The central question in this study was: can staff members responsible for administering ESEA Title III (Projects to Advance Creativity in Education, PACE) in five states comprehend PACE intents in a manner comparable to that of the United States Office of Education (USOE) staff responsible for the national administration of the act? It was hypothesized that there would be greater conformity to USOE jury-judged PACE intents, with the higher one proceeding up the PACE responsibility ladder from state-regional PACE implementors to USOE PACE administrators. Computer programs for analysis of data are reported in detail, and the results are generally the reverse of those hypothesized. Possible explanations were seen in (1) out-group motivational set for acceptance, (2) power-periphery search for increased power through conformity, and (3) the use of maximum discretionary authority in higher education. (BP)