<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Title Page
 General overview
 History of CPIR
 Purpose of CPIR
 Organization of report forms
 Federal aid programs
 Pupil population groups
 Table I: Estimated expenditures...
 Table II: Estimated expenditures...
 Table III: Selected target populations...


PALMM FAMU



Consolidated program information report (CPIR)
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000223/00004
 Material Information
Title: Consolidated program information report (CPIR)
Series Title: Research report
Portion of title: CPIR
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Education
Publisher: Dept. of Education
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Creation Date: July 1970
Publication Date: 1970 -
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Federal aid to education -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Government aid to education -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Education -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: 1968/70 -
Issuing Body: Issued by Division of Elementary and Secondary Education, Bureau of Research.
General Note: Description based on: 1969/70 report; title from cover.
Funding: Research report (Florida. Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. Bureau of Research)
 Record Information
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Holding Location: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 12589348
System ID: AM00000223:00004

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    General overview
        Page 1
    History of CPIR
        Page 2
    Purpose of CPIR
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Organization of report forms
        Page 5
    Federal aid programs
        Page 6
    Pupil population groups
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Table I: Estimated expenditures by source of funds - FY 1969
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Table II: Estimated expenditures for selected services and activities - FY 1969
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Table III: Selected target populations being served through federally assisted programs
        Page 15
        Page 16
Full Text


ARCH


REPORT 82


REPORT


BUREAU OF RESEARCH
DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION


CONSOLIDATED


PROGRAM


INFORMATION


REPORT


(CPI R):


FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 1958-69


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA
FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN, COMMISSIONER































I
Research Report 82 is a summary of selected data
on Federally Assisted Programs in Florida prepared
by the Bureau of Research, Division of Elementary
I and Secondary Education of the Florida Department
of Education. This is the first research report
using the C.P.I.R. as a data source. Basic
content of this report was compiled and written
by James C. Impara, Research Associate, and
Ed R. Allen, Jr., Research Associate. (800)
!___________________











CONSOLIDATED PROGRAM INFORMATION REPORT (CPIR):


FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 1968-69





GENERAL OVERVIEW


Through the years, Federal aid to education has only been a small per-
cent of the total funds spent on education. However, within the past two
decades, a massive outpouring of Federal money into state and local school
systems has radically changed the picture of school funding. Even with this
large investment, Federal funds still represent a relatively small percent
of the total education expenditures. The increased funds have helped to
alleviate many problems, but have also created some problems.

There have been some "strings" attached to the Federal support of school
programs. Probably one of the most important and elusive of these "strings"
has been the requirement for program evaluation. The program outcomes evi-
denced in the evaluations can determine whether or not the program is to
receive continued funding.

An evaluation of any worth is highly dependent upon the availability
of significant information. A group of educators and researchers, known as
the Belmont Group, is working towards this end. The Belmont Group is a
national effort to better effect the evaluation of federally funded programs.
Florida has participated directly in the Belmont Group since its inception.

Until recently the U. S. Office of Education has had access only to
scattered and fragmented data on federally funded programs. Information
sources included project application forms, project reports, state program
reports, national evaluation studies for Titles I, II, and III of ESEA, and
statistical reports from state and local agencies on individual programs.

Thus, the information received by the U. S. Office of Education contained
serious gaps, many duplications, and no unified system of evaluation. This
information inadequacy has left the U. S. Office of Education with no way
to determine the best directions for future funding on the basis of educational
outcomes.

In August of 1968, the U. S. Office of Education suggested to the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) that there was a definite
need for:

(1) A consolidated statistical reporting system;
(2) A comprehensive evaluation system; and
(3) Staff development programs in evaluation in federal,
state, and local jurisdictions.












The CCSSO was in full agreement with the U. S. Office of Education and
a cooperative venture between the states and the U. S. Office of Education
was created. The initial meeting of representatives of 17 states and a
U. S. Office of Education task force was held in January 1969, at Belmont
House, Maryland, hence the name Belmont Group.

The agreement between the CCSSO and the U. S. Office of Education calle<
for the cooperative development of a new comprehensive system to evaluate
federally supported elementary and secondary education programs. The major
components of this agreement were:

(1) Develop and install a common survey system designed to
meet the basic and common management information require-
ments of both the U. S. Office of Education and the State
education agencies;
(2) Develop and install a long range program of collecting
and using general and evaluative information on K-12; and
(3) Develop and install pilot training programs for evaluation
personnel in Federal, state, and local education agencies.


HISTORY OF CPIR


The Consolidated Program Information Report, better known as the CPIR,
came into being as a result of the efforts of the Belmont Subcommittee
dealing with the consolidation and improvement of the reporting of statistics
information required by several bureaus in the U. S. Office of Education.
Prior to the fall of 1969, the acts covering ESEA Titles I, II, III, V, VI,
VII, VIII, NDEA III, NDEA V-A, Civil Rights Act Title IV, Follow Through,
Vocational Education Acts, Adult Basic Education, and Educational Professions
Development Act required at least 18 separate reports for the U. S. Office
of Education. These reports were required at various times of the year and
often called for duplicated information. Some report items were included
because they provided interesting or unusual information, but had little
utilization for decision-making.

Historically, as new legislation was created to aid education, a new
set of reports was created to serve that specific legislative act or title.
The rapidly growing multiplicity of reports and information needs, coupled
with the intuitive feeling that the situation would continue to worsen, led
the U. S. Office of Education and State Education Agencies personnel to seek
means of improving the reporting of information to the U. S. Office of Educa-
tion. These improvements would be intended to reduce the frequency of and
duplication of reporting by the local education agencies and to provide some
reasonable consistency in the definitions of items which are reported.

Attention was focused upon the reporting problem at the first Belmont
meeting in January 1969. A rough draft of a consolidated statistical report-
ing form was discussed and revised by the participants of that meeting.
During the following six months, Belmont members modified several drafts of
a reporting form that would consolidate information reporting for most of the
above legislation. A final form was approved, field tested, and finalized
by early summer.











The CCSSO was approached to determine the extent of distribution of
the CPIR. The decision was made to include school districts from all 50
states in the initial use of the new report format and procedures.


PURPOSE OF CPIR


It is intended that the design of the CPIR be such that it will
serve three broad purposes:*

"(1) To permit State and Federal program officers to
determine the extent to which programs and services
under their jurisdiction reach schools and pupils
as intended.
(2) To assess the elements of program/service effective-
ness and efficiency at the local level.
(3) To satisfy statistical reporting needs as required of
those utilizing Federal funds."

In fulfilling the above purposes the CPIR and its analysis will have
the ability to yield feedback to Federal, state, and local agencies. It
will provide the capability for direct output of summary and raw data which
have been previously unavailable to local and state education agencies in
time or format to be of greatest benefit. It is expected that the availability
of this data will increase the capability of program managers/directors to
monitor and improve the program activities for which they are responsible.

Among the data that are collected by this instrument are:

(a) Dollars expended by source of funding;
(b) Services and activities provided by these funds;
(c) Identification of the number of children, by target group,
needing services and number benefiting from the programs
and services;
(d) Staffing patterns by programs and services; and
(e) In-service education by source of funding.

The instrument will provide for the first time a coordinated look at
the various Federal funding programs in local school districts. The 1969
CPIR has been completed and is being analyzed and the draft of the 1970
form is complete and under study.

It should be kept in mind that the CPIR is still in its formative
stages and continuous feedback from state and local education agencies
to the U. S. Office of Education is being utilized to develop a better





*Joint Federal/State Task Force on Evaluation. "Comprehensive Evalua-
tion System," U. S. Office of Education, January, 1970.











instrument.* However, school districts should take careful note of the
content and general format of the FY 1969 CPIR as it is a good representa-
tion of things to come and districts should be preparing for the reporting
techniques in the future.


Preliminary Data Analysis


The data reported in the following tables represent the exact information
reported to the U. S. Office of Education by the reporting school districts.
The Bureau of Research did perform some computations and summaries, however,
little was done to insure the accuracy of the information reported. It is
likely that, due to the newness of the reporting format and lack of clarity
in the instructions, some inaccuracies are present. It is hoped that as the
school districts become accustomed to working with this format and as the
report's instructions are more understandable, the data will provide statistical
estimates which can be used to assist program managers in their future planning
efforts.

There may be additional analyses available at some time in the future
as the U. S. Office of Education performs its own data analyses. If these
appear to be useful to school districts, and if they are received within a
reasonable time, additional reports may be published.

Sixty-three of the sixty-seven districts submitted CPIRs. The four districts
which did not report were Baker, Bay, Flagler, and Lafayette. Each of these
districts reported expenditures of Federal funds during the 1969 fiscal year,
but three of the four were cut-off from Federal funds very early in the year.

It should be carefully noted that none of the tables in this report provide
a total picture of the educational program since only services and activities,
and population groups served relate to expenditures of Federal funds and not
to state or local funds. In FY 1969 Federal funds represented less than 10%
of the receipts for education purposes in Florida. In this report, the tables
reporting pupils served represents direct services. It is intended to indicate
the pupils participating in federally assisted programs designed specifically
to meet the needs of a particular target group. This means that many children
who might be in more than one target group are counted only once.

The following information has been abstracted from the CPIR Instruction
Manual to give a better understanding of the scope and content of the CPIR
itself as well as the tables at the end of this report.




*A survey was made in Florida of each responding district asking which
specific items or parts of the CPIR needed changing. Twenty-two districts
responded and their comments were summarized and used by the U. S. Office of
Education to make some revisions in the CPIR for FY 1970.












"The report form is designed to satisfy the primary statistical require-
ments on twelve programs administered by the Bureau of Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education during the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1970.


The programs are:

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I (regular program)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I (migrants)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I (neglected and delinquent)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title III
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title V (Section 503)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title VII
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title VIII
National Defense Education Act Title III
National Defense Education Act Title V-A
Civil Rights Act Title IV
Follow Through Program

The following report forms are superseded by CPIR (OE FORM 4484):

OE FORM 4375 Annual Statistical Report of Title I Program Activities

OE FORM 4375-1 Annual Statistical Report of Title I Program Activities
for Neglected or Delinquent Children Living in Institutions (LEA'S)

OE FORM 4310 Annual Report, Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
Title II, P.L. 89-10, as Amended (Part II Statistical Data)

OE FORM 4381 ESEA Title III Statistical Data

OE FORM 4130 Annual Report -- NDEA of 1958, Title III as Amended and the
NFAHA (Part II Statistical Data)

OE FORM 4133 Annual Report -- NDEA of 1958, Title V-A as Amended (Part II -
Statistical Data)


ORGANIZATION OF REPORT FORMS


The Consolidated Program Information Report Form is organized as follows:

Identification and Certification Information The cover page of the report
is used to identify the reporting agency and to provide for certification
of the data contained in the report.

Part I Pupils and Schools This part requests information on the number of
children and number of schools in the agency's district, delineated by pupil
population groups, grade levels, and services and activities provided.











Part II Staffing This part requests information showing the number of staff
positions by activity and pupil populations served, number of staff participat-
ing, and dollars expended on inservice training.

Part III Program Expenditures This part requests information on the pattern
of expenditures in federally aided programs with an indication of the cost of
the services or activities provided by Federal program source. This part
also requests a report on the expenditures of Federal funds by age/grade level.

Part IV Supplemental Program Information This part consists of sections
which requests information supplemental to that requested in the first three
parts as related to specific programs.


FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS


Throughout the report when reference is made to Federal or federally aided
programs or services the programs referred to are:

Title I, ESEA P. L. 89-10: Special programs for educationally deprived
children.

Title II, ESEA P. L. 89-10: School library resources, textbooks and
other instructional materials.

Title III, ESEA P. L. 89-10: Supplementary educational centers and
services (or PACE projects to advance creativity in education).

Title V. ESEA (Sec. 503) P. L. 89-10: Grants to strengthen state
departments of education (10 percent of state entitlement available
to local education agencies in FY 1969).

Title VI, ESEA P. L. 89-10: Education of handicapped children.

Title VII, ESEA P. L. 90-247: Bilingual education programs.

Title VIII, ESEA P. L. 90-247: Dropout prevention program.

Title III, NDEA P. L. 85-864 and Sec. 12, NFAHA P. L. 89-209:
Strengthening instruction in critical subjects and strengthening
instruction in the arts and humanities.

Title V-A, NDEA -- P. L. 85-864: Counseling, guidance, and testing;
identification and encouragement of able students.

Title IV, CRA Sec. 403-406, P. L. 88-352: Equal educational opportunities.

Follow Through EOA P. L. 88-452: Program to reinforce in the primary
grades gains children make in Head Start and other similar preschool programs.











Vocational Education Acts: Smith-Hughes -- P. L. 64-347, George-Barden --
P. L. 79-586, and Vocational Education Act of 1963 -- P. L. 88-210
(exclude state vocational education funds).

Adult Basic Education P. L. 89-750: Encourage and expand basic
educational programs for adults.

Education Professions Development Act of 1967 P. L. 90-35: To improve
the quality of teaching and to help meet critical shortages of adequately
trained educational personnel. Includes teacher corps program.

Other Federal Sources: Includes funds for elementary and secondary
education from all other Federal sources not specified above. Examples
of other possible Federal sources are: Department of Agriculture;
Department of Labor; Office of Economic Opportunity; Appalachian Regional
Development Act; and Office of Education programs not listed above.


Abbreviations Used


CRA Civil Rights Act
EPDA Education Professions Development Act
EOA Economic Opportunity Act
ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act
NDEA National Defense Education Act
NFAHA National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
P. L. Public Law


PUPIL POPULATION GROUPS


The pupil population groups used in the report are:

1. Children from low-income areas
2. Handicapped children
3. Nonstandard English speaking children
4. Migrant children
5. Neglected and delinquent children
6. General elementary/secondary population children
7. Out-of-school youth (dropouts)
8. Adult basic education
9. Other adults"


The tables in this report are intended to provide only limited basic data.
Much of the information reported is not included in the tables this year. For
example, none of the information on Staffing (Part II of CPIR) is in this report.
In addition to limiting the number of tables, the order of information is changed;
that is, the data reported in Part III Estimated Expenditures is in Tables I
and II while data reported in Part I Pupils Served is in Table III.












Table I Estimated Expenditures by Source of Funds FY 1969 shows
the estimated expenditures for each district by source of Federal funds. The
information came from the CPIR column totals in Part III Estimated Expend-
itures. The two largest sources were ESEA Title I (31.1%) and Other Federal
(42.5%). The Other Federal category includes such fund sources as: Depart-
ment of Agriculture; Department of Labor; Office of Economic Opportunity;
and other Office of Education programs not listed. It should be noted that
S.A.F.A. Programs (P. L. 815 and 874, School Assistance in Federally Affected
Areas) were not intended to be listed under Federal sources, but were to be
included as "State and Local" funds.

Some districts reported their primary source of Federal funds as ESEA
Title I (Franklin 94.9%) while for other districts Title I was only a small
percent of their total Federal funds (Okaloosa 7.5%). Every district report-
ing showed expenditure of some ESEA Title I funds and no district reported
expenditures for ESEA Title VII (Programs for bilingual children).








Table II Estimated Expenditures for Selected Services and Activities -
FY 1969 shows the estimated expenditures for (1) Direct Educative Services
in the Basic Skills Areas of English Language Arts (excluding Reading),
Reading, Natural Science and Mathematics, and Vocational Skills; (2) Support-
ing Services in Personnel Development, Library Resources (audio-visual materials
books and printed matter, and library or media personnel), Guidance, Testing,
Health Services, and Food Services; and (3) Other Services and Activities
such as Administration, Maintenance and Operation of Plant, Equipment, and
Ancillary Services. These data are derived from the CPIR row totals in
Part III Estimated Expenditures.

Although the "Other" category represents the largest percentage of expend-
itures (48.0%), the remaining areas represent the largest proportions of expend-
itures directly affecting pupils. Excluding the "Other" category the largest
percent of Federal expenditures statewide in FY 1969 was on Reading (12.8%)
with English Language Arts a close second (10.5%). Liberty County reported
53.8% of its Federal funds expended on Reading while seven reporting districts
indicated that no Federal funds were spent solely on Reading (Alachua,
Charlotte, Glades, Hernando, Hillsborough, Martin, and Osceola). It is
interesting to observe that Reading programs were already being emphasized
in FY 1969 before the "Right to Read" program was much publicized.












Table III Percent of Target Populations Being Served in FY 1969 -
looks at three of the nine target groups which are in the CPIR. The target
groups discussed are:

1. Children From Low Income Areas All children enrolled
in ESEA Title I eligible schools.
2. Handicapped Children Children who are mentally or
physically handicapped who require special education or
related services due to their impairment.
3. Children of Migratory Workers Children of migratory
agricultural workers who have moved with their families
from one school district to another during the past year
to secure employment in agriculture or in related food
processing industries.

The remaining target groups are Neglected and Delinquent Children;
Non-Standard English Speaking Children; Out-of-School Youth (Dropouts);
Adult Basic Education; Other Adults; and the General Elementary-Secondary
Population. The data in this table were obtained from Part I Pupil
Participation of the CPIR.

This table shows that we are serving approximately 31.7% of the children
from low-income areas with a range from 7.3% in Orange County to 10.2% in
Seminole County (due to services rendered to non-public school children).
Neither of the extreme ranges should be interpreted in a negative way. There
are many cases in which the children in Title I eligible schools may not
exhibit the greatest need for services under the provisions of ESEA Title I,
and several school districts in FY 1969 were attempting to concentrate their
expenditures on children with the greatest need, therefore, low percentages
are within the framework of the local and legal philosophy. On the other
hand, many school districts in FY 1969 tried to serve as many children as
possible providing some assistance to each child, therefore the high per-
centages reflect a different local philosophy.

In the remaining target groups,the same kinds of philosophies apply,
that is some districts prefer to concentrate their expenditures of Federal
funds while others prefer to make wider distributions. The estimated per-
cent of handicapped children served in federally assisted programs state-
wide is 14.4% and approximately 92% of the children of migrant workers are
served through federally assisted programs.

Recall that these participation figures indicate only participants in
federally assisted programs designed specifically for these target groups
and many pupils who fall into several groups are counted only once. Also
not counted are pupils who may not be served through federally assisted
programs but who do participate in programs funded from state and local
resources.













TABLE I

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES BY SOURCE OF FUNDS FY 1969


ESEA I


Neglected and
Delinquent


Migrants


Low-Income


Per- Per- Per- Per-
Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent
%$ -- $ $ $ 492,502 57.8% $
-
-
90,091 58.0
27.585 31.6


Alachua
Baker*
Bay*
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Dade
De Soto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler*
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette*
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton


1100
-







-
-
-
-
-

1100
-
-
-


9,126
-






-











4,000
-
-
-
-

-











7.000
-
-
-
-














24,982
-
-













6,200
-














14,800
-












14,133
-














286,676
-
-
















33,080
-


















17,232

11,334
-


-
-
-
-
-

-
-
**
-
-
-



-




0.2
-






-


1,057,436
-
-
-
-
384,752
-
89,361
29,688


-


95.072
58,719
-
118,153
132,119
-
-
-
-


70.668
70,569
-
-
-


309,008
-
24,800
-

-

50,064
167,095

419,910
-


660,979
4,150
28,091
130,049

37,881
44,984


30.8
-

-
-
49.5
-
0.4
28.7


-
-
-

-
-
-


32.5
33.2
-
42.6
2.5
-
-
-
-


13.8
14.6
-
-
-


23.6
-
11.7
-

-

57.4
5.1

21.7
-


34.5
1.0
8.7
32.3

3.9
5.8


1,274,293
132,754
43,952
66,724
153.671
76,373
251,374
3,026,640
59,722
26.103
2,169,283
898,028

74,449
450.359
41,062
27,345
66,936
101,274
106.627
56,641
69,548
111,504
1,910,068
222.754
107,785
541,309
211,857

272.862
232,860
422,795
92,781
36,101
247.157
142,229
483,019
39,730
128,188
164,982
220,290
32,646
592,906
90,541
1.002,508
194,293
982,414
912,782
286,777
223,385
167,559
147,671
223,746
452,809
107 280


37.0
43.4
25.5
25.4
43,6
9.8
57.0
12.1
57.9
64.9
51.5
64.1

94.9
64,6
61.5
63.2
83.1
63.5
36.5
32.1
23.2
40.2
36.0
82.1
33.0
66.6
67.7

53.4
48.3
41.2
49.9
75.7
84.0
11.0
61.0
18.7
63.4
52.0
7.5
37.4
18.0
77.7
51.9
53.4
47.1
48.0
72.4
69.2
41.6
47.6
22.9
58.3
56 S


24,800 7.9 207.995 67.0
100 0.4 13,815 58.6
41,485 38.5
6,300 0.6 565 0.1 545,974 55.1
- -- 74,047 24.5
220,086 55.4
173.358 51.1


Per.
Amount
33,167 3.9
-3 -


4,068 2.6
28 101 3 2
79,298 2.3
4,480 1.5
2,157 1.3
3,138 1.2
6.824 2
2,841 0.3
8,948 2.0
236,633 0.9
3,064 3.0
2. 100 52
112,903 2.7
41,198 2.9




1,195 1.8
1,454 3.4
3,089 4.0

4.408 1.5
2,787 1.5
3,414 1.1
6,078 2.1
62,632 1.2
7.454 3,0
6,160 1.9
10,390 1.2
6,170 2.0

14.590 3.0
13,200 2.7
19,857 1.9
3,863 2.0
1,433 3.0

4,726 0.3
19,557 2.4
2,481 1.2
8,615 4.4
6.935 2.1
15,937 0.5
2,394 2.7
52,057 1.6
4,596 3.9

8,501 2.3
60,872 2.9
58,974 3.0

9.529 3.0_
10,437 2.5
175 0.1
1,288 0.1
20,340 2.6
4.466 __-
7,927 2.5

1,766 1.6
28,429 2.9
2 71 0__.9-
7,739 2.0
5.673 1.L


$434,963 0.67.


$42,365 0.1% $3,983,548 5.6%


$22,316,684 31.2%


$1,083,218 1.57.


*Did not participate in this
**Less than .05%.


survey (See Narrative).


County


Handicapped


ESEA II


-
6.000
-







-


TOTAL


.,,


I_


~


~


I_


_I


~


~


~I_


~


~


~


I_


~


_I


ILI


Was o
hin


` "- - .. ,.


--


--


--











TABLE I Continued



6 7 8 9 10 11 12



County ESEA III ESEA V ESEA VI ESEA VII ESEA VIII NDEA III NDEA V-A






Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per-
Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent A ntcent Amount cent Amount cent
Alachua $ 103,354 12.1% $ 7 $ 19,964 2.4% $ % $ % $ 18,637 2.27. $ 3,962 0.5%
Baker* -
Bay* -
Bradford 20,741 13.4 1,539 1.0
Brevard 134.955 15.3 167.211 19.0 9,646 1.1


Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay_
Collier
Columbia
Dade
De Soto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler*
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette*
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
P i --


258,954
-
31,628
155,869
151.995
153,376
77,470
762,908
-


258,920
170,408
-
-
-
-
-
-

25,000
-

40,779
-
-

249,007


29,694
112,396
58,648

-
33.116


72,826
20,105
-

20.613
-

121,813


22,330
28.090
106,778


263,398


7.5
-

18.4
59.3
43.2
20.0
17.6
3.1
-


6.1
12.2
-
-
-
-
-
-

15.6
-

23.1
-
-
4.7
-

9.0
13.8
19.0


6.5
-

7.1
10.8
-

7.0
-

15.3


11.0
9.0
3.6


8.0

an


-
-
5,087




368
43,296
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-







-
-
-
904
9,000




3,434
-
-
-
-
-


-



3,861


7,732

-


-

4,020
11,823
-



15,756
38,661
-


62,719
1,088
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,014
-

-

4,053
9,602


22,047
-

-


0.7
-
-
-
-
-


-



0.1


0.2
-


32,425
-

32,651
1,784
11.840
-






3,344


45,431

10 0


-

1.3
7.0
-



3.6
0.2

-

1.5
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-

1.3
-

-

1.4
0.2
-
-

2.7
-


-
6.7
-

17.5
3.7

4.0
-.









1.4

in


4,53
-


















-
-


-
4,39
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-


0.2

















-


-


309,344
4,911
13,000
8,777
19,693
75,073
7,196
173,579
4,637


235,569
30,542


3,950
-

7,747
4,097
6,677


12.640
4,710
17,493
21,809
315,733
11,813
9,985
45,027
10,553


32A165
54,730
77,445


4,257
-
93,730
95,948
23,547
17,830
9.459
110,988


429,396
16,211
-


9.0
1.6
7.5
3.3
5.6
9.6
1.6
0.7
4.5


5.6
2.2


5.1
-
11.6
9.5
8.3


4.3
3.0
6.0
7.9
6.0
4.3
3.0
6.0
3.3


6.3
11.3
7.6


9.0
-
7.1
12.0
11.1
8.7
3.0
3.8


13.0
13.9


22,060 0.6


1,427 0.8
1,418 0.6


1,826 0.2
1,928 0.4
31,652 0.1



5,854 0.1
7,628 0.5



2.504 0.4


1,106 2.5




1,364 0.7
1,457 0.5
1,821 0.7
1,722 **


2,055 0.6
32,913 4.0



3,039 0.6


3,914 0.4



1.560 0.6
6,112 0.4
3,611 0.4
1,662 0.8
2,035 L.0
1.800 0.5


1,316 1.5
11,929 0.4
1,645 1.5
9 57R 04


arLqeacnh 37, I921L 19,.3 u 05 u ......
Pasco 10,339 3.0 13,739 3.7
Pinellas 333,833 16.0 14,477 0.7 106,295 5.0 22,159 1.0
Polk 43,141 2.2 14,030 0.7 62,741 3.2 8,534 0.4
Putnam 32,661 8.3 -
S. Johns 32.661 10. 8.105 2.5 -
St. Lucie 25,664 6.4 1,422 0.4 9,033 2.3 1,426 0.4
Santa Rosa 33,601 10.8 37,195 12.0 27,653 8.9 4,013 1.3
Sarasota 413,293 42.3 16,129 1.7 104,440 10.7 3,661 0.4
Seminole 43,686 5.6 23,295 3.0 3,375 0.4
imter 4 288 2.3 1.489 0_8
Suwannee 32,507 10.5
Taylor 9,681 41.0 -
Union 8,946 8.3 3,474 3.2 -7,686 7.1 1,189 1.1
Volusia 242,738 24.5 1,915 0.2 40,825 4.1 98,666 10.0 5,476 0.6
Wakulia 172,700 57.2 14.077 4.7 3.830 1.3 8.310 2.7 1,188 1.4
Walton 95,621 24.1 1,000 0.3 15,622 3.9 699 Q.2
Wastaton 67.702 20.0 9.843 2.9 -


$5,347,318 7.57 $90,674 0.1% $538,695


0.87.


$4,539 **% $3,038,332 4.37 $235,292 0.3%


*Did not participate in this survey (See Narrative).
**Less than .05%.


TOTAL


-
-
-
-


-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-


-
-
-
-


-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-


~


~


~


~


---- ----------------------


&


--













TABLE I Continued


CRA-IV Follow-Through


15


Vocational
Education Acts
Elementary and
Secondary


Per- Per- Per- Per- Per-
Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount
Alachua $ $ $ 17,020 2.0% $ % $ 162,932 19.17 $ 851,538
Baker* -
Bay* -
Bradford 38,995 25.0 155,434
Brevard 20.708 2.4 125.959 14.3 47,539 5.4 67.715 7.7 880 419
Broward 187,758 5.4 131,725 3.8 126,632 3.6 3,447,530
Calhoun 6,691 2.2 10,530 3.4 142,429 46.6 305,815
Charlotte 9,500 5.5 2,400 1.4 50,884 29.6 171,858
Citrus 25,302 9.6 1,695 0.6 262,923
Clay 19.806 5.6 351 989
Collier 19,743 2.5 62,621 8.1 776,605
Columbia 56,320 12.7 12,877 2.9 441,363
Dade 132,520 0.3 996,882 4.0 99,029 0.4 19,320,036 77.4 24,966,736
De Soto 2,551 2.5 3,495 3.4 103,157
Dixie 5.865 14,6 6,131 15.3 40199
Duval 41,307 1.0 1,327,357 31.5 4,213,912
Escambia 251,922 18.0 1,400,814
Flagler* -
Franklin 78,399
Gadsden 8.037 1.1 9.000 1.3 227.622 32.6 697 522
Gilchrist 16,603 24.9 138 0.2 66,745
Glades 9,288 21.4 43,290
Gulf -1,360 1.6 2,447 3.0 80,509
Hamilton 2,330 1.5 2,939 1.9 22,000 13.7 159,577
Hardee 5,337 2.0 67.762 23.2 291.846
Hendry 11,339 6.4 176,339
Hernando 2,079 0.7 2,488 0.8 202,207 67.7 298,686
Highlands 12,337 4.4 1,602 0.6 145 0.1 277,502
Hillsborough 76,356 1.3 52,632 1.0 106,396 2.0 2,395,824 45.1 5,312,091
Holmes 3.259 1.2 2,000 0.7 16.994 6.2 271.274
Indian River 9,283 2.8 162,482 49.5 328,348
Jackson 27,414 3.3 9,705 1.1 2,199 0.2 812,400
Jefferson 21,520 6.8 3,967 1.2 -- 312,715
Lafayette* -
Lake 83.765 16.4 510.205
Lee 17,661 3.7 10,860 2.4 45,886 9.6 481,625
Leon 85,947 8.4 23,552 2.3 294,897 28.7 1,026,215
Levy 34,822 19.0 1,523 0.8 185,745
ibertt R f 47 67


Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Wanhintonn


-
-
-
-


89,095
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-

-
-
-


-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

6,988
-
-


18,341









19,605


6,912
26,033
51,646
39,218
1,898
26.284
12,816
818
132,651
3,525
21,970
27.927
35,316
151,849
18,465
16,752
21,011


20,041
5.027
35,595

12.805

22,668
1,700
60.758


0.3
- .










4.6









1.9


2.3
1.9
6.5
18.4
0.9
8.2
0.4
1.0
4.0
3.0
1.1
7.7
1.6
8.0
4.7
5.2
5.2


2.6
2.6
11.5

11.9

7.5
0.4
18.0


20,221

10,013
7,700
10.781


26,389

54,455

65,999

3,294
4.292

14,438
31,351


2,001

2,499

2.500

11 31


709,129
3,886
71,098

70.000
2,356,640

1,269,653

36,589
108,797
423,615

50,880


45,460
132,956
168,559
67,263


28,028


54,617
9 .R43


54.2
0.4
33.4

21.9
81.0

38.6

1.8
29.9
20.3

12.8


14.7
13.6
21.7
35 4


26.0


13.7
2.9


294,282
1,311,188
794,280
212,549
202,729
318,331
2,919,749
87,238
3,291,313
116,518
1,928.981
363,596
2,085,048
1,913,030
396,226
3228.15
402,174
310,206-
976,079
777,089
1898.813
310,825
23,596
107.878
990,493
302 030
397,084
338 508


$297,971 0.4%


$2,964,319 4.1%


$750,388 1.0% $30,318,652


42.4% $71,512,610


*Did not participate in this survey (See Narrative).
**Less than .05%.


County


16


Adult
Basic
Education
(P.L. 89-750)


17


Other Federal


18


Total All
Federal


TOTAL


$65,642 0.1%


~ _I_


---------------


---


,jv


,f J


---------


~










TABLE II

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES, FY1969


Language Arts


Reading


Natural Science
and Math


Vocational
Skills


Personnel
Development


Library
Resources


Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per-
Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent
Alachua $ 153,688 18.0. $ $ $ % $ 12,823 1.5% $ 48,142 5.7%
Baker* -
Bay* -
Bradford 14,788 9.5 15,388 9.9 16,046 10.3 29,312 18.9 6,931 4.5 19,273 12.4
Brevard 199.281 22.6 36,487 4.1 2.160 0.3 60,581 6.9
Broward 141,994 4.1 674,059 19.6 62,573 1.8 67,329 1.9 148,625 4.3 776,341 22.5
Calhoun 1,030 0.3 54,450 17.8 2,167 0.7 -1,963 0.6 18,460 6.0
Charlotte 79,807 46.4 6.345 3.7
Citrus 14,902 5.6 13,208 5.0 93,471 30.5 -948 0.4 27,613 10.0
Clay 93,026 26.4 35,440 10.0 18.065 5.2 44,024 12.5
Collier 106,450 13.7 115,998 15.0 60.224 7.8 7,599 1.0 6,240 0.8 35,217 4.5
Columbia 139,434 32.0 11,926 2.7 13,239 2.9 21,042 4.7
Dade 4,266,295 17.1 3,716,542 14.9 2,253,333 9.0 1,835,930 7.4 76,856 0.3 360,440 1.4
DeSoto 35,497 34.4 38,126 37.0 969 0.9 7,916 7.7
Dixie 600 1.4 4,866 12.0 1,200 2.8 2.100 5.0
Duval 87,764 2.1 577,844 13.7 163,980 3.9 913 ** 56,632 1.3 214,357 5.1
Escambia 10,200 0.7 93,272 6.7 6,047 0.4 32,394 2.3 185,406 13.2
Flagler* -
Franklin 825 1.0 39,560 50.4 324 0.5 915 1.2 6,427 8.2
Cadsden 4,474 0.6 41.608 6.0 84,768 12.0 8,037 1.3 6,999 1.0
Gilchrist 33,090 49.5 1,434 2.2 3,641 5.5
277 06 1 0


Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette*
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St_ Tnhn.


-

22,202
35.800
2,238
78,648
21,790
-
3,897
-
27,350
-

10,461
54,321
111,508
11,732
7,258
25,629
60,605
-
-
33,533
22,064
375,000
9,078
726,364

189 485
44.915
10,960
460.822


-

13.9
12.3


1.3
26.3
7.9
-
1.4
-
3.4
-
-
2.0
11.3
10.9
6.3
15.3
8.7
4.6
-
-
16.5
6.9
12.8
10.4
22.1

9.8
12.4
0.5
24.0

Qo


61,282
6,877
49,212
44,614
-
105,162
-
28,103
28.000
35,490
72,692
-
19.933
145,465
56,640
11,733
25,671
19.429
89,603
221,879
-
13,894
44,184
126,582
17,597
27,650

184,590
27,966
680,674
406,710
62.850
40 971


76.0 -
4.3 22,201 13.9
16.9 3,801 1.3


25.3
-
37.8
-
10.4
8.5
4.4
23.3
-
3.9
30.2
5.5
6.3
53.8
6.6
6.8
27.9
-
6.9
13.9
4.3
20.2
0.8

9.7
7.7
32.6
21.3
16.3
127


2,234
-

-

4.100

36,792
-

10,461
7,733
71,875
11,732

19.429
28,990
-

5,435
44,789
375,000
4.600


103,412
25.362
83,010
7,218
1,L41
9 365


1.3
-
-

-
1.5

4.5
-

2.0
1.6
7.0
6.3

6.6
2.2
-
-
2.7
14.1
12.8
5.3


5.3
6.9
4.0
0.4
0.3
3.0


-
14,860 9.3
4,285 1.5
2,024 1.2
-
5,011 1.8
34,389 0.7

2,518 0.8
27,212 3.3
-

23,157 4.5
6,607 1.4
85,947 8.4


6,913 2.4
18,828 1.4
8,467 1.1
-

26,284 8.3
200,150 6.8
-
258,774 7.9

147,741 7.7

197,194 9.5
20,673 1.0
1.479 0.5


342

5.188
16,158
2,079
18,805
-
2,150
524
76,437
-

7,110
2,916
6,690
1,152

21,280
12,212
102,859
840
5,988
1,000
50,884

28,520
4,136
121,180
6,184
123,925
5,907
1.929
1 929


0.5
1.8
1.8


9.2
0.7
6.8
-
0.8
0.2
9.4
-

1.4
0.6
0.7
0.6

7.3
1.0
12.9
0.4
2.9
0.3
1.7
-
0.9
3.6
6.3
1.7
6.0
0.3
0.6
0.6


5,259 6.5
6,245 3.9
6.556 2.3
10,512 5.9
7,837 2.6
29,637 10.7
392,091 7.4
12,282 4.5
11,300 3.4
137,318 16.9
32,438 10.4

47,964 9.4
49,920 10.4
43,365 4.2
5,126 2.8
9,057 19.0
4.263 1.5
26,927 2.1
112,252 14.1
42,318 19.9
30.399 15.0
10,743 3.4
112,406 3.8
2,393 2.7
319,605 9.7
12,790 11.0
324,127 16.8
19,528 5.4
172,763 8.3
113.844 5.9
11.220 2.9
28.741 8.9


St. Lucie 20,660 5.1 104,004 26.0 19,435 5.0 3,531 1.0 6,429 1.6 36,114 9.0
Santa Rosa 2,523 0.8 5,046 1.6 5,659 1.8 20,298 6.6 42,296 13.6
Sarasota 55.991 5.7 55,905 5.7 58,510 6.0 41,412 4.2 5,410 0.6
Seminole 282,490 36.3 7,547 1.0 2,203 0.2 92,759 i2.0
Sumter 6,495 3.4 37,155 19.5 16,500 8.6 18.267 9.6
Suwannee 40,000 13.0 13,300 4.2 1,591 0.5 8,337 2.7
Taylor 5,000 21.2 2,000 8.5 1,538 6.5
Union 3,336 3.0 25,726 23.8 130 0.1 1,998 1.8
Volusia 2,300 0.2 21,599 2.2 5,310 0.5 34,367 3.5 203,293 20.5
Wakulla 144.033 47.7 500 0.2 1,270 0.4 8,516 2.8
Walton 17,791 4.5 63,578 16.0 15,366 3.9 4,220 1.0 7,739 2.0
Washington 13.000 3.8 11.493 3.4 32.399 9.6 4,506 1.4 19,163 5.6

TOTAL $7,505,631 10.57 $9,241,128 12.9% $3,776,782 5.3% $3,173,554 4.4% $1,070,918 1.5% $4,442,533 6.2%


*Did not participate in this survey (See Narrative).
**Less than .05..


County


I


I


I


I


I


--


I


I


I


~











TABLE II CONTINUED


9


Health Service


10


Food Service


Per-
Amount cent
$ 410,656 48.2%


Alachua
Baker*
Bay*
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Dade
DeSoto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler*
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette*
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton


TOTAL $1,964,654 2.8%


Per-
Amount cent Amount
$ 300 % $ 22,086


Per-
cent
2.6%


Pe
Amount ce
$ 66,998 7

-


39,926 1
10,953 3
9,754 5
8,264 3
-
31,159 4
12,092 2
244,163 1
-
-
1,419,413 33
9,890 0


27 622 32


-
9.646 1.1
36,354 1.1
12,545 4.1
-
1,418 0.5
26.521 7.5
46,180 5.9
1,928 0.4
418,423 1.7
-
-
3,480 0.1
92,523 6.6

-
27.339 4.0
-
1,106 2.5
--
-

1,364 0.7
1,457 0.5
1,821 0.7
224,795 4.2
8.600 3.2
2,055 0.6
16,260 2.0
-

11.303 2.2
3,232 0.7
45,488 4.4


21,600 7.3
8,112 0.6
3,368 0.4
-
20,523 10.1
1.800 0.6
16,943 1.0
1,316 1.5
55,682 1.7
19,129 16.4
65,904 3.4
18,100 4.9
72,211 3.5
92,690 4.8
60,700 15.7
6,461 2.0
14,986 3.7
27,135 8.8
3,661 0.4
3,164 0.4
1,489 1.0
22,700 7.3
-
9,609 8.9

12,877 3.2


27,388 0.8
999 0.3 5,297 1.7
6,996 4.1
-- -
39.970 11.4
4,251 0.5 25,439 3.3
12,699 2.8 9,887 2.2
5,675 -* 42,097 0.2

630 1.5 3,780 9.0
28,092 0.7 124,250 2.9
2,000 0.2 13,939 1.0

2,019 2.6 781 1.0
-



S 11,100 7.0
2,k6 0.7 5.000 1.7

100 ** 15,370 5.2
1,747 0.6
91,411 1.7
6,487 2.4

34,192 4.2 682 0.1
2,615 0.8 -

825 0.1 1,028 0.2
28,247 5.8
13,526 1.3


4.084 1.4 -
S31,797 2.4
10,160 1.3 26,700 3.4
-

6,678 2.1
6,803 0.2
13,657 15.7
S 9,600 0.3
-1,952 1.7
43,120 2.2 25,226 1.3
1,674 0.4 40,715 11.2
2,975 0.1
6,299 0.3 16,200 0.8
11,629 3.0
7,260 2.2 9,094 2.8
12,459 3.0
980 0.3 74 **
10 **
8,208 1.0
-
5,000 1.6 -
3,600 15.2
4,040 4.0
1,000 0.1
2,688 0.9 3,830 1.3
7,500 1.9 8,273 2.0
3,341 1.0


r-
nt
.9%


Per-
Amount cent Amount
$ 136,845 16.1% $ 851,538


S$192,803 0.3% $736,794 1.0% $4,445,821 6.2% $34,961,982 48.97.


*Did not participate in this survey (See Narrative).
**Less than .05%.


-14-


County


Guidance


Testing


Other


Total


22,000
73,011
2,302
56,184
6,789
149,572
20,730
750
51,915
35,800

6,751
24,881
222,907


wasnlngr1on


~


53,696
572.264
.2 1,472,911
.5 197.951
.7 68,956
.0 103,099
- 94,943
.0 337,848
.7 219,116
.0 11,746,961
S20,649
- 27,023
.7 1,537,187
.7 955,143

27,548
.6 296.675
28,580
40,354
13,626
.8 54,092
.0 106,927
.3 94,893
.8 137,011
.5 86,740
.8 4,419.833
.6 184.925
.3 283,201
.4 368,752
.5 169,170

.3 371.212
.2 158,303
.7 368,269
144,270
5,690
.4 126,187
.3 965,232
.2 251,595
.4 166,468
92,957
.9 90,789
.2 1,648,799
.7 31,841
.3 898,057
.5 73,207
.7 7710,637
.5 159,318
741,336
.0 750,401
.0 241,060
.1 165,455
.0 172,777
.6 191,963
1.9 746,480
1.0 203,382
.3 42,643
.2 209,897
-11,458
.2 59.540
.0 712,624
141.193
.7 225,380
.3 226.643


Z


I


I


34.5
65.0
42.7
65.0
40.1
45.0
27.0
43.5
49.6
47.0
20.0
68.3
36.5
68.2

35.1
42.5
42.8
93.0
17.0
33.9
36.5
53.8
45.9
31.2
83.2
68.2
86.2
45.4
54.0

73.0
32.8
35.9
77.7
11.9
42.8
73.6
31.7
78.3
45.9
28.5
56.4
36.5
27.3
62.8
36.8
43.9
35.5
39.2
59.8
51.2
42.6
61.9
76.5
26.1
22.6
67.5
48.6
55.2
72.0
46.7
56.8
66.9


--


1:


r


8- .. ,


155,434
880.419
*-----iSL l'
3.447,500
305,815
171,858
262,923
3--- 51,989
7;1'o-
776,605
441,363
24,966,736
103,157
40, 199
4,213,912
1,400,814

78,399
697 522
66,745
43,293
80,509
159,577
S291.846
176,339
298,686
277,504
5,312,091
271.27'
328, .3
812,401
312,715

510,205 _
481,625
1,026,213
185,74;
47,676
294.28L
1,311,188
794,280
212,549
202,729
318.331_
2,919,749
87,238
3,291,313
116,518
192B 981
19-9
363,596
2,085,048
1,913,030
396,227
322 81)
402,17'
310,20,
976,070
777,080
189 81"
310,82;
23,59'
107,87"'
990,49'
302 03- i
3 1-
397,08'
33 ,5,.

$71,512,60,-'
$7


I


45,468
68,882
57,000
2,923

70,000
7,182
6,756
967,061
5,304
13,559
19,834
-
32,266
7,627
23,000
11,779
14,232
8,700
177,336
67,264
10,000

3,499
10,000

34,360
27 963


15
5
7
1

21
0
7
29
4
0
5

2
2
7
3
4
0
23
35
3

3
1

8


~


I


22- 6 32.


I


-.


--


I


--


-


~









TABLE III

SELECTED TARGET POPULATIONS BEING SERVED
THROUGH FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS


Children From Low-Income Areas

1 2 3 4


Handicapped Children


Non- Non-
Number of Public Public Per- Public Public Per-
Children** Schools Schools cent Number Schools Schools cent
11,001 3,046 10 27.8. 2,000 520 26.07.


638
7. 7I.


179 28.0
SAnn 113 15 n


Migrant Children

9 10 11 12

Non-
Public Public Per-
Number Schools Schools cent
7.


a'a oTR 1 T


rd 9,000 7,433 16 83.8 909 220 24.2 5,910 5,450 92.27.
un 2,115 857 40.5 97 35 36.0 -
otte 490 255 37 59.6 15 15 2 113.3
B 3,083 3,083 100.0 90 -
1,048 1,048 100.0 -
er 3,053 460 85 17.8 250 61 24.4 2,672 2,672 100.0
bia 6,421 1,271 19.8 780 15 1.9 -
82,586 21,942 370 27.0 3,375 25 0.7 1,449 1,449 100.0
to 2,675 291 10.9 351 351 100.0 345 345 100.0
311 311 100.0 45 20 44.4 -
52,849 10,580 87 20.2 14,617 72 3 0.5
bia 6,790 6,540 250 100.0 -
er* -
lin 582 455 78.2 15 15 100.0
en 4.022 4.022 100.0 -
rist 915 183 20.0 -
s 292 260 89.0 -
2,145 580 27.0 -
ton 2,308 850 36.8 256 20 7.8
e 2.915 709 24.3 233 270 270 100.0


Alach
Baker
Bay*
Bradf
Breva
Browa
Calho
Charl
Citru
Clay
Colli
Colum
Dade
De So
Dixie
Duval
Escam
Flagl
Frank
Gadsd
Gilch
Glade
Gulf
Hamil
Iarde
Hendr
Herna
Highl
Hills
Hol e


4,860
8,454
2,922

14.452

19,731
1,459
937
1,890
3,097
3,988
493
8,004
1.120
20,080
440
45,208

49.547
7,545
30,147
25,274


283 45.3
574 10 100.0
1,312 93.5
13,483 10 48.0
1.806 64.5
864 5 17.9
4,039 47.8
1,758 60.2

14.253 199 100.0

4,256 21.6
1,459 100.0
281 30.0
1,779 94.0
1,402 45.3
4,494 112.7
483 10 100.0
1,180 14.7
1.106 14 100.0
1,569 7.8
390 88.6
3,295 25 7.3

7.400 600 16.1
1,537 20.4
7,840 325 27.0
4,827 19.0
1,982
i /.rtr '20 94 8


68

28 28
5,995 2,948
125 100
153 25
1,002 36


700 -

479 71
274 274
65 28
10 10

2,965 196
136 136
333 196
1,002
164 164

4,225 1,903

10.567 52
87 12
1,281 420
2,625 227

6nn In


100.0
49.1
- 80.0
- 16.3
- 3.6




- 14.8
- 100.0
- 43.0
- 100.0

6.6
100.0
14 63.0

100.0

28 45.7

0.4
13.7
32.8
S 8.6

0


565 452 80.0

1,200 1,050 87.5
1,251 1,251 100.0





1.232 1,215 17 100.0





1,150 1,150 100.0
42 -
257 257 100.0

103 -

650 496 76.3
2,534 1,841 72.6

4.000 3.944 98.6
725 -
95
5,894 5,894 100.0
211
300 265 88.3


le. Johns 1-2UV 50t 7 1,0 -,
St. Lucie 8,572 1,111 56 13.6 885 135 10 16.4 874 681 77 9
Santa Rosa 6,527 1,200 18.3 250 250 100.0 -- -
Sarasota 1,377 1,377 100.0 452 219 48.4 250 250 100.0
Seminole 3,188 3,188 65 102.0 279 735 735 100.0
Ster 3 268 3.268 100.0 -
Suwannee 4,165 1,444 34.7
Taylor 3,904 888 22.7 605 105 17.3
Union 262 242 92.4 193 178 92.2
Volusia 16,050 4,501 456 30.9 2,500 280 10 11.6
lakulla 465 453 97.4 70 62 88.5---
Walton 3,921 971 24.8 -
Washinaton 3,023 2.967 98 1 35 -- ---

TOTAL 559,337 174,617 2,772 31.7% 67,009 9,581 67 14.4% 32,503 29,878 17 91 9.


*Did not participate in this survey (See Narrative).
**Number of children enrolled in ESEA Title I eligible schools.


County


ua


ord
d


r 625
ndo 584
hands 1,404
borough 28,062
S2.,800


Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette*
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
0*- T--_--


1

a
I
1


--


--


I



























Since this report represents the initial effort at
providing feedback from the C.P.I.R., we in the
Department of Education would appreciate any
comments which would assist in providing more
useful information to our audience. If you wish
more information from C.P.I.R. or if different
table formats and table contents would be of
better use please let us know.

Send your suggestions for improvements to:

James C. Impara, Research Associate
Bureau of Research
Division of Elementary and Secondary Education
255 Knott Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304