overall Elementary Elementary School School Overall Overall improve the quality of
Math English Math English Math English Math English Math English Math English performance reporting.
2000 5.80 5.10 3.90 3.90 4.80 4.50
2001 5 4.10 8.10 5.50 6.60 70 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 2

Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class
participation.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Middle or High
Elementary Middle or High School Math Overall
Elementary School Math Overall
2000 76 64 69
2001 74 71 73 75 75 75

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Behavior: Students participating in the program will show improvements on measures such as school attendance, classroom performance,
and decreased disciplinary actions or other adverse behaviors.
Assessment of
Targets and Performance Data Sources and Data Quality
Progress

Percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior Status: Unable to Additional Source
judge Information: Grantee
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets reports.
Middle or High Explanation:
Elementary Middle or High School Overall Performance data are Frequency: Annually.
Elementary School Overall
pending and expected Collection Period: 2002 -
2000 62 57 59 70 70 70 in March 2003. 2003
2001 73 75 74 75 75 75 Data Available: March 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.

Limitations: Data supplied

by grantees. Teacher reports
are subjective and thus
subject to variation over time
and across sites.

Improvements: The Web-

based system for collecting
data from grantees is
continually subject to
modification on the request
of grantees in order to
improve the quality of
performance reporting.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 3

Objective 8.2 of 2: 21st Century Community Learning Centers will offer a range of high-quality educational, developmental, and recreational services.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Core educational services: More than 85 percent of centers will offer high-quality services in at least one core academic area, such as
reading and literacy, mathematics, and science.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of 21st Century Centers reporting emphasis in at least one core Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
academic area Grantee performance reports.
Explanation: Nearly all of the grantees (95%)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets provided at least one core educational service Frequency: Annually.
2000 97 85 (e.g. supplementary help in reading, Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
mathematics, or science). Data Available: January 2004
2001 96 85 Validated By: No Formal
2002 95 85 Verification.
Data supplied by grantees.

Limitations: There is no objective

measure of service quality.

Improvements: The Web-based

system for collecting data from
grantees is continually subject to
modification on the request of
grantees in order to improve the
quality of performance reporting.

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Enrichment and support activities: More than 85 percent of centers will offer enrichment and support activities such as nutrition and health,
art, music, technology, and recreation.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of 21st Century Centers offering enrichment and support activities in Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
technology Grantee performance reports.
Progress: Target for enrichment and support
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets activities in other areas exceeded. Positive Frequency: Annually.
2000 70 85 movement toward target for technology Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
services. Data Available: January 2004
2001 79 85 Validated By: No Formal
2002 81 85 Explanation: The vast majority of the centers Verification.
(96%) offer enrichment and support services
with a significant proportion (81%) offering Limitations: Data supplied by
computer- or technology-related activities. This grantees.
is up from 79% in 2001.
Improvements: The Web-based
system for collecting data from
grantees is continually subject to

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 4

Percentage of 21st Century Centers offering enrichment and support activities in modification on the request of
other areas. grantees in order to improve the
quality of performance reporting.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000 97 85
2001 95 85
2002 96 85

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 5

 Adult Education: State Grants and Knowledge Development - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.002 - Adult Education_State Grant Program

Goal 8: To support adult education systems that result in increased adult learner achievement in order to prepare adults
for family, work, citizenship and future learning.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Improve literacy in the United States.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Improve literacy: By 2002, the percentage of adults performing in the lowest proficiency level in the National Adult Literacy Survey will
decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of adults estimated to be in the lowest of five proficiency levels in the Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
1992 National Adult Literacy Survey: Survey/Assessment: Adult Literacy and Lifeskills
Progress: No 2002 data are Survey.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets available.
Percentage of Adults Percentage of Adults Additional Source Information: National Adult
Explanation: The indicator is Literacy Survey I, 1992; National Assessment of
1992 21 built around a national Adult Literacy Skill, 2002.
household adult literacy survey
conducted every 10 years. The Frequency: Other.
initial survey benchmarking adult Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
literacy proficiency in the United Data Available: 2004
States was conducted in 1992. Validated By: NCES.
The second national survey, Data validated by National Center for Education
which will provide comparative Statistics review procedures and standards.
data on the literacy proficiencies
of adults, was scheduled for Limitations: Limited background information
2002 but has been delayed to collected on adults in the sample limited the scope
December 2003 with data of analyses. National Assessment of Adult Literacy
available in late 2004. No interim Skills, now scheduled for release in 2003, will
data are available. expand the background questionnaires to provide
additional descriptive information and contextual
information to enhance the overall analyses of the
data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 6

Objective 8.2 of 3: Provide adult learners with opportunities to acquire basic foundation skills (including English Language Acquisition), complete secondary
education and transition to further education and training and to work.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 5: Basic skill acquisition: By 2002, 32 percent of adults in beginning level Adult Basic Education programs will acquire the level of basic skills
needed (validated by standardized assessments) to complete those beginning levels of instruction.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of adults in beginning-level Adult Basic Education who complete that Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
level and achieve basic skill proficiency. Grantee Performance Report: 1810-0503
Progress: In 2002 new standards Annual Performance Reporting Format for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets required validation of basic skills OIE Formula Grants to LEAs.
Percentage of adults Percentage of adults acquisition through standardized
assessment. Because of the new Frequency: Annually.
1996 27 standard, new performance targets Collection Period: 2002
1997 40 and baseline have been established. Data Available: March 2003
Therefore, no data are available for Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
1998 31 2002. The 2001 data were verified by the
Department's Standards for Evaluating
1999 44 Explanation: Data reflect percent of Program Performance Data.
2000 26 40 Adult Education Learners (Adults With
Limited Basic Skills) who demonstrated Limitations: As a third tier recipient of this
2001 36 45 a level of basic skill proficiency needed data, the Office of Vocational and Adult
2002 32 to advance to the next educational Education (OVAE) must rely on the states
functioning level. Educational and local programs to collect and report
functioning levels range from beginning data within published guidelines. Starting
literacy through high school. Revised with the July 1, 2000, reporting period,
standards require validation of basic OVAE implemented new data collection
skill proficiency through standardized protocols, including standardized data
assessment. New targets reflect new collection methodologies and standards for
standard. Data for 2001 were updated automated data reporting and data quality
with additional reports from grantees. review.

Improvements: The OVAE is developing a

data quality review process for states based
on the Department's Standards for
Evaluating Program Performance Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 7

Indicator 8.2.2 of 5: Basic English language acquisition: By 2002, 30 percent of adults enrolled in the beginning levels of the English Literacy program will
acquire (validated by standardized assessment) the level of English language skills needed to complete those beginning levels of instruction.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of adults Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In 2002, the standard was changed Data Available: March 2003
1996 30 to require validation of basic skill acquisition Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
through standardized assessment. Because of By ED.
1997 28 change to the standard, new performance The 2001 data were verified by the
1998 28 targets and baseline has been established. Department's Standards for
Therefore, no data are available for 2002. Evaluating Program Performance
1999 49 Data.
Explanation: Data reflect percent of English
2000 20 40
Literacy learners (adults with minimal English Limitations: As a third tier recipient
2001 31 40 language skills) who demonstrated a level of of this data, the Office of Vocational
English language proficiency needed to and Adult Education (OVAE) must
2002 32 advance to the next educational functioning rely on the states and local
level. Educational functioning levels range from programs to collect and report data
beginning-level English Literacy through within published guidelines. Starting
advanced-level English Literacy. Revised with the July 1, 2000, reporting
standards require validation of English period, the (OVAE) implemented
proficiency through standardized assessment. new data collection protocols,
New targets reflect new standard. Data for including standardized data
2001 was revised to reflect additional reports. collection methodologies and
standards for automated data
reporting and data quality review.

Improvements: The OVAE is

developing a data quality review
process for states based on the
Department's Standards For
Evaluating Program Performance
Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 8

Indicator 8.2.3 of 5: Secondary completion: By 2002, 45 percent of adults with a high school completion goal and who exit during the program year will earn a
high school diploma or recognized equivalent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percent of adults Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Because of change to the Data Available: March 2003
Percent of adults Percent of adults standards, new performance benchmark Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
targets have been established. By ED.
1996 36 The 2001 data were verified by the
1997 37 Explanation: The performance data reflect the Department's Standards for
percent of adult learners with a goal to Evaluating Program Performance
1998 33 complete high school in secondary level Data.
programs of instruction who upon exit earned
1999 34
their high school diploma or GED credential Limitations: As a third tier recipient
2000 34 40 within the reporting period. No 2002 data are of this data, the Office of Vocational
yet available. and Adult Education (OVAE) must
2001 33 45 rely on the states and local
2002 45 programs to collect and report data
within published guidelines. Starting
with the July 1, 2000, reporting
period, the OVAE implemented new
data collection protocols, including
standardized data collection
methodologies and standards for
automated data reporting.

Improvements: The OVAE is

developing a data quality review
process for states based on the
Department's Standards for
Evaluating Program Performance
Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 9

Indicator 8.2.4 of 5: Transition to postsecondary education or training: By 2002, 40% of enrolled adults with a goal to enter postsecondary education or training
who exit during the program year will enroll in a postsecondary education or training program.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number and percentage of adults Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Because of the change to the Data Available: March 2003
Percentage of Number of Percentage standard for data collection, new performance Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Number of adults adults adults of adults benchmarks and targets have been By ED.
established. No data are yet available for 2002. The 2001 data were verified by the
1996 175,255 Department's Standards for
1997 178,520 Explanation: The new performance data Evaluating Program Performance
reflect the percentage of adult learners with a Data.
1998 158,167 goal of further education or training, who, upon
exit from adult education, enrolled in a Limitations: As a third tier recipient
1999 148,803
postsecondary education or training program. of this data, the Office of Vocational
2000 161,650 300,000 and Adult Education (OVAE) must
rely on the states and local
2001 25 300,000 programs to collect and report data
2002 40 within published guidelines. Starting
with July 1, 2000, reporting period,
OVAE implemented new data
collection protocols, including
standardized data collection
methodologies and standards for
automated data quality review.

Improvements: OVAE is
developing a data quality review
process for states based on the
Department's Standards for
Evaluating Program Performance
Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 10

Indicator 8.2.5 of 5: Transition to work: By 2002, 40 percent of unemployed adults with an employment goal will obtain a job of the end of the first quarter after
their program exit quarter.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number and percentage of adults Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2001
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Because of the change to the Data Available: March 2003
Percentage of Number of Percentage standards for data collection, new performance Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Number of adults adults adults of adults benchmark targets have been established. No By ED.
2002 data are currently available. The 2001 data were verified by the
1996 306,982 Department's Standards for
1997 340,206 Explanation: The 2001 performance data Evaluating Program Performance
reflect the percentage of adult learners with an Data.
1998 294,755 employment goal, who, upon exit from an adult
education program obtain a job. Data for 2002 Limitations: As a third tier recipient
1999 409,062
are not yet available. of this data, the Office of Vocational
2000 454,318 425,000 and Adult Education (OVAE) must
rely on the states and local
2001 36 425,000 programs to collect and report data
2002 40 within published guidelines. Starting
with July 1, 2000, reporting period,
the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education (OVAE) implemented
new data collection protocols,
including standards for automated
data reporting and a data quality
review.

Improvements: The OVAE is

developing a data quality review
process for states based on the
Department's Standards for
Evaluating Program Performance
Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 11

Objective 8.3 of 3: Provide adult learners at the lowest levels of literacy access to educational opportunities to improve their basic foundation skills.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Educationally disadvantaged: By 2002, adults at the lowest levels of literacy (those in Beginning Adult Basic Education and Beginning
English Literacy) will comprise 50 percent of the total national enrollment.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of adults Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Adult

Education Management Information.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Reported level decreasing. No
Percentage of adults Percentage of adults 2002 data are currently available. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
1996 44 Explanation: The most educationally Data Available: March 2003
1997 45 disadvantaged adults (those at the lowest Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By
levels of literacy and English language ED.
1998 49 skills) have traditionally been a target for ED Standards for Evaluating Program
services. performance Data were developed.
1999 47
Other sources corroborate these
2000 42 50 findings.
2001 35 50 Limitations: As a third tier recipient of
2002 50 this data, the Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE) must rely on
the states and local programs to collect
and report data within published
guidelines. Starting with the July 1,
2000 reporting period, OVAE
implemented new data collection
protocols, including standardized data
collection methodologies and standards
for automated data reporting and a data
quality review.

Improvements: OVAE is developing a

data quality review process for states
based on the Department's Standards
for Evaluating Program Performance
Data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 12

 Advanced Placement Incentives Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.330 - Advanced Placement Program

Goal 8: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue higher education.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Encourage a greater number of low-income students to participate in the AP program.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Students served: The number of AP tests taken by low-income students will increase by 10 percent annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:

Education Testing Service (ETS)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: In May 2002 low-income data
1999 92,570 83,300 students took 140,572 AP tests, a 25%
increase over 2001. Part of the increase, Frequency: Annually.
2000 102,474 102,000 however, may reflect a change in the way the Collection Period: 2003
2001 114,112 112,200 data are collected. More than likely, these Data Available: September 2003
numbers were under-reported in previous Validated By: No Formal
2002 140,572 124,180 years. Verification.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 13

 Aid for Institutional Development, Title III (Aid for Institutional Development,
Titles III and V) - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.031 - Higher Education_Institutional Aid
84.031B Strengthening HBCU's and Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions
84.031N Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaaiian-Serving Institutions
84.031T Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
84.120A Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

Goal 8: To assist institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally serve large numbers of low-income and
minority students to continue to serve these students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions to provide on
going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Improve the academic quality of participating institutions.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Graduation Rates: Completion rates for all full-time, degree-seeking students in Title III 4-year and 2-year colleges will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of full-time, degree-seeking students at Title III institutions Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
completing a 4-year degree within 6 years and a 2-year degree, certificate, or Survey/Assessment: Integrated
transferring to a 4-year school within 3 years. Progress: Although graduation rates Postsecondary Education Data System.
have improved over 1998 levels, there is References: Graduation Rate Surveys
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets a slight decline (.09%) at 4-year (GRS).
4-Year 2-Year 4-Year 2-Year institutions, but an increase (2.04%) at 2-
year institutions compared to the Frequency: Annually.
1996 37 18 previous year. This progress indicator will Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1997 35 18 be eliminated. The new progress Data Available: January 2004
indicator will be based on the Validated By: NCES.
1998 34 21.50 Performance Measurement System, with
expected results available in March, Limitations: In 2000-2001 data were
1999 31.80 20.70
2003. voluntarily submitted by 86% of 4-year
2000 35.40 21.70 Title III institutions and 85% of 2-year Title
Explanation: These graduation rates III institutions. In addition, the data tends
2001 35.31 23.74 understate actual graduation rates, as to be several years old.
this analysis only includes the full-time,
first-time cohort of students enrolled in Improvements: ED is currently
degree-seeking (or certificate) programs, implementing a new Performance
and only at the Title III institutions Measurement System that will collect data
students initially attended. As a result, that is more relevant to the impact that
the graduation rates presented here do Title III projects have on academic quality
not include part-time, transfer, or at grantee institutions. Title III grantees
returning students, which represent a are reporting to the measurement system
significant portion of the student body at for the first time and aggregate 2002 data
Title III institutions. will be available March, 2003.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 14

Objective 8.2 of 2: Improve the fiscal stability of participating institutions.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Fiscal balance: The percentage of Title III institutions having a positive fiscal balance will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Targets and Performance Data The percentage of Title III institutions having a Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
positive fiscal balance Survey/Assessment: Integrated
Progress: The 1996-97 data established a Postsecondary Education Data System.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets baseline for the Title III program with the References: Finance Survey.
Public Instructions Public Instructions goal of continuous improvement. In 2000
and 2001 there was a decline from the Frequency: Annually.
1997 62.60 94.30 preceding years. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1998 70.80 89.50 Data Available: January 2004
Explanation: The percentage of public Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By
1999 72.80 87.30 institutions has increased, although the ED.
percentage of private institutions has Data validated by NCES review and
2000 67.10 83.80
decreased. The number of private NCES statistical standards.
2001 67.80 58.67 institutions included in this analysis has
decreased significantly over time, which Limitations: Data tend to be several
may be account, in part, for the decreased years old.
percentage of private institutions having a
positive fiscal balance. In addition, the Improvements: New Performance
downturn in the national economy has had Measurement System will provide more
a profound impact on the fiscal operations relevant data on the impact of Title III
at institutions of higher education. grants on fiscal stability.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 15

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Endowment: The percentage of Title III institutions having an endowment will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of Title III institutions having a positive endowment Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
Survey/Assessment: Integrated
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The percentage of Title III public Postsecondary Education Data System.
Public Institutions Public Institutions institutions with a positive endowment has References: Finance Survey.
increased by 11.53 percentage points since
1997 47.60 1997. Frequency: Annually.
1998 53.20 Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Explanation: Of the 208 Title III institutions Data Available: January 2004
1999 54 completing the IPEDS financial survey for Validated By: NCES.
public institutions, 123 institutions reported Data validated by NCES review and
2000 59.20
a positive endowment and 85 either did not NCES Statistical Standards.
2001 59.13 report endowment information, or did not
have an endowment. Data has been Limitations: Data tend to be several
corrected to only include institutions years old. Data on endowment
reporting data to IPEDS and only balances of private institutions is not
institutions receiving funds during the available at this time.
reporting year.
Improvements: New Performance
Measurement System will provide more
relevant data on the impact of Title III
grants on fiscal stability.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 16

 Alaska Native Education Program - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.320 - Alaska Native Educational Planning, Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program
84.321 - Alaska Native Home Based Education for Preschool Children
84.322 - Alaska Native Student Enrichment Program
84.356 - Alaska Native Educational Programs

Goal 8: To assist Alaska Native population to achieve to challenging standards through supporting supplemental
programs that meet their unique educational needs.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Alaska Native students will have access to instruction and curricula that meet their unique educational needs.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Student achievement: An increasing percentage of Alaska Native students participating in the program will meet or exceed the performance
standards in math and science that are established by the grantee.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

An increasing percentage of Alaska Native students participating in the program will Status: Unable to judge
meet or exceed the performance standards in math and science that are established
by the grantee. Progress: Data for this indicator were not
collected for 2002; therefore, we cannot
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets measure progress.
- No Data -

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Professional development : Teachers participating in the program will report improved knowledge, skills, and abilities in addressing the
unique educational needs of Alaska Native students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of Teachers Status: Unable to judge

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data for this indicator were not
1999 70 collected for 2002; therefore, we cannot
measure progress.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 17

 American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.250 - Rehabilitation Services_American Indians with Disabilities

Goal 8: To improve employment outcomes of American Indians with disabilities who live on or near reservations by
providing effective tribal vocational rehabilitation services.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Ensure that eligible American Indians with disabilities receive vocational rehabilitation services and achieve employment outcomes consistent
with their particular strengths, resources, abilities, capabilities and interests.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Number of eligible individuals who receive services under the program: The number of American Indians with disabilities who receive
services under the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services program will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The number of individuals who received vocational rehabilitation services Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
under an individualized plan for employment Contractor Performance Report
Progress: Progress on these
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets objectives is expected to reflect
1997 2,617 the targets established for Frequency: Annually.
FY2002 Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1998 3,423 Data Available: December 2003
1999 3,186 3,750 Explanation: The FY2002 data Validated By: No Formal Verification.
is expected to be available and
2000 4,148 3,730 clean for purposes of reporting Limitations: Data are self-reported and not standardized.
by February of 2003. RSA is still Prior to the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the
2001 4,473 4,350
in the process of developing a Department did not have clear authority to collect routine
2002 4,500 standardized data collection and performance data and very limited information was
reporting system. The system available on the operation and performance of these
has been modified to meet the projects.
anticipated requirements of
programs results in the OMB Improvements: RSA has developed a standardized data
Program Assessment Rating collection and reporting system. The system has been
Tool. At this time, OMB is modified to meet the anticipated requirements of programs
reviewing the reporting system. results in the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool. The
It is still hoped that the Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request was
Department will be able to have published in the Federal Register/Vol.67, No. 151 /page
the resources to implement the 50875 on August 6, 2002. After comments are received,
system and that the system will evaluated and changes made if necessary, OMB will review
be implemented to provide 2003 the reporting system. It is hoped that the Department will be
data. able to have the resources to implement the system and
that the system will be implemented to provide 2003 data.
The first comprehensive evaluation of the AIVRS has been
completed and is in the process of being implemented.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 18

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Number of eligible individuals who achieve employment outcomes: The total number of American Indians with disabilities who exit the
program after receiving vocational rehabilitation services under an individualized plan for employment and achieve an employment outcome will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The number of individuals who achieved an employed outcome Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress on these objectives is
1997 530 expected to reflect the targets established for
FY2002. Frequency: Annually.
1998 598 Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1999 678 715 Explanation: The FY2002 data is expected to Data Available: December
be available and clean for purposes of Validated By: No Formal
2000 951 765 reporting by February of 2003.RSA is still in Verification.
the process of developing a standardized data Data are supplied by project
2001 1,088 980
collection and reporting system. The system grantees and no formal verification
2002 1,000 has been modified to meet the anticipated procedure has been applied.
requirements of programs results in the OMB
Program Assessment Rating Tool. At this time, Limitations: Same limitations as
OMB is reviewing the reporting system. It is reported under Indicator 1.1.
still hoped that the Department will be able to
have the resources to implement the system Improvements: Same as reported
and that the system will be implemented to under Indicator 1.1.
provide 2003 data.

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Percentage of individuals who leave the program with employment outcomes: By the end of FY 2001, at least 61 percent of all eligible
individuals who exit the program after receiving services under an individualized plan for employment will achieve an employment outcome.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress on these objectives is Data Available: December
1998 57.90 expected to reflect the targets established for Validated By: No Formal
FY2002. Verification.
1999 61.10
2000 62.20 61 Explanation: The FY2002 data is expected to Limitations: Same limitations as
be available and clean for purposes of reported under Indicator 1.1.
2001 64.60 61.50 reporting by February of 2003.RSA is still in
the process of developing a standardized data Improvements: Same as reported
2002 62
collection and reporting system. The system under Indicator 1.1.
has been modified to meet the anticipated
requirements of programs results in the OMB
Program Assessment Rating Tool. At this time,
OMB is reviewing the reporting system. It is
still hoped that the Department will be able to
have the resources to implement the system
and that the system will be implemented to
provide 2003 data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 19

 Arts in Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.351 - Arts in Education

Goal 8: To promote, improve, and enhance arts education and cultural activities for elementary and secondary school
students.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Activities supported with federal funds will improve quality of life outcomes for program participants.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Outcomes: Increasing percentages of individuals who participate in VSA Arts national program activities and activities conducted by state
affiliates will report to VSA Arts and its affiliates that these activities positively affected their quality of life outcomes.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Performance Report.
Explanation: Writing: Data will not be available until
January 2003. The majority (57 percent) of participants Frequency: Annually.
involved in a creative writing program reported that, in Collection Period: 2001
addition to writing more, they had increased the amount of Data Available: January 2003
time they spent writing. In another group, approximately 50 Validated By: No Formal
percent indicated increased skill in written expression. Verification.
Music: One third of children with autism who participated
in a 10-week music program showed improvement in Limitations: Performance
social, verbal and/or listening skills. No current data are reports rely on self-reporting.
available.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 20

Objective 8.2 of 2: Kennedy Center Activities will improve the quality of Arts Education programs by providing professional development to school staff.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Quality of services: Increasing percentages of school staff participating in the Professional Development Opportunities for Teachers program
will report they are very confident that they learned workshop content well enough to use it in their classrooms.
Sources and Data
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress
Quality

Percentages of school staff Status: Unable to judge Additional Source

Information:
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data for this indicator will not be available until Performance Report.
1999 55 late January 2003. Increasing numbers of teachers will
participate in projects supported by the Kennedy Center that Frequency: Annually.
create, revise, and disseminate high quality professional Collection Period:
development activities and curriculum materials tied to 2002
challenging standards. (FY 1998 baseline: 14,000 teachers; Data Available:
FY 1999 18,959 teachers; FY 2000: 22,724 teachers). No January 2003
current data are available. Validated By: No
Formal Verification.
Explanation: During FY 2001, 25,454 teachers though the
nation directly participated in activities of the Kennedy
Center. This represents an 11% increase over FY 2000.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 21

 Assistive Technology Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.224 - Assistive Technology

Goal 8: To increase availability of, funding for, access to, and provision of assistive technology devices and assistive
technology services.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Through systemic activity, improve access to an availability of assistive technology (AT) for individuals with disabilities who require assistive
technology.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Barrier Reduction: Annually, grantees activities will result in legislative and policy changes that reduce barriers
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of the 56 grantees responsible for change in at least one area. Status: Target not met Source: Performance Report
Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: All grantees did not report since
1997 95 response on new web-based data collection Program: NIDRR.
instrument for FY 02 was voluntary per Office Contractor: RTI International.
1998 95 of Management and Budget regulations; future
1999 88 95 years' reporting is mandatory for all grantees. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2000 50 95 Explanation: NIDRR has developed accurate Data Available: November 2003
strategies for collecting and reporting barrier Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
2002 78 95
reduction data that incorporate useful By ED.
definitions.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 22

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Individuals who receive loans: The number of individuals with disabilities who receive loans per $1 million invested will met or exceed the
baseline.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Approved Loans Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report

Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Set baseline in FY00
2000 229 Program: NIDRR.
Explanation: Analysis of grants made in Contractor: University of Illinois -
FY00, analysed and reported in FY01. Analysis Chicago.
of grants made in FY01 completed in 02. report
pending. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: November 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

Objective 8.2 of 2: Through protection and advocacy, increase access to and funding of assistive technology devices and services for persons with disabilities.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Funding sources: The number of individuals receiving protection and advocacy services resulting in AT device and/or service will increase 5
percent annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of individuals who received Assistive Technology devices/services Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Utilized annual performance reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: With 34 of 56 State Protection and submitted to the Secretary. Analysis
2001 1,290 Advocacy entities reporting. reflects those States that reported
on this indicator.
Explanation: Informal survey used in absence
of formal reporting instrument. Development of Frequency: Annually.
approved instrument in planning stages. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Working closely with pertinent Dept agencies. Data Available: November 2003
Data will be collected as part of annual Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
performance reporting requirements. By ED.

Improvements: Plans are

underway to develop a formal
reporting instrument that captures
indicator.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 23

 Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.288 Enhancement Grants
84.289 Program Development and Improvement Grants
84.290 Comprehensive School Grants
84.291 Systemwide Improvement Grants
Goal 8: To help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards.
Objective 8.1 of 1: IMPROVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS SERVED BY TITLE VII OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION
ACT

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: English proficiency: Students in the program will annually demonstrate continuous and educationally significant progress on oral or written
English proficiency measures.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Other academic achievement: Students in the program will annually demonstrate continuous and educationally significant progress on
appropriate academic achievement of language arts, reading, and math.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of projects in which three-quarters of student groups made gains in Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Biennially.
academic achievement in language arts, reading, and math. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: January 2004
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Language Language By ED.
arts Reading Math arts Reading Math
1998 69 66 70
1999 44 53 58 65 65 66
2000 63 73 67 67 67 68
2001 83 67 60 70 70 70

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 1

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH1 CS1 SW1 ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998 72 64 50

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 24

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH1 CS1 SW1 ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998 78 59 53

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 1

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH1 CS1 SW1 ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998 63 70 43

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 2

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
PDI CS2 PDI CS2
1999 47 41

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 2

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
PDI CS2 PDI CS2
1999 50 56

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 2

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
PDI CS2 PDI CS2
1999 68 48

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 3

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2 ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000 80 53 72 75 82

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 25

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2 ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000 80 53 72 75 82

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 3

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2 ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000 76 76 62 63 73

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 26

 Byrd Honors Scholarships Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.185 - Byrd Honors Scholarships

Goal 8: To promote student excellence and to recognize exceptionally able students who show promise of continued
excellence
Objective 8.1 of 1: Byrd scholars will successfully complete postsecondary education programs at high rates.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Completion of postsecondary education programs: Ninety percent or more of Byrd scholars will successfully complete postsecondary
education programs within 4 years.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Byrd scholars graduating within 4 years or receiving a scholarship for Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
4 years Annual Performance Report.
Explanation: Reporting states indicated in
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets 2001 that 86 percent of students receiving a Frequency: Annually.
1997 85 Byrd scholarship in 1996-1997 either Collection Period: 2003
graduated or received four years of funding, Data Available: December 2003
1998 90 indicating that they were on track to graduate. Validated By: No Formal
1999 94 90 For 2002, the data show only the percentage Verification.
of individuals who graduated after four years; Data supplied by states, which
2000 88 90 in prior years the data show receipt of 4 years certify the accuracy of the data.
of funding or graduation. Targets will be
2001 86 90
revised for subsequent years. Limitations: Data are based on
2002 22 90 grantee reports of varying quality
and accuracy on the number of Byrd
Scholars graduating and/or
receiving four years of Byrd funding.
Byrd Scholars may not have
received four years of Byrd funding
for a variety of reasons other than
failure to complete an academic
program, including early graduation
or no unmet financial need.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 27

 Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.335 - Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Goal 8: To support the participation of low-income parents in the postsecondary education system through the
provisions of campus-based child care services.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Increase access for low-income parents to postsecondary institutions.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Persistence/Completion rate: The percentage of students receiving child care services who persist in and complete postsecondary education
will meet or exceed target rate.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Median percentage of Retention Rate Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Other.

Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The percentage of students Data Available: April 2003
2001 79 80 receiving child care services who persist in Validated By: No Formal
post-secondary education varies widely Verification.
between projects. Of the 76 respondents that Data will be supplied by child care
reported data on persistence rates, the rates centers with no formal verification
varied between 11 and 100 percent, with a procedure provided.
median of 79 percent. 13 of the grantees
reported 100 percent retention rates. Limitations: Most grantees
reported retention data in their first
Explanation: New program: Little performance year reports but the program is over.
data available. Performance data will be Unsure of the percentage of child
collected through 18 month Performance care centers that will be able to
Reports. One year of retention rate data is obtain completion data.
available, and no completion rate data is
available. The program management set
performance goals for the 2003 Annual Plan.
However, it will be Fall 2004 before the
completion rate measure will be meaningful.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 28

 Civic Education - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.304 - Cooperative Education Exchange Program
84.929 We The People

Goal 8: To enhance the attainment of the third and sixth National Goals by educating students about the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Provide high-quality civic education curricula to elementary and secondary school students through the ''We the People: the Citizen and the
Constitution'' Program.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Student participation in the “We the People…” Program: The total number of adoptions of “We the People…” curriculum will increase
annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The total number of adoptions by states and large school districts of the “We the Status: Target met Additional Source Information:
People…”curriculum. Annual grantee project report and
Explanation: The “We the People…” Program annual grant application, April 2002.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets staff members continue to spend time assisting
1998 9 states and school districts in the formal Frequency: Annually.
curriculum adoption process. Collection Period: 2003
1999 19 Data Available: August 2003
2000 20 20 Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2001 22 21 Actual count of adoptions.
2002 25 23

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Teacher institutes: The number of teachers who attend the summer “We the People…” professional development institutes will increase
annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The number of teachers participating in professional development institutes. Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Annual grantee project report and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: ''We the people''...program staff annual grant application, April 2002.
1998 183 members were able to conduct institutes in
each of the five regions of the United States as Frequency: Annually.
1999 317 200 well as in some individual states. Collection Period: 2003
2000 354 318 Data Available: August 2003
Validated By: No Formal
2001 406 320 Verification.
Actual count of teacher participants.
2002 785 350

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 29

Objective 8.2 of 2: Foster Students' interest and ability to participate competently and responsibly in the democratic process.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Simulated congressional hearings: At least 80 percent of students participating in the “We the People…” national finals competition will
outperform nonparticipating students on national assessments of their knowledge of and support for democratic institutions and processes.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students participating Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:

Annual random sample of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Survey items were taken from three participants.
1999 89 80 sources: the 1998 National Assessment of
Educational Progress Civics Assessment, the Frequency: Annually.
2000 82 80 1997 University of Michigan's “Monitoring the Collection Period: 2003
2001 91 80 Future” survey, and the 1998 UCLA American Data Available: September 2003
Freshman survey. Validated By: NCES.
2002 87 80 The National Assessment of
Explanation: An item-by-item comparison was Educational Progress, University of
conducted, and at least 82 percent of the Michigan, and UCLA survey results
participants in the “We the People…” finals have been validated by National
outperformed the average of nonparticipating Center for Education Statistics and
students in knowledge of and support for other nationally recognized research
democratic institutions and processes by institutions. The Center for Civic
statistically significant margins on every item of Education conducts a survey of the
the survey instrument, based on previous participants in the national finals and
nationally administered surveys. is analyzing the results.

Limitations: Data are self-reported.

The Center for Civic Education
would like to utilize an external data
collection agency to conduct its
surveys and prepare independent
reports, but additional funding would
be required to support an external
evaluation.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 30

 Comprehensive Centers Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.283 - Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

Goal 8: To assist Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) recipients in improving teaching and learning for all
children, particularly children at risk of education failure
Objective 8.1 of 1: Provide high-quality comprehensive technical assistance to states, territories, tribes, school districts, and schools that helps students reach
high academic standards.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Addressing legislative priorities: 80% of comprehensive center customers served will be school wide programs, high-poverty schools, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Comprehensive Center customers (in percentages) Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Comprehensive Centers (CC) Semi-
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In 2002, 87 percent of customers Annual Performance Report: Data
High- High- receiving CC services were legislative priority Tables
poverty poverty schools (high-poverty school-wides, high-
schools, schools, poverty non-schoolwides or BIA schools). Of Frequency: Semi-Annually.
non- non- the legislative priority schools, the CCs Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
School school School school targeted and provided services to an Data Available: April 2003
wide wide BIA wide wide BIA increasingly larger number of high-poverty Validated By: No Formal
Programs programs Schools TOTAL Programs programs Schools TOTAL schools in 2002. Verification.

1998 50 12 4 66 Explanation: In addition to schools designated Limitations: Data are self-reported

1999 44 30 3 77 80 in the legislation as high priority schools, the in the CC Performance Reports ( a
CCs also provided services to State agencies, uniform, reporting instrument),
2000 59 26 2 89 80 targeted local school districts, intermediate reviewed by ED during information
units, and non-priority schools. Since 1998, the synthesis, and compiled and
2001 44 43 3 89 80
CCs have increasingly targeted technical analyzed by an external contractor.
2002 52 34 1 87 80 assistance to high-poverty, low-performing
schools. Improvements: The
Comprehensive Centers recently
refined reporting to ensure no
duplication of school counts occurs
during a given year.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 31

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Showing impact with customers: Participants in center activities report that they have incorporated information or skills they have learned
from the Centers' activities into their work.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Participants Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:

Customer survey.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The data in the table represent the
1999 72 response of school-based (teachers and Frequency: Biennially.
principals)respondents. However, in addition to Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2000 75 collecting data from school-based customers, Data Available: June 2003
2001 71 75 data were collected from state and local Validated By: No Formal
administrators. 82% of state and local Verification.
administrators reported they have incorporated
information or skills learned from the Centers Improvements: The national
into their work. When both categories of evaluation of the Reading Success
respondents are included in measuring Network, referenced above,
progress, the Centers exceed their targets. provides data on both teachers' and
their students' achievement, the
Explanation: Additional data under this ultimate goal of accountability
indicator come from a 2002 national evaluation measures. Control schools were
of the Reading Success Network. Results: K-1 used in the evaluation.
grades-RSN kindergarteners showed more
phonemic awareness skill growth, p<.001, than
non-RSN kindergartners in the 2001-2002
school year; RSN 1st graders showed more
growth in phonemic awareness skills, p<.002,
and in decoding words, p<.001, than did the
non-RSN 1st graders. Results: 2nd and 3rd
grades-Both LEP and monolingual students
taught by RSN teachers made greater gains on
vocabulary and word analysis skills than did
non-RSN taught students.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 32

 Demonstration and Training Programs - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.235 - Rehabilitation Services Demonstration and Training_Special Demonstration Programs

Goal 8: To expand, improve or further the purposes of activities authorized under the Act.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Expand and improve the provision of rehabilitation services that lead to employment outcomes.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Expansion: Eighty percent of projects will be judged to have successfully implemented strategies or yielded results that can contribute to the
expansion of services for or the employment of individuals with disabilities.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Web-based Annual Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Annual reports for 10/01 – 09/02 Reports.
have been received and data is being analyzed
1999 95.60
by Program Officers. Frequency: Annually.
2000 100 Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Explanation: Data from the reports will be Data Available: February 2003
2001 80 available by the February, 2003 reporting Validated By: No Formal
period. Verification.
Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: The percentage of projects reporting an impact on rehabilitation service providers including state VR agencies, community rehabilitation
service providers, and other providers of rehabilitation services will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Annual reports for 10/01 – 09/02 Data Available: February 2003
2000 83 have been received and data is being analyzed Validated By: No Formal
by Program Officers. Verification.
Data will be supplied by grantees
Explanation: Data from the reports will be through uniform reporting. No formal
available by the February, 2003 reporting verification procedure applied.
period.
Limitations: Grantees may have
difficulty in reporting on their impact
to an external agency. Numerous
external factors may change the
provision or methods of
rehabilitation services, and grantees
may not be able to pinpoint their
impact in the process. Increased
contact/interaction with State VR
and other rehabilitation service
agencies should in crease the
impact.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 33

Objective 8.2 of 2: Disseminate information about successful new types of patterns of services or devices for individuals with disabilities and report the impact of
the projects.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Dissemination: The percentage of funded projects that disseminate information to state VR agencies and other funded projects and
disability-related organizations will increase and the number of presentations will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of projects Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Web-based Annual Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data from FY 2001 was used to Report
Grantees Presentations Grantees Presentations establish a baseline.
Frequency: Annually.
2001 83 Explanation: Data are not available for Collection Period: 2002
FY2002. Data Available: April 2003
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
Data will be supplied by grantees
through uniform reporting. No formal
verification procedure applied.

Limitations: Grantees and their

objectives, goals and activities are
extremely diverse, ranging from
direct consumer services, system
change projects, technical
assistance projects, etc. In addition,
this is the first year of using the web-
based system. Using the Unified
Data Collection Instrument will
improve the self-reports from the
grantees.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 34

 Demonstration of Comprehensive School Reform - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.332 - Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Goal 8: To enable low-performing students to improve their achievement to meet challenging standards
Objective 8.1 of 2: Student achievement in core subjects generally will show marked improvement in comprehensive school reform demonstration (CSRD)
program schools

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: State assessments: Increasing percentages of students in CSRD program schools will meet or exceed the proficient level of performance on
state assessments in reading and math.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Reading Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Consolidated State

Performance Reports.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data for
Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High this indicator are not yet Frequency: Annually.
available. The deadline Collection Period: 2002
2000 67 56 72 for submitting the Data Available: 2003
2001 75 77 64 Consolidated State Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Performance Report for The 2002 Consolidated Performance Report data
school year 2001-2002, (available Spring 2003) may be validated, analyzed, and
Mathematics the source of these data, summarized by Westat if the current contract is modified
was extended because of and extended. That contract is presently under
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
the transition to No Child consideration.
Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Left Behind. 2002 data
are expected by Spring of Limitations: Data for this indicator will be self-reported
2000 62 74 61 2003. by State Educational Agencies and will be in response to
2001 74 74 74 reporting requirements outlined in the revised
Consolidated State Performance Report.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 35

Objective 8.2 of 2: The number of schools providing high-quality curriculum and instruction and improving student outcomes will increase each year.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Impact on school improvement: The number of schools implementing comprehensive, research-based approaches to improve curriculum
and instruction will increase annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of principals in Title I schools reporting that they are implementing a Status: Unable to judge
research-based school reform model The 2002 Consolidated State
Progress: Progress on this indicator can be Performance data (available Spring
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets measured by consulting the CSR Awards 2003) may be validated, analyzed,
1999 31 Database maintained by the Southwest and summarized by Westat if the
Education Development Laboratory (SEDL). contract is modified and extended.
2000 46 These data are not entirely reliable because That contract is presently under
2001 55 they are self-reported by states and must be consideration.
validated.
2002 60

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 36

 Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students With Disabilities Receive a Quality
Higher Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.333 - Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Higher Education

Goal 8: To improve the quality of higher education for students with disabilities.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Ensure that faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education increase their capacity to provide a high-quality education to
students with disabilities.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Increased attendance: The number of students with disabilities attending an institution benefiting from grants will increase each year
beginning in 2001.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of students benefiting from grants Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Being refined. Data Available: June 2003
2000 125,345 Validated By: No Formal
Explanation: We anticipate a new Verification.
2001 126,439 performance report for this program in the Data supplied by grantees. No
future. This new report will be designed to formal verification procedure
capture data for these indicators. applied.

Limitations: Data are self-reported.

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Increased degree attainment: The number of students with disabilities completing coursework leading to a degree or attainment of a degree
at an institution benefiting from grants will increase each year beginning in 2001.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Progress: Being refined. Data Available: June 2003
Validated By: No Formal
Explanation: Most states reporting on degree Verification.
completion indicated increases from 2000 to Data supplied by grantees. No
2001, but precise numbers were not reported. formal verification procedure
applied.

Limitations: Data are self-reported.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 37

 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Title V (Aid for Institutional
Development, Titles III and V) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.031S Strengthening Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Goal 8: To assist Hispanic-serving institutions that have limited resources and that traditionally serve large numbers of
low-income and Hispanic students to continue to serve these students, and to improve the capacity of these institutions
to provide on-going, up-to-date quality education in all areas of higher education.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Improve the academic quality of participating institutions.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Graduation rates: Completion rates for all full-time, degree-seeking students in Title V 4-year and 2-year colleges will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of full-time, degree-seeking students at Title V institutions Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES
completing a 4-year degree within 6 years and a 2-year degree, certificate, or Survey/Assessment
transferring to a 4-year school within 3 years Progress: Although graduation rates have Survey/Assessment: Integrated
improved over 1998 levels, there is a decline Postsecondary Education Data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets (4%) at 4-year institutions, but an increase System.
4-year 2-year 4-year 2-year (4.66%) at 2-year institutions compared to the References: 1997, 1998, 1999, and
previous year. This progress indicator will be 2000 Graduation Rate Surveys
1998 32.80 19.20 eliminated. The new progress indicator will be (GRS).
1999 36.90 17.70 based on the Performance Measurement
System, with expected results available in Frequency: Annually.
2000 37.40 17.70 March, 2003. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: January 2004
2001 33.40 22.36 Validated By: NCES.
Explanation: The data is representative of the
1999 and 2000 cohort of Title V grantees.
Limitations: In 2000-2001 data
Although prior to the time period that grantees
were voluntarily submitted by 70%
actually received funds in 1999, the graduation
of 4-year Title V institutions and
rates for proceeding years are provided for
98% of 2-year Title V institutions. In
reference. These graduation rates understate
addition, the data tend to be several
actual graduation rates, as this analysis only
years old.
includes the full-time, first-time cohort of
students enrolled in degree-seeking (or Improvements: ED is currently
certificate) programs, and only at the Title V implementing a new Performance
institutions students initially attended. As a Measurement System that will
result, the graduation rates presented here do collect data that is more relevant to
not include part-time, transfer, or returning the impact that Title V projects have
students, which represent a significant portion on academic quality at grantee
of the student body at Title V institutions. institutions. Title V grantees are
reporting to the measurement
system for the first time and
aggregate 2002 data will be
available March, 2003.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 38

Objective 8.2 of 2: Improve the fiscal stability of participating institutions.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Fiscal balance: The percentage of Title V institutions having a positive fiscal balance will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of Title V institutions with a positive fiscal balance Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES
Survey/Assessment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The 1999-00 data established a Survey/Assessment: Integrated
Private Public Private baseline for the Title V program with the goal Postsecondary Education Data
Public Institutions Institutions Institutions Institutions of continuous improvement. The percentage of System.
public institutions having a positive fiscal References: Finance Survey.
2000 53.60 87.50 balance has increased, although the
2001 70.51 75 percentage of private institutions has Frequency: Annually.
decreased. The number of private institutions Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
included in this analysis increased from 9 Data Available: January 2004
institutions to 24, which may account for the Validated By: NCES.
decreased percentage of private institutions Data validated by NCES review and
having a positive fiscal balance. In addition, the NCES statistical standards.
downturn in the national economy has had a
profound impact on the fiscal operations at Limitations: Data tend to be
institutions of higher education. several years old.

Explanation: 108 Hispanic Serving Institutions Improvements: New Performance

(HSI) received funding under the Title V Measurement System will provide
program in 1999 and 2000. 84 of the funded more relevant data on the impact of
HSIs are public institutions and 78 reported Title V grants on fiscal stability.
revenue and expenditure data to the IPEDS
finance survey. Of these 78 public institutions
55 reported having a positive fiscal balance in
2000-01. All 24 private institutions reported
financial data, of these 18 reported positive
fiscal balances in 2000-01.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 39

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Endowment: The percentage of Title V institutions having an endowment will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of Title V institutions with a positive endowment. Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES
Survey/Assessment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Relative to previous year, the Survey/Assessment: Integrated
Public Institutions Public Institutions percentage of Title V public institutions with a Postsecondary Education Data
positive endowment has increased by 2.7%. System.
2000 46.70 References: Finance Survey.
2001 49.40 Explanation: Of the 83 public Title V
institutions completing the IPEDS financial Additional Source Information:
survey, 41 institutions reported a positive Finance survey conducted as part of
endowment and 42 either did not report the Integrated Postsecondary
endowment information, or did not have an Education Data System (IPEDS).
endowment. Data has been corrected to only
include institutions reporting data to IPEDS Frequency: Annually.
and only institutions receiving funds during the Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
reporting year. Data Available: January 2004
Validated By: NCES.
Data validated by NCES review and
NCES Statistical Standards.

Limitations: Data tend to be

several years old. Data on
endowment balances of private
institutions is not available at this
time.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 40

 Eisenhower Federal Activities - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.168 - Eisenhower Professional Development_Federal Activities

Goal 8: To improve the teaching and learning of all students through the provision of high-quality instructional materials
and information about effective programs, and through the expansion of a cadre of highly accomplished teachers.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Provide access to high quality instructional materials and information about exemplary programs in mathematics and science education for
elementary and secondary schools.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Utility: At least 80 percent of customers who use clearinghouse products will report that the products meet their needs in terms of being easy
to access, up to date, and valuable to their work.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percent of customers who report that products are: Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Voluntary Web Survey conducted by
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The Clearinghouse has placed the Clearinghouse Report on FY
Easy to Value to Easy to Up to Value to increasing emphasis on customer satisfaction. 2002 performance from the
Access Up to Date Work Access Date Work The Actual Performance data for 2002 Clearinghouse and Cross-Consortia
represent respondents who provided Evaluation Team, 2002.
1998 64 73 74 information on Clearinghouse products and
1999 89 96 91 services through customer surveys, bimonthly Frequency: Annually.
statistics on product access and dissemination, Collection Period: 2003
2000 90 95.50 93.40 72 72 72 and informal product feedback. Respondents Data Available: January 2004
in prior years represent sample members who Validated By: No Formal
2001 97 97 97 76 76 76
remembered Clearinghouse materials well Verification.
2002 98 97 98 78 78 78 enough to respond to questions about Data supplied by the Clearinghouse
Clearinghouse products. and the Eisenhower Cross-
Consortia Evaluation Team are
subject to an internal review
procedure to ensure common
terminology and data collection and
analysis procedures.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 41

Objective 8.2 of 2: Contribute to the improvement of the teaching and learning of all students by expanding the cadre of highly accomplished teachers.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Teachers certified: The number of teachers who will be awarded Board certification will increase annually and will reach a cumulative total of
22,000 by 2002.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Cumulative number of teachers certified Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Board reports, 2001.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Forty-nine states, the District of
1997 912 Columbia, and approximately 454 school Frequency: Annually.
districts offer some kind of incentive for Collection Period: 2002
1998 1,834 teachers to apply for National Board Data Available: November
1999 4,804 3,600 certification; these incentives have helped to Validated By: No Formal
increase the number of applicants for National Verification.
2000 9,531 7,900 Board certification. (These incentives include Data supplied by the Board. Data
fee support, salary supplements, and license corroborated by other information
2001 16,035 15,000
portability.). available on Nationally Board
2002 23,930 24,000 Certified Teachers.

Improvements: In the past, all

NBCTs for a given cycle have been
announced in Nov. This will continue
to be the case in 2002. In future
years, the announcements may be
made throughout the year by
certificate area.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 42

 Eisenhower Professional Development Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.281 - Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants

Goal 8: To improve the quality of classroom teaching through professional development.

Objective 8.1 of 4: Classroom instruction is improved through effective professional development.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Teachers' knowledge and skills: Increasing percentages of teachers will show evidence that participation in Eisenhower-assisted
professional development improved their knowledge and skills.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Subject Area Content Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

These data are collected by the
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: These data were to ESEA Consolidated State
SAHE have been provided on the ESEA Performance Report for School Year
Districts SAHE Grantees Consolidated Performance Report 2001-2002.
Districts Grantees
for School Year 2001-2002. The
1998 48 68 50 50 report has yet to be submitted. Frequency: Annually.
2000 60 60 Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Instructional Methods Verification.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
SAHE
District SAHE Grantees
District Grantees
1998 63 79 50 50
2000 60 80

Curriculum
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
SAHE
District SAHE Grantees
District Grantees
1998 56 64 50 50
2000 64 60 68

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 43

Approaches to Assessment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
SAHE
District SAHE Grantees
District Grantees
1998 46 48 50 50
2000 60 60

Use of Technology
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
SAHE
Districts SAHE Grantees
Districts Grantees
1998 24 50 50 50
2000 60 60

Approaches to Diversity
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
SAHE
Districts SAHE Grantees
Districts Grantees
1998 26 35 50 50
2000 60 60

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 44

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Teachers' classroom instruction:: Teachers who receive high quality professional development focused on higher order teaching strategies
are more likely to change their teaching practices.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Teaching strategy: Use of calculators or computers to develop models. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information: The ESEA
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: These data Consolidated State
Extent teachers were to have been provided Performance Report for School
Extent teachers who Extent teachers who on the ESEA Consolidated Year 2001-2002.
Extent teachers who did not
participated in did not participate in Performance Report for
who participated in participate in
professional professional School Year 2001-2002. The Frequency: Annually.
professional professional
development used development used report has yet to be submitted. Collection Period: 2002 -
development used development used
teaching strategy in teaching strategy in 2003
teaching strategy teaching strategy
classroom classroom Data Available: 2004
in classroom in classroom
Validated By: No Formal
1999 50 50 Verification.

Teaching strategy: Use of problems with no obvious solution

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Extent teachers Extent teachers
Extent teachers who Extent teachers who
who participated who did not
participated in did not participate in
in professional participate in
professional professional
development professional
development used development used
used teaching development
teaching strategy in teaching strategy in
strategy in used teaching
classroom classroom
classroom strategy in classr
1999 50 50

Teaching strategy: Use of mathematics and science projects to determine student grades.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
- No Data -

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 45

Objective 8.2 of 4: Professional development is sustained, intensive, and high quality and has a lasting impact on classroom instruction.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: High quality: Increasing percentages of teachers will participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities that reflect best
practices.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Major emphasis on academic content Status: Unable to judge Additional Source

Information: The ESEA
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: These data Consolidated State
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees were to have been provided Performance Report for School
on the ESEA Consolidated Year 2001-2002.
1998 51 68 50 50 Performance Report for
2000 56 72 School Year 2001-2002. The Frequency: Annually.
report has yet to be submitted. Collection Period: 2002 -
2003
Involves all teachers in grade, department, or school Data Available: 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Verification.
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 39 50 50
2000 56 56

Is followed up with other activities

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 53 70 50 50
2000 56 75

Involves: a) Planning classroom implementation

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 66 83 50 50
2000 56 86

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 46

b) Presenting, leading, and writing
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 40 67 50 50
2000 56 70

c) Observing and being observed

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 19 35 50 50
2000 36 56 56

d) Reviewing student work

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Districts SAHE Grantees Districts SAHE Grantees
1998 30 38 50 50
2000 43 56 56

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Sustained professional development: Increasing percentages of teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted activities will participate in
activities that span 6 months or longer.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of teachers in activities that span 6 months or longer Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
The ESEA Consolidated State
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: These data were to have been Performance Report for School Year
SAHE provided on the ESEA Consolidated 2001-2002.
Districts SAHE Grantees Performance Report for School Year 2001-
Districts Grantees
2002. The report has yet to be submitted. Frequency: Annually.
1998 20 46 35 35 Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2000 39 50 Data Available: 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 47

Objective 8.3 of 4: High-quality professional development is provided to teachers who work with disadvantaged populations.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: High-poverty schools: The proportion of teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted activities who teach in high-poverty schools will
exceed the proportion of the national teacher pool who teach in high-poverty schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Eisenhower participants who teach in high poverty* schools Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
The ESEA Consolidated State
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: These data were to have been Performance Report for School Year
SAHE provided on the ESEA Consolidated 2001-2002.
Districts SAHE Grantees Performance Report for School Year 2001-
Districts Grantees
2002. The report has yet to be submitted. Frequency: Annually.
1998 23 13 23 23 Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1999 25 25 Data Available: 2004
Validated By: No Formal
2000 22 27 27 Verification.
2001 29 29
2002 31 31

* High-poverty schools are those where 50 percent or more of the students are
eligible for free lunches. **In FY 1995-96, 21 percent of teachers in the Nation taught
in high-poverty schools. Targets are based on this baseline.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
- No Data -

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 48

Objective 8.4 of 4: Measurement of integrated planning and collaboration.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 1: Increasing percentages of states will adopt performance indicators for professional development, demonstrate a technical understanding of
such indicators, and have data (or plans to collect data) for their indicators.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Increasing percentages of states will adopt performance indicators for professional Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
development, demonstrate a technical understanding of such indicators, and have The ESEA Consolidated State
data (or plans to collect data) for their indicators. Explanation: These data were to have been Performance Report for School Year
provided on the ESEA Consolidated 2001-2002.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Performance Report for School Year 2001-
1998 50 2002. The report has yet to be submitted. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1999 72 70 Data Available: 2004
2000 90 Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2001 100
2002 100

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 49

 Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.319 - Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia
Goal 8: To improve mathematics and science education through technical assistance and dissemination
Objective 8.1 of 2: Provide high-quality technical assistance, including planning assistance, training, facilitation of collaboration and networking, and other
technical assistance.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Technical Assistance: At least 80 percent of participants in Consortia technical assistance activities will report that information or assistance
from the Consortia added value to their work.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Training improved instructional practice Status: Target exceeded Source: Non-NCES

Survey/Research
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: For all years that data are
1998 91 reported, the Actual Performance data are Additional Source Information:
shown as the percent of respondents who Consortia/Clearinghouse Network
1999 96 75 found training and collaboration with the Evaluation report 2002. The primary
2000 80 Consortia to be moderately or extensively sources for this report are the
useful. Data on collaboration will be collected Consortia and Clearinghouse
2001 93.50 80 every other year because there is a history of Descriptive Data System (CCDDS)
success with this indicator. When using the and participant surveys.
2002 90 80
standard of a 95% confidence level, each
Consortium would have to survey 1200-1400 Frequency: Annually.
Training improved student engagement and performance clients to address this indicator. To do so Collection Period: 2002 -
annually would not be a beneficial use of Data Available: January 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets limited resources. In 2002, clients who were Validated By: No Formal
1998 89 surveyed were those who received intensive Verification.
services (i.e., 12 or more hours of training and Common definitions and common
1999 94 75 technical assistance). data collection procedures
2000 80 established across each
Consortium. Statistical standards
2001 90.80 80 are applied. Data are subjected to
Cross-Consortia's Eisenhower
2002 89 80
Network Evaluation Committee
internal review and validation
Collaboration strengthened relationships and access to resources procedures.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Limitations: CCDDS and data for
1998 88
2001 and 2002 have not been
1999 93 75 subjected to external audit.
2000 80
2001 87.60 80

2002 80

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 50

Collaboration leveraged resources and efforts for greater impact
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998 80
1999 87 75
2000 80
2001 81.30 80
2002 80

Objective 8.2 of 2: Disseminate information about promising and exemplary practices in mathematics and science education.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Dissemination: The total number of Consortia contacts with customers, by print or by electronic media (“hits” on Web sites plus other
electronic communications), will increase by 10 percent annually, and a majority of the recipients will report that the information contributed to improving their
work.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Print Additional Source Information:

Consortia/Clearinghouse Network
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The target for dissemination by Evaluation report 2002. The primary
1997 306,557 Electronic Media was exceeded. The target for sources for this report are the
Usefulness cannot be judged because 2002 Consortia and Clearinghouse
1998 340,185 data are not available. Descriptive Data System (CCDDS)
1999 125,212 337,212 and participant surveys.
Explanation: With the increasing costs of print
2000 129,901 306,167 dissemination, the Consortia expanded their Frequency: Annually.
2001 196,780 275,551 electronic dissemination efforts resulting in a Collection Period: 2002
big jump in electronic media contacts with a Data Available: January 2003
2002 233,267 247,996 concurrent drop in contacts by print in 1999, Validated By: No Formal
2000, and 2001. The Consortia's strategy was Verification.
successful both in practice and outcome as Common definitions and common
measured by 2001 data on usefulness. Data data collection procedures
on usefulness of the information disseminated established across each
will be collected every other year because Consortium. Data are subjected to
there is a history of success with this indicator. Cross-Consortia's Eisenhower
By using the standard of a 95% confidence Network Evaluation Committee
level, each consortium would have to survey internal review and validation
1200-1400 clients to address this indicator. To procedures.
do so annually would not be a beneficial use of
limited resources. Beginning in 2001, data Limitations: 2001 and 2002 data
were collected using newer, more accurate, cannot be compared with data from
widely accepted techniques for representing the old system.
the number of contacts that customers had
with Web-based information. Shown for 2001
is the baseline of page views, not Web hits.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 51

Electronic Media
Improvements: Improved
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets information technology has enabled
1997 1,354,167 more accurate assessment of the
number of Web-based customer
1998 1,465,259 contacts.
1999 3,328,846 1,489,583
2000 3,684,883 1,638,541
2001 2,820,197 1,802,395
2002 4,647,679 1,982,634

Usefulness
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998 70
1999 77
2000 51
2001 93 51
2002 51

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 52

 Even Start Family Literacy Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.314 - Even Start_Statewide Family Literacy Program

Goal 8: To help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving the educational opportunities of the Nation's low-
income families through a unified family literacy program that integrates early childhood education, adult literacy and
adult basic education, and parenting education
Objective 8.1 of 1: The literacy of participating families will improve.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Adult literacy achievement: Increasing percentages of Even Start adults will achieve significant learning gains on measures of math and
reading.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of adults showing moderate to large gains on Tests of Adult Basic Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: In
Education (TABE) addition to the annual Consolidated
Progress: Progress toward the target cannot State Performance Report, data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets be judged since there was no valid sources are the Second and Third
Math Reading Math Reading assessment instrument for 2001. Format of the National Even Start Evaluations:
2001-02 Department's Consolidated State Sample Study.
1995 26 31 Performance Report (currently under
1996 24 20 development) will determine if data are Frequency: Annually.
available for 2002. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2001 40 30 Data Available: 2004
Explanation: The percentage of adults who Validated By: No Formal
showed significant gains in 1995-96 (the last Verification.
year for which data are available) did not Data for the Second and Third
change in math and declined in reading. National Even Start Evaluations:
Progress toward the target cannot be judged Sample Study were collected before
since the assessment will be changed for the ED Standards for Evaluating
next data point. (An improved but different Program Performance Data were
assessment instrument will be used in the next developed.
measure of performance towards this target).
Limitations: The National Even
Start Evaluations: Sample Study
was designed to look at new
participants' gains each year, thus
the populations being compared in
1994-95 and 1995-96 were different.
The Sample Study also had a small
sample size, as well as grantee
collected data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 53

Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Adult educational attainment: Increasing percentages of adult secondary education (ASE) Even Start participants will earn their high school
diploma or equivalent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Status: Target not met Additional Source Information: Second and
Third National Even Start Evaluations: Universe
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There has been no Study
1996 18 significant change in the
percentage of ASE participants Frequency: Annually.
1997 19 earning a Graduate Equivalency Collection Period: 2001
1999 18.40 Diploma. Data Available: 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
2000 17 Explanation: The GED figures Data were collected for the Second and Third
presented for 1998-99, 1999-00, National Even Start: Universe Study before ED
2001 25
and 2000-01 represent only the Standards for Evaluating Program Performance
GED attainments for new Data were developed. Other sources and
enrollees within the program year experience corroborate these findings
of their enrollment. Thus, GEDs
that participants earned after the Limitations: Definitions of participation in ASE
year of their enrollment ARE NOT and Graduate Equivalency Diploma may vary
reflected. across programs and these data are obtained
through grantee self- report.
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Children's language development and reading readiness: Increasing percentages of Even Start children will achieve significant gains on
measures of language development and reading readiness.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children achieving moderate to large gains on a measure of language Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: In addition to
development the Consolidated State Performance Report,
Progress: No new target was set data are collected by the Second National Even
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets and no new data are available for Start Evaluation.
1996 45 FY 2002.
Frequency: Annually.
1997 64 Explanation: There has been a Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2001 60 continuing increase in the Data Available: 2004
percentage of children achieving Validated By: No Formal Verification.
gains on a measure of language Data for the Second and Third National Even
development. Target was met in Start Evaluations: Sample Study were collected
1996-97. Progress toward the before ED Standards for Evaluating Program
target for 2000-2001 cannot be Performance Data were developed.
judged since there was no valid
assessment instrument. The Limitations: The National Evaluation Study was
format of the 2001-02 designed to look at new participants' gains each
Department's Consolidated State year; thus, the populations compared in 1994-95
Performance report will determine and 1995-96 were different. The Sample Study
if data are available for 2002. also has a small sample size, as well as grantee
collected data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 54

Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Parenting skills: Increasing percentages of parents will show significant improvement on measures of parenting skills, home environment,
and expectations for their children.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of parents of 3-to-6-year-old children making medium-to-large gains on Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: In
the Home Screening Questionnaire addition to the Consolidated State
Progress: The percentage of parents showing Performance Report, data are
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets significant improvement on measures of collected in the Second and Third
1995 45 parenting skills improved from 1994-95 to National Even Start Evaluations.
1995-96. More recent data are not available.
1996 50 Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: ED has continued to place a Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
strong emphasis on improving the literacy Data Available: 2004
focus of parenting education in the last few Validated By: No Formal
years. Progress toward the target for 2000- Verification.
2001 cannot be judged since there was no Data were collected for the National
valid assessment instrument. Data to be Even Start Evaluations before ED
collected in the 2001-02 Consolidated State Standards for Evaluating Program
Performance Report are currently being Performance Data were developed.
defined. If the Report collects data on Even
Start ''parenting skills,'' those data will be Limitations: Instruments used to
available in 2003 and will show what progress measure parenting outcomes often
was made in 2002. have accuracy problems; parents
often respond with the answer that
is socially acceptable, even if not
accurate.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 55

 Fund for the Improvement of Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.215 - Fund for the Improvement of Education

Goal 8: To contribute to the achievement of the National Education Goals by supporting nationally significant and
innovative projects for improving K-12 education.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Support the Department's strategic priorities in elementary and secondary education through nationally significant projects of high quality.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Nationally significant projects are supportive of strategic priorities: Ninety percent of all FIE-funded projects will support the Department's
strategic priorities in elementary and secondary education, and 90 percent of the peer-reviewed projects will receive at least an 80 percent rating for national
significance.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Alignment with strategic priorities (in percentage) Status: Target met Additional Source Information:
Peer-reviewer ratings of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Earmarked projects were not applications, 2002.
1999 100 100 included in the analysis of national significance
because their applications do not receive Frequency: Annually.
2000 100 100 scores and are not peer-reviewed. These non- Collection Period: 2001
2001 100 100 competitive projects are often locally focused Data Available: September 2002
and their significance cannot easily be Validated By: No Formal
2002 100 100 assessed from their original applications. Verification.
However, overall, many of the projects are Data collected from peer-reviewed
expected to produce nationally significant instruments. Data will not be
National significance receiving rating (in percentage) results by the end of the project period. collected for this measure after
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Character education is part of the 2002.
Department's strategic plan and the unsolicited
1999 72 90 grants funded are all related to the Limitations: In FY 2002, the only
2000 95 90 Department's Strategic Plan. competition under the FIE Program
administered by OERI was the
2001 57 90 Partnerships in Character Education
2002 90 90 Partnerships. The selection criteria
for this newly reauthorized program
were based on the statute. There
was not a specific criterion on
national significance. However,
there was a competitive preference
priority for a rigorous experimental
or quasi-experimental evaluation
design. All but one of the funded
projects responded to this
competitive preference priority. A
rigorous evaluation of each project
is likely to yield nationally significant
findings on the effectiveness of the
projects.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 56

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: High quality: Ninety percent of peer-reviewed projects will receive at least an 80 percent rating for quality of project design.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Criteria: project design Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
Peer-reviewer ratings of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Earmarked projects were not applications, 2002.
1999 48 90 included in the analysis of project design
because their applications are not peer Frequency: Annually.
2000 92 90 reviewed. Collection Period: 2001
2001 37 90 Data Available: September 2002
Explanation: Only 37% of FY 2001 projects Validated By: No Formal
2002 86 90 scored at least 80% for project design. In FY Verification.
2002, 100 percent of the character education Data to be collected from peer
projects scored 80 percent or above for project review instruments. Data will no
design. There was a positive trend for longer be collected for this measure.
unsolicited projects as 60% met the indicator.
In FY 2000, none met this indicator. In FY Improvements: The greatly
2001, 35 percent met the target. increased number of eligible
applicants for the character
education competition made a
difference in the scores of the top
rated applications. Unsolicited
applications scores are rising.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 57

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Progress: Eighty percent of projects will be judged to have successfully implemented strategies or yielded results that can contribute to
improving education.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Final

reports, which will be externally reviewed.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In 2001, a sample of Data will no longer be collected on this
- No Data - projects submitting final reports (all measure.
from the same competition) were
identified and a review instrument Frequency: Annually.
designed.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Explanation: Data not collected. It Final reports were collected but were not
was determined that as grantees and peer reviewed.
contractors were not told about this
review and were not provided the Limitations: It was determined that in order
criteria prior to submitting final reports, to be fair to the project and to also obtain
that this would not be a fair nor reliable data, applicants would need to know
adequate measure of their projects. about this type of requirement from the very
beginning so that an evaluation plan could
be part of the original application. Under the
new program authority in the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, evaluations are to be
incorporated into all projects.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 58

 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.116 - Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Goal 8: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of reform and innovation.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Promote reforms that improve the quality of teaching and learning and Postsecondary institutions.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Replication of projects: The number of projects that are adapted in full or in part, or whose materials are used by other institutions, will
increase over the number in previous years.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of FIPSE grantees reporting full project dissemination to others Status: Target not met Additional Source Information: Final Report
Scorecard.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: FIPSE considers
1998 92 itself successful on this measure Frequency: Annually.
if 8 of every 10 projects result in Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
1999 100 project models being adapted on Data Available: January 2004
2000 83 100 other campuses. Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Similar results from site visit scorecard.
2001 96 85
Limitations: Data supplied by project directors in
2002 94.50 95
response to survey instruments. Have revised form
to match indicators more closely. Planning an
external evaluation of the Comprehensive Program
through PES around these indicators.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 59

Objective 8.2 of 2: Institutionalization of FIPSE Programs

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Projects sustained: The number of projects sustained at least 2 years beyond Federal funding will be maintained or increased beyond current
level.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Projects reporting full or partial institutionalization on their home Status: Target met Additional Source Information:
campuses Final Report Scorecard.
Explanation: FIPSE's emphasis on Assessment of projects based on
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets institutional contributions to projects and review of final reports sent in at the
1998 93 development of long-term continuation plans completion of projects. Based on
are designed to embed projects within campus this assessment, 95 percent
1999 96 structures. Expect the rate of demonstrate partial or complete
2000 94 100 institutionalization to be in the 90-100% range, institutionalization by the end of the
but not 100% each year. grant.
2001 100 95
Frequency: Annually.
2002 95 95 Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
Data Available: January 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
Similar Data from Site Visit
Scorecard. Assessment of project
drawn from on-site visitation and
evaluation or projects. 100 percent
of projects have shown attention
devoted to dissemination planning
before the end of the project date.

Limitations: Data supplied as a

result of the assessment of project
final reports submitted by project
directors.

Improvements: Planning
modification of assessment to work
with planned on-line assessment for
2003. External evaluation of the
Comprehensive Program is currently
underway.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 60

 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR-UP) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.334 - Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

Goal 8: To significantly increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in
postsecondary education.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Increase the academic performance and preparation for postsecondary education of participating students.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Completion of academically challenging curricula: Program participants will successfully complete college preparatory courses such as
algebra, geometry, chemistry, and physics at increasing rates.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of seventh graders who passed prealgebra Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Annual program performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Targets were not established for reports and program evaluation
2001 18 2002. study.

2002 18 Explanation: Data will continue to be collected Frequency: Annually.

on successful completion of core academic Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
subjects and other college preparatory Data Available: December 2003
The percentage of seventh graders who passed Algebra 1
courses. Note that standards to enter and Validated By: No Formal
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets complete above grade level math courses Verification.
2001 2 (such as prealgebra and Algebra I for 7th Gear Up staff review performance
graders) are becoming more rigorous. This report data for quality, clarity, and
2002 2 practice may limit the percentage of students in consistency; and to assess extent to
many schools served by GEAR UP who are which project objectives are being
entering and completing such courses. Also accomplished.
Note that data for Year 2001 were obtained
from the GEAR UP Annual Performance
Report covering April 2000 - March 2001. Data
for Year 2002 were obtained from the GEAR
UP Annual Performance Report covering April
2001 - March 2002.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 61

Objective 8.2 of 3: Increase the rate of high school graduation and participation in postsecondary education of participating students.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Attendance, high school completion, and postsecondary enrollment: Program participants will have high rates of attendance in school, be
promoted to the next grade level on time, and successfully complete high school and enroll in postsecondary education programs at increasing rates.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentages of participating seventh graders promoted to the next grade level Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information: Annual
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Targets were not program performance
2001 98 established for 2002. reports and program
evaluation study.
2002 97 Explanation: Data will
continue to be collected on Frequency: Annually.
school attendance and grade Collection Period: 2002 -
The percentage of seventh graders with fewer than five unexcused absences in the first two quarters of 2000-01
level promotions, and in 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets future years on high school Data Available: December
2001 83 completion and 2003
postsecondary education Validated By: No Formal
2002 88 enrollment. Note that Verification.
standards for promotion have GEAR UP staff review
become more rigorous in performance data for
many school districts and quality, clarity, and
states that have GEAR UP consistency; and to asses
programs. extent to which project
objectives are being
accomplished.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 62

Objective 8.3 of 3: Increase educational expectations for participating students and student and family knowledge of postsecondary education options,
preparation, and financing.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Knowledge of postsecondary education costs, financing, and academic preparation: Program participants and their families will increasingly
report having knowledge of postsecondary education costs, available financial aid, and necessary academic preparation for college.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of GEAR UP students who have talked to their school counselor, advisor or someone Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
else at their school about academic preparation for college and college entrance requirements. Information: Annual
Progress: Targets were not program performance reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets established for 2002. and program evaluation
2001 50 study.
Explanation: Data will continue
2002 53 to be collected on students and Frequency: Annually.
parents' knowledge of Collection Period: 2002 -
postsecondary education 2003
The percentage of parents of GEAR UP students who have talked to their children's school counselor,
entrance requirements, costs of Data Available: December
or someone else at their children's school about academic preparation for college and college entrance
attendance, and financial aid 2003
requirements.
opportunities. Validated By: No Formal
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Verification.
2001 31 GEAR UP staff review
performance report data for
2002 39 quality, clarity, and
consistency; and to access
extent to which project
The percentage of parents of GEAR UP students who have talked to their children's school counselor, objectives are being
advisor or someone else at their children's school about availability of financial assistance. accomplished.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 24
2002 31

The percentage of GEAR UP students who are aware of two or more types of postsecondary education
institutions.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 62
2002 62

The percentage of GEAR UP parents who have participated in GEAR UP events

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 36
2002 37

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 63

 Gallaudet University - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.994K Gallaudet University Programs, Elementary and Secondary Education Programs, Pre-College Programs, Endowment Grant

Goal 8: To challenge students who are deaf, graduate students who are deaf, and graduate students who are hearing, to
achieve their academic goals and obtain productive employment, provide leadership in setting the national standard for
best practices in education of the deaf and hard of hearing, and establish a sustainable resource base.
Objective 8.1 of 2: University programs and the Model Secondary School for the Deaf and the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School will optimize the number
of students completing programs of study

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Enrollment at Gallaudet University: Maintain a minimum enrollment of 1,250 undergraduate and 700 graduate students; 70 students in
professional studies; 225 students at the Model Secondary School; and 140 students at the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Undergraduate enrollment Status: Unable to judge Additional Source

Information: Collegiate
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There was a considerable increase in Office of Enrollment
1998 1,339 graduate enrollment in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year Services, and Clerc Center
2003, the Undergraduate enrollment fell slightly short student database, FY 2003
1999 1,300 1,250 its target. The Professional Studies enrollment and enrollment as of October
2000 1,318 1,250 Kendall School enrollment targets were exceeded in 2002, summarized in
2003; Model Secondary School fell short of its target Gallaudet's FY 2002 annual
2001 1,321 1,250 in 2003. report, submitted in 2003.
2002 1,243 1,250
Explanation: The 2002 Undergraduate enrollment, Frequency: Annually.
2003 1,243 1,250 which was slightly short its target was addressed Collection Period: 2003
through a number of strategic recruitment activities Data Available: October
during fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 2003
Graduate enrollment enrollment at the Kendall School exceeded its target. Validated By: No Formal
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets The Model School has developed strategies to Verification.
address enrollment. In fiscal year 2003, the total Data supplied by Gallaudet
1998 714 undergraduate enrollment held steady at 1,243, very University and the Clerc
1999 628 700 near its target. The Graduate enrollment, while not Center. No formal verification
meeting its target, increased considerably over the procedure applied.
2000 541 700 fiscal year 2002 enrollment. Implementation of key
strategies for increasing Graduate and Professional
2001 625 700
Studies enrollments has resulted in substantial
2002 517 700 increases in both categories. While the Model
Secondary School did not reach its target enrollment,
2003 617 700 it slightly increased enrollment over the fiscal year
2002 level. The Kendal School enrollment increased
approximately 3 percent over the fiscal year 2002
level, again exceeding its target. Gallaudet has

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 64

Professional studies enrollment established minimum enrollment targets based on
longstanding enrollment targets and historical trends
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets recognizing that actual figures vary from year to year.
1998 92
1999 70 70
2000 86 70
2001 93 70
2002 92 70
2003 154 70

Model School enrollment

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998 224
1999 209 225
2000 219 225
2001 205 225
2002 188 225
2003 190 225

Kendall School enrollment

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998 137
1999 117 140
2000 135 140
2001 148 140
2002 148 140
2003 152 140

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 65

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Student retention rate: Increase the undergraduate retention rate and maintain a minimum retention rate of 90 percent at the Model
School/Kendall School.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Undergraduate retention rate Status: Target not met Additional Source Information: Collegiate
Office of the Register and Clerc Center
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The undergraduate (Model and Kendall Schools) Office of
1998 72 retention rate fell show its target, Exemplary Programs and Research records,
however, there was an increase over summarized in the FY 2002 annual report,
1999 73 75 the fiscal year 2001 rate for submitted in 2003.
2000 72 76 undergraduates. The Clerc Center
(Model and Kendall) retention rate fell Frequency: Annually.
2001 71 76 short its target in fiscal year 2002 Collection Period: 2003
Data Available: October 2003
2002 73 76
Explanation: The percentage of Validated By: No Formal Verification.
2003 76 students returning to the University Data supplied by Gallaudet University and
increased 2 percent from fiscal year the Clerc Center
2001, making performance very close
Clerc Center: Model School and Kendall School retention rate to the target. Increased focus on Limitations: Gallaudet plans to refine the
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets retention of students and particular retention rate indicator for the Clerc Center
attention to the success of first year students and how progress toward its target
1998 85 students have contributed to the is calculated, so that it more validly reflects
1999 92 90 increase. The fiscal year 2002 Clerc the provision of a free appropriate public
Center retention rate o f86 percent is education (FAPE) to Clerc Center students.
2000 82 90 nearly at the same level reported for The concepts of retention and persistence at
fiscal year 2001 but still slightly below the postsecondary level do not translate
2001 88 90
the target. appropriately to elementary and secondary
2002 86 90 special education.
2003 90

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 66

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Student graduation rate: The undergraduate graduation rates at the university will increase. The Model School graduation rate will be
maintained.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Undergraduate graduation rate Status: Target not met Additional Source Information: Collegiate
Office of the Registrar and the Clerc Center
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The Undergraduate Office of Exemplary Programs and
1998 41 graduation rate declined from the Research records, summarized in FY 2002
previous year and fell short its target. annual report, submitted in 2003.
1999 42 41 The Model Secondary School
2000 41 42 graduation rate declined from the Frequency: Annually.
previous year and fell short of its Collection Period: 2003
2001 41 43 target. Data Available: October 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
2002 42 44
Explanation: The University's Data supplied by Gallaudet University and
2003 45 performance increased slightly from Clerc Center.
fiscal year 2001, but fell short its target.
The University has instituted a number Limitations: Gallaudet plans to
Model School graduation rate of strategies to improve its reconceptualize how performance is
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets undergraduate graduation rate. The assessed for the Model School graduation
Model School 80 percent graduation rate to make this indicator a more valid
1998 93 rate reflects those students who reflection of what really occurs with a given
1999 88 94 completed all graduation requirements senior class. Students may graduate at the
by the end of their senior year. An end of their senior year, or they may make
2000 98 94 additional 5 percent deferred the decision, as part of the Individualized
graduation pending completion of Education Program (IEP) process, to
2001 90 94
course work, and 13 percent changed change their graduation so they may
2002 80 94 their graduation date and will return for continue to pursue their IEP goals, or they
the fifth year option. Therefore, the may elect to take the fifth year option.
2003 94 total projected graduation rate for fiscal
year 2002 senior class is expected to
be 98 percent.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 67

Objective 8.2 of 2: Gallaudet works in partnership with others to develop and disseminate educational programs and materials for deaf and hard-of-hearing
students.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Use of the Demonstration Schools' expertise: Other programs and/or institutions adopting innovative curricula and other products, or
modifying their strategies as a result of Model and Kendall's leadership, will be maintained or increased.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Programs adopting Model/Kendall Innovative strategies/curricula Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Records of the Clerc Center Office
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The Clerc Center exceeded its of Training and Professional
1998 41 target in fiscal year 2002. Development, summarized in the FY
2002 Annual Report, submitted in
1999 52 41 Explanation: Fifty-six new programs adopted January 2003.
2000 62 41 innovative Clerc Center strategies or curricula
in FY 2002, representing an increase over Frequency: Annually.
2001 39 41 fiscal year 2001 and exceeding its target in Collection Period: 2003
fiscal year 2002. Again, it should be noted that Data Available: October 2003
2002 56 41
the number of new programs adopting Validated By: No Formal
innovations from year to year will vary and Verification.
depends in part on the number and type of Data supplied by Gallaudet
strategies and curricula being disseminated by University and the Clerc Center. No
the Clerc Center and the financial and formal verification procedures
personnel resources available within other applied.
programs to participate in training and
implementation activities.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 68

 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) and Javits
Fellowships - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.200 - Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need

Goal 8: To increase the number of persons trained at the highest academic level
Objective 8.1 of 2: Increase the number of graduate students in areas of national need, including the number of underrepresented groups.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Graduate school completion: There will be an increase in the percentage of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who receive a GAANN
fellowship and obtain a doctorate in an area of national need.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students receiving a GAANN fellowship who earned a doctorate degree. Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress toward
1999 60 performance targets is limited
because the grant is for a three- Additional Source Information: The FY
2001 12 12 year period, but the average 1999 data is not comparable to the
2002 12 time to degree for a Ph.D. is subsequent fiscal year data. In FY 1999,
seven years. contractors surveyed all grantees funded
up to that time and reported the compiled
Explanation: Data is reported at data. The number does not reflect
the end of a three-year grant reporting from an individual cohort of
period from information provided grantees, but from all grantees who
in the final performance reports. responded to the survey.
In FY 2002, there is no new data
to report because there were no Frequency: Other.
new awards for the grant period Collection Period: 2000 - 2002
FY 1999-2001. Data Available: December 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: The data on completion

rates are limited because the project
period for a GAANN grant is three years,
while the average time to Ph.D.
completion is 7 years. Although grantees
are required to submit an interim report for
each of the first two years of the grant
period and a final report at the end of the
project period, the majority of fellows will
not have reached completion of their Ph.D
during the three-year project period. No
further reporting is required.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 69

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Enrollment of targeted populations: The percentage of GAANN fellows from underrepresented groups will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of fellows from traditionally underrepresented groups by grantee cohort Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
Contractor Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress toward Report
Alaska performance targets is
Alaskan/ limited because the grant is
n/Nativ
Native for a three-year period, but Frequency: Other.
e Asian/P Black
America Asian/P Black the average time to degree Collection Period: 2000 - 2002
Americ acific Non-
n acific Non- for a Ph.D. is seven years. Data Available: December
an Islande Hispani Hispani
Indians Islander Hispanic Hispanic Women 2003
Indians r c c Women
Explanation: Data is Validated By: No Formal
1999 1 10 7 4 37 reported at the end of a Verification.
2000 1 7 7 6 38 three-year grant period
from information provided Limitations: The authorizing
2001 0 7 7 7 39 1 7 7 6 38 in the final performance statute recommends, but does
reports. In FY 2002, there not mandate, that grantees seek
2002 1 7 7 6 38
is no new data to report individuals from traditionally
because there were no underrepresented groups when
new awards for the grant awarding fellowships. However,
period FY 1999-2001. in responding to the selection
criteria, grantees must address
plans to include students from
underrepresented groups.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 70

Objective 8.2 of 2: To enable students of superior ability in the arts, humanities, and social sciences to complete their terminal degree.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Graduate school completion: The percentage of Javits fellows who complete a terminal degree within 7 years will increase over time.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Rates of doctorate attainment by Javits fellows 7 years from enrollment. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Program performance reports; Survey
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: No 2000-2002 data are of Earned Doctorates, 1999.
1998 30 available
Frequency: Annually.
1999 26 Explanation: The graduation rate within Collection Period: 2003
seven years of entering a graduate Data Available: January 2004
program for Javits fellows is 26% in 1999. Validated By: No Formal Verification.
The Survey of Earned Doctorates collects
only information on attainment of a Limitations: The new Annual
doctorate degree. Some Javits fellows Performance Report will require
pursue programs in fields for which the grantees to report completion data on
terminal degree is below the doctorate their fellows (thus obtaining completion
level; their attainment is not accounted for, information on both doctoral programs
resulting in a measure that it biased and those programs where the Master
downward. of Fine Arts is the terminal degree).

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 71

 Grants to States and Preschool Grants Program--IDEA Part B - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.027 - Special Education_Grants to States
84.173 - Special Education_Preschool Grants

Goal 8: To improve results for children with disabilities by assisting state and local educational agencies to provide
children with disabilities access to high-quality education that will help them meet challenging standards and prepare
them for employment and independent living.
Objective 8.1 of 5: All preschool children with disabilities receive services that prepare them to enter school ready to learn.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Inclusive settings : The percentage of preschool children with disabilities who are receiving special education and related services in
inclusive settings (e.g., regular kindergarten, public preschool programs, Head Start, or child care facilities) will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of preschool children with disabilities receiving services in inclusive Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
settings IDEA State-reported data
Explanation: New state data collections
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets typically take up to five years to achieve Frequency: Annually.
1998 41.40 reliability. Because there is a one-year lag in Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
the availability of this data after collection, the Data Available: September 2003
1999 41.40 data that became available in 2002 is for 2000- Validated By: Federal Statistical
2000 39.80 2001 Agencies.

2001 38.90

Objective 8.2 of 5: All Children who would typically be identified as being eligible for special education at age 8 or older and who are experiencing early reading
or behavioral difficulties receive appropriate services earlier to avoid falling behind their peers.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Earlier identification and intervention: The percentage of children served under IDEA ages 6 or 7, compared to ages 6 to 21, will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children served under IDEA under ages 6 or 7 Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
IDEA state reported data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: This indicator is under review by
% of children % of children the Department. Therefore no actual data or
are shown after 1999-or 2000. Validated By: Federal Statistical
1997 13 Agencies.
1998 13.40
1999 12.80 14

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 72

Objective 8.3 of 5: All children with disabilities have access to the general curriculum and assessments, with appropriate accommodations, supports, and
services, consistent with high standards.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Regular education settings (school age): The percentage of children with disabilities ages 6 to 21 who are reported by states as being served
in the regular education classroom at least 80 percent of the day will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Sate-reported data required under
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The percentage of children IDEA.
% of Children % of Children served in regular education classrooms at least
80 percent of the day decreased from 47.3 Frequency: Annually.
1996 52.60 percent in 2000 to 46.5 percent in 2001. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1997 45.70 Because there is a one-year lag in the Data Available: September 2003
availability of this data after collection, the data Validated By: Federal Statistical
1998 46.40 that became available in 2002 is for 2000- Agencies.
2001.
1999 47.40 48
Limitations: The Department is
2000 47.30 47.50 taking steps to reduce the amount of
time for collecting and reporting
2001 46.50 48.50 data.
2002 48.80

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 73

Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: Performance on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): The percentage of students with disabilities who meet or exceed
basic levels in reading, math, and science in the NAEP will increase. The number of students with disabilities who do not meet basic standards will decrease. The
percentage of students who are excluded from the NAEP because of their disabilities will decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students with disabilities who met or exceeded basic levels-4th grade Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Analysis of data from National
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data for this indicator are based Assessment of Educational
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science on NAEP reading, math and science score. Progress (NAEP).
Since each NAEP subject test is administered
1996 43.30 38.60 in a different year, data reported in this Frequency: Other.
1998 24 indicator will vary. For Math and Science the
percentage excluded from NAEP includes Data Available: January 2003
2000 21.50 30.30 36.70 public and private school students. For Analysis of data from National
Reading the percentage includes only public Assessment of Educational
school students. The percentage reported for Progress (NAEP).
Percentage of students with disabilities who met or exceeded basic levels-8th grade 8th grade Math who met or exceeded basic
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets levels has been corrected to 26.8 percent Limitations: Data on children with
based on an error in reporting last year's data. disabilities who meet or exceed
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science basic standards are based on very
1996 26.80 16.70 small sample sizes, and, therefore,
have a low level of reliability.
1998 28
2000 0 23.40 25.90

Percentage of students with disabilities who met or exceeded basic levels-12th

Grade
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 9.40 16.30
1998 34
2000 22.90 15.60

Number of students who did not meet basic level-4th Grade

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 275,907 298,778
1998 387,016

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 74

Number of students who did not meet basic level-8th Grade
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 308,728 351,326
1998 321,330

Number of students who did not meet basic level-12th Grade

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 241,110 223,672
1998 200,173

Percentage of students excluded from NAEP-4th Grade

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 4 5
1998 6
2000 4 3 3

Percentage of students excluded from NAEP-8th Grade

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 3 4
1998 5
2000 3 3

Percentage of students excluded from NAEP-12th Grade

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Reading Math Science Reading Math Science
1996 3 3
2000 2 2

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 75

Objective 8.4 of 5: Secondary school students with disabilities receive the support they need to complete high school prepared for postsecondary education or
employment.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 1: Graduation: The percentage of children with disabilities exiting school with a regular high school diploma will increase, and the percentage
who drop out will decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

State reported data required under
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Because there is a one-year lag IDEA.
Graduation Drop out Graduation Drop out in the availability of this data after collection,
the data that became available in 2002 is for Frequency: Annually.
1996 52.60 34.10 2000-2001. From 2000 to 2001, the Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1997 53.50 32.70 percentage of children with disabilities who Data Available: September 2003
graduated with a high school diploma Validated By: Federal Statistical
1998 55.40 31 increased from 56.2 percent to 57 percent, Agencies.
while the percentage who dropped out
1999 57.40 28.90 56 31
remained at 29.4 percent. Limitations: Supplemental
2000 56.20 29.40 57 30 descriptive information will be
provided by the National
2001 57 29.40 59 27 Longitudinal Study II.
2002 60 26

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 76

Objective 8.5 of 5: States are addressing their needs for professional development consistent with their comprehensive system of personnel development
(CSPD).

Indicator 8.5.1 of 1: Qualified personnel: The number of states and outlying areas where at least 90 percent of special education teachers are fully certified in the
area in which they are teaching will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of States Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

IDEA state reported data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Because there is a one-year lag
No. of States No. of States No. of States in the availability of this data after collection, Frequency: Annually.
No. of States Serving Ages 6- Serving Ages Serving Ages the data that became available in 2002 is for Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Serving Ages 3-5 21 3-5 6-21 2000-2001. There is a clustering of states Data Available: September 2003
around the 90 percent goal in the indicator, Validated By: Federal Statistical
1996 34 39 which may result in unpredictable changes Agencies.
1997 36 38 from year to year. However, evidence of a
positive trend is expected to be evident over a Limitations: The Department is
1998 38 40 5- to 7- year period. taking steps to reduce the amount of
time for collecting and reporting.
1999 36 37 40 41
Note: Data for actual performance for 1996-
2000 36 37 41 42 2000 have been revised to eliminate effects of
2001 40 42 rounding. This has resulted in lower results
than previously reported.
2002 40 42

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 77

 Helen Keller National Center (HKNC) for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.904A Helen Keller National Center

Goal 8: Individuals who are deaf-blind will become independent and function as full and productive members of their
local community.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Ensure that individuals who are deaf-blind receive the specialized services and training they need to become as independent and self-
sufficient as possible.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Services to consumers at headquarters: The training program at headquarters will maintain or increase the number of adult consumers and
high school students served, the percentage of consumers who complete training and are placed in employment settings, and the percentage of consumers who
complete training and return to less restrictive living situations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of adult consumers, high school students and percentage of consumers Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Internal client
caseload reports summarized in the HKNC Annual
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress on Report for 2001.
% Placed % Placed these objectives is expected
High in Less High in Less to reflect the targets Frequency: Annually.
Adult School % Restricting Adult School % Restricting established for FY2002. Collection Period: 2002
Consumers Students Placed Settings Consumers Students Placed Settings Data Available: April 2003
Explanation: The FY2002 Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
1999 75 16 45 49 85 12 38 25 data will be available for Final transition plans on each client will include the
2000 82 15 52 59 90 12 45 49 reporting by April 2003. employment and living situations each client will
be entering upon completion of training.
2001 87 13 38 64 90 12 45 59
Limitations: Data are based on self-reported data
2002 90 12 45 59
from the grantee and are not independently
verified. A follow-up survey was developed but
budgetary limitations prevented it implementation.
HKNC will conduct a limited survey using selected
RSA regions.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 78

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Clients improve functionally: Participants in the core training program at headquarters will increase their skills and abilities in areas such as
vocational services, communication, orientation and mobility, and independent living. The target will be established upon receipt of baseline data. The target for
2001 is an 85 percent success rate in achieving training goals.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of identified training goals successfully achieved by participants Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: HKNC
Annual Report for 2001.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress on these
1999 83.70 84 objectives is expected to reflect the Frequency: Annually.
targets established for FY2002. Collection Period: 2002 -
2000 88.90 85 Data Available: April 2003
2001 92 86 Explanation: The FY2002 data will Validated By: No Formal Verification.
be available for reporting by April Individual Training Plan (ITP).
2003.
Limitations: Data are based upon self-
reported data from the grantee and are
not independently verified.

Objective 8.2 of 2: Ensure that deaf-blind consumers and their family members receive the services they need to function more independently in the home
community.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Regional services to consumers and families: Helen Keller National Center will maintain or increase the number of consumers and family
members served through its regional offices.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number served through Helen Keller National Center Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: HKNC
Annual Report for 2001.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In 2001, the regional offices
Consumers Families Organizations Consumers Families Organizations served more consumers and families Frequency: Annually.
than were targeted. The 913 Collection Period: 2002
1999 1,336 368 976 1,250 400 agencies/organizations served Data Available: March 2003
2000 1,340 461 995 1,300 400 950 represented a decrease of 82. Validated By: No Formal Verification.
HKNC regional reps maintain client case
2001 1,727 484 913 1,400 425 1,000 Explanation: No data are available for summary files that indicate re activity with
FY2002. The number of consumers individual consumers, family members,
2002 1,500 400 1,050
and families served fluctuates from professionals and organizations/agencies.
year to year. In establishing the
targets, trend data were used from Limitations: Client case summary reports
prior years. do not measure the level of service provided
or impact of the services on the lives of the
consumers and family members. There are
no improvements planned at this time.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 79

 High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant
Program - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.141 - Migrant Education_High School Equivalency Program
84.149 - Migrant Education_College Assistance Migrant Program
Goal 8: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of a high school diploma, and
subsequently, to begin postsecondary education, enter military service, or obtain employment.
Objective 8.1 of 2: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will complete the program and receive their GED.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: GED completion: The percentage of HEP participants who complete the program and receive the GED will continue to remain high, if not
increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of HEP participants receiving a GED Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
HEP/Camp grantee performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The percentage of HEP students reports.
1996 70 who received the GED decreased in FY 2000
and 2001 because the GED requirements Frequency: Annually.
1997 66 changed, grantees had problems with test Collection Period: 2002
1998 72 centers in their States, in particular with GED Data Available: January 2003
testing in Spanish, and five of the projects Validated By: No Formal
1999 73 were new projects and had difficulty with late Verification.
start-up dates. Data for 2002 are not yet Data were supplied by grantees.
2000 58
available.
2001 53

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 80

Objective 8.2 of 2: CAMP students will graduate from 4-year colleges or universities at higher rates

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Student graduation: The percentage of former CAMP participants who complete a postsecondary degree program will be as high as that
achieved by a comparable group of students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of former CAMP participants who successfully Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
complete a postsecondary degree. HEP/CAMP grantee performance
Progress: The data for FY 2001-2002 will be available when reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets grantees submit their Grant Performance Report, ED Form 524-B for
- No Data - the non-competing continuation awards. These reports cover the Frequency: Annually.
period from February 15, 2001 through February 15, 2002, and Collection Period: 2002
include the data for the end of the year report for FY 2000-2001. Data Available: January 2003
Explanation: These data have not been available as grantees have Validated By: No Formal Verification.
not systematically tracked progress made by former migrant students
past completion of the 1-year CAMP effort. The Office of Migrant Limitations: OME is working with
Education is working with grantees to start collecting these data. A grantees to provide detailed
baseline will be established in 2002. information within the annual
performance reports

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 81

 Howard University - 2002
Goal 8: To assist Howard University with financial resources needed to carry out its educational mission.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Maintain and strengthen academic programs and achievement by 1: recruiting better students, 2: improving student retention, 3: improving
graduation rates, and 4: promoting excellence in teaching

Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Better students: The average SAT scores of incoming freshman will increase by 1.0 percent per year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Average SAT score Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Howard University
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: However, actual performance still
% % exceeds the national average for black Frequency: Annually.
Math Verbal Total Change Math Verbal Total Change students. Collection Period: 2002
Data Available: March 2003
1997 494 513 1,007 Explanation: Average SAT scores decreased Validated By: No Formal
1998 506 519 1,025 1.80 from 1062 in 2000 to 1046 in 2001, resulting in Verification.
a 1.5% decrease. This decline was due in
1999 517 533 1,050 2.40 1,035 large part to greater than anticipated
enrollment of new students who met
2000 525 537 1,062 1.10 1,055 2
admissions requirements, but did not have
2001 516 530 1,046 -1.50 1,060 .50 SAT scores at the high end of the SAT range.
The University's average SAT score is still 26
2002 1,060 .50 points higher than the national average, which
is 1020. The 2002 objective is to reach or
exceed the unmet 2001 goal of an average of
1060 SAT total.
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Student retention: Decrease attrition for undergraduate FTIC (first time in college) students by 2 percent until national average is bettered.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Attrition rates Status: Unable to judge Source: Other

Other: Record/File.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Target of bettering the national Sponsor: The Consortium for
National Rate HU Rate National Rate HU Rate average and decreasing attrition to 14% was Student Retention and Data
exceeded. The National Attrition rate for 2000 Exchange.
1997 26.70 19.60 was 20%.
1998 26.40 17.60 Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: The attrition rate of 12.9 percent Collection Period: 2002
1999 25 16 at Howard University is well below the national Data Available: March 2003
average of 20.2%. The objective remains to Validated By: No Formal
2000 20 15.10 15
decrease the attrition rate by at least 1 percent Verification.
2001 20.20 12.90 14 per year.
2002 12.90 13

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 82

Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Graduation rates: The undergraduate and graduate graduation rates will increase by 2 percent per year until the national average is reached
or exceeded.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

6-year graduation rate Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The graduation rate at Howard
Consortium University of 51.3% demonstrates continuous Frequency: Annually.
Consortium Rate HU Rate improvement from 1998 (40.9%) and a pattern Collection Period: 2002
Rate HU Rate
of exceeding performance targets for each Data Available: March 2003
1997 49 succeeding year. Validated By: No Formal
1998 40.90 Verification.

1999 54.20 46.10 43 Limitations: The reported 6-year

national rate comes from the
2000 54.10 48.70 48
Consortium for Student Retention
2001 51.30 50 Data Exchange at the University of
Oklahoma. Howard University is a
2002 52 member of the institution.

Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Excellence in teaching and scholarship: The participation rate of faculty in activities of the Fund for Academic Excellence will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Proposals Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The principal goal for the Fund
Number of Number of Number of Number of for Academic Excellence is to be a catalyst for Frequency: Annually.
Funded Participants Participants Funded Participants Participants increasing extramural research. Enhanced Collection Period: 2002
standards for faculty extramural repeat awards Data Available: March 2003
1998 258 153 189 will ultimately constrain the participation rate Validated By: No Formal
1999 218 152 200 for faculty. The number of proposals submitted, Verification.
and those funded increased; however, the
2000 149 128 173 125 210 number funded did not meet our target due to
prevailing economic conditions.
2001 154 130 160 140 200
2002 150 225

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 83

Objective 8.2 of 3: To promote excellence in research

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Grants received: The number of grant proposals that are funded will increase
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

.Number of funded grant proposals Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Grants received increased by
1997 232 3.6% over last year's number of awards. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
1998 279 Data Available: March 2003
1999 299 Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2000 252 301
2001 261 260
2002 270

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Grant funding: The total funds received through research grants will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Funds received through research grants Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The value of grants received
Value of increased by 6.2% to approximately $53.4 Frequency: Annually.
Value of Grants million. This exceeded our target by $1.7 Collection Period: 2002
Grants
Received % Change million. Data Available: March 2003
Received % Change
Validated By: No Formal
1997 45,268,427 Verification.
1998 44,057,827 2.70
1999 47,533,841 7.90
2000 50,294,706 5.80 48,009,180 20
2001 53,416,128 51,700,000
2002 53,800,000

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 84

Objective 8.3 of 3: Increase Howard University's financial strength and independence from Federal Appropriations

Indicator 8.3.1 of 3: Endowment: The value of the endowment each year will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Market value of endowment (in millions) Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The market value of Howard
1997 211.20 University's endowment increased Frequency: Annually.
approximately 3.5% over last year. The Collection Period: 2002
1998 252.90 increase is substantial given recent market Data Available: March 2003
1999 297 conditions. Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2000 329.30 320 Audited Financial Statements.
2001 340.90 346

Indicator 8.3.2 of 3: Outside support: The funds raised from all private sources will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Alumni contribution (in millions) Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Howard University.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Outside support increased more
1997 11.80 than 32% over last year, and 27% over our Frequency: Annually.
target. Collection Period: 2002
1998 8.40 Data Available: March 2003
1999 9.20 Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2000 13.90 11 Audited Financial Statements.
2001 18.40 14.50
2002 18

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 85

Indicator 8.3.3 of 3: Outside support—alumni: The participation rate of alumni who contribute to the school will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Participation rate Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Howard University
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The 15 percent participation rate
1998 11.40 for 2001 is below the desired goal, but a Frequency: Annually.
significant increase from the prior year's Collection Period: 2002
1999 9.40 record, and closer to the average alumni Data Available: March 2003
2000 12.20 25 participation rate for Tier II universities, which Validated By: No Formal
is approximately 18%. The University's Verification.
2001 15 30 fundraising operations have been completely
restructured and we anticipate greater
2002 32
congruence with the goals.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 86

 Impact Aid - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.040 - Impact Aid_Facilities Maintenance
84.041 - Impact Aid
Goal 8: To provide appropriate financial assistance for federally connected children who present a genuine burden to
their school districts
Objective 8.1 of 3: Make payments in a timely manner
Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Timeliness of payments: At least 90 percent of eligible applicants will receive initial Basic Support and Children With Disabilities payments
within 60 days after the enactment of an appropriation.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Target not met Additional Source Information: Program office

files, 2002.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: For FY 2002, 63 percent of
1997 75 eligible applicants received their payments Frequency: Annually.
within 60 days. Many FY 2002 payments Collection Period: 2002
1998 87 were delayed beyond the initial 60 days of Data Available: March 2002
1999 13 90 funds availability because States were slow Validated By: No Formal Verification.
to submit total current expenditure data Verified by ED attestation process and ED
2000 96 90 needed to calculate payments. For FY Standards for Evaluating Program Performance
2003, the Department arranged for an Data.
2001 73 90
alternate data collection method that will
2002 63 90 avoid this delay. Improvements: In FY 2003, an alternate data
collection will help avoid delays in payments.
Objective 8.2 of 3: Improve consultation between school districts and the Indian community to support the education of Indian children

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Indian community consultation: At least 75 percent of Title IX (Indian Education) coordinators in school districts that receive Impact Aid will
report that the district solicits input from the Indian community on strategies for increasing the achievement of Indian children.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Title IX, Part A

Performance Reports.
Performance Explanation: Data are collected through a
Year Actual Performance
Targets question included in the Title IX Frequency: Annually.
2000 75 performance report. FY 2001 data collected Collection Period: 2002
in 2002 from a new electronic performance Data Available: January 2002
2001 75 report have not been extracted and Validated By: No Formal Verification.
2002 75 analyzed. The low response rate in earlier Verified by ED attestation.
years (47% for 1998-1999 data and 21%
for 1999-2000 data) prevents a meaningful Limitations: Title IX coordinators' survey
measure for this indicator. responses may not accurately reflect the quality of
LEAs' parental and tribal consultation.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 87

Objective 8.3 of 3: Make accurate payments

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Overpayment forgiveness requests: The number of requests to forgive overpayments of Basic Support Payments and Payments for Children
With Disabilities will not exceed 10 in a given fiscal year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of request to forgive overpayments of Basic Support Payments Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Program office files, 2002.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: There were four requests to
1999 5 10 forgive overpayments in 2002. This represents Frequency: Annually.
a decrease from the previous year. Applicants Collection Period: 2002
2000 2 10 are permitted to request forgiveness of Data Available: December 2002
2001 10 10 overpayment amounts, although not all Validated By: No Formal
requests are granted. Verification.
2002 4 10 Verified by ED attestation.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 88

 Independent Living Services Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.169 - Independent Living_State Grants

Goal 8: Individuals with significant disabilities served by Title VII, Chapter 1, programs will achieve consumer determined
independent living goals, and Independent Living Services will be provided and activities will be conducted to improve
or expand services to older individuals who are blind.
Objective 8.1 of 6: Increase the number of individuals with significant disabilities who are served by and benefit from the Title VII, Chapter 1, programs.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Number of individuals with significant disabilities served grouped by age: The number of individuals who receive individual independent
living services will increase in all age categories.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The number of individuals receiving individual independent living services Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Rehabilitation Services
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data are gathered from over 306 Administration (RSA) 704 reports
Under 6 6-17 18-22 Under 6 6-17 18-22 reporting entities. Data are entered into a data (704 Report), annual, 2001.
base by a subcontractor. Since the 2001 target
1998 2,390 7,028 11,755 was exceeded in 1998, the 2001 target has Frequency: Annually.
1999 1,723 5,596 9,161 been increased to take into account actual Collection Period: 2001
performance and the new centers to be Data Available: May 2003
2000 1,597 6,703 10,564 established in 2001. Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2001 1,966 8,154 12,054
The source for this indicator, the 2001 Program and budget staff or two
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) program staff visually scan data for
The number of individuals receiving individual independent living services 704 annual report, reports on FY2001 data in errors and compare to prior year's
late 2002. Therefore, the latest data for this data.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
indicator show FY2001 performance.
23-54 55-older 23-54 55-older Limitations: There were 11,023
consumers that chose not to
1998 81,012 53,045 indicate age. Also, grantees may
1999 64,383 35,593 interpret definitions differently. We
are providing training and technical
2000 74,097 30,434 assistance.
2001 99,513 39,663

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 89

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Number of goals set and achieved by consumers: The number of consumer goals set and achieved will increase in all service areas
measured.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of consumers who have achieved their goals. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Performance Report.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The FY 2001 Goals Set Met Rate
1997 62.30 Self-care: 47,832 28,337 59.24% Frequency: Annually.
Communication: 16,414 13,273 80.86% Collection Period: 2002
1998 65 Mobility: 19,308 13,240 68.57% Residential: Data Available: May 2003
1999 67 62.50 NA Educational: 16,439 11,730 71.35% Validated By: No Formal
Vocational: 15,565 8,905 57.21% Other: Verification.
2000 63 63 24,601 16,184 65.79%, Program and budget staff or two
program staff visually scan data for
2001 64 63 Explanation: Data are gathered from over 306 errors and compare to prior year's
2002 63 reporting entities. Data are entered into a data- data.
base by a subcontractor.
Limitations: Grantees may interpret
The source for this indicator, the 2001 definitions differently. We are
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) providing training and technical
704 annual report, reports on FY2001 data in assistance.
late 2002. Therefore, the latest data for this
indicator show FY2001 performance.
Objective 8.2 of 6: Increase the satisfaction of consumers who receive chapter 1 Independent Living services
Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Consumer satisfaction with IL services: A consistently high proportion of consumers will report satisfaction with IL services.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

New York State survey: Percentage of consumers who are very or mostly satisfied Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
with services. Performance Report. Evaluation of
Progress: Information based upon CESSI the Title VII Chapter I pt. C Centers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets report. In addition RSA Independent Living for Independent Living , CESSI
% % Services program will request that when the
state submits its annual 704 report, that they Frequency: Annually.
1997 85 provide a copy of Customer Satisfaction Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
2000 87 Survey. Attachment 16 to the 704 report, which Data Available: May 2003
deals with customer satisfaction surveys, was Validated By: No Formal
2001 87 87 deleted in a previous revision approved by Verification.
OMB. Consumer satisfaction surveys are Program and budget staff visually
2002 87
submitted to the state annually. scan data for errors and compare to
prior year's data.
Explanation: Consumer satisfaction survey
conducted as part of an overall evaluation of Limitations: Grantees may interpret
Independent Living Centers. definitions differently. We are
providing training and technical
assistance.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 90

Objective 8.3 of 6: Improve access to personal assistance services (PAS), housing, transportation, and community-based living through increased advocacy
efforts.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Number of Centers for Independent Living (CILs) using effective advocacy techniques: All CILs will have an advocacy program to address at
least two of the following areas: (a) community-based personal assistance services (b), accessible/affordable housing (c), accessible/affordable transportation,
and (d) options for moving people from nursing homes and other institutions to the community.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Preliminary results 1997, New York State: Percentage of CILs with programs in two Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.
areas Collection Period: 2001 - 2003
Progress: There is no recent data for OIB Data Available: May 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets program. With the approval of the 70B report, Validated By: No Formal
1997 25 OMB inform IL that the consumer satisfaction Verification.
survey is to be a separate section other than
1999 30 the 70B. RSA/II is currently investigating Limitations: Grantees may interpret
2000 50 methods to gather the required information. definitions differently. We are
providing training and technical
2001 80 Explanation: Data is in but analysis is not yet assistance.
completed. Projecting analysis will be
completed by end of second quarter.
Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: Increased Community-based Living: The number of individuals who leave nursing homes and other institutions for community-based
housing and the number of individuals at risk of entering nursing homes and other institutions who are receiving IL services and can remain at home will
increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of individuals Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

RSA 704 Report, 2000.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data are gathered from over 306
Number of Number of reporting entities. Data are entered into a data Frequency: Annually.
Number of base by a subcontractor. Collection Period: 2002
individuals individuals
individuals who Number of Data Available: May 2003
who left who
left Nursing individuals who Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Nursing remained in The source for this indicator, the
Homes/ remained in the By ED.
Homes/ the 2001Rehabilitation Services Administration
Institutions Community
Institutions Community (RSA) 704 annual report, reports on FY2001
data in late 2002. Therefore, the latest data for Limitations: Grantees may interpret
1998 1,671 18,343 definitions differently. We are
this indicator show FY2001 performance.
1999 850 8,500 providing training and technical
assistance.
2000 1,372 18,036 850 8,500
2001 1,777 23,983 900 9,000
2002 950 9,500

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 91

Objective 8.4 of 6: Increase the amount of funds in addition to title VII that support chapter 1 grantees.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 1: Increased funding from alternative sources: Up to 76 percent of CILs will have greater than 25 percent of their budget from sources other
than Title VII, Chapter 1, and 80 percent of states will contribute more than the required minimum match for Title VII, Chapter 1, Part B.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percent of budget from sources other than Title VII and Chapter 1 and Percent of Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
states that will contribute more than match RSA 704 Report, 2000
Explanation: Data is in but analysis is not yet
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets completed. Projecting analysis to be completed Frequency: Annually.
Percent of by end of second quarter of FY2003. Collection Period: 2001 -
Percent Percent of States States Data Available: May 2003
CILS>25% Overmatch Part B Percent Overmatch Validated By: No Formal
CILS>25% Part B Verification.
Program and budget staff or two
1997 74 80 program staff visually scan data for
2000 66 75 80 errors and compare to prior year's
data.
2001 76 80
Limitations: Grantees may interpret
2002 76 80
definitions differently. We are
providing training and technical
assistance.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 92

Objective 8.5 of 6: Provide chapter 2 services to increasing numbers of individuals who are older and severely visually impaired, and increase consumer
satisfaction.

Indicator 8.5.1 of 2: Increased number of individuals served: : The number of older and severely visually impaired individuals served will increase annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Individuals receiving services Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Independent Living Services for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Target revised because of Older Individuals Who Are Blind (7-
1994 14,968 increased program budget in FY 2001. OB Report), 2001.

1995 22,103 Frequency: Annually.

The source for this indicator, the
1996 26,846 2001Independent Living Services for Older Collection Period: 2002
Individuals Who Are Blind (7-OB Report), Data Available: May 2003
1997 31,460 reports on FY2001 data in late 2002. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Therefore, the latest data for this indicator By ED.
1998 36,280
show FY2001 performance. Research and Training Center and
1999 38,150 28,500 program staff review data
2000 47,596 35,000 Limitations: Targets based on
2001 58,436 40,000 estimates of program funding level.

2002 41,000

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 93

Indicator 8.5.2 of 2: Increased consumer satisfaction: The satisfaction rate in consumers' confidence in ability to perform activities that were “given up” as a
result of vision loss will increase, and the percentage of consumers who feel more in control in making decisions on important issues will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of costumer confidence Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Other.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There is no recent data for OIB
Make program. With the approval of the 70B report, Frequency: Annually.
Ability to perform Make decisions OMB inform IL that the consumer satisfaction Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Ability to decisions on
daily working on important survey is to be a separate section other than Data Available: May 2003
perform daily important
tasks issues the 70B. RSA/II is currently investigating Validated By: No Formal
working tasks issues
methods to gather the required information. Verification.
1998 87 76 Research and Training Center and
2000 89 79 Explanation: Data is in but analysis is not yet program staff review data.
completed. Projecting analysis will be
2001 90 80 completed by end of second quarter. Limitations: Targets based on
estimates of program funding level.
2002 90 80

Objective 8.6 of 6: Increase funding for chapter 2 programs from sources other than Title VII, Chapter 2.

Indicator 8.6.1 of 1: Increased funding from alternative sources: An increasing percentage of states contribute more than the minimum match amount.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of States Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Performance Report.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Grantees must match FY 1999
Percentage of States Percentage of States (discretionary) and FY 2000 (formula) funds Frequency: Annually.
during FY 2000. States can make their Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1997 75 0 discretionary match at anytime during FYs Data Available: May 2003
1998 77 0 2000 and 2001 because of our extension of Validated By: No Formal
their budget period. This is a one-time event Verification.
1999 80 0 caused by the transition from discretionary to Research and Training Center and
formula funding. program staff review data
2000 80 25
2001 55 25 Limitations: Lowered over match
targets for FY 2000 and FY 2001
2002 80 because of dramatic one-time
increase in required state match.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 94

 Indian Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.060 - Indian Education_Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Goal 8: To help American Indian and Alaska Native children achieve to the same challenging standards expected of all
students by supporting access to programs that meet their unique educational and culturally related academic need.
Objective 8.1 of 2: American Indian and Alaska Native students served by LEAs receiving Indian Education Formula Grants will progress at rates similar to those
for all students in achievement to standards, promotion, and graduation.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Student achievement: Increasing percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native students will meet or exceed the performance standards
established by national assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native students in grade 4 who were at or Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
above basic level in reading on NAEP Survey/Assessment: National Assessment
Explanation: Increases in the of Educational Progress.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets percentage of students scoring above
1994 48 basic in math are occurring at the Additional Source Information: National
fourth grade level; however, similar Assessment of Educational Progress, 2000,
1998 47 increases are not occurring in reading 2002; School and Staffing Survey, 1997.
2000 43 and math at the eighth grade level. The
schedule for testing is being revised to Frequency: Biennially.
2002 60 correspond with the No Child Left Collection Period: 2002
Behind Act's requirements. Data Available: May 2003
Assessments in reading and math for Validated By: NCES.
Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native students in grade 8 who were at or grades four and eight will be Data validated by National Center for
above basic level in reading on NAEP. administered in all states every other Education Statistics review procedures and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets year. The scores for the 2002 National National Center for Education Statistics
Assessment of Educational Progress statistical standards.
1994 63 will not be available until Spring 2003.
1998 61 Limitations: The small sample (for the sub-
population of American Indian and Alaska
2000 53 Native students) means there is a high
2001 64 degree of standard error surrounding the
estimates and limits data collection and
possibilities for comparison to other
populations. These estimates will vary
greatly until a larger population is surveyed.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 95

Percentage of American Indian and Alaska native students in grade 4 who scored at
or above basic level in math on NAEP
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1992 43
1996 52
2002 64

Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native students in grade 8 who scored at
or above basic level in math on NAEP
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1992 39
1996 52
2000 42
2002 62

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Increasing percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native students will meet or exceed the performance standards established by states.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states reporting an increase in the percentage of students in schools who Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
meet proficient and advanced performance levels in reading and math. Grantee Performance Report: 1810-0503
Explanation: The 1994 Elementary Annual Performance Reporting Format for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets and Secondary School Act requires, by OIE Formula Grants to LEAs.
- No Data - 2000-01, disaggregation of
achievement data submitted by states Additional Source Information:
to reflect American Indian and Alaska Performance Consolidated State Reports,
Native proficiency levels on state Title I Section.
assessments. The data from the
Consolidated state performance Frequency: Annually.
reports for Title I are not yet analyzed Collection Period: 2002
for reporting data results. Data Available: May 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Substantial variation across

states in their definitions of proficient student
performance.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 96

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Student promotion and graduation: Increasing percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native students will graduate at rates comparable
to all students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native 20 to 24 years old who are high Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: NCES
school graduates Transcript Data, OIE Annual Performance
Explanation: Projects are targeting Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets services to reduce dropouts and
1998 70 increase the graduation rates of Frequency: Other.
American Indian and Alaska Native Collection Period: 2002
2000 75 students. Increased promotion and Data Available: January 2003
2001 80 graduation completion are expected. Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Unable to locate any specific Census data validated by the Census
racial/ethnic data on educational Bureau review procedures and Census
attainment from 2000 census data on standards; OIE Annual Performance Report
website. Only total U.S. data are data supplied by grantee. No formal
reported. Results from the NCES verification procedures applied; National
transcript data for 2000-2001 will not Center for Educational Statistics Transcript
be available until January 2003. data. Validated by the National Center for
Analysis of data from the 2001-02 Educational Statistics review procedures
annual performance report will not be and National Center for Educational
completed until Spring 2003 Statistics.

Limitations: Participation in Census

surveys varies by regions and location,
resulting in undercount of population.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 97

Objective 8.2 of 2: Discretionary programs will focus on improving educational opportunities and services for American Indian and Alaska Native children and
adults

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Increasing percentages of the teacher and principal workforces serving American Indian and Alaska Native students will themselves be
American Indian and Alaska Native.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of principals and teachers in public schools with 25 percent or more Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Schools
American Indian and Alaska Native students and Staffing Survey, 1999; OIE Annual
Progress: Data are being collected. Performance Report; National Longitudinal
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Survey (1998-99 and 2000-2001).
Principals Teachers Principals Teachers Explanation: Projects to train teachers
were funded in FY 1999 for the first Frequency: Annually.
1994 13 15 time since FY 1994. Because the Collection Period: 2002
2001 18 20 projects are just beginning, some of Data Available: May 2003
the targeted number of participants will Validated By: NCES.
take part in these programs, and the No formal validation for OIE annual
number will increase. Data are pending performance report.
and expected.
Limitations: Sample size is small, and it is
costly to add supplemental samples to data
collection programs. National sample results
in an under-representation in sample count.

Improvements: Monitor the number of

American Indian and Alaska Native students
through LEAs reporting on program
effectiveness in their Annual Performance
Reports.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 98

 Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities--IDEA Part C - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.181 - Special Education_Grants for Infants and Families with Disabilities

Goal 8: To assist states in providing a comprehensive system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families to enhance child and family outcomes.
Objective 8.1 of 2: All infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families will receive early intervention services in natural environments that meet their
individual needs.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Infants and toddlers served: The percentage of children ages birth through 2 who are served under Part C will increase as a proportion of the
general population in this age range, while the number of states that serve less than 2 percent of the general population of the state in this age range will
decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children ages birth through 2 who are served under Part C Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: IDEA state
reported data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data indicate that States
Number of were serving 1.99 percent of the Frequency: Annually.
Number of states Part C count states serving population of children ages birth Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Part C count as serving less than as less than 2 through two in 2000-2001 compared Data Available: January 2003
percentage of 0-2 2 percent of percentage of percent of with 1.79 percent in the prior year. The Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.
U.S. Population states population 0-2 U.S. states number of States serving less than 2
Population population percent of the State's population Limitations: When the original baseline
decreased from 36 to 29. was established, this indicator included data
1997 1.70 39 from only the 50 states and the District of
1998 1.60 40 Columbia because of the lack of general
population data for Puerto Rico and the
1999 1.80 36 1.60 38 outlying areas. Also, varying data collection
methods and definitions among states may
2000 2 29 1.80 35
cause unpredictable variations in counts.
2001 1.80 33

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 99

Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Infants under 1 year of age served: The percentage of children under 1 year of age served under Part C, as a proportion of the general
population in this age range, will increase, while the number of states that serve less than 1 percent of the general population of the state in this age range will
decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children under 1 year of age served under Part C Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: IDEA state
reported data
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Nationally, 0.9 percent of
Number of the population ages birth through two Collection Period: 2002
Number of states states serving were being served in 2000-2001, the Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.
Percentage of the serving less than Percentage of less than 1 same as the prior year. The number of
general U.S. 1 percent of the general percent of States serving less than 1.0 percent of Limitations: When the original baseline
Population states population U.S. states the State's population decreased from was established, this indicator included data
Population population 36 in 1999-2000 to 33 in 2000-2001. from only the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, because of the lack of general
1997 .90 39 population data for Puerto Rico and the
1998 .80 38 outlying areas. Also, varying data collection
methods and definitions among states may
1999 .90 36 .80 35 cause unpredictable variations in counts.
2000 .90 33 .90 34
2001 1 33

Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Service settings: The percentage of children receiving age-appropriate services primarily in home, in community-based settings, and in
programs designed for typically developing peers will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children receiving age appropriate services Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: IDEA
State-reported data for 50 states, DC,
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: This measure provides Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and
1996 56 an indication of the extent to which Northern Marianas. (56 entities)
infants and toddlers are receiving
1997 58 services in the natural environment. Frequency: Annually.
1998 63 Because there is a one-year lag in the Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
availability of this data after collection, Data Available: September 2003
1999 67 the data that became available in 2001 Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.
is for 1999-2000 rather than for the
2000 73 67
reporting year 2000-2001. These data Limitations: ED is pursuing strategies to
2001 76 69 indicate that there is a continuing decrease the time lags between collection,
positive trend toward the target. reporting, and availability of data.
2002 71

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 100

Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Referral to services: The percentage of children leaving Part C services with referral to preschool or other services will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of children getting referrals Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: IDEA
state-reported data..
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: 1998-99 was the first
1998 65 year of data collection. New state data
collections typically require 5 years to Experienced Public/Private Entity. Data to
1999 63.40 achieve reliability. Because there is a be validated by an experienced data
2000 63.40 69 one-year lag in the availability of this collection contractor.
data after collection, the data that
2001 57.50 70 became available in 2002 is for 2000- Limitations: The decrease in percentage
2001 rather than for the reporting year referral may be due more to data quality
2001-2002. than to an actual trend. ED is pursuing
strategies to decrease the time lags
between collection, reporting, and
availability of data.

Objective 8.2 of 2: Children's functional development is enhanced by early intervention services

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Functional abilities: The percentage of children participating in the Part C program who demonstrate improved and sustained functional
abilities will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
IDEA National Early Intervention
Explanation: A contract to obtain data is Longitudinal Study
under way. Data collected in 2003-04 will
provide the baseline for this indicator. Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
Data Available: July 2005
Validated By: Federal Statistical
Agencies.

Limitations: Because data are

obtained from a longitudinal survey,
updates will occur infrequently.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 101

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Family capacity: The percentage of families that report that early intervention services have increased their family's capacity to enhance their
child's development will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

IDEA National Early Intervention
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Data collected for 2001 indicate Longitudinal Study, 2001.
1998 72 that 73% of percent of families report that early
intervention services have increased their Frequency: Other.
2001 73 capacity to enhance their child's development.
2002 80 These data were obtained from families Validated By: Federal Statistical
approximately 36 months after beginning to Agencies.
receive early intervention.
Limitations: Because data are
obtained from a longitudinal survey,
updates will occur infrequently.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 102

 International Education and Foreign Language Studies Program - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.015 - National Resource Centers and Fellowships Program for Language and Area or Language and International Studies
84.016 - Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Programs
84.017 - International Research and Studies
84.018 - International: Overseas Seminars Abroad_Bilateral Projects
84.019 - International: Overseas_Faculty Research Abroad
84.021 - International: Overseas_Group Projects Abroad
84.022 - International: Overseas_Doctoral Dissertation
84.153 - Business and International Education Projects
84.220 - Centers for International Business Education
84.229 - Language Resource Centers
84.269 - Institute for International Public Policy
84.274 - American Overseas Research Centers
84.337 - Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access

Goal 8: To meet the nation's security and economic needs through the development of a national capacity in foreign
languages, and area and international studies.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Maintain a US Higher Education system able to produce experts in less commonly taught languages and area studies who are capable of
contributing to the needs of US Government, academic and business institutions.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Language Enrollments: NRC supported institutions provide the majority of the instruction in foreign languages, especially the less commonly
taught languages.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of total national undergraduate language enrollments that are at Status: Unable to judge Source: Non-NCES Survey/Research
NRC/FLAS funded institutions. Survey/Research Report Title: MLA
Progress: No change from previous Study of Foreign Language Enrollments.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Planning and Performance Management References: Modern Language
% % report. Association (MLA) and Associations of
Departments of Foreign Languages
1995 21 Explanation: While Title VI-supported "Study of Foreign Language Enrollments."
2000 21 20 institutions account for less than 3 percent This study has been funded since 1958
of all higher education institutions, they through the Title VI: International
2001 20 enroll 56 percent of the graduate enrolled Research and Studies program.
students and 21 percent of the Web Site:
2002 20
undergraduate enrollment in less commonly http://www.mla.org/adfl/projects/index.htm.
taught languages. If you count only the
“least” commonly taught languages, they Additional Source Information: Modern
account for 64 percent of the graduate Language Association (MLA) conducts
enrolled students and 40 percent of the language enrollment survey once every
undergraduate enrollments. three to five years. This study has been
funded since 1958 through the
International Research and Studies
program under Title VI.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 103

Percentage of total national ''graduate'' language enrollments that are at
NRC/FLAS funded institutions. Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Data Available: October 2003
% % Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
NRC and FLAS performance reports
1995 55 through the EELIAS system will be
1999 56 55 checked against the data from the MLA
study. The MLA data has been collected
2000 56 55 long before the Department's standards
for evaluating program performance data
2001 55
were developed. Now that data can be
2002 55 validated by university enrollment figures
reported in annual NRC performance
reports this will provide tangible secondary
validation.

Limitations: MLA studies are conducted

once every 3 to 4 years, and therefore
data for the out years must be
extrapolated from annual performance
reports.

Improvements: The MLA summary

datasets will be integrated into the
EELIAS system to provide a performance
baseline for years when MLA study is not
conducted.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 104

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Percentage of graduates of Title VI supported programs who report that they found employment that utilizes their language and/or area skills.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Ph.D. graduates of NRC institutions with positions where they use Status: Unable to judge Source: Non-NCES
their expertise. Survey/Research
Progress: The data from the EELIAS Survey/Research Report Title:
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets performance reporting system showed that of EELIAS.
% % the 1,782 Ph.D. graduates for 2001 no References: National Resource
employment data was available for 343 of Center Annual and Final Reports
1996 76 these graduates. IEGPS will work with from the EELIAS performance
2000 80 76 grantees to develop strategies for better reporting system.
tracking program graduates. M.A. placement Web Site:
2001 71 76 data is consistent with projected targets. M.A. http://www.eeliasonline.net/.
continuing education data is consistent with
2002 76
projected targets. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Percent of M.A. graduates of NRC institutions with positions where they use their Explanation: NRC Ph.D. graduates become Data Available: March 2003
expertise. the experts that ensure national capacity in Validated By: No Formal
language and area studies is maintained. Data Verification.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets shows that the Ph.D. graduates primarily select
% % fields where their expertise linguistic and area Limitations: NRCs have difficulty
is best utilized. Ph.D. graduates who enter into tracking program graduates.
1996 44 K-12 education, foreign government, Currently, most graduate tracking is
2000 54 44 state/local government or who are unemployed the responsibility of a university's
or whose status is unknown are not counted alumni association. NRCs will
2001 52 44 toward using their expertise. M.A. graduates work toward collaborating better
entering the professions help to fulfill the needs with these associations to get better
2002 44
of companies, organizations and government data on graduate placements.
with their area and international expertise.
Percentage of M.A. graduates continuing their graduate studies and pursuing Ph.D.s. Many M.A. recipients continue their graduate Improvements: Collection of the
study thus becoming the future experts. data via the EELIAS reporting
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
system has improved the ability of
% % Program staff to conduct analyses of
performance data. Once three years
1996 24 of data are available in the EELIAS
2000 26 24 system, long term projections and
performance targets will be easier to
2001 34 24 measure.
2002 24

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 105

Objective 8.2 of 2: To establish an Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP) to conduct a program to significantly increase the numbers of underrepresented
minorities in the international service.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Graduate Placement: The number of IIPP program graduates who are employed in the international service.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of IIPP program graduates employed in international service Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Previously, graduate data was
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: As the IIPP program graduates collected through paper-based
2000 10 5 students more consistently, a greater pool of annual performance reports.
students with international competency Beginning in 2002, data will be
2001 13 7 becomes available for government and collected through the EELIAS
2002 9 international organizations to draw upon. The performance reporting system. This
goal of the program is to develop a positive data will provide more information
reputation for IIPP graduates, such that they on the status of IIPP program
become a sought after commodity for graduates and alumni.
internationally focused organizations.
Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: The IIPP comprehensive Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
program of study is a 5-year program with six Data Available: April 2003
components. It currently consists of the Validated By: No Formal
following: (1) sophomore summer policy Verification.
institute; (2) junior year abroad; (3) junior year
summer policy institute; (4) post-senior-year Limitations: The data on program
intensive language instruction; (5) post- graduates is being provided by the
baccalaureate internships at international grantee, with little opportunity for the
affairs agencies and organizations; and (6) Department to double-check the
Master's degree in international relations. data. As the number of fellows
Fellows from the first cohort completed the employed in international service
comprehensive program in June 2000. The increases, tracking all of these
number of fellows graduated should become individuals will become more
more consistent as the program matures. difficult.

Improvements: ELLIAS system will

provide greater tools for the
electronic analysis of report data.
This will prove useful for conducting
longitudinal studies on the IIPP
program graduates.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 106

 Magnet Schools Assistance Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.165 - Magnet Schools Assistance

Goal 8: To assist in the desegregation of schools served by local educational agencies

Objective 8.1 of 2: Federally funded magnet programs eliminate, reduce, or prevent the incidence and the degree of minority student isolation in targeted schools

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Minority group isolation: Increasing percentages of targeted schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation according to
their individual objective.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percent of targeted schools meeting their objective Status: Unable to judge Source: NCES
Survey/Assessment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Unvalidated data for school year Survey/Assessment: Common
1998 43 01-02 (which corresponds to FY2002) Core of Data.
enrollment was included in performance report
2001 50 and analysis of these data is pending. Additional Source Information:
NCES and Common Core of Data.,
Explanation: Data for FY 1998 grantee cohort 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00.
indicates that MSAP projects targeted 295
schools with desegregation objectives in 1999- Frequency: Annually.
00. The data suggest that a total of 139, or Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
47%, of the 295 schools for which data are Data Available: August 2003
available either achieved their benchmarks (34 Validated By: No Formal
schools) or showed some progress toward Verification.
achieving their desegregation objective (105
schools). In 2001, a new cohort of grant Limitations: Most student
recipients includes 60 school districts recruitment occurs at the entry
implementing projects to support 289 magnet grade of a school. The data
schools. Of those schools, approximately 80% presented in 'Assessment of
have proposed objectives to reduce minority Progress' does not address the
group isolation. Remaining schools have extent to which progress being
proposed objectives to eliminate or prevent made toward the achievement of
minority group isolation or to reduce minority desegregation objectives is being
group isolation in feeder schools. As yet masked by other factors.
unvalidated data for school year 01-02 Additionally, for the FY 2001 cohort
enrollment was included in performance of grants, grants could not be made
reports and analysis of these data are pending. early enough to permit the conduct
of recruitment activities that would
affect enrollment in the fall of 2001.

Improvements: For FY 2001 cohort

of grants, data quality is improved
by deferring analysis until valided
version is released by NCES.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 107

Objective 8.2 of 2: Federally funded magnet programs or innovative programs strengthen students' knowledge of academic subjects and skills needed for
successful careers in the future.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Improved student achievement: Students will show achievement gains in core subjects, as well as in applied learning skills, that meet or
exceed the gains for students in the district as a whole.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percent of targeted schools meeting their objective Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Progress: For new grantees whose projects Analysis of 1998 Magnet Schools
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets began with school year 2001-02, student Assistance Program applications;
2001 50 achievement data are pending and expected. Magnet Schools Assistance
Program annual performance
Information contained in the first year report of reports; Magnet Schools Assistance
a program evaluation of FY 1998 being Program Evaluation.
conducted by the American Institutes for
Research indicates that more than 80 percent Frequency: Annually.
of MSAP districts report that they place a major Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
emphasis on establishing high standards for Data Available: August 2003
students and on aligning curricula with Validated By: No Formal
standards. When compared with large high- Verification.
poverty districts in 1998-99, MSAP districts
appear to place somewhat more emphasis on Improvements: Suggestions are
new approaches to curriculum and instruction welcome.
(technology and reform models).
The AIR is completing an evaluation of FY
1998 MSAP grant recipients that will provide
data on actual performance through the final
year of those projects.
Explanation: AIR has reported that a variety
of factors have impeded progress in
conducting an analysis of student achievement
gains. These factors include imprecision in
some objectives; substantial changes in the
state and district assessment programs upon
which objectives were based; grantee reliance
on alternative assessments; and the delayed
submission of student achievement results that
were not available until after performance
reports were due. Data are pending and
expected.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 108

 McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.196 - Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Goal 8: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate public education, including a
public preschool education, as is provided to other children and youth
Objective 8.1 of 1: Homeless children and youth will have greater access to a free and appropriate public education

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Public schools: An increasing percentage of homeless children and youth will enroll in public schools and will attend school regularly.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of homeless children and youth enrolled in grades K-12, as reported by Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Other.
states Collection Period: - 2002
Progress: No data collected in 2002. Data Available: October 2003
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Validated By: No Formal
1996 78 Explanation: States were required under prior Verification.
reauthorization to submit data triennially.
1999 67 82 States last reported in 2001 for 2000 Limitations: States' methods of
2000 87 87 performance. States were not required by data collection vary, and the
statute to collect data for 2001 or 2002. From resulting data are not uniform.
2003 on, data will be collected annually with
Percentage of homeless children and youth in grades K-12 attending school, as the 2000 data serving as baseline data. Improvements: From 2003 on, the
reported by states Department will collect data annually
and use existing targets from 2000
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
as baseline information. Target and
1995 55 Performance Data tables have been
amended since the last GPRA
1996 45 report. The Year column has been
1999 77 59 changed. The years listed in the
amended table reflect the years of
2000 87 82 performance rather than the
succeeding years when
performance data were reported.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 109

 Migrant Education - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.011 - Migrant Education_State Grant Program

Goal 8: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and achieving graduation from high
school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship
Objective 8.1 of 1: Along with other federal programs and state and local reform efforts, the Migrant Education Program will contribute to improved school
performance of migrant children.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Inclusion in State Assessments: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will be included in state
assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states meeting performance target Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Consolidated State Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Although data are not available to Report.
States Percent report directly on the performance indicator, in
States States that Percent of 2000, 56, 091 migrant students were reported Frequency: Annually.
States that of
meeting reported students as tested in 27 states. In 2001, 85,729 migrant Collection Period: 2002
meeting reported students
target results assessed students were reported as tested in 26 states. Data Available: March 2003
target results assessed
For elementary reading: 2000 -- 17,389, 2001- Validated By: No Formal
2000 50 52 52 50 22,759; elementary math: 2000-14,513, 2001-- Verification.
2001 50 52 52 50 23,634; middle school reading: 2000-13,542, ED Contractor
2001-19,623; middle school math: 2000-
2002 50 52 52 50 10,647, 2001-19,713. Limitations: Initially, the percentage
of migrant students tested will have
Explanation: Some of the data for 2000 and to be calculated using the total
2001 are missing and not expected. number of migrant students who
Specifically, although many states did report 'participated' in the MEP during the
the numbers of migrant students tested in each regular term at the appropriate
grade assessed, most states did not report the grade level rather than the total
number of migrant students enrolled in the number of migrant children in
grade level(s) tested. Thus, ED was not able to residence in a state during the
calculate percentages of migrant students regular term in the appropriate
tested for reporting on the inclusion of migrant grade level.
students in state assessments. 2002 data are
pending and expected. Improvements: Data on the total
number of ''resident'' migrant
students will be requested for
inclusion in the next revised version
of the Consolidated State
Performance Report. However, ED
staff plan to delete this indicator
from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it
focuses on a 'process' indicator
(instead of a results indicator).

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 110

Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Meeting or Exceeding State Performance Standards: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will
meet or exceed the proficient level on state assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of States meeting performance target in reading--Elementary. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Consolidated State Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Over the six years reported, this Report.
States indicator shows a general trend increase in the
States that Percentage that number of states disaggregating migrant Frequency: Annually.
reported of students reported Percentage students performance in reading at the Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
States results for who test at results of students elementary & middle school level. Measure 1: Data Available: March 2003
meeting migrant or above States for who test at The number of states reporting that 50% or Validated By: No Formal
target students proficient meeting migrant or above more of those migrant students tested scored Verification.
target students proficient at or above the proficient level on those tests ED contractor
remains relatively flat. Measure 2: The number
of states reporting that 50% or more of those Limitations: The states reporting
1996 4 10 50 52 52 50 migrant students tested at or above proficient assessment data for migrant
on those tests has risen. Measure 3: The students are fluctuating from on year
number of states reporting that 50% or more of to the next. As such the indicator
1997 4 15 50 52 52 50
those migrant students tested at or above does not represent performance on
proficient on those tests has risen. Measure 4: the same states from one year to
1998 7 18 50 52 52 50 The number of states reporting the 50% or the next.
more of those migrant students tested scored
at or above the proficient level on those tests Improvements: It is expected that
1999 2 19 50 52 52 50 remains relatively flat. this indicator will become reliable as
the state assessment systems
Explanation: 2002 data are pending and become more stable.
2000 5 26 50 52 52 50
expected. Numbers have been corrected since
the previous report and an additional column
2001 6 23 50 52 52 50 (States that reported results for migrant
students) has been added to additional clarity.
2002 52 52 50

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 111

Number of States meeting performance target in reading--Middle.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
States
States that Percentage that
reported of students reported Percentage
States results for who test at results of students
meeting migrant or above States for who test at
target students proficient meeting migrant or above
target students proficient
1996 2 10 50 52 52 50
1997 3 15 50 52 52 50
1998 6 18 50 52 52 50
1999 4 18 50 52 52 50
2000 2 23 50 52 52 50
2001 7 21 50 52 52 50
2002 52 52 50

Number of States meeting performance target in Math--Elementary.

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
States
States that Percentage that
reported of students reported Percentage
States results for who test at results of students
meeting migrant or above States for who test at
target students proficient meeting migrant or above
target students proficient
1996 4 10 50 52 52 50
1997 5 15 50 52 52 50
1998 9 18 50 52 52 50
1999 6 19 50 52 52 50
2000 7 25 50 52 52 50
2001 10 23 50 52 52 50
2002 52 52 50

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 112

Number of States meeting performance target in Math--Middle.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
States
States that Percentage that
reported of students reported Percentage
States results for who test at results of students
meeting migrant or above States for who test at
target students proficient meeting migrant or above
target students proficient
1996 3 10 50 52 52 50
1997 3 15 50 52 52 50
1998 7 18 50 52 52 50
1999 4 18 50 52 52 50
2000 2 22 50 52 52 50
2001 4 20 50 52 52 50
2002 52 52 50

Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Targeting of “Priority for Service” Students: An increasing number of “priority for service” migrant students will receive MEP services in both
the regular and summer-terms.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Numbers of ''Priority for Service'' Students Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Consolidated State Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress toward target is likely. Report.
Summer- Under section 1304(d), migrant students who
Regular-Term Summer-Term are failing, or most at risk of failing to meet the Frequency: Annually.
Regular-Term Term
states' challenging state content and state Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1999 242,138 172,247 student performance standards, and whose Data Available: March 2003
2000 268,405 196,667 education has been interrupted during the Experienced Public/Private entity.
regular school year (rather than during the Data and tabulations are validated
2001 300,197 237,739 summer) have a priority for services under the by internal review procedures of an
MEP. The indicator examines whether there is ED contractor.
an increase over time in the numbers of such
'priority for services' students receiving either Limitations: The percentage of
regular-term or summer-term, MEP services. priority students served (by type of
2001 data are based on an initial draft report service and by the intensity of such
and changes to the totals may occur during the services) would provide a much
data review process. better indication of how effective
MEPs are targeting services.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 113

 Explanation: 2002 data are pending and Improvements: In order to calculate
expected. the percentage of 'priority for
service' migrant students who
receive services, data on the total
number of 'priority for service'
migrant students will be requested
for inclusion in the next revised
version of the Consolidated State
Performance Report. However, ED
staff plan to delete this indicator
from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it
focuses on a 'process' indicator
(instead of a results indicator).

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 114

Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Coordination with Title 1, Part A, Programs: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will receive
services in School wide or Targeted Assistance Programs funded in part or wholly by Title 1, Part A.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of States meeting Performance Target of Students Served. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Consolidated State Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Report.
Progress: This indicator examines the degree
States to which migrant students receive Title 1 part A
States that that services. The indicator suggests that less than Frequency: Annually.
reported reported 25% of the states provide Title 1 services to 50 Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
States results for Percentage results percent or more of their migrant children. Data Available: December 2003
meeting migrant of students States for Percentage Validated By: No Formal
target students served meeting migrant of students Explanation: 2002 data are pending and Verification.
target students served expected. Numbers in data fields were ED contractor
corrected since the previous report and an
1997 7 50 50 52 52 50 additional column (States that reported results Limitations: Data on migrant
1998 8 49 50 52 52 50 for migrant students) was added for clarity. student participation in Title I Part A
programs is collected from local
1999 14 43 50 52 52 50 districts and aggregated at the state
level.
2000 10 44 50 52 52 50
2001 11 50 50 52 52 50 Improvements: Better instructions
on how this data should be collected
will be provided in the next revised
version of the Consolidated State
Performance Report. However, ED
staff plan to delete this indicator
from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it
focuses on a 'process' indicator
(instead of a results indicator).

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 115

 National Activities--IDEA Part D - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.323 - Special Education_State Program Improvement Grants for Children with Disabilities
84.324 - Special Education_Research and Innovation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities
84.325 - Special Education_Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities
84.326 - Special Education_Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities
84.327 - Special Education_Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities
84.328 - Special Education_Parent Information Centers

Goal 8: To link best practices to states, school systems and families to improve results for infants, toddlers and children
with disabilities
Objective 8.1 of 5: Programs respond to critical needs of children with disabilities and their families

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Responsive to critical needs: The percentage of IDEA program activities that are determined by expert panels to respond to critical needs of
children with disabilities and their families will increase: (a) Research and innovation, (b) Technology, (c) Personnel preparation, (d) Technical assistance, and (e)
State improvement.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Research & Innovation Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Expert Panel
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Actual data for the years 2000
1999 91 and earlier have been moved back one year Frequency: Annually.
compared to the FY 2001 report. This Collection Period: 2002
2000 72 adjustment reflects the year in which the data Data Available: September 2003
2001 83 were collected rather than reported. Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
2002 85 Fluctuations in previous year data are
expected for several years while the data
Technology (from Technology & Media) collection methodology is refined. There is a
one-year lag in data. Projects are evaluated by
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets an expert panel after a full year of funding.
2000 75
2001 77
2002 85

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 116

Media (from Technology & Media program)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000 41
2001 74
2002 85

Personnel preparation
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999 67
2000 68
2001 78
2002 85

Technical assistance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000 57
2001 75
2002 85

State improvement
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 80
2002 85

Parent training
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 88
2002 85

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 117

Objective 8.2 of 5: Projects use high-quality methods and materials.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Highest standards for methods and materials: Highest standards for methods and materials: Expert panels determine that IDEA-funded
projects use exceptionally rigorous quantitative or qualitative research and evaluation methods (for Research and innovation and Technology and media
activities); or use current research-validated practices and materials (for Personnel preparation, Technical assistance, and State improvement activities).
Sources and
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress
Data Quality

Percentage of projects that meet exceptionally high standards: research and innovation Status: Target exceeded Additional
Source
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Actual data for the Information:
State Parent State Parent years 2000 and earlier have Expert Panel
Research Demo. Outreach PPrep TA Tech Imprvt Training Research Demo. Outreach PPrep TA Tech Imprvt Training been moved back one year
compared to the FY 2001 report. Frequency:
1998 60 12 20 This adjustment reflects the year Biennially.
1999 50 70 20 50 97 94 65 20 25 in which the data were collected Collection
rather than reported. There is a Period: 2002
2000 77 13 11 50 8 40 one-year lag in data. Projects Data
are evaluated by an expert Available:
2001 69 66 50 16 27 33 66
panel after a full year of funding.March 2003
2002 75 70 55 20 40 40 70 Validated
All successful applications under By: NCES.
IDEA programs include high
quality methods and materials,
as judged by panels during the
review process. This indicator
applies a more rigorous
standard to assess projects that
have exceptionally high
standards. It takes at least three
years to achieve stability in
review and assessment process.
For Research, Demonstration
and Outreach Activities, which
have had four years of
measurement, the data indicate
continuing positive progress.
This results from increased
emphasis in the application
requirements on project
evaluation, and increased size
of the grant funding to support
improved methods and
materials. It is too soon to
assess progress for six of these
programs.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 118

Objective 8.3 of 5: Projects communicate appropriately and products are used to improve results for children with disabilities and their families.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Communication with target audiences: The percentage of IDEA-funded projects that communicate appropriately with target audiences will
increase. (a) Research and innovation (b) Technology (c) Personnel preparation projects of national significance (d) Technical assistance.
Sources and Data
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress
Quality

Percentage of projects that meet exceptionally high standards: Research and Innovation Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information: Project
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2001 data information.
Parent Parent represents baseline.
Research Demo. Outreach Tech PPrep TA Training Research Demo. Outreach Tech PPrep TA Training Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: Actual data for the Collection Period:
2000 60 40 100 40 100 years 2000 and earlier have been 2001
2001 91 57 80 80 71 moved back one year compared to Data Available:
the FY 2001 report. This September
2002 85 60 85 85 80 adjustment reflects the year in Validated By: No
which the data were collected Formal Verification.
rather than reported. Project information is
reviewed by a panel
There is a one-year lag in data. consisting of
Projects are evaluated by an independent, third party
expert panel after a full year of reviewers who are
funding. Projects are expected to experts in the program
be of high quality and content and trained in
communicate findings through the review procedures.
appropriate referred journals and The panel results are
other vehicles such as the Internet, analyzed by experts in
association publications, CD- evaluation research.
ROMs, films, teaching modules,
state and national directories,
career plan, radio interviews,
course syllabi, and Federally-
funded technical assistance
providers, and to include a citation
of funding support under IDEA.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 119

Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: Practitioners use results: Expert panels determine that practitioners, including policy-makers, administrators, teachers, parents, or others as
appropriate, use products and practices developed through IDEA programs to improve results for children with disabilities. (a) Research and innovation (b)
Technology (c) Personnel preparation (d) Technical assistance (e) parent training, and (f) State improvement.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of expert panelist with positive determination: Research & Innovation Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Project information.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Actual data for the years 2000
2000 53 and earlier have been moved back one year Frequency: Annually.
compared to the FY 2001 report. This Collection Period: 2002
2001 58 adjustment reflects the year in which the data Data Available: September 2003
2002 65 were collected rather than reported. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.
There is a one-year lag in data. Projects are
Percentage of expert panelist with positive determination: Technology and media evaluated by an expert panel after a full year of Limitations: Baseline data for the
funding. Fluctuations in data are expected for state improvement grant program
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
several years while the data collection are being collected through an
1998 78 methodology is refined. To improve the quality evaluation study and will be
of the evaluations the size of the review panel available in 2002.
1999 89
representing the variety of stakeholders in
2000 47 special education was increased from 5
2002 65 persons in 2000 to 80 in 2001. This
improvement has resulted in a much more
robust and accurate measure of this indicator.
Percentage of expert panelist with positive determination: Personnel Preparation
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000 55
2002 65

Percentage of expert panelist with positive determination: Technical Assistance

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998 67
1999 78
2000 59
2001 69

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 120

Percentage of expert panelists with positive determination: Parent information
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 75
Percentage of panelists with positive determination: State improvement
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 80

Objective 8.4 of 5: Personnel are prepared to serve children with disabilities.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 3: Persons trained to serve children with disabilities: The percentage of persons who obtain their degrees with IDEA support and serve children
with disabilities as teachers, early intervention personnel, related services personnel, or leadership personnel within 3 years of receiving their degrees will
increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Additional Source Information: Annual

Performance Reports.
Explanation: This indicator is under
review by the Department. No data Frequency: Annually.
to report for FY2002.
Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.

Limitations: In 2001 this indicator will be

revised to reflect employment, 1 year after
receipt of degrees. This data is more readily
accessible and timely than data in the current
indicator.
Indicator 8.4.2 of 3: Grants to minority institutions: The percentage of IDEA grants for personnel preparation awarded to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and other minority institutions, including tribal colleges, will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of all personnel-preparation awards (new and continuation) that went to Additional Source Information: Analysis of
minority institutions project information.
Explanation: This indicator is under
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets review by the Department. No data
1997 15.40 to report for FY2002. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

1998 17.70 Limitations: See explanation.

1999 26.40
2000 34 28
2001 32

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 121

Indicator 8.4.3 of 3: Minority and disabled personnel: The percentage of personnel who are minority and the percentage who are disabled who receive financial
assistance for training under IDEA will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Additional Source Information:

Performance Report.
Explanation: This indicator is under review by
the Department. No data to report for FY2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

Limitations: Self-report by projects

may hamper validity. OSEP will
verify results with follow-up survey.

Objective 8.5 of 5: Families receive information about services for children with disabilities.

Indicator 8.5.1 of 1: Increase in informed families: The percentage of families that report that the training and technical assistance received from the Parent
Information and Training Centers made a positive difference in their child's supports and services will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of families reporting positive difference Additional Source Information:

Project Performance Data.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: This indicator is under review by
1999 71 the Department. No data to report for FY2002.

2000 86.50 75 Limitations: Self-report by projects

may hamper validity. OSEP will
verify results with follow-up survey.
Percentage of families reporting positive difference from face-to-face and telephone
sessions
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Face-to-face Telephone Face-to-face Telephone
2001 97 69

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 122

 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Statistics and
Assessment - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.830 Statistics
84.902 Assessments

Goal 8: To collect, analyze and disseminate information on the condition of education in the United States and to provide
comparative international statistics
Objective 8.1 of 1: Provides timely, useful, and comprehensive data that are relevant to policy and educational improvement.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Customer satisfaction: At least 85 percent of surveyed customers in 1999 and 90 percent in 2001 will agree that National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) data are timely, relevant, and comprehensive.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of customer respondents satisfied or very satisfied with NCES Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
publications NCES Customer Satisfaction
Progress: The overall NCES customers Survey.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets satisfaction rating remains high for NCES
Comprehensiveness Timeliness Utility Comprehensiveness Timeliness Utility publications performance. NCES showed Frequency: Biennially.
improvement in all areas of its performance Collection Period: 2003
1997 88 72 86 data between 1997 and 2001. During the Data Available: January 2004
1999 91 77 89 85 85 85 period, NCES focused on improving the Validated By: NCES.
timeliness of its publications and data files. NCES Data was validated by using
2001 90 74 90 90 90 90 Significant progress was made in Common NCES review procedures and by
Core of Data (CCD) Reports and the National applying NCES statistical standards.
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Percentage of customer respondents satisfied or very satisfied with NCES data files Limitations: None
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The CCD School and Agency
Report has shown an improvement from 25 Improvements: In 2001, NCES
Comprehensiveness Timeliness Comprehensiveness Timeliness months to 15 months from data collection to Customers expressed a 94%
1997 82 52 publication and a 3-month improvement in satisfaction rate with the overall
State Nonfiscal. NAEP has shown dramatic quality of our publications and 89%
1999 87 67 85 85 improvements in timeliness for many of it major with our data files.
2001 88 66 90 90 reports. In 2001, NCES did meet most of its
publications performance targets, but does
need to improve its timeliness. The next data
(2003) will not be available until 2004.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 123

Percentage of customer respondents satisfied or very satisfied with NCES services
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Comprehensiveness Timeliness Utility Comprehensiveness Timeliness Utility
1997 89
1999 93 93 85 85
2001 83 88 90 85

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 124

 National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.133 - National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Goal 8: To conduct high-quality research that leads to high quality research products.
Objective 8.1 of 4: To support the conduct and dissemination of high-quality research that contributes to improvement in the quality of life of persons with
disabilities.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Scientific excellence: Grantee research quality is good or excellent, as reflected in research design and its usefulness to customers.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of grantees sampled who had good or excellent ratings Status: Target met Source: Other
Other: Other.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: 67.86% of all centers (19 of 28)
1997 37 reviewed during a rating of research design Additional Source Information:
and its usefulness to customers. NIDRR Program Review; Center of
1998 55 Excellence Scale.
1999 53 60 Explanation: This year's data are based on 28
summative reviews conducted during FY2002. Frequency: Annually.
2000 60 65 The rigor of this evaluation program, which Collection Period: 2003
utilizes panels of experts in relevant program Data Available: October 2003
2001 76 70
areas, has been significantly enhanced by an Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
2002 68 65 increasing emphasis on evaluation of By ED.
outcomes resulting from funded research.
Consequently, it is difficult to compare data to Improvements: Data are based
previous years. Centers that are focused on upon ratings obtained from expert
engineering and medicine achieved the highest panels during reverse site visits.
research and development ratings. 86% of Extensive efforts have been made to
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers ensure that centers being rated and
in topics related to health and function were experts serving as reviewers are
rated at good or excellent. conversant with the evidence based
and outcomes oriented approaches
to the review process.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 125

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Increased publication and citation: Publication of research findings, with the appropriate citation, will increase in refereed journals.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Average number of publications per grantee --RRTC%; ARRTs%; RERCs%. Status: Unable to judge Source: Other
Other: Other.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Average number of Peer reviewed
1997 7.10 journal articles and published books and book Additional Source Information:
chapters is increasing. NIDRR Reporting System; Annual
2000 5.60 6 Performance Management Report;
2001 6.60 6 Explanation: This indicator information comes Outcomes and Publications sections
from grantees data on Outcomes and of the following grantee types
Publications in NIDRRs web-based Performance Reports: ARRT,
Performance Reporting System that went on RERC, and RRTC.
line in July, 2001. Data is reported by calendar
year of publication; consequently 2001 is the Frequency: Annually.
most recent completed year. Bibliographies Collection Period: 2002
reported by each center have been extensively Data Available: April 2003
evaluated so that only publication in indexed Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
journals and major published books have been By ED.
counted. Preliminary evaluation of reports for Verified by Dept. of Ed. attestation
the first three quarters of 2002 indicates that process and ED Standards for
the number of publications continues to Evaluation Program Performance
increase. Data. Extrapolated document from
NIDRR web based Performance
Reporting System.

Limitations: Data is based upon

reports by the funded centers.
Concerns have been raised about
the potential for under-reporting.
Methods to indepedently confirm
publications are planned. The
number of publications using the
strict definitions are likely to fairly
represent the productivity of centers
in areas related to engineering and
medicine. However, these
definitions may not fully represent
the productivity of centers in other
areas.

Improvements: NIDRR is
evaluating methods of assessing
productivity that fairly represent all
parets of the NIDRR grant portfolio.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 126

Objective 8.2 of 4: Disseminate and promote use of information on research findings, in accessible formats, to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Information and TA usefulness: Recipients will find the products, information, and technical assistance that they receive from grantees
useful.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of recipients responding “yes,” “no,” and “N/A” to the question on being Status: Target exceeded Source: Other
served adequately Other: Other.
Progress: Current information on this indicator is based
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets on Disability and Business Technical Assistance Additional Source
Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Centers (DBTACs) reporting system ADA Impact Information: AIMS
Management System (AIMS, data for Year '01 and '02) Survey.
1998 80 15 5 The AIMS use a Likert Scale.
2000 95 2 3 83.50 Frequency: Semi-
Explanation: The AIMS survey consists of postcard Annually.
2001 90 5 5 86 survey that is sent out after a request for information on Collection Period: 2001
ADA. The survey is voluntary and in '02, 715 customers Data Available: January
2002 97 2 1 90
completed the required 8 questions. Question #5 refers Validated By: On-Site
to the usefulness of materials requested. 97% of Monitoring By ED.
respondents rated the information as Very and
Somewhat Useful; 2% as Not Very Useful and 1% as Limitations: Sample size
Not Applicable. is limited.

Objective 8.3 of 4: Expand system capacity for conduct of high-quality rehabilitation research and services by ensuring availability of qualified researchers and
practitioners, including persons with disabilities and other underserved groups.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Contributions of trainees and fellows: Contributions by NIDRR trainees and fellows that apply to study rehabilitation will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Target met Source: Other

Other: Other.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Our Capacity
Published Presentations Published Presentations Building data reported in this Additional Source Information: AART, NIDRR Annual
period come from the ARRTs Performance Management Report
1998 6.70 18.20 only. The ARRTs conduct the
2001 19.70 16.30 22 14 NIDRR Fellows Program. Frequency: Annually.
Other NIDRR programs are Collection Period: 2002
2002 7 12 6 12 not required to report these Data Available: October 2002
data. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
Verified by Dept. of Ed. attestation process and ED
The measure is based on the Standards for Evaluation Program Performance Data.
number of fellows surveyed. In
FY '01, there were 18 fellows. Limitations: Our capacity building data comes from the
In FY '02 we based our data ARRT training/fellows program. In FY02 there were 15
on the number of centers funded centers, on average each program has 3-4 full-
time fellows conducting post doctoral research. NIDRR's

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 127

 funded (15) with an average of reporting system has data on 14 of these centers. These
3-4 fellows in each program. data indicate that 102 publications resulted from the work
The number of fellows varies of the fellows in these centers. An average of 6
every year. publications and 12 presentations per center and 2 per
fellow. The number of fellows in each center varies every
year.

Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: Researchers with disabilities and from underserved groups: Participation of researchers working in the field who have disabilities or are from
underserved groups will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of people with disabilities and members of minority populations who are Status: Unable to judge Source: Other
paid employees. Other: Other.
Explanation: The information collected is
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets based on the grantees reports on Staffing by Additional Source Information:
Disabled Minority Disabled Minority staffing position and category. Some persons NIDRR Web Reporting System;
worked less than full time on the grant. The Annual Performance Report; NIDRR
2002 13 16 data refer only to paid grantee staff. The total Performance Reporting System
number of centers reporting during this period sections on Staffing from the
was 114 (58%) out of 194 centers who entered following programs only D&U,
their staffing information using the new web DRRP, FIP, MS, RERC, RRTC.
system.
Frequency: Annually.
This measure represents successful Collection Period: 2002
completion of planning tasks and conduct of Data Available: January 2002
capacity building and outreach conference. Validated By: Federal Statistical
Participation of at least 25 individuals from Agencies.
currently funded entities and individuals from
other eligible entities. Limitations: Disability and minority
data reported on the Staffing section
of the NIDRR web-based
Performance Reporting System are
based on voluntary disclosure
information.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 128

Objective 8.4 of 4: Ensure productivity and management effectiveness.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 1: Usefulness of NIDRR products: The percentage of customers reporting that NIDRR products and information are useful will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Consumer, Stakeholders and Researchers reporting their access to disability Status: Target met Source: Other
research information from NIDRR is useful Other: Other.
Progress: Data gathering Sponsor: National Center for the Dissemination of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets activities were started in 2001, Disability Research..
2002 90 85 with help from the National Date Sponsored: 01/01/2001.
Center for the Dissemination of
Disability Research (NCDRR) Additional Source Information: The National
annual survey. The survey Center for the Dissemination of Disability
seeks comsumers' and Research (NCDRR) engages annually on a survey
stakeholders' input and interests activity that helps increase the knowledge base in
on disability research the National Institute on Disability and
information and their ability to Rehabilitation research community regarding
access such information. The dissemination and utilization of research findings.
sample consisted of 1028 A key component of the research is to gain
consumers from NIDRR's knowledge on what kinds of disability - related
Independent Living Centers; 430 research are key to consumers, how they prefer to
stakeholders and 166 NIDRR learn about this information and how they apply it.
grantees' researchers.
Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: Ninety-four (94%) Collection Period: 2003
of consumers and stakeholders Data Available: July 2003
indicated that disability research Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
information was useful. They The survey addresses three distinct types of
stated that their preferred means customers - 1) Consumer group - individuals with
of accessing research disabilities and their families participating in
information was contacting Independent Living Centers across the country; 2)
community service providers Stakeholders-- representatives from various
(70%), disability research organizations that come in direct contact with
organizations (68%); looking in consumers and 3) Researchers -- only NIDRR-
brochures (56%) and looking on funded researchers, i.e. grantees.
the Internet (54%). Eighty-two
(82%) of researchers use the Limitations: Results are based on relatively small
Internet, 66% use brochures and samples of the three types of customers.
58% use research journals.
Overall consumers used these Improvements: Questions on the survey must be
approaches less frequently. refined to look for the usefulness on the
information presented (i.e. formats) and access
needs.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 129

 National Technical Institute for the Deaf - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.998 National Technical Institute for the Deaf: Operations, Construction, and Endowment Grant

Goal 8: To provide deaf and hearing students in undergraduate programs and professional studies with state-of-the-art
technical and professional education programs, undertake a program of applied research; share National Technical
Institute for the Deaf expertise and expand outside sources of revenue.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Provide deaf and hearing students in undergraduate and professional studies with outstanding state-of-the-art technical and professional
education programs, complemented by a strong arts and sciences curriculum and supplemented with appropriate student support services.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Enrollment: Maintain a student body of at least 1,080 undergraduate students, 100 educational interpreter program students, and 50 graduate
students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of students Status: Target met Additional Source Information:

National Technical Institute for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Undergraduate enrollment target the Deaf Registrar Office records,
Grad/Masters Grad/Masters exceeded. Negative trend away from target FY 2003 as of October 2002.
Educational in Special Educational in Special in the Educational Interpreter Program
Undergraduate Interpreter Ed. Undergraduate Interpreter Ed. enrollment and the Graduate Program Frequency: Annually.
enrollment. Collection Period: 2003
1995 1,035 59 10 Data Available: October 2003
1996 1,038 59 27 Explanation: In fiscal year 2002, the Validated By: No Formal
number of Undergraduates increased Verification.
1997 1,069 72 32 beyond the target. The Educational Data supplied by the National
Interpreter Program enrollment is below Technical Institute for the Deaf.
1998 1,085 84 36
target. With more aggressive recruitment, No formal verification applied.
1999 1,135 93 50 1,080 100 50 the Institute is confident that the
Educational Interpreter Programs
2000 1,084 77 59 1,080 100 50 enrollment will increase. The Graduate
2001 1,089 75 55 1,080 100 50 enrollment fell short its target, but increased
over the fiscal year 2001 number. The fiscal
2002 1,125 53 60 1,080 100 75 year 2003 number of Undergraduates
exceeded its target. The Educational
2003 1,093 65 73 1,080 100 75
Interpreter Program enrollment is below
target primarily due to more rigorous
entrance requirements since the program
as elevated to a bachelor's level program
last fall. With more aggressive recruitment,
the Institute is confident that the
Educational Interpreter enrollment will
increase, but more slowly than originally
anticipated. The graduate enrollment
increased considerably over fiscal year
2002, but fell slightly short its target in fiscal
year 2003.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 130

Objective 8.2 of 2: Maximize the number of students successfully completing a program of study

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Graduation rate: The graduation rate for students in sub-baccalaureate and baccalaureate programs will be maintained or increased.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Student graduation rates Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:

National Technical Institute for the
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In FY 2002, the overall target of 53 Deaf Registrar Office Records.
Sub- Sub- percent was surpassed by 4 percentage
Overall Baccalaureate Baccalaureate Overall Baccalaureate Baccalaureate points. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003
1997 50 50 51 Explanation: In FY 2002, the graduation rate Data Available: October 2003
1998 51 50 57 for students in the sub-baccalaureate Validated By: No Formal
programs was increased to 54 percent, and the Verification.
1999 53 50 61 rate for students in the baccalaureate Data supplied by the National
programs increased to 66 percent, resulting in Technical Institute for the Deaf. No
2000 53 50 63 53 51 61
an overall graduation rate of 57 percent for all formal verification procedure
2001 54 50 64 53 51 61 deaf students. The Institute's goal is to applied.
maintain the rate for students in sub-
2002 57 54 66 53 52 61 baccalaureate programs at 52 percent in FY
2003 and maintain the rate for students in
baccalaureate programs above 60 percent.
Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Student retention rate: the first-year student overall retention rate will be maintained; sub-baccalaureate will increase; and baccalaureate will
be maintained.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Student retention rates Status: Target met Additional Source Information:

NTID Registrar office records
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: In FY 2002 overall target of 74%
Sub- Sub- was exceeded by 3 percentage points Frequency: Annually.
Overall Baccalaureate Baccalaureate Overall Baccalaureate Baccalaureate Collection Period: 2003
Explanation: In FY 2002, the sub- Data Available: October 2003
1997 76 75 84 Baccalaureate rate of 72 percent was 2 Validated By: No Formal
1998 74 73 81 percentage points below the target, but 4 Verification.
percentage points above the FY 2001 Data supplied by NTID. No formal
1999 74 69 84 performance level. This pattern of verification procedure applied.
improvement makes NTID confident that
2000 74 69 85 74 73 84
current and new retention strategies will help
2001 74 68 86 74 74 84 achieve the target of 74 percent in 2003 or
2004. Baccalaureate retention rate improved to
2002 77 72 87 74 74 84 87%, which once again surpassed the target of
84 percent, and is better than the rate for
hearing freshmen entering RIT.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 131

 Native Hawaiian Education Program - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.209 - Native Hawaiian Family Based Education Centers
84.210 - Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented
84.221 - Native Hawaiian Special Education
84.296 - Native Hawaiian Community-Based Education Learning Centers
84.297 - Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training and Recruitment
84.316 - Native Hawaiian Higher Education Pr
84.362 - Native Hawaiian Education

Goal 8: To assist the Native Hawaiian population to achieve challenging standards through supporting supplemental
programs that meet their unique needs.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Native Hawaiian students will enter school ready to learn and achieve to high standards

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Children's school readiness: An increasing percentage of Native Hawaiian children will improve on measures of school readiness and
literacy.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Predicted statewide enrollment for Native Hawaiian students in kindergarten: 1999-

2000
Progress: Data for this indicator were not
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets collected for 2002; therefore, we cannot
1999 3,986 measure progress.

2000 4,325

Objective 8.2 of 2: Teachers will receive training and have access to instructional resources that meet the unique educational needs of Native Hawaiian students

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Professional development: Teachers participating in the program will report improved knowledge, skills, and abilities in addressing the
unique educational needs of Native Hawaiian students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of Teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data for this indicator were not
2000 500 collected for 2002; therefore, we cannot
measure progress.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 132

 Perkins Vocational and Technology Education (State Grants and
Tech-Prep Indicators) - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.048 - Vocational Education_Basic Grants to States
84.243 - Tech-Prep Education

Goal 8: To increase access to and improve educational programs that strengthen education achievement, workforce
preparation and lifelong learning.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Ensure that vocational concentrators, including special populations, will achieve state established academic standards.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Academic Attainment: An increasing percentage of vocational concentrators, including special populations, will meet the core curriculum
standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of vocational concentrators meeting core curriculum standards Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
Grantee Performance Report:
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: 1999-2000 school year data were 1830-0503 Vocational Technical
Percentage of vocational Percentage of vocational collected as part of the negotiation process Education Annual Performance and
concentrators concentrators with the states to establish a baseline and Financial Reports.
agreed-upon performance targets. The 2000- Program: Perkins Vocational and
1998 33 2001 school year data are the first year of Technology Education .
1999 45 performance data and will be used as the basis
for determining eligibility for incentive grants. Additional Source Information:
2000 44 National Data Bases
Explanation: Performance reporting has
2001 70 55 Frequency: Annually.
shifted to a reliance on state accountability
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2002 72 reports, as specified in the 1998 Perkins Act.
Data Available: March 2003
Data for 1997-98 came from a small pilot study
Validated By: No Formal
testing the new provisions. States began using
Verification. Data quality continues
new measurement approaches negotiated with
to be a major component of the Data
ED in 1999-2000 to report for 2000-01. While
Quality Initiative (DQI) begun last
states use different strategies for measuring
year. A new verification and
academic attainment, they all use students
attestation process was
(concentrators) as the unit of analysis and
implemented to improve the
identify the percentage of students meeting
accuracy of the performance data.
state established standards. Performance data
OVAE verified data by internal
developed by states is reported to OVAE 90
electronic consistency via
days after termination of the grant, i.e., the
instrumentation checks, expert staff
2002 data are reported by December 31, 2002.
analysis, and requiring double check
Attestation of data is completed within the
and attestation of data by state
following 90 days of States' submissions. Data
directors. State data is also checked
for the 2002 program year will be available for
independently by ED/OVAE during
the public on or after March 31. Some dates
onsite monitoring and State audit
were incorrect on the previous report.
reviews.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 133

 Limitations: There is a substantial
lag each year before performance
data can be reported. Although state
data is collected annually, local data
are not received by the states until
4-6 months after completion of the
school year. States participated in
both a self-evaluation and peer
review of their measures, definitions,
data collection and reporting with
assistance and training by OVAE by
using data quality criteria, peer
review process, ongoing technical
assistance on strategies to improve
measurement. The numbers
provided in Actual Performance and
Performance Targets do not
represent a national average nor the
results of any single national
assessment, rather a composite of
the diversity of the states, their
measures, measurement
approaches and definitions that vary
from state to state. Significant
latitude was given states in the
identification and development of
baseline data for each of the Core
Indicators and thus variability in
results.

Improvements: ED will work with

states through the D/PQI to
streamline data collection and
verification and promote greater
consistency in measurement and
reporting approaches.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 134

Objective 8.2 of 3: Ensure that institutions, secondary and postsecondary, will offer programs with industry-recognized skill standards so that concentrators,
including special populations, can earn skill certificates in these programs.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Skills proficiencies: An increasing proportion of secondary and postsecondary institutions will offer programs in which vocational students
can earn industry-recognized skill certificates. (Program measures to be reassessed in 2000 to reflect new law.)

Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of secondary vocational concentrators meeting state-established Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
academic standards, using state adopted approaches. Grantee Performance Report: 1830-0503
Progress: 1999-2000 school Vocational Technical Education Annual
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets year data were collected as part Performance and Financial Reports.
National or National or of the negotiation process with Program: Perkins Vocational and Technology
State Program Other State Program Other the states to establish a baseline Education .
Assessment Completion Approaches Assessment Completion Approaches and agreed-upon performance
targets. The 2000-01 school Additional Source Information: National Skills
1998 61.33 year data are the first year Data Bases
1999 63.40 29.80 84.10 performance data and were
used as the basis for Frequency: Annually.
determining eligibility for Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Percentage of secondary vocational concentrators meeting state-established incentive grants. Data Available: March 2003
academic standards, using state adopted approaches Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Explanation: Performance Data quality continues to be a major component of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
reporting has shifted to a the Data Quality Initiative (DQI) begun last year. A
2000 39 reliance on state accountability new verification and attestation process was
reports, as specified in the 1998 implemented to improve the accuracy of the
2001 61 Perkins Act. Data for 1998 came performance data. OVAE verified data by internal
2002 63 from a small pilot study testing electronic consistency via instrumentation checks,
the new provisions. Data for expert staff analysis, and requiring double check
1999 were transitional, with and attestation of data by State directors. State
Percentage of postsecondary vocational concentrators meeting state/locally-adopted states using data sources and data are also checked independently by ED/OVAE
skill standards, using state recognized approaches approaches that existed before during onsite monitoring and state audit reviews.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets the 1998 law. States began
using new measurement Limitations: There is a substantial lag each year
State State approaches negotiated with the before performance data can be reported.
Assessment Completion Other Assessment Completion Other Education Department to report Although state data is collected annually, local
1998 59.30 87.30 65.10 for 2000. Performance data data are not received by the states until 4 to 6
developed by states is reported months after completion of the school year. The
1999 73.90 76.70 62.60 to OVAE 90 days after Education Department will work with states
termination of the grant, i.e., the through the DQI to streamline data collection and
2002 data is reported by verification and to promote greater consistency in
December 31, 2002. Attestation measurement and reporting approaches. The
of data is completed within the numbers provided in Actual Performance and
following 90 days of States' Performance Targets do not represent a national
submissions. Data for the 2002 average nor the results of any single national
program year will be available assessment. Rather a composite of the diversity of
for the public on or after March the states, their measures, measurement

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 135

Percentage of postsecondary vocational concentrators meeting state/ locally-adopted 31. Data for 1998 and 1999 approaches and definitions that vary from state to
skill standards, using state recognized approaches have been revised and updated state. Significant latitude was given states in the
since the previous report. States identification and development of baseline data for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets can update and revise their each of the Core Indicators and thus variability in
2000 76 performance information when results.
more data become available.
2001 76
2002 76

Objective 8.3 of 3: Ensure that concentrators, including special populations, make transitions to continuing education, work or other career options.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Secondary student outcomes: An increasing proportion of vocational concentrators, including special populations, will attain high school
diplomas, enter postsecondary programs, or attain employment.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of vocational concentrators who have completed high school and transitioned to Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
postsecondary education or employment Grantee Performance Report:
Progress: 1999-2000 school data were 1810-0503 Annual Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets collected as part of the negotiation Reporting Format for OIE Formula
Placement in Placement in process with the states to establish a Grants to LEAs.
Postsecondary Placement in Postsecondary Placement in baseline and agreed-upon performance
Education and Postsecondary Education and Postsecondary targets. The 2000-01 school year data Additional Source Information:
or/ Education or/ Education are the first year of performance data National Data Bases
High Employment and/or High Employment and/or and will be used as the basis for
School Adm. Record Employment School Adm. Record Employment determining eligibility for incentive Frequency: Annually.
Completion Exchange Survey Completion Exchange Survey grants. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: March 2003
1998 83.80 62.50 80 Explanation: Performance reporting is Validated By: No Formal
1999 77.40 72.70 82.20 shifting to a reliance on state Verification.
accountability reports, as specified in Attestation and Audit -- Data quality
the 1998 Perkins Act. Data for 1997-98 continues to be a major component
Percentage of vocational concentrators who have completed high school and transitioned to came from a small pilot study testing of the Data Quality Initiative (DQI)
postsecondary education or employment the new provisions. Data for 1998-99 begun last year. A new verification
are transitional, with states using data and attestation process was
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
sources and approaches that existed implemented to improve the
Placement in before the 1998 law. Data collected for accuracy of the performance data.
Placement in
Postsecondary 1999-2000 will be the first year the data OVAE verified data by internal
Postsecondary
Education will be reported based on the Education electronic consistency via
High School Education and/or
High School and/or Department-negotiated measures. instrumentation checks, expert staff
Completion Employment
Completion Employment Performance data developed by States analysis, and requiring double check
is reported to OVAE 90 days after and attestation of data by State
2000 80 79 termination of the grant, i.e., the 2002 directors. State data is also checked
2001 84 84 data will be reported by December 31, independently by ED/OVAE during
2002. Attestation of data is completed onsite monitoring and State audit
2002 84 84 reviews.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 136

 within the following 90 days of States' Limitations: There is a substantial
submissions. Data for the 2002 lag each year before performance
program year will be available for the data can be reported. In addition,
public on or after March 31. states collect placement data from 6
months to 1 year after the school
year resulting in a further lag in data
reporting. Limited access to federal
data bases (e.g. military/defense)
and issues related to FERPA and
use of social security numbers is
also a great barrier to both accurate
reporting and completeness of data.
The numbers provided in Actual
Performance and Performance
Targets do not represent a national
average nor the results of any single
national assessment. Rather a
composite of the diversity of the
states, their measures,
measurement approaches and
definitions that vary from state to
state. Significant latitude was given
states in the identification and
development of baseline data for
each of the Core Indicators and thus
variability in results.

Improvements: Ongoing technical

assistance is being provided through
the DQI to address these
challenges. These include but are
not limited to in-state cooperative
agreements and national resources
such as the Peer Collaborative
Resource Network(PCRN) for
sharing of methods, techniques, and
research.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 137

Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: Postsecondary student outcomes: Increasing proportions of postsecondary vocational students, including special populations, will have a
positive placement in one or more of the following categories of outcomes: retention in and completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate, placement in
military service, or placement or retention in employment.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of postsecondary vocational concentrators who have completed postsecondary Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
education and have a positive placement in military or employment Grantee Performance Report:
Progress: 1999-2000 school data 1810-0503 Annual Performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets were collected as part of the Reporting Format for OIE Formula
Placement Placement negotiation process with the states to Grants to LEAs.
Postsecondary in Military or Postsecondary in Military or establish a baseline and agreed-upon
Degree/Certificate Employment Placement Degree/Certificate Employment Placement performance targets. The 2000-01 Additional Source Information:
Completion Adm. in Military or Completion Adm. in Military or school year data are the first year of National Data Bases
Administrative Record Employment Administrative Record Employment performance data and will be used as
Data Exchange Survey Data Exchange Survey the basis for determining eligibility for Frequency: Annually.
incentive grants. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1998 55.90 81.90 87.70 Data Available: June
1999 32.80 86.20 78.10 Explanation: States used various Validated By: No Formal
measurement approaches for Verification.
postsecondary completion and Data quality continues to be a
Percentage of postsecondary vocational concentrators who have completed postsecondary placement, i.e. wage record major component of the Data
education and have a positive placement in military or employment. exchanges, administrative record Quality Initiative (DQI) begun last
exchanges and surveys to indicate year. A new verification and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
completion and placement attestation process was
Postsecondary Placement in Placement performance. Results were collected implemented to improve the
Degree/ Military or Postsecondary in Military or through the CAR instrument on accuracy of the performance data.
Certificate/Completion Employment Degree/Certificate/Completion Employment current performance and matched to OVAE verified data by internal
previously identified targets. State electronic consistency via
2000 32 82 actual and target differences were instrumentation checks, expert
2001 37 84 matched and aggregated. staff analysis, and requiring
Performance data developed by double check and attestation of
2002 39 84 States is reported to OVAE 90 days data by State directors. State data
after termination of the grant, i.e., the is also checked independently by
2002 data will be reported by ED/OVAE during onsite monitoring
December 31, 2002. Attestation of and State audit reviews.
data is completed within the following
90 days of States' submissions. Data Limitations: There is a
for the 2002 program year will be substantial lag each year before
available for the public on or after performance data can be reported.
March 31. Military data has been In addition, states collect
dropped for the 2001-2002 program placement data from 6 months to
year. Previous data years have been 1 year after the school year
corrected to reflect end of full year. resulting in a further lag in data
reporting. Limited access to
federal data bases (e.g.
military/defense) and issues

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 138

 related to FERPA and use of
social security numbers is also a
great barrier to both accurate
reporting and completeness of
data. The numbers provided in
Actual Performance and
Performance Targets do not
represent a national average nor
the results of any single national
assessment, rather a composite of
the diversity of the states, their
measures, measurement
approaches and definitions that
vary from state to state. Significant
latitude was given states in the
identification and development of
baseline data for each of the Core
Indicators and thus variability in
results.

Improvements: Ongoing
technical assistance is being
provided through the DQI to
address these challenges.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 139

 Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.342 - Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology

Goal 8: To improve the knowledge and ability of future teachers to use technology in teaching practices and student
learning opportunities, and to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Strengthen teacher preparation programs so that they provide high-quality training in the use of technology for instructional purposes.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Curriculum redesign: The percentage of funded teacher preparation programs that redesign their curriculum to incorporate best practices in
the use of technology in teacher education will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of programs Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:

Project Performance Reports.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The percentage of projects that
Capacity Capacity redesigned curriculum during this reporting Frequency: Annually.
Building Implementation Catalyst Building Implementation Catalyst period has decreased. Collection Period: 2003
Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Data Available: December 2004
Explanation: Curriculum design is a priority for Validated By: No Formal
2000 78 82 many Implementation projects, and some had Verification.
2001 87 66 89 68 completed redesign before this reporting
period. The cumulative percent of Limitations: Performance report
2002 84 68 89 68 Implementation projects that have redesigned data will be self-reported from
curriculum as a grant activity since the program grantees. ED does not
beginning of the program is ninety-one percent collect national level baseline data
(91%). Curriculum redesign is not the purpose for this indicator. Capacity-building
of all Catalyst projects, many of which are not grants were one-year grants given in
located at an institution of higher education. 1999 so there are data only for
2000.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 140

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Technology-proficient faculty: The percentage of faculty members in funded teacher preparation programs that effectively use technology in
their teaching will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of faculty members in funding teacher preparation programs that Status: Target not met Source: Performance Report
effectively use technology in their teaching will increase. Contractor Performance Report
Progress: Positive movement toward
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets target. The percentage of technology
Capacity Capacity proficient faculty is increasing. Additional Source Information: Project
Building Implementation Catalyst Building Implementation Catalyst Performance Reports
Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Explanation: Implementation projects
are using various methods to assess Frequency: Annually.
2000 56 53 technology proficiency. Fifty-seven Collection Period: 2002
2001 61 63 percent (57%) of faculty were rated to Data Available: December 2003
be proficient using self-assessment, Validated By: No Formal Verification.
2002 62 63 fifteen percent (15%) using
observation, and thirty-three percent Limitations: Performance report data will
(33%) using other methods such as be self-reported from program grantees. ED
exams and portfolios. does not collect national level baseline data
for this indicator. Capacity building grants
were one-year grants given in 1999 so there
are data only for 2000.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 141

Objective 8.2 of 2: Increase the technology skills and proficiency of new teachers for improved classroom instruction.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Technology-proficient new teachers: The percentage of new teachers who are proficient in using technology and integrating technology into
instructional practices will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students assessed at catalyst projects that demonstrated proficiency Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
in using technology. Progress: The percentage of graduating Project Performance Reports.
students who are rated as technology
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets proficient out of all those assessed has Frequency: Annually.
Capacity Capacity decreased. Collection Period: 2002
Building Implementation Catalyst Building Implementation Catalyst Data Available: December 2003
Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Projects Explanation: Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Validated By: No Formal
Implementation projects required preservice Verification.
2000 42 32 teachers to demonstrate technology as a grant Evaluation data collection will be
2001 34 38 36 40 activity during the reporting period and an verified by on-site monitoring and
additional thirty-one percent (31%) required review as well as survey and
2002 29 19 36 40 proficiency but not as a grant activity. analysis performed by an
Implementation grantees are assessing a experienced data collection agency
growing number of graduating students for with internal review procedures.
technology proficiency. Many Catalyst projects
are not located at institutions of higher Limitations: Performance report
education and therefore do not assess the data will be self-reported from
technology proficiency of preservice teachers. program grantees.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 142

 Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected or Delinquent
(N or D) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.013 - Title I Program for Neglected and Delinquent Children

Goal 8: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the opportunity to meet the challenging
state standards needed to further their education and become productive members of society.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Neglected or delinquent (N or D) students will improve academic and vocational skills needed to further their education or obtain employment.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Progress and achievement: An increasing number of states will show that Neglected or Delinquent students are obtaining regular high
school diplomas, General Equivalency Diplomas, and/or earning high school course credits.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states reporting Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Other.

Collection Period: 2002 - 2005
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: States not required to report data Data Available: January 2006
School for indicator based on prior reauthorization. Validated By: No Formal
GED School Credits New baseline to be set in 2004. Verification.
GED Credits
1999 36 12 Explanation: Data last collected by PES mail Limitations: Studies of programs
survey for 1999 data. No survey was for Neglected or Delinquent students
authorized for 2001-2002 data. were conducted by voluntary state
and local surveys through PES.
There has been, and is, no
authorization of program funds for
data collection. Additionally, states
and local programs are only
required to provide program
information once every three years.

Improvements: The Department

plans to conduct surveys through a
MATO contractor and invite states to
annually share data for program
indicators.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 143

 Projects with Industry Program (PWI) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.234 - Projects with Industry

Goal 8: To facilitate the establishment of partnerships between rehabilitation service providers and business and
industry in order to create and expand employment and career advancement opportunities for individuals with
disabilities.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Ensure that PWI services (through partnerships with business and industry) result in competitive employment, increased wages and job
retention for individuals with disabilities.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Placement rate of individuals with disabilities into competitive employment: The percentage of individuals served who are placed in
competitive employment will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of individuals served who were placed in competitive employment Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Grantee performance indicator data.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2001 performance exceeded the
1997 59 2001 target. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
1998 49 Explanation: In FY 1998, following a new Data Available: April 2003
1999 59 61 grant competition, there were significantly Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
fewer projects (104 projects) participating in By ED.
2000 61.90 61 the PWI program as compared to the FY 1997 The sources and data quality are
base year (119 projects). The number of validated by checking to see if the
2001 62.40 62
projects operating in fiscal years 1999, 2000, data are reasonable. On site
2002 62.20 and 2001 were 101, 99, and 102 respectively. compliance reviews are also
Following a corresponding drop in performance conducted on at least 15 percent of
in 1998, the percent of individuals placed in grant recipients annually to (a)
competitive employment by the program has determine whether that grant is
increased annually. Performance in FY 2001 managed in accordance with
surpassed the 1997 level. Federal requirements; (b) identify
areas where the project can be
improved; and (c) assess the
project's mission as it relates to the
Department's mission.

Limitations: The primary limitation

of the data is that they are self-
reported. Technical assistance and
regular monitoring is provided to
grantees in order to receive updated
reports from the grantee regarding
progress toward meeting project
goals.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 144

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Change in earnings of individuals who are placed in competitive employment: Projects With Industry projects will report that participants
placed in competitive employment increase earnings by an average of at least $218 per week.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Average increase in weekly earnings in dollars Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Performance data, due
1997 207 12/01/02, is still being submitted, Additional Source Information: Grantee
and the system which allows for performance indicator data.
1998 209 analysis and compilation of
1999 226 209 aggregates is being worked on to Frequency: Annually.
effect import of data from GAPS. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
2000 252 218 Final data are expected by February Data Available: February 2003
2003. Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.
2001 236 218
Same as 1.1
2002 226 Explanation: Unable to judge. Data
are pending as some projects do not Limitations: While on-site monitoring allows
meet the deadline date. In addition, for some validation, only 15 percent of PWI
the system which allows for analysis projects are visited each year. Otherwise, data
and compilation of aggregates is is self-validated by grantees.
being worked on to effect import of
data from GAPS. Improvements: Ability to import data from
GAPS will be addressed.

Objective 8.2 of 2: Ensure that PWI services are available for individuals with the most need.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Percentage of individuals served who were unemployed for 6 months or more prior to program entry who are placed in competitive
employment: The percentage of previously unemployed individuals served who are placed into competitive employment will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of previously unemployed individuals served who were placed in Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report
competitive employment Progress: Performance data, due Contractor Performance Report
12/01/02, are still being submitted, and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets the system which allows for analysis Frequency: Annually.
1997 60 and compilation of aggregates is still Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
being worked on to effect import of Data Available: February 2003
1998 48 data from GAPS. Final data are Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
1999 58 62 expected by February 2003. Grantee performance indicator data.

2000 60.80 60 Explanation: Unable to judge. Data Limitations: While on-site monitoring allows
are pending as some projects did not for some validation, only 15 percent of PWI
2001 69 61
meet the deadline date. In addition, the projects are visited each year. Otherwise,
2002 61.20 system which allows for analysis and data is self-validated by grantees.
compilation of aggregates is being
worked on to effect import of data from Improvements: Ability to import data from
GAPS. GAPS will be addressed.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 145

 Public Charter Schools Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.282 - Charter Schools

Goal 8: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools and to evaluate their effects.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from state or local rules that inhibit flexible
operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging state performance standards, and are open to all students.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: State legislation: By 2000, 40 states will have charter school legislation.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states with charter school legislation (including the District of Columbia Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
and Puerto Rico) State Educational Agencies (SEA);
Progress: There has been a positive gain state legislatures.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets even with only two state persuing legislation
1995 12 between 1999 and 2002. Several states will be Frequency: Annually.
considering legislation this year. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1996 19 Data Available: January 2003
1997 27 Explanation: Data shows positive trend even Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
with gain of only one state between 1999 and By ED.
1998 31 2001. Several States will be considering
legislation this year. Several states have Limitations: There is variation in
1999 38
considered, but have not yet passed, the definition of state charter school
2000 38 40 legislation. We will continue to provide legislation.
information and technical assistance to those
2001 39 42 states and to new states that are considering Improvements: N/A
2002 40 42 legislation.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 146

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Charter operations: By 2002, there will be at least 3,000 charter schools in operation around the Nation.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of charter schools in operation Status: Target not met Source: Other
Other: Other.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There has been a positive trend Sponsor: Center for Education
1995 100 toward meeting this objective. The number of Reform annual survey; State
charter schools in operation has dramatically Education Agencies.
1996 255 increased from 100 in 1994 to 2,431 in 2002
1997 428 Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: Several states have met caps on Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1998 790 the number of charter schools allowed, and the Data Available: January 2003
growth has declined slightly to about 400 new Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
1999 1,100
schools per year. Several states are By ED.
2000 1,700 2,060 considering raising their caps.
Limitations: Differences in the
2001 2,110 2,667 definition of charter schools (i.e.,
2002 2,431 3,000 some states count multiple sites as
single charter schools, while others
count them as multiple charter
schools) cause variability in the
counts SEAs. There is sometimes
disagreement about numbers of
charter schools in operation among
the agencies that do the counting.

Improvements: N/A

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 147

 Regional Educational Laboratories - 2002
Goal 8: To promote knowledge-based educational improvement to help all students meet high standards through
development, applied research, dissemination, and technical assistance conducted with local, state, and intermediate
agencies.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Develop, adapt, and assess comprehensive education reform strategies in schools, districts, and states.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Number of development sites: An increasing number of local or state sites will be engaged in collaborative development and demonstration
of comprehensive reform-related efforts.
Sources and Data
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress
Quality

Number school, district, intermediate agency, and state level sites Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information:
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The 2002 data represent the baseline Laboratory records
Site Students Teachers Administrators Parents Site Students Teachers Administrators Parents year for development sites in the 2001-2005 and quarterly
contract period and cannot be compared to data reports, 2002.
1997 494 83,147 5,899 512 14,437 from the previous contract period in which
different definitions for “site” and “participant” Frequency:
1998 615 93,788 6,950 749 16,062 Annually.
were used. Explanation: Of 206 total sites, 52
1999 606 538,865 37,550 5,169 13,697 (25%) reported at least one outcome/category of Collection Period:
improved practice. These 52 sites include 41 of 2002 - 2003
2000 630 545,612 34,923 5,029 13,024 Data Available:
154 (27%) school-level sites, 9 of 40 (23%)
2001 359 37,847 5,869 1,801 183 district-level sites, 1 of 4 (25%) intermediate September 2003
agency level site and 1 of 8 (13%) state level Validated By: No
2002 206 4,316 1,055 268 sites. A site is defined as a school, district, Formal Verification.
intermediate agency, or state in which “the Validated By:
Laboratory is engaged in collaborative field work Experienced
that is: a) direct, face-to-face, long-term, and Public/Private
intensive; b) designed with the explicit goal to Entity. Each
improve practice; and c) expected to produce Laboratory utilized
outcomes that are measurable and indicative of its own quality
improved practice.” A participant is defined as assurance process
“an individual directly involved in collaborative to review data
field work.” Students do not collaborate directly provided.
with the Laboratories and are not included in the
Limitations: The
2002 data.
Education
Department relies
Explanation: (cont'd). Examples of areas for
on Laboratory
improved practice include differentiated
records for these
instruction to help all students succeed, effective
data.
use of assessment resources/tools, efficient and
effective resource allocation, or increased
capacity to deliver high-quality professional

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 148

 development. No performance targets are Improvements:
shown for the number of development sites or Independent
participants because their numbers are not reviewers
expected to increase significantly. The indicator conducted data
may be revised to emphasize the results of the verification in 2002.
development work. Additional information in the
measure has been added for clarification, i.e.
''intermediate agency.''

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Student achievement: After 3 years of on-site development, sites will show increases in student achievement.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of schools showing increases in student achievement Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information: Laboratory records
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The current year (2002) is a and quarterly reports, 2002.
Less 36 new baseline year. The previous year
Less than 36 (2001) was the first year of a new contract Frequency: Annually.
than months
12 12-23 24-35 months period and represents only 6 months of Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
12 12-23 24-35 or
months months months or more data collection. Explanation: Of the 206 Data Available: September
months months months more
total sites (Indicator 8.1.1 of 2 above), there 2003
2001 41.40 were 194 school- and district-level sites. Of Validated By: No Formal
2002 4 54.80 91.70 0 these, 155 indicated a direct focus on the Verification.
outcome/category of “increased student Experienced Public/Private
achievement in low performing schools.” Entity. Each Laboratory utilized
The other 39 school/district sites are its own quality assurance
focused on research and development to process to review the data
enhance their capacity to improve student provided.
achievement. Four of 100 sites (4.0%) with
fewer than 12 months of development, 23 Limitations: The Education
of 42 sites (54.8%) with 12-23 months of Department relies on Laboratory
development, and 11 of 12 sites (91.7%) records for these data.
with 24-36 months of development (total
N=38 sites, or 24.5% of the 155 total Improvements: Independent
school- and district-level sites) reported reviewers conducted data
collecting evidence demonstrating verification in 2002.
increased student achievement. The one
site in cohort 4 (36 months or more of
development) collected student
achievement data, but these data indicated
no increase.

Explanation: (cont'd). Sites were included

in this data set only if they met the criterion
for inclusion under Indicator 8.1.1 of 2
(above) and if they indicated that
“increased student achievement” was a

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 149

 targeted outcome. This is the first year in
which data were gathered and reported by
cohort (e.g., grouped by length of time of
development work). Work at several of
these low performing school sites began
during the previous contract period. No
performance target is included for 2002
because 2002 is a new baseline year
representing the first complete year of data
collection in the 2001-2005 contract period.
The indicator may be revised to show the
results of the Laboratories' development
work over time.

Objective 8.2 of 2: Provide products and services and develop networks and partnerships in support of state and local reform.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Customer Receipt of Products and Services: The circulation of products, receipt of services, and receipt of electronic material will increase
annually from baseline levels.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of products, services, and electronic materials Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
Information: Laboratory
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The current year (2002) is a new baseline records and quarterly
# of # of year. The previous year (2001) was the first year of a reports, 2002.
# of # of Face- new contract period and represents 6 months of data
Products Face-to-
Products to to-face Web Site collection. Frequency: Annually.
to face Web Site
Clients Services Hits Collection Period: 2002 -
Clients Services Hits
Explanation: The total number of individual contacts 2003
1997 419,927 148,966 11,834,588 with the Laboratories (adding together products, Data Available: September
1998 988,055 178,555 19,305,052 services, and web site hits) increased substantially 2003
from 68,748,373 in 2001 to 211,443,788 in 2002 Validated By: No Formal
1999 2,132,530 125,517 30,379,269 because of continued increase in the use of the Web Verification.
for dissemination as access to the Laboratories' web Experienced Public/Private
2000 1,635,492 127,162 35,828,628
sites continued to grow. In 2002, the number of web Entity. Each Laboratory
2001 561,932 47,227 68,139,214 page views was added as a second measure of utilized its own quality
receipt of electronic materials. The term page views assurance process to review
2002 979,223 80,827 210,383,738 (impressions) refers to client access to entire pages, the data provided.
but does not include a site's supporting graphic files.
Using this new measure, the total number of individual Limitations: The Education
contacts with the Laboratories (adding together Department relies on
products, services, and web page views) increased Laboratory records for these
substantially from 15,595,222 in 2001 to 43,128,451 in data.
2002. The web site hits and page views include the 10
laboratory web sites plus the REL web site. The Improvements: Independent
indicator may be revised to include new ways to reviewers conducted data
measure the impact of web site dissemination. verification in 2002.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 150

Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Quality of products and services: At least 90 percent of clients sampled will report laboratory products and services to be of high quality.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of clients rating products and services to be of excellent or good quality Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Client surveys, 2002.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data are based on client ratings of
1997 90 90 excellent or good quality and are consistent Frequency: Biennially.
with reviewers' findings on the quality and Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
1998 90.10 90 utility of Laboratory products and services in Data Available: September 2004
1999 88.30 90 the 1999 evaluation study conducted by the Validated By: No Formal
Education Department. In 2002, utility/impact Verification.
2000 84.30 90 was added as a second measure of the quality Experienced Public/Private Entity.
of products and services. 88.7% of clients Each Laboratory utilized its own
2001 93.20 90
sampled rated products and services as having quality assurance process to review
2002 92.10 90 utility/impact in 1 or more of the following the data provided.
categories: increased knowledge/skills
(78.9%), used for decision-making/planning Limitations: The Education
(74.6%), used to enhance professional practice Department relies on Laboratory
(73.6%), and positive effect on student records for these data.
performance (59.2%). 2002 data are the result
of increased attention to instrumentation and Improvements: Independent
data collection issues, improved consistency reviewers conducted data
across the system, better use of electronic verification in 2002.
programs for data analysis, enhanced quality
assurance, and the identification of areas for
further improvement.

Explanation: (cont'd). Indicators of quality

may be revised to include additional measures
of impact on educational research and policy.
Examples of impact include the number of
publications in journals and presentations to
policy audiences and at refereed conferences.
Baseline data were established for these
impact measures in 2002.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 151

 Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--State Grants Program and National
Programs - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.184 - Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities_National Programs
84.186 - Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities_State Grants

Goal 8: To help ensure that all schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting implementation of high-quality
drug and violence prevention programs.
Objective 8.1 of 4: Reduce the use and availability of alcohol and drugs in schools.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Drug use in schools: By 2001, rates of alcohol use in schools will decline for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, and rates of annual marijuana use in
schools for the same time period will decline for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Rate of annual use of alcohol in school (in percentage) Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Monitoring the Future, 1999.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data for 2000, 2001, and 2002 are
8th Graders 12th Graders 8th Graders 12th Graders not available because no special analysis has Frequency: Annually.
been conducted of the Monitoring the Future
1994 5 8 Survey in those years. Validated By: NCES.
1995 5 7
Explanation: Rates of substance use in Limitations: According to NCES
1996 6 8 school generally parallel but are much lower calculations, from 1976 to 1996 the
than overall rates of substance abuse by total annual response rate for this
1997 5 8
youth. Rates of alcohol use for all grade levels survey varied between 46 percent
1998 5 8 have remained relatively steady for many and 67 percent. MTF does not
years and are, therefore, unlikely to decline in release its data on in-school use;
1999 4 7 5 8 the near future. Marijuana use rates increased special runs for these data are
2000 5 8 in the mid-nineties, but recently have been generally not available until the
relatively steady and may have leveled off. No spring of the year following the
2001 4 7 2000, 2001, or 2002 are available as a special December release of other MTF
analysis of the Monitoring the Future Survey data. MTF does not collect data for
2002 4 7
was not conducted for those years. In future 8th, 10th, and 12th graders on drug
years a new data source will be used that use in school in a way that allows
provides regularly collected data and the data to be compared across the
indicator will be redefined. three grades.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 152

Rate of annual use of marijuana and other drugs in school (in percentage)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
8th Graders 12th Graders 8th Graders 12th Graders
1994 4 8
1995 5 9
1996 6 10
1997 5 10
1998 5 8
1999 4 8 5 10
2000 4 8
2001 3 7
2002 3 7

Objective 8.2 of 4: Reduce number of criminal and violent incidents in schools.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Violent incidents in schools: By 2003, the proportion of high school students in a physical fight on school property will decrease, and the
annual rate of students ages 12 to 18 who report experiencing serious violent crime, in school or going to and from school, will decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of high school students who reported being involved in a physical fight Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
on school property in the past year Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Progress: Target was met for 2001. Data for (YRBS), Centers for Disease
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets the next reporting period (2003) will not be Control and Prevention (CDC),
1995 16 available until December 2003. 2001, National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), 2000.
1997 15 Explanation: Measure 1: The percentage of
1999 14 students reporting being in a fight at school Frequency: Biennially.
had declined since 1995. Standard error for Collection Period: 2003
2001 12.50 12 2001 data is +/- 1%. Data Available: December 2003
Validated By: Federal Statistical
Agencies.

Limitations: YRBS data are

collected biennially and reported in
the year after collection; the 2003
data will be reported in 2004. While
most NCVS data are reported the
year after collection, in-school
victimization data is a special

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 153

 analysis with a delayed release. The
data collected in 2001 will be
released in 2004.

Rate of students ages 12 to 18 who reported experiencing serious violent crim in

schools or going to and from schools (per 1000 students)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1994 13
1995 9
1996 9
1997 8
1998 9
1999 7 8
2000 5 8
2001 7
2002 7

Objective 8.3 of 4: Increase the percentage of safe and drug free schools and communities grantees that achieve results-based goals.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Grantee progress: By 2002, National Programs grantees will demonstrate substantial progress toward achieving their results based-goals
and objectives established in their applications
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of grantees meeting their measurable goals and objectives Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Review of grantee reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Requirements for measuring
2001 84 75 progress toward goals and objectives have Frequency: Other.
been incorporated into all applications for Collection Period: 2002
2002 85 National Programs direct grants. No data are Data Available: January 2003
currently available for 2002. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 154

Objective 8.4 of 4: Provide crisis intervention assistance to school districts.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 1: Crisis intervention: By 2001, the Department will implement policies and procedures necessary to ensure rapid response to school districts
seriously affected by crises that interfere with learning.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Status: Unable to judge Source: Other

Other: Record/File.
Progress: Funding was approved by congress
for this initiative in December 2000. Additional Additional Source Information:
funding provided in FY 2002 appropriation. In Review of program files and
2001, ED initiated responses to eligible organizational plans
requests within 48 hours in 8 of 9 instances.
No 2002 data are available. Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2002
Data Available: January 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 155

Smaller Learning Communities (Small, Safe and Successful High Schools) - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.215L FIE/Smaller Learning Communities

Goal 8: To assist high schools to create smaller learning communities that can prepare all students to achieve to
challenging standards and succeed in college and careers.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Students in schools receiving smaller learning communities implementation grants will demonstrate continuous improvement in achievement
in core subjects, as well as exhibit positive behavioral changes

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Achievement: Increasing percentages of students in high schools receiving Smaller Learning Community grants will meet or exceed the
basic and proficient levels of performance on state and local reading and math assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report

Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Baseline Established
Percentage Percentage
Percentage Percentage Explanation: New program. Initial grants Frequency: Annually.
Meeting Meeting
Meeting Levels in Meeting Levels in awarded in October 2000. Collection Period: 2002
Levels in Levels in
Reading Math Data Available: December 2003
Reading Math
Validated By: No Formal
2001 42.60 51.10 Verification.

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Behavior: Increasing percentages of students in high schools receiving Small Learning Community grants will show improvements on
measures such as school attendance and incidence of disciplinary actions.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Source: Performance Report

Contractor Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Baseline established
Percentage of
Percentage of Total Number of Explanation: New program. Initial grants Additional Source Information:
Students in Total Number
Students in daily Disciplinary awarded in October 2000. Data for FY 2002 Program evaluation to begin in 2001
daily of Disciplinary
Attendance Actions will be based on Annual Performance Reports and Annual Performance Reports to
Attendance Actions
that are not due until 12/31/02. A lengthy begin in 2002.
2001 90.40 57,084 tabulation process will then be necessary.
Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
Data Available: December 2003
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 156

 Star Schools Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.203 - Star Schools

Goal 8: To improve student learning and teaching through the use of distance learning technologies.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Promote the delivery of challenging content in core subjects.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Challenging content: Challenging content aligned with standards at all academic levels (including high school credit, advanced placement,
adult education, and Graduate Equivalency Diploma courses) through distance education will increase annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of full credit courses offered through Star Schools Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information: Fy
2002 Annual performance and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Grantees report that 1502 courses evaluation reports; FY 2002 data
1994 30 are aligned with standards. Grantees also retrieved from online reporting
report that 1481 modules are aligned with system.
1997 81 standards.
1998 105 Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: These are final data figures Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
1999 126 aggregated for the FY 2002 performance Data Available: October 2003
period. It should be noted that the Iowa Validated By: No Formal
2000 921
Distance Education Alliance project is not Verification.
2001 387 included in the final FY 2001 total of courses However, the program evaluation
aligned with standards because the project liaison and program officers review
2002 1,502 1,000 failed to comply with the Star Schools GPRA data from the online reporting
reporting deadline requirements. Excluding system and evaluation reports from
Iowa's perviously reported count of 813 the projects to ascertain the extent
courses for FY 2000, a total of 108 courses to which evidence exists that the
were reported by the other remaining projects. content is aligned with standards.
For FY 2001, there was a substantial increase The program evaluation liaison or
from 108 (FY 2000) to 387 (FY 2001) in the program officer's review includes:
number of courses offered that were aligned examining the procedures that
with standards by the other grantees. For FY grantees use to align the standards
2002, there was a significant increase in total with all academic levels; reviewing
courses reported aligned with standards, the sources of standards, strategies
because the Iowa Distance Education Alliance and procedures utilized for
project, which was excluded in the final data alignment; and verifying the
figures aggregated for the FY 2001 evidence provided for alignment.
performance period, complied with the FY The evaluation liaison performs a
2002 Star Schools program GPRA reporting quality check and review for
deadline requirements and therefore is inconsistencies in the data, contacts
included in the final data figures aggregated for the project for clarification of the
FY 2002. input or request that data be
modified. Projects modify data in the

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 157

 online reporting system accordingly
and also provide an explanation for
those modifications to the evaluation
liaison and team leader. Site visits
and reviews of additional reports
from the project further confirm the
data.

Limitations: Data are self- reported

by the projects. Evidence of
alignment with standards has been
particularly difficult to assess.
Determining the extent to which
courses are challenging has also
been difficult to assess.

Improvements: Planned
improvements include utilizing the
new aggregate analysis feature from
the Star Schools online reporting
system to gather and analyze
specific data across all projects for
courses and modules offered that
are aligned with standards. Planned
validation improvements on
evidence of course alignment with
standards include verifying whether
or not projects utilize content
experts to review and validate the
extent to which: a) content is
challenging b) standards are
appropriate for the content
delivered. In addition, we propose to
modify the indicator in FY 2004 as
follows: a) expand to include an
elementary and secondary course
and modules content category b)
focus on projects offering reading,
math, science, and foreign language
courses and modules. We propose
to add an indicator in professional
development because half of the FY
1999 & FY 2000 grants focus on
professional development and
currently do not report to current
indicator.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 158

 State Vocational Rehabilitation Services (Including Supported
Employment) - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.126 - Rehabilitation Services_Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States
84.187 - Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Disabilities

Goal 8: Individuals with disabilities served by the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grant program will achieve high quality
employment.
Objective 8.1 of 2: Ensure that individuals with disabilities who are served by the vocational rehabilitation (VR) state grant program achieve employment
consistent with their particular strengths, resources, abilities, capabilities and interests.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 5: Number achieving employment: The number of individuals with disabilities who achieve employment will increase by at least 1 percent
annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The number of individuals who achieved an employment outcome Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: RSA
state agency data from RSA-113.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Preliminary FY 2001 data show
Number of Number of Percent that the target was not met. Data is not yet Frequency: Annually.
Individuals Percent Increase Individuals Increase available for 2002. Collection Period: 2002 -
Data Available: October 2003
1997 211,503 Explanation: The target for FY 2001 was Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By
1998 223,668 5.80 set prior to the current economic downturn. ED.
Economic conditions affect the placement
1999 231,714 3.60 215,770 rates for populations who are Limitations: Appropriate crosschecks
disadvantaged in the labor market. Targets and edits to verify and validate the
2000 236,220 1.90 234,040
for future years have been adjusted quality of these data are currently being
2001 233,687 -1 238,582 accordingly. implemented.
2002 238,582

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 159

Indicator 8.1.2 of 5: Percentage of individuals obtaining employment: The percentage of all persons served who obtain employment will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage obtaining employment. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: RSA
state agency data from the RSA-113.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Preliminary FY 2001 data show
1997 61.20 that the target was not met. Data is not yet Frequency: Annually.
available for 2002. Collection Period: 2002 -
1998 62.20 Data Available: October 2003
1999 62.50 61 Explanation: The FY 2000 and 2001 Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By
targets were not met. The target for 2001 ED.
2000 62.50 62.70 was set prior to the economic downturn. Verified by ED Standards for Evaluating
Economic conditions affect the placement Program Performance Data.
2001 60.60 63
rates for populations who are
2002 63 disadvantaged in the labor market. Targets Limitations: Appropriate crosschecks
for future years have been adjusted and edits to verify and validate the
accordingly and reflect the expectation of quality of these data are currently being
very modest increases. implemented.
Indicator 8.1.3 of 5: Percentage of individuals obtaining competitive employment: Of individuals obtaining employment, the percentage who obtain competitive
employment will increase. Among individuals with significant disabilities obtaining employment, the percentage obtaining competitive employment will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of all individuals with disabilities who obtained competitive employment Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
RSA state agency data from the
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The 2002 data are expected to be RSA-911.
1997 81.20 available by Fall 2003. We expect the data to
show the target has been met. Frequency: Annually.
1998 80 Collection Period: 2002 -
1999 83.10 82.30 Explanation: In FY 2000 the minimum wage Data Available: October 2003
remained constant, thus allowing time for the Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
2000 86 82.50 wages of VR consumers (with and without By ED.
significant disabilities) to increase to minimum
2001 87.60 86.20
wage levels. States have been successful in Limitations: Accuracy/consistency
2002 86.40 assisting individuals in achieving competitive of reporting is contingent upon
employment outcomes. Because of the marked counselors' interpretations of
increase in performance in FYs 1999 and definitions. Timeliness is dependent
2000, we have adjusted targets for 2001 and upon submittal of clean data from 80
2002. grantees (respondents). Limited
staff resources affect ability to check
data for reasonableness and publish
data quickly.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 160

Percentage of individuals with significant disabilities who obtained competitive
employment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997 79.10
1998 78.70
1999 82.10 80
2000 85.20 85.50
2001 86.70 85.10
2002 85.40

Indicator 8.1.4 of 5: Improved earnings: Among individuals exiting the program in competitive employment, the median ratio of their average hourly wage to the
state's average hourly wage for all individuals in the state who are employed will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Median ratio for general and combined agencies Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: RSA state
data from the R-911.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The 2002 data are
1997 .60 expected to be available by Fall 2003. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 -
1998 .60 Explanation: Projections for future Data Available: October 2003
1999 .60 .60 years reflect very modest increases in Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
performance on this measure based on
2000 .60 .60 past trends. Limitations: Same limitations and planned
improvements reported under 1.3 apply to
2001 .56 .60
this indicator. In addition, the data for this
2002 .58 indicator are limited by the fact that the
required comparison involves numbers
reported from two different sets of state-
reported data.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 161

Indicator 8.1.5 of 5: Own income as primary support: The percentage of individuals who report upon obtaining employment that their own income is their primary
source of support will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of individuals who report upon obtaining employment that their own Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
income is their primary source of support RSA state agency data from RSA-
Progress: The 2002 data are expected to be 911.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets available by Fall 2003.
1997 74.60 Frequency: Annually.
Explanation: The 2000 data show an increase Collection Period: 2002 -
1998 75.80 from 74.5 percent, in 1999, to 77.3 percent. Data Available: October 2003
1999 74.50 74.50 The 2000 figure exceeded the target for that Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
year. The targets for future years have been By ED.
2000 77.30 75 adjusted based on performance in 2000.
Limitations: Same as discussed
2001 77.70 76
under Indicator 1.3.
2002 76.20

Objective 8.2 of 2: Increase the number of individuals with the most significant disabilities who have received supported employment services but achieve
competitive employment outcomes.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Percentage of individuals with a supported employment goal achieving competitive employment: The percentage of individuals with a
supported employment goal who achieve a competitive employment outcome (including supported employment outcomes in which the individual receives the
minimum wage or better) will continue to increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of individuals with a supported employment goal who achieved a Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
competitive employment outcome RSA state agency data from the
Progress: The 2002 data are expected to be RSA-911.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets available by Fall 2003. We expect the data to Frequency: Annually.
1997 69.60 show that the target has been met. Collection Period: 2002 -
Data Available: October 2003
1998 69.10 Explanation: In FY 2000 the minimum wage Validated By: On-Site
1999 73.30 71 remained constant, thus allowing time for the Monitoring By ED.
wages of VR consumers (with significant Verified by ED Standards for
2000 77.30 71.50 disabilities) to increase to minimum wage levels. Evaluating Program Performance
States have been successful in assisting Data.
2001 79.20 77.40
individuals in achieving competitive employment
2002 77.60 outcomes. Because of the marked increase in Limitations: Same as discussed
performance in FYs 1999 and 2000, we have under Indicator 1.3.
adjusted targets for future years.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 162

 Student Financial Assistance Policy - 2002
Goal 8: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants,
loans, and work-study in an efficient, financially sound and customer-responsive manner.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Ensure that low and middle income students will have the same access to postsecondary education that high income students do.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Percentage of unmet need: Considering all sources of financial aid, the percentage of unmet need, especially for low-income students, will
continuously decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Total for Undergraduates Status: Target not met Source: Other

Other: Record/File.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: No 2001 or 2002 data. Sponsor: National Postsecondary
1995 23 Student Aid Study.
Explanation: Unmet need as a percentage
1996 23 of total cost of attendance was estimated to
1997 22 decrease slightly in each year with somewhat Data Available: January 2005
larger decreases for low-income students. Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
1998 21.20 Since 1995-96, unmet need is estimated to By ED.
have decreased 2 percentage points for
1999 20.80
undergraduates overall and 4 or more Limitations: NPSAS data are
2000 21.20 percentage points for low-income collected only every four years.
undergraduates.

Low Income Undergraduates

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Independent Independent Independent Independent
Dependent With kids Without kids Dependent With kids Without kids
1996 46.30 54.70 52.50
1997 44.50 51.60 49
1998 42.90 51.10 49
1999 41.80 50.20 48.50
2000 43.10 60.60 46.20

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 163

Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: College enrollment rates: Postsecondary education enrollment rates will increase each year for all students, while the enrollment gap
between low- and high-income and minority and nonminority high school graduates will decrease each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of high school graduates ages 16-24 enrolling immediately in college - Total Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: No 2002 data. Some progress Data Available: April 2003
1994 61.90 is being made in reducing the enrollment Validated By: On-Site
gap between low- and high- income Monitoring By ED.
1995 61.90 students but progress is not being made in
1996 65 increasing the overall enrollment rate or Limitations: Small subgroup
reducing the gap between minority and sample sizes for low-income and
1997 67 nonminority students. minority students lead to large
yearly fluctuations in enrollment
1998 65.60
Explanation: There was a statistically rates. Three-year weighted
1999 62.90 significant increase in the overall averages are used to smooth
enrollment rate from the 1994-95 period to out these fluctuations.
2000 63.30 the 1997-98 period. However, since then
2001 61.70 enrollment rates have fallen significantly
(back to the 1994-95 levels), indicating a
lack of overall progress. Prior year data
Income has been updated from previous reports to
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets reflect more complete information.

Low High Difference Low High Difference

1994 44 78.40 42.20
1995 41.20 83.40 36.50
1996 41.50 78 35.10
1997 47.10 82 26.60
1998 50.60 77.30 25.10
1999 50.90 76 28.70
2000 48.50 77.10 32
2001 47.80 79.80 32

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 164

Race
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
Difference Difference Difference Difference
between between between between
Black and White and Black and White and
Black White Hispanic White Hispanic Black White Hispanic White Hispanic
1994 51.30 64.50 55.70 13.20 8.90
1995 52.40 64.30 55 11.90 9.30
1996 52.90 67.40 51.60 14.50 15.90
1997 55.40 68.20 57.60 12.80 10.50
1998 58.80 68.50 55.30 9.80 13.30
1999 59.80 66.30 51.90 6.50 14.40
2000 58.60 65.70 47.40 7.10 18.30
2001 56.30 64.20 48.60 7.90 15.60

Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Targeting of Pell Grants: Pell Grant funds will continue to be targeted to those students with the greatest financial need: at least 75 percent of
Pell Grant funds will go to students below 150 percent of poverty level.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of Pell Grant funds going to students below 150 percent of the poverty line. Status: Unable to judge Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Increases in the maximum Sponsor: Pell Grant
1997 82 award without other changes in the Applicant/Recipient File.
formulas used to award Pell grants will
1998 80 tend to lower the percentage of funds going Frequency: Annually.
1999 78 75 to the neediest students. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: March 2003
2000 78 75 Validated By: On-Site
Monitoring By ED.
2001 75
2002 75

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 165

Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Federal debt burden: The median Federal debt burden (yearly scheduled payments as a percentage of annual income) of borrowers in their
first full year of prepayment will be less than 10 percent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The median federal debt burden of students in their first full year of repayment. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
National Student Loan Data System
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: As a general rule, it is (NSLDS) and Internal Revenue
1998 7.10 believed that an educational debt burden Service (IRS) records.
of 10 percent or greater will negatively
1999 6.48 affect a borrower's ability to repay his or Frequency: Annually.
2000 6.38 her student loan and to obtain other credit Collection Period: 2000 - 2001
such as a home mortgage. We expect the Data Available: August 2003
2001 and 2002 median debt burden rate Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By
to remain well below 10 percent. ED.

Limitations: To overcome limitations

with the data from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) that were
previously used, we switched to IRS
data on household income for 1998
and future years. The IRS data may
slightly understate debt burden for
married borrowers where both
individuals have student loans

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 166

Objective 8.2 of 3: Ensure that more students will persist in postsecondary education and attain degrees and certificates.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Completion rate: Completion rates for all full-time, degree-seeking students in 4-year and less than 4-year programs will improve, while the
gap in completion rates between minority and non-minority students will decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of full-time degree seeking students completing a 4-year degree within 150% of the Status: Unable to judge Additional Source
normal time required. Information: Graduation
Explanation: There was a decrease Rate Survey (GRS)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets in degree of completion rates in both
Difference Difference Difference Difference 4-year and less than 4-year programs Frequency: Annually.
between between between between between 1999 and 2000. The Collection Period: 2001 -
Black and White and Black and White and decrease in completion of 4-year 2002
Total Black White Hispanic White Hispanic Total Black White Hispanic White Hispanic programs was the result of a Data Available: March
reduction of almost one percentage 2003
1997 52.50 35.50 55.50 39.10 20 16.40 point in the degree completion rate for Validated By: On-Site
1998 52.60 34.50 55.80 39.10 21.30 16.70 white students because both Black Monitoring By ED.
and Hispanic students showed slight
1999 53 35.80 56 40.90 20.20 15.10 increases in the completion of 4-year Limitations:
degrees. Prior year data has been Postsecondary institutions
2000 52.40 35.70 55.40 41.50 19.70 13.90
updated from previous reports to are not required to report
reflect more complete information. graduation rates until 2002.
The percentage of full-time degree seeking students completing a less than 4-year program within However, data were
150% of the normal time required. voluntarily submitted by
institutions representing 87
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets percent of 4-year students
Difference Difference Difference Difference and 77 percent of 2-year
between between between between students. Investigating
Black and White and Black and White and whether a proxy for
Total Black White Hispanic White Hispanic Total Black White Hispanic White Hispanic graduation rates for
student aid recipients can
1997 30.90 22.80 32.60 26.20 9.80 6.40 be obtained from
1998 32.20 25.10 33.80 29.90 8.70 3.90 administrative records.

1999 34.40 29.50 35.30 32.50 5.80 2.80

2000 32.70 26.50 34 30.10 7.50 3.90

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 167

Objective 8.3 of 3: Ensure that taxpayers will have a positive return on investment in the federal student financial assistance programs.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Return on investment: The benefits of the student aid programs, in terms of increased tax revenues, will continue to exceed their costs.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Return on Investment Status: Unable to judge Source: Non-NCES

Survey/Research
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Low: A pessimistic set of
Low Best High Low Best High assumptions leading to a low-end estimate of Additional Source Information:
the return on investment. Best: The set of March Current Population Survey
1996 1.30 2.90 6.70 assumptions that we believe best captures the (CPS) and Beginning Post
1997 1.30 2.80 6.50 return on investment. High: An optimistic set of Secondary (BPS) study with
assumptions leading to a high-end estimate of imputations from the National
1998 1.30 2.90 6.70 the return on investment. Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS) and High School and
1999 1.40 3.10 7.10 Explanation: The estimated return on Beyond (HS&B). Behavioral
2000 1.50 3.30 7.70 investment is calculated in the following assumptions were derived, where
manner: 1) The discounted present value of feasible, from meta-analyses
2001 1.60 3.40 8 tax revenue and welfare benefits is calculated conducted by Leslie and Brinkman
for different educational attainment levels. 2) in their 1988 book, The Economic
Under the “best” scenario, 90 percent of the Value of Higher Education.
revenue differential calculated in step 1 is
assumed to be caused by obtaining more Frequency: Annually.
education. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

Limitations: A number of
assumptions and imputations are
required to estimate the return on
investment. By providing high and
low estimates, one can assess the
sensitivity of the results to the
assumptions used. Prior year data
has been updated from previous
reports to reflect more complete
information.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 168

 Student Financial Assistance Programs - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.007 - Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
84.032 - Federal Family Education Loans
84.033 - Federal Work-Study Program
84.037 - Loan Cancellations
84.038 - Federal Perkins Loan Program_Federal Capital Contributions
84.063 - Federal Pell Grant Program
84.069 - Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
84.268 - Federal Direct Student Loans

Goal 8: Postsecondary student aid delivery and program management is efficient, financially sound, and responsive to
customers.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Increase customer satisfaction.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Increase Customer Satisfaction to a comparable private sector industry average - American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) rating of 75.9
(out of a possible score of 100) - by FY 2002
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Customer satisfaction rating Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

1999-2001 American Customer
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The Department is re-evaluating Satisfaction Index.
Customer satisfaction rating Customer satisfaction rating how it, as a whole, performs customer
monitoring. Therefore separate 2002 data are
1999 63 not available for FSA.
2000 72.90
Explanation: 1999-2001: The ACSI uses a
2001 74.20 widely accepted methodology to obtain
standardized customer satisfaction for all its
2002 75.90
participants. Over 170 private-sector
corporations use ACSI. Because it is widely
used across all business sectors it allows us to
benchmark and compare ourselves to the best
in business. The 1999 data were based on
SFA's student application process.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 169

Objective 8.2 of 3: Decrease unit cost

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Reduce actual unit costs: By FY 2004, reduce actual unit costs from projected unit costs by 19 percent
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Unit Costs Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

1999-2001 Data: The cost
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FSA is in the process of evaluating component comes from obligation
Projected Unit Costs Projected Unit Costs and refining its activity-based cost model and incurred 1999 through 2001. Out-
will develop separate until cost for its major year estimates are based on budget
1999 16.70 16.70 products and services. These data will be projections. The number of
2000 20.10 20.10 available in 2003. unduplicated recipients comes from
the Office of the Undersecretary.
2001 19.60 19.60 Explanation: 1999-2001 Data: Costs are
defined as total obligations recorded in a fiscal Frequency: Annually.
year divided by the number of unduplicated Collection Period: 2003
recipients of loans and grants. Unit cost data Data Available: September 2003
are based on FSA Obligations and Contract Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Costs. By ED.

Objective 8.3 of 3: Increasing employee satisfaction

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Increase Customer Satisfaction to a comparable private sector industry average - American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) rating of 75.9
(out of a possible score of 100) - by FY 2002: Raise Gallup Workplace Management Grand Mean Score to at least 3.6 -- the private sector average -- by 2004.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

FSA Employee satisfaction ranking Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
1999-2000 Data: OPM's Employee
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: The Department will monitor work Opinion Survey 2000-2001 Data:
Gallup (on a 5 OPM (out of Gallup (on a place satisfaction issues as part of Objective Gallup Workplace Management Tool
OPM (out of 49) point scale) 49) 5 point scale) 6.2 of the Strategic Plan, ''Improve the (Survey).
strategic management of the Department's
1998 33 human capital.''
1999 38
Explanation: 1999-2001 Data: Source data for
2000 5 3.51 this indicator changed in 2001 to the Gallup
Organization's Workplace Measurement Tool.
2001 3.74 3.50
The Gallup tool not only provides long-term
consistency; it provides more diagnostic
information to gauge employee satisfaction.
Additionally, it requires that individual work
groups develop action plans to address
employee satisfaction issues.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 170

 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.336 - Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants

Goal 8: To improve the quality of teacher education and initial certification standards, and to improve the knowledge and
skills of all teachers, particularly new teachers and teachers who work in high-need areas.
Objective 8.1 of 1: Improve the skills and knowledge of new teachers by funding the development of state policies that strengthen initial licensing standards and
the development of state or local policies/programs that reduce the number of uncertified teachers.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Certification rate. State, recruitment, and partnership grantees: The percentages of new and current teachers who meet their state’s teacher
certification requirements, including passing content knowledge and competency tests, will increase each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data - Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Secretary's Report on the Quality of
Explanation: This is a new program, so Teacher Preparation (Sec. 207).
performance data are not yet available.
Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: April 2004
Validated By: No Formal
Verification.

Limitations: Secretary's Report will

contain self-reported data from
states.

Improvements: Definitions of data

elements are being refined assure
consistency with definitions
contained in the No Child Left
Behind legislation.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 171

 Technology Challenge Programs: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund,
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, and National Activities - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.303 Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
84.318 - Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grants
84.341A Community Technology Center

Goal 8: To use educational technology as part of broader education reform that will provide new learning opportunities
and raise educational achievement for all students.
Objective 8.1 of 5: Students in high-poverty schools will have access to educational technology that is comparable to the access of students in other schools.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Computer access in high-poverty schools: The student-to-computer with Internet access ratio in high-poverty schools will be comparable to
that in other schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Student-to-computer ratio (?:1) Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.

Collection Period: - 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Target not met for 2001. Data for Data Available: August 2003
Low-Poverty High-Poverty Low-Poverty High-Poverty 2002 will not be available until August 2003. Validated By: NCES.
Schools Schools Schools Schools
Explanation: Student to computer ratios are Limitations: Poverty measures are
1998 11 17 decreasing toward the goal of one computer based on data on free and reduced-
1999 8 17 10 15 for every five students in high poverty schools. price school lunches, which may
However, the gap in access between high- underestimate school poverty levels,
2000 6 9 10 10 poverty schools and low poverty schools has particularly for older students and
not been closed. immigrant students.
2001 5 7 5 5
2002 5 5

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 172

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Internet access in high-poverty schools: Internet access in high-poverty school classrooms will be comparable to that in other schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of classrooms with Internet access Status: Unable to judge Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Target not met for 2001. Data for Data Available: August 2003
Low-Poverty High-Poverty Low-Poverty High-Poverty 2002 will not be available until August 2003. Validated By: NCES.
Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms
Explanation: The number of high-poverty Limitations: Poverty measures are
1994 3 2 schools with Internet access rose to 97 percent based on data on free and reduced-
1995 9 3 in 2001, up from 94 percent in 2000. As high- price school lunches, which may
poverty schools increasingly obtain access to underestimate school poverty levels,
1996 17 5 the Internet, it is likely that their classroom particularly for older students and
connections will subsequently increase. immigrant students.
1997 33 14
1998 57 38
1999 73 38
2000 82 60 100 100
2001 90 79 100 100

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: High-poverty districts—Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: The number of states that award at least 66 percent of their TLCF funds to
school districts designated as high-poverty will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: Performance

Report. Final year of Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Positive movement
# of States # of States toward target.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
1997 27 Explanation: The FY 2001
1998 28 32 performance covers the period from Limitations: Subgrant allocation data are
October 2000 to September 2002. In state self-reported and there is no alternative
1999 30 35 September 2002, 29 states reported source. Reports on the distribution of funds
awarding 66 percent or more of their are estimates (and may be substantially
2000 30 37
FY 2001 TLCF allocation to districts inaccurate) until the year following the end of
2001 29 39 they designated as high-poverty. their period of availability. Thus, state awards
of FY 2001 funds are reported in 2003,
2002 50 following the end of their period of availability
in September 2002. Corrections to 1998 data
were made in March 2001.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 173

Objective 8.2 of 5: Provide teachers and other educators with the professional development and support they need to help students learn through the use of
educational technology.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: Staff training and support: Increasing percentages of teachers will indicate that they feel very well prepared to integrate educational
technology into classroom instruction.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Teachers Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Teacher Preparation of Professional
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: In 2000, 27 percent of Development.
% of Teachers % of Teachers teachers reported that they were fully
prepared to integrate technology in their Frequency: Biennially.
1998 20 instruction. Federal resources for training Collection Period: 2002
2000 27 40 for teachers to use technology (including Data Available: January
the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Validated By: NCES.
and the Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants) as well as state and local funds Limitations: The data are self-reported
continue to support professional by teachers. The cost and burden to
development in the use of educational regularly gather data other than self-
technology for teachers and, report data on teacher preparedness for
correspondingly, progress toward the a nationally representative sample are
targets for this indicator. prohibitive.
Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: District professional development: The percentage of TLCF subgrantees that report professional development as a primary use of funds will
increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of TLCF districts Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Performance Report - Final year for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2001 target exceeded. performance report.
% of districts % of districts
Explanation: The FY 2001 performance
1997 55 covers the period from October 2000 to Validated By: No Formal
1998 60 60 September 2002. States conduct competitions Verification.
under the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
1999 69 65 and have wide discretion to set priorities for Limitations: District data are self-
those competitions. Districts also have reported by districts to states that
2000 77 70
considerable discretion (depending on the self-report to ED. Data are estimates
2001 81 75 state) to direct the use of funds. States have from district technology coordinators
been encouraged to devote at least 30 percent for the most part.
2002 80 of funds to professional development related to
educational technology beginning in 1998.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 174

Indicator 8.2.3 of 3: Professional development models: An increasing percentage of TICG projects will develop models of professional development that result in
improved instructional practice.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of projects in their 4th or 5th year Status: Target exceeded Source: ED Evaluation
Evaluation: Education Reform.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Based on the Section: Technology Connections for School
% of projects % of projects rationale that it would take at least Improvement Planners' Handbook and
3 years for projects to develop and Teacher's Guide.
2000 44 10 implement professional
2001 51 15 development models that could Additional Source Information: Technology
result in improved instructional Connections for School Improvement Planners
2002 87 50 practice, a target of 50 percent Handbook and Teachers Guide
was set for projects in their 4th
and 5th year. Third-year data Frequency: Annually.
show that more than half of these
projects provided data indicating Data Available: January 2003
improved instructional practices. Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data for 2002 published previously
was incorrect. Limitations: Data are supplied by grantees. A
2-tier data collection, review, and analysis
process is used, involving program staff and
team leaders. Each review stage examines and
analyzes the reported results for quality and
validity of data and methodology. The
Department will continue to assess the quality of
the data and develop plans for improvement, if
needed.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 175

Objective 8.3 of 5: Promote the availability and use of educational technology as part of a challenging and enriching curriculum in every school.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 3: Classroom use: Students will increasingly use educational technology for learning in core academic subjects.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of students that ever use a computer to solve math problems Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information: National
Assessment of Educational Progress
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: No NCES update yet.
Age 13 Age 17 Age 13 Age 17 Frequency: Other.
Explanation: Computer use is fairly
1996 74 70 ubiquitous in writing. As computers Validated By: NCES.
1999 71 66 75 75 become more available and
knowledge about how to integrate Limitations: No NCES update yet available.
computer use into instruction Questions yielding this data do not fully
Percentage of students using computers in writing increases, computer use in capture the extent to which computers are
mathematics also likely will increase regularly used in classrooms to support
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
instruction. For mathematics, NAEP asks
Eleventh students if they have ever used a computer to
Eighth Grade Eleventh Grade
Eighth Grade Grade solve math problems. (For changes in the
mathematics measure between 1996 and
1996 91 96 1999, NCES indicates a certainty level of less
1998 98 98 than 95 percent that the difference is
significant). For writing, NAEP asks students if
they use a computer to write stories or papers.
Indicator 8.3.2 of 3: Progress on State Goals—Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: An increasing percentage of states will report progress on state goals
related to integrating online and other technology resources into the curriculum.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of states Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Performance Report. Final year for
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2001 target exceeded. TLCF Performance Report.
% of States % of States
Explanation: States report progress on state
1996 91 goals related to the national goals in annual Validated By: No Formal
1998 98 performance reports. Most states (46 of 50) Verification.
have goals that relate to national ET goal that
1999 63 50 concerns integrating ET resources into the Limitations: States report on their
curriculum. States that have met earlier goals own goals and information cannot
2000 49 55
have adopted new ones. be added across states. There are
2001 68 60 currently no plans to establish
common measures, although the
2002 65 consolidated application includes
performance indicators.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 176

Indicator 8.3.3 of 3: Classroom impact: The percentage of TICG projects that demonstrate positive impacts on curriculum and student achievement will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of projects in 3rd, 4th, or 5th year Status: Unable to judge Source: ED Evaluation
Evaluation: Education Reform.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2001 target exceeded. Section: Technology Connections for
% of projects % of projects School Improvement Planners' Handbook
Explanation: Evaluation reports from and Teacher's Guide.
2000 44 25 projects provide necessary data to
2001 84 50 respond to this indicator. For the Additional Source Information:
purposes of this assessment, positive Technology Connections for School
2002 50 impacts on student achievement may Improvement Planners Handbook and
include improved attendance and Teachers Guide
discipline, acquisition of technology
and telecommunications skills, Frequency: Annually.
problem-solving skills, performance or
portfolio assessments, state Data Available: January
assessment tools, or standardized Validated By: No Formal Verification.
tests.
Limitations: Data are supplied by grantees.
A 2-tier data collection, review, and analysis
process is used, involving program staff and
team leaders. Each review stage examines
and analyzes the reported results for quality
and validity of data and methodology. The
Department will continue to assess the
quality of the data and develop plans for
improvement, if needed.
Objective 8.4 of 5: Help improve students' information technology literacy skills in all states.

Indicator 8.4.1 of 2: Standards for students in educational technology: The number of states that have standards for student proficiency in the use of technology
will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:

Education Week
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Although the target was not met,
# of States # of States there is positive movement toward the target. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
1998 38 Explanation: As States increasingly devote Validated By: No Formal
1999 42 resources to educational technology, they also Verification.
increasingly focus on measuring the impact of
2000 35 45 educational technology. Setting standards is a Limitations: Education Week
precursor to that measurement of student provides no detail on the rigor or
2001 35 46
proficiency. comprehensiveness of standards.
2002 37 46 Data are based on State Report.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 177

Indicator 8.4.2 of 2: Student proficiency in technology: In states that assess student proficiency in technology, the percentage of students that are proficient will
increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

- No Targets And Performance Data -

Progress: No data were collected for this

indicator; therefore, we cannot measure
progress.

Objective 8.5 of 5: Through the creation or expansion of Community Technology Centers in disadvantaged areas, improve access to computers, the internet, and
educational technology.

Indicator 8.5.1 of 1: Customer reports on value of access: There is an increase in the number of sites where economically disadvantaged individuals can secure
access to education technology and the Internet through the establishment and expansion of community technology centers.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of new or expanded Community Technology Center Sites Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Survey responses from grantees.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: 337 new or expanded Community
1999 40 Technology Center Sites have been Frequency: Annually.
established as of FY 2002. The program Collection Period: 2002
2000 93 awarded its first grants in 1999. For 1999- Data Available: January 2004
2001 148 2001, performance focused substantially on Validated By: No Formal
measures of ''access.'' For FY 2002, the Verification.
2002 56 definition of access was expanded. The Data supplied by grantees.
number published previously was incorrect. Questionable information resulted in
telephone follow-up by CTC Team
Explanation: The mission of the Community staff. Data supplied by grantees
Technology Centers Program is to establish or through surveys will be verified
expand community centers that increase through close examination of Annual
access to computers, the Internet, and Performance Reports.
educational technology for residents of
economically distressed communities. Improvements: More extensive
follow-up communication with
grantees will be done to increase
response rate to 80-90%.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 178

 Title I Grants for Schools--ESEA - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.010 - Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Goal 8: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Objective 8.1 of 2: Performance of the lowest-achieving students and students in high-poverty public schools will increase substantially in reading and
mathematics

Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: Student performance on national assessments: Performance of the lowest-achieving public school students and students in high-poverty
public schools will increase substantially on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Reading scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
25th percentile National Assessment of Educational
Progress: Positive movement toward target. Progress (NAEP) Reading,
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Data for FY 2002 are not available until Spring Mathematics.
4th 8th 12th 2003. Progress in meeting 2002 targets cannot
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade be measured until those data are available Frequency: Biennially.
grade grade grade
from NCES. Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1992 192 235 268 Data Available: April 2003
1994 187 234 263 Explanation: Data are based on the Trend Validated By: NCES.
NAEP, which is currently collected every 4
1998 192 239 266 years. Over an 8 year period, trends in NAEP Limitations: NAEP assessments
scores appear flat in reading but show gains in are not aligned with state content
2000 193 202 249 276
mathematics in 4th and 8th grades. In reading, and performance standards. Caution
2001 27 249 276 scores for 4th-graders were the same in 1998 is suggested in interpreting 12th
as in 1992, while 8th-graders show a gain of 4 grade achievement data because
points and 12th-graders show a decline of 2 Title I serves a small number of high
Mathematics scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom points for that same period. In mathematics, school students.
25th percentile scores rose at two grade levels tested (4th and
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets 8th) and declined in 12th grade.
4th 8th 12th
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade
grade grade grade
1992 197 242 274
1996 201 247 281
2000 206 250 276 211 257 291

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 179

Reading scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in the highest-
poverty schools (75-100% poverty)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
13-year 17-year 9-year 13-year 17-year
9-year olds olds olds olds olds olds
1992 180 223
1994 184 229 256
1996 188 233 262
1999 186 234 266 191 239 271
2000 191 239 271

NAEP mathematics scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in
the highest-poverty schools (75-100% poverty)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
13-year- 17-year- 9-year- 13-year- 17-year-
9-year-olds olds olds olds olds olds
1992 208 248
1994 215 256 290
1996 217 252 284
1999 212 254 283
2000 217 259 288

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 180

Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: Meeting or exceeding state performance standards: Among states with 2 years of assessment data and aligned content and performance
standards, an increasing number will report an increase in the percentage of students in schools with at least 50 percent poverty who meet proficient and
advanced performance levels in reading and math on their state assessment systems.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of states with performance standards aligned to content standards and two Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
years of data disaggregated by school poverty level. Consolidated State Performance Report which
Progress: Data to measure includes the Title I State Performance Reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets progress on this indicator are not
1997 10 available until Spring 2003. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
1998 11 Explanation: There were a limited Data Available: April 2003
1999 5 15 number of states with two years of Validated By: No Formal Verification.
data disaggregated by poverty that Verified by ED attestation process and
2000 20 also had aligned content standards Standards for Evaluating Program
in the 1998-99 school year and two Performance Data.
2001 24
years of comparable data. Seven
2002 26 states were available for review. Five Limitations: There is substantial variation
of the seven states showed progress across states in their definitions of proficient
in both reading and mathematics. student performance as well as alignment of
Number of states reporting an increase in the percentage of students in schools with Five states showed progress in content and performance standards. All states
at least 50% poverty who meet proficient and advanced levels of performance reading, and seven states showed have submitted evidence and have been
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets progress in mathematics. The states reviewed. Many states are transitioning from
not showing progress in reading had NRTs to assessments aligned to standards.
Reading Mathematics Both Reading Mathematics Both minimal declines. Many states therefore, will not have two years
1997 7 7 7 of data. Also, many states do not disaggregate
by poverty, so would not have two years of
1998 10 10 10 data.
1999 2 4 2 13 13 13
2000 18 18 18
2001 5 7 5 20 20 20
2002 24 24 24

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 181

Indicator 8.1.3 of 3: Improving schools: An increasing percentage of Title I schools will report that they have met or exceeded state or district standards for
progress.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of Title I schools Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

The Consolidated State
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Data for this indicator are not Performance Report which includes
Percentage of Title I schools Percentage of Title I schools available until Spring 2003; therefore, we are the annual Title I State Performance
unable to measure progress for FY 2002. Reports.
1998 57
1999 80 75 Explanation: The Title I State Performance Frequency: Annually.
Report for 1999-2000 indicates that 19% of all Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
2000 81 85 schools are designated as Title I Schools in Data Available: April 2003
Improvement. The converse of this fact Validated By: No Formal
2001 90
indicates that 81% are not in school Verification.
improvement.
Limitations: There is substantial
variation across states in their
definitions of adequate yearly
progress and proficient student
performance.

Objective 8.2 of 2: States and districts will implement standards-based accountability systems and provide effective support for school improvement efforts.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: Establishing annual progress measures: All states will adopt or develop measures of adequate yearly progress linked to state performance
standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of States Additional Source Information: Title I

performance reports that respond to the
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The only data available requirements of the Consolidated State
Number of States Number of States is for states applying for Ed-Flex Application for No Child Left Behind.
authority. Currently 10 states have Reports on adequate yearly progress
2000 40 received approval (as of 10/02). All measures (due Jan. 2003) are reviewed by
2001 9 50 states are required to establish Department staff.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
consistent with No Child Left Behind by Frequency: Other.
January 2003 which is a pre-requisite
of Ed-Flex. Data Available: January 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Verification of data will be done through an
on-site peer review process which will be
completed by April 30, 2003.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 182

Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: Aligned assessments: All states will have final assessment systems or negotiated agreements that will enable them to meet the criteria in the
Title I law—including alignment, inclusion of limited English proficient and special education students, disaggregated reporting, and technical quality—for two or
more core subjects.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of States with final assessment systems or negotiated agreements Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
Records of the Student
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: As of January 2003, the Achievement and School
Number of States Number of States Department had reviewed assessment Accountability Programs Standards
systems for all states, approved 21 states, Team in the Title I program office.
2000 34 40 systems, and negotiated timeline waivers for
2001 46 50 26 additional states. The 5 remaining states Frequency: Other.
have entered a compliance agreement.
2002 50 50 Data Available: May 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
By ED.

Limitations: No known limitations.

By design and by the legislation,
Title I peer review records are the
authoritative data source for this
indicator.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 183

Indicator 8.2.3 of 3: Schools identified for improvement: An increasing percentage of schools identified for improvement will make sufficient progress to move
out of school improvement status.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Longitudinal Survey of Schools
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: Progress on this indicator cannot be judged
2000 44 because the Longitudinal Survey of Schools ended its Frequency: Other.
collection of data on this indicator with the 2000-2001
2001 47 school year. Future data for this indicator will be Data Available: January
obtained through the Consolidated State Performance Validated By: No Formal
Report. The baseline for the indicator will be established Verification.
after 2 years of data from the new data source. The first
year for reporting on these new data will be Spring of Limitations: State assessments
2003. and accountability systems are
currently in transition, and state
Explanation: Because the existing state Performance policies for identifying schools
Report was based on the requirements of the Improving vary widely across states.
America's Schools Act, the Department did not require Department performance
states to submit data on schools identified for reporting requirements are also
improvement for 2001-02; therefore, no data are in transition because of new
available for this year. The Performance Report will be requirements in No Child Left
revised to reflect the requirements of the No Child Left Behind.
Behind Act.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 184

 Training Program - 2002
CFDA Number: 84.129 - Rehabilitation Long-Term Training

Goal 8: To provide the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) sector with well-trained staff and to maintain and upgrade the
skills of current staff.
Objective 8.1 of 2: To provide graduates who work within the vocational rehabilitation(VR) system to help individuals with disabilities achieve their goals.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Numbers trained: The number of students supported by RSA scholarships and the number of RSA scholars graduating will remain stable per
constant $1 million invested.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Scholars supported Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Annual grantee reporting from
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: We are using a new web-based Baseline data collected for
1997 1,600 reporting system which is being refined. 2001 academic year 2001.
data (which covers academic year 9/2001 to
1998 1,550 8/2002) is due in 2003. Clean up and analysis Frequency: Annually.
1999 1,665 1,473 of the data is expected to take two to three Collection Period: 2002
additional months. Actual 2001 data will be Data Available: April 2004
2000 2,390 2,000 reported by April 30, 2003. FY 2000 data were Validated By: No Formal
based on actual numbers using the new Verification.
2001 2,000
electronic reporting system. Previous numbers Data supplied by grantees. No
2002 2,000 were based on estimates made from a small formal verification procedure
number of prospects. applied.

Scholars supported per $1 million

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997 101
1998 96
1999 94 93
2000 172 170
2001 170
2002 170

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 185

Scholars graduating
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997 800
1998 817
1999 832 729
2000 764 688
2001 700
2002 700

Scholars graduating per $1 million

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997 50
1998 50.50
1999 47 47
2000 54.90 46
2001 44
2002 44

Investment (in thousands)

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997 15,835
1998 16,181
1999 16,933 14,585
2000 13,874 13,771
2001 14,143 13,500
2002 13,657 13,500

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 186

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Percentage working: The percentage of graduates fulfilling their payback requirements through acceptable employment will increase
annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Annual grantee reporting form.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: 2001 data (which covers 9/01 to
2000 72 70 8/02) are reported by grantees by January Frequency: Annually.
2003, and will be available in April of 2003 Collection Period: 2002
2001 71 Data Available: April 2004
2002 72 Validated By: No Formal
Verification.
Data supplied by grantees.

Limitations: We are using a new

reporting system, which is being
refined. See comments under
indicator 1.1

Objective 8.2 of 2: Maintain and upgrade the knowledge and skills of personnel currently employed in the public VR system.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Qualified personnel: The percent of currently employed VR state agency counselors who meet their State’s Comprehensive System of
Personnel Development (CSPD) standard will increase annually.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

. Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:

Annual Evaluation. Ongoing collection
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: FY 2000 Performance figure is could be through the In-Service Training
2000 69 based on self report survey conducted by program's annual performance report.
Council of State Administration of
2001 70 vocational rehabilitation. Frequency: Other.
2002 75 Collection Period: 2002
Explanation: RSA did not collect this Data Available: May 2003
information for 2001 as it must be collect Validated By: No Formal Verification.
through special surveys. 2002 data will be Data would be supplied through
available, via special study, in May of 2003. external RSA contractor. No formal
verification procedure applied. Data for
2002 will be available late spring of
2003.

Limitations: Numerous external factors

may pose limits to current collection and
ongoing collection. Future data source,
In-Service Program's annual
performance report.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 187

 TRIO Programs - 2002
CFDA Numbers: 84.042 - TRIO_Student Support Services
84.044 - TRIO_Talent Search
84.047 - TRIO_Upward Bound
84.066 - TRIO_Educational Opportunity Centers
84.217 - TRIO_McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement
84.344 - TRIO_Dissemination Partnership Grants

Goal 8: Provide increased educational opportunities for low-income, first-generation students

Objective 8.1 of 1: Increase participation and completion rates of low-income, first-generation individuals in the academic pipeline

Indicator 8.1.1 of 1: Persistence in and completion of education programs: TRIO students will persist in and complete their educational programs.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Upward Bound (UB): Length of time Upward Bound students participate in the project Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
during high school, and college enrollment rates of UB participants Upward Bound (UB), Student
Progress: Some changes to the performance Support Service (SSS), and McNair
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets indicators are planned for the 2004 report. Performance Reports (McNair).
Project College Project College College going rates for UB participants will be
Persistence Enrollment Persistence Enrollment available in late 2004. SSS performance report Frequency: Annually.
(months) (percent) (months) (percent) data show a 67% college persistence rate in Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
both 1999 and 2000. Thus, the performance Data Available: October 2003
1996 19 targets for these years have been met. It is Validated By: No Formal
1999 66 expected that these rates will continue for 2001 Verification.
and 2002. No data are yet available on the 6- The data are self-reported.
2001 20 66 year college completion rates of SSS
participants. McNair performance data for Limitations: The national
2002 20 66
1999-2000 show that an estimated 25 to 41% evaluations have provided baseline
of McNair participants enrolled in a graduate data for the UB and SSS programs
program within one year after receiving an and also provide data on
undergraduate degree. The data also show appropriate comparison groups.
that 75% of McNair participants reported as However, these evaluations cannot
graduate students in 1998-1999 were still be used to measure program
enrolled in graduate school in 1999-2000; improvements on an annual basis.
another 16% had graduated from the graduate Therefore, the Department has
school. Thus the McNair performance targets developed new performance reports
for 2000 have been met. It is expected that to collect the needed information.
these rates will continue for 2001-2002. The 1999-2000 data collected from
the SSS and McNair reports have
Explanation: Data from the national been analyzed to determine that the
evaluations of the Upward Bound and Student college persistence and graduate
Support Services programs provide the school enrollment and persistence
baseline data for these programs. The 1998-99 targets were met. Actual

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 188

Student Support Services (SSS): Percentage of students persisting at same annual performance reports provide the performance data for fiscal years
postsecondary school for second year and postsecondary degree attainment rate at baseline data for the McNair program. The 2001 and 2002 are not yet available.
same institution within 6 years of starting postsecondary education. Student Support Services (SSS) McNair, and Grantees report on fiscal year 2001
Upward Bound performance reports are and activities/performance in
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets will be used to determine if the performance November/December 2002.
College Persistence College Persistence targets are met. The college completion Performance report data for fiscal
performance target of 29% includes only SSS year 2002 will be collected
1994 67 students who remain at the same school November/December 2003.
1999 67 67 through graduation. The SSS performance
report submitted annually only requires
2000 67 67 projects to report on the academic progress of
SSS participants that remain at the grantee
2001 67
institution.
2002 67

College completion (percentage)

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2001 29
2002 29

McNair: Percentage of McNair participants who enroll in graduate school within a

year of completing the bachelor's degree, and percentage persisting toward or
completing graduate degree.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999 35
2000 35 35
2001 35
2002 35

Graduate school persistence (in percentage)

Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999 48
2000 75 48
2002 48

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 189

 Office for Civil Rights - 2002
Goal 8: To ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the
vigorous enforcement of civil rights.
Objective 8.1 of 3: To eliminate discriminatory educational practices within schools.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: Increased compliance: The number of recipients of Federal funds (e.g., school districts, postsecondary institutions, and state educational
agencies (SEAs), that change policies, procedures, or practices to comply with Federal civil rights laws will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of recipients Additional Source Information:

OCR Case Information System
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There were no targets set by OCR
1998 1,378 for FY 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
1999 1,563 1,378 Explanation: As of March 31, 2002, 476 By ED.
2000 2,035 1,563 recipients changed policies, procedures, or
practices to comply with federal civil rights Limitations: OCR eliminated this
2001 1,224 2,035 laws. These recipients consist of approximately performance indicator in the third
403 school districts, 2 state education quarter of FY 2002 because of
agencies (with 3,443 school districts) and 71 ongoing concerns about the
postsecondary institutions. agency's ability to fully verify the
underlying data. On July 1, 2002,
OCR began collecting data on two
new performance indicators that
more accurately reflect OCR's
extensive work with recipients,
parents and parent groups.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 190

Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Number of students affected: The estimated number of students positively affected by OCR's work will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of students affected: The estimated number of students positively affected Additional Source Information:
by OCR's work will increase. OCR Case Information System
Progress: There were no targets set by OCR
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets for FY 2002.
1998 5,900,000 Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
Explanation: As of March 31, 2002, 1,596,775 By ED.
1999 6,571,725 5,900,000 students were positively affected by OCR's
2000 7,695,025 6,571,725 work. This indicator expands on the results of Limitations: OCR eliminated this
indicator 1.1. It demonstrates the number of performance indicator in the third
2001 4,520,724 7,695,025 students positively affected by improved quarter of FY 2002 because of
access to equal educational opportunity when ongoing concerns about the
recipients change policies, practices, and agency's ability to fully verify the
procedures to eliminate or prevent civil rights underlying data. On July 1, 2002,
problems. OCR began collecting data on two
new performance indicators that
more accurately reflect OCR's
extensive work with recipients,
parents and parent groups.

Objective 8.2 of 3: To teach parents and students how to resolve problems of securing equal access to high-quality education.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Successful partnerships: The number of partnerships with parents that lead to civil rights compliance will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Number of partnerships Additional Source Information: Manual

Collection
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There were no
1999 18 targets set by OCR for 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
2000 38 18 Explanation: A parental
2001 21 38 partnership is established when Limitations: OCR eliminated this performance
OCR, as a result of a case indicator in the third quarter of FY 2002. On July 1,
resolution or other activity, 2002, OCR began collecting data on two new
facilitates a collaboration performance indicators that more accurately reflect
between parents and schools to OCR's extensive work with recipients, parents and
achieve ongoing civil rights parent groups.
compliance without OCR's
continued involvement. As of Improvements: Data on the two new performance
March 31, 2002, OCR facilitated indicators were collected manually for the last
three (3) partnerships with quarter of FY 2002 and will continue to be
parents. collected manually in FY 2003. Once the Case
Management System is fully implemented (4th
quarter FY 2003), the data will be available
electronically.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 191

Objective 8.3 of 3: To obtain results by the efficient management of civil rights compliance activities.

Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Resolution of complaints: Eighty percent of the complaints are resolved within 180 days of receipt.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of complaints resolved within 180 days Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Office of Civil Rights Case
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: A key factor contributing to Information System
1997 80 OCR's success in prompt complaint resolution
is the ability to establish a target date for Frequency: Annually.
1998 81 resolving each case on its own merit in an Collection Period: 2002
1999 80 80 appropriate and timely way. Informed by Data Available: November 2002
experience in case resolution and given Validated By: On-Site Monitoring
2000 78 80 adequate funding, OCR determined that By ED.
approximately 80 percent of its cases could be
2001 84 80
resolved in 180 days or less. Twenty percent of Improvements: These data are
2002 89 80 OCR's cases are so large in scope and currently available in OCR's
complexity that the time needed to resolve electronic Case Information System.
these cases exceeds 180 days. The same data will continue to be
available electronically when OCR
implements the Case Management
System (CMS). The CMS will
increase the validity of the data by
linking them to specific case files.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 192

 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) - 2002
Goal 8: FY 2002 OIG Performance Report
Objective 8.1 of 2: To Improve the Department's Programs and Operations.

Indicator 8.1.1 of 5: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 1 assignments initiated

Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

% of first year Work Plan assignments initiated coinciding with the Performance Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
Report OIG Time and Travel Reporting
Explanation: This is a new measure. While System
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets the target was substantially met, we will assess
% % over time the appropriate target level. Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003
2002 62 65 Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally.
Indicator 8.1.2 of 5: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 1 assignments that yield significant recommendations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

% of first year Work Plan assignments initiated coinciding with the Performance Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
Report producing significant recommendations. OIG Audit and Analysis and
Explanation: Significant monetary Inspection Reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets recommendation is defined as recovering
% % monetary amounts of questioned, Frequency: Other.
unsupported, or other dollars of $300,000 or Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2002 76 75 more. It also includes the associated Data Available: November 2003
recommendation to establish/implement Validation done internally.
control techniques to prevent recurrence of the
condition that results in the monetary finding or Limitations: The measure includes
better use of funds of $500,000 or more. only recommendations from audit
Significant nonmonetary recommendation is a and inspection reports. Significant
recommendation to establish/implement recommendations from other OIG
procedures or control techniques to (1) services, such as quick response
improve the effective or efficient delivery of projects and advice and technical
program services; (2) safeguard assets or assistance are not included in this
prevent fraud, waste, or abuse; or (3) improve measure.
the integrity, accuracy, and completeness of
management data involving a program, or a
significant component of any program, funded
at $500,000 or more annually.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 193

Indicator 8.1.3 of 5: The number and percentage of significant recommendations from OIG products that the Department accepted during the current fiscal year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Significant recommendations accepted during the FY that coinciding with Report time Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
frame. Accepted recommendations can be from OIG work in the current or a OIG audit and inspection reports.
previous fiscal year. Progress:
Frequency: Annually.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
% % 269 recommendations Data Available: November 2003
Internal OIG validation
2002 99 80
Limitations: Based on self-reported
data generated by ED staff.
Indicator 8.1.4 of 5: The number and percentage of significant recommendations implemented within one year of acceptance by the Department.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

.The significant recommendations implemented during the FY. Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
OIG audit and inspection records
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress:
% % Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2002 82 70 220 implemented Data Available: November 2003
Validated by OIOG personnel
Indicator 8.1.5 of 5: Percentage of respondents indicating that OIG Goal 1 activity had a favorable impact in improving Departmental programs and operations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Response from surveyed program officials, senior managers, and selected members Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
of Congress. Annual survey
Progress: New survey under development
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
% % Explanation: The OIG is developing a more
comprehensive survey, which is designed to
2002 75 provide information about OIG performance in
a number of areas instead of the one overall
impact measure.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 194

Objective 8.2 of 2: To Protect the Integrity of the Department's Programs and Operations.

Indicator 8.2.1 of 9: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 2 assignments initiated.

Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Percentage of first year Work Plan assignments initiated. Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
OIG Time and Travel Reporting
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: System
2002 67 65
Frequency: Annually.
287 cases Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally
Indicator 8.2.2 of 9: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 2 assignments that yield significant recommendations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

The percentage of first year Work Plan assignments completed for the FY that Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
produced significant recommendations OIG audits and inspections
Explanation: Number of goal 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets recommendations insufficient (1 of 2)for Frequency: Annually.
% % statistical significance Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
2002 50 75 Data validated internally.

Limitations: The measure includes

only recommendations from audit
and inspection reports. Significant
recommendations from other OIG
services, such as quick response
projects and advice and technical
assistance are not included in this
measure.
Indicator 8.2.3 of 9: The number and percentage of investigations that are referred for criminal, civil, or administrative actions.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Referrals during the FY Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:

OIG Investigative Case Tracking
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: System
% %
Frequency: Annually.
2002 83 75 287 cases Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 195

Indicator 8.2.4 of 9: The number and percentage of investigations that are referred for criminal, civil, or administrative actions that are accepted.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Measures, as based on close case universe Status: Target not met Additional Source Information:
OIOG Investigative Case Tracking
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress: There was a methodology change System
% % in how the statistic was derived. It is now
based on the closed case universe that Frequency: Annually.
2002 68 85 coincides with the Performance Report Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
timelines. This is our baseline data and we will Data Available: November 2003
determine over time the appropriate annual Data is validated internally
target.
Indicator 8.2.5 of 9: The number and percentage of accepted cases that result in judicial actions (e.g. indictments, civil filings, convictions, adverse personnel
actions, and suspensions and debarments).
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Measure, as based on close case universe Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
OIG Investigative Case Tracking
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets System
% %
Frequency: Annually.
2002 83 80 Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally
Indicator 8.2.6 of 9: Amount of monetary penalties, settlements, and recoveries.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

Amount of court-ordered or administrative penalties/settlements and actual monetary Additional Source Information:
recoveries from investigations. Semi-annual Report to Congress
Explanation: Given the nature of our (Audit Tracking System,
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets investigative work, this indicator must be used Investigative Case Tracking System,
Millions No Target judiciously and in conjunction with other Common Audit Resolution System,
indicators. Criminal prosecution is not and Department of Justice).
2002 34.38 undertaken primarily to recover money. We
have deleted performance targets for monetary Frequency: Annually.
recoveries to avoid the appearance of a lack of Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
objectivity. Data Available: November 2003
Validated By: Federal Statistical
Agencies.
Numbers are validated internally
and by the department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 196

Indicator 8.2.7 of 9: The number and percentage of significant compliance recommendations from OIG products that are accepted by the Department during the
current fiscal year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

significant recommendations accepted during FY 2002. Accepted recommendations Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
can be from OIG work in the current or a previous fiscal year OIG audits and inspections
Progress:
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Frequency: Annually.
% % Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
68 recommendations Data Available: November 2003
2002 68 80 Data is validated internally

Indicator 8.2.8 of 9: The number and percentage of significant monetary recommendations Implemented.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

monetary compliance recommendations implemented Status: Target exceeded Additional Source Information:
OIG audit and inspection reports
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Progress:
% % Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
2002 100 80 3 recommendations Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally

Limitations: Not a statistically

significant number of
recommendations.
Indicator 8.2.9 of 9: Percentage of respondents indicating that OIG Goal 2 activity had a favorable impact in protecting the integrity of the Department's programs
and operations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality

% of surveyed program officials, senior managers, selected members of Congress Status: Unable to judge Additional Source Information:
and their staffs. survey results
Progress: New survey is being developed.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Frequency: Annually.
% % Explanation: The OIG is developing a more Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
comprehensive survey, which is designed to Data Available: November 2003
2002 75 provide information about OIG performance in
a number of areas instead of the one overall
impact measure.

U.S. Department of Education FY 2002 Program Performance Report 197