Chandler Unified School District Perfomance Audit Report

Az Auditor General

Description

A REPORTTO THEARIZONA LEGISLATUREDivision of School AuditsPerformance AuditChandler UnifiedSchool DistrictAUGUST • 2007Debra K. DavenportAuditor GeneralThe Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senatorsand five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations toimprove the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting servicesto the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits ofschool districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.The Joint Legislative Audit CommitteeSenator Robert Blendu, Chair Representative John Nelson, Vice ChairSenator Carolyn AllenTom BoonePamela Gorman Representative Jack BrownSenator Richard MirandaPete RiosRebecca RiosSteve YarbroughSenator Tim Bee (ex-officio) Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio)Audit StaffSharron Walker, DirectorRoss Ehrick, Manager and Contact PersonBriton Baxter Jennie SnedecorAnthony Glenn John WardErin MullarkeyCopies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.You may request them by contacting us at:Office of the Auditor General2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • [phone]Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:www.azauditor.gov STATE OF ARIZONA DEBRA K. ...

Informations

• Publié par: Naphug
• Nombre de lectures: 12
• Langue: English

Extrait

A REPORT TO THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE

Division of School Audits

Performance Audit

Chandler Unified School District

AUGUST  2007

Debra K. Davenport Auditor General

The AuditorGeneral is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee SenatorRobert Blendu,Chair SenatorCarolyn Allen SenatorPamela Gorman SenatorRichard Miranda SenatorRebecca Rios SenatorTim Bee(ex-officio)

Audit Staff Sharron Walker,Director Ross Ehrick,Manager and Contact Person Briton Baxter Anthony Glenn Erin Mullarkey

RepresentativeJohn Nelson,Vice Chair RepresentativeTom Boone RepresentativeJack Brown RepresentativePete Rios RepresentativeSteve Yarbrough RepresentativeJim Weiers(ex-officio)

Jennie Snedecor John Ward

Copies of the Auditor Generals reports are free. You may request them by contacting us at: Office of the Auditor General 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410  Phoenix, AZ 85018  [phone] Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at: www.azauditor.gov

 

WILLIAM THOMSON DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL

  STATE OF ARIZONA  DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CP OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL AUDITOR G   LARENE  August 22, 2007   Members of the Arizona Legislature  The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor  Governing Board Chandler Unified School District  Dr. Camille Casteel, Superintendent Chandler Unified School District  Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General,A Performance Audit of the Chandler Unified School Districtconducted pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1279.03. I am also transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience.  As outlined in its response, the District agrees with the findings and recommendations.  My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.  This report will be released to the public on August 23, 2007.   Sincerely,       

Debbie Davenport Auditor General

2910 NORTH 44 th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

SUMMARY

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Chandler Unified School District pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1279.03(A)(9). This performance audit examines six aspects of the Districts operations: administration, student transportation, plant operation and maintenance, expenditures of sales taxes received under Proposition 301, the accuracy of district records used to calculate the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom, and the Districts English Language Learner programs.

Administration (see pages 5 through 10)

The Districts administrative costs were similar to comparable districts. However, because the District spent less per student overall, its administrative costs made up a slightly larger portion of its current expenditures. The District spent 8.6 percent of its total current dollars on administration, less than the state average of 9.4 percent, but higher than the comparison districts average of 8.1 percent. The District did not adequately manage its credit card and cell phone usage. The District had nearly 500 active American Express credit cards (also referred to as procurement cards, or p-cards), about 1 card for every six employees. District employees made over 9,500 purchases totaling more than $2.3 million dollars using these cards in fiscal year 2006. The Districts review of these purchases was not adequate to ensure that purchases were always appropriate, in compliance with district policies, and that all applicable discounts were received. Additionally, the District provided cell phones to more than 100 district employees. These employees paid 20 percent of their selected monthly rate plan and were responsible for any additional charges beyond the monthly plan amount. For fiscal year 2006, auditors estimated that employees owed $26,697 for their portion of these costs; however, the District collected only $10,666.

Office of theAuditor General page i

State ofArizona page ii

Student transportation (see pages 11 through 15)

The District spent less per mile and per rider transporting its students than comparable districts did. However, the District still spent $2 million more on transportation than it received in transportation funding. Therefore, it is important that the Districts program is cost efficient. Specifically, the District had high fuel costs, did not maintain adequate control over its fuel cards, did not ensure that driver safety requirements were met, and did not establish and monitor transportation performance measures to help improve the programs efficiency. The Districts fuel costs were 11 percent higher than comparable districts. This higher cost appears partly due to the Districts not maintaining its own fuel pumps. Also, the Districts lack of adequate controls over fuel cards made them susceptible to fraudulent fuel purchases. Further, the District did not ensure that all of its drivers had current drug tests, refresher trainings, and CPR and first aid certifications, as required by the Department of Public SafetysMinimum Standards.

Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 17 through 20)

The Districts total plant costs were lower than comparable districts primarily because it maintained 19 percent less square footage per pupil, and partly because of its energy conservation efforts and resulting lower utility costs. As a result, it was able to spend a lower percentage of its current dollars on plant operations and maintenance. However, the Districts plant costs per square foot were higher than comparable districts, mostly due to higher salaries and benefits. If the District had the same square footage as the comparable districts average, its plant costs would have been $4.6 million higher. Therefore, as the District opens new schools and increases its square footage, it will need to further analyze its plant costs to identify ways to reduce its cost per square foot.

Proposition 301 monies (see pages 21 through 24)

In November 2000, voters passed Proposition 301, which increased the state-wide sales tax to provide additional resources for education programs. The District did not spend all of its Proposition 301 monies in accordance with statute. About one-fourth of the performance pay portion of Proposition 301 monies, more than $800,000, was used to increase eligible employees base salaries. However, this was not included in the fiscal year 2006 performance pay plan the Governing Board approved. Employees also received performance pay for activities that were already

contractually required and occurred during normal contracted hours. In addition, the District spent $56,000 of its menu option monies for costs that were not directly related to an allowable option. Finally, the District did not retain many of the school- level allocation plans for using menu option monies and did not always retain documentation necessary to show that employees receiving pay for performance had met the performance requirements.

Classroom dollars (see pages 25 through 27)

Statute requires the Auditor General to determine the percentage of every dollar Arizona school districts spend in the classroom. Because of this requirement, auditors reviewed the Districts recording of classroom and other expenditures to determine their accuracy. After adjusting approximately $7.9 million of the Districts $185 million in total current expenditures for accounting errors, the Districts classroom dollar percentage decreased from 63.7 percent to 61.1 percent. This revised percentage remains well above the state average of 58.3 percent, matches the comparable districts average of 61.1 percent, and is close to the national average of 61.5 percent. The District spent $5,846 per pupil, $493 less than the comparable districts average and $987 less than the state average. The District received and spent fewer dollars per pupil primarily because a larger percentage of its student population was elementary students, who receive less funding than high school students under the state funding formula. Additionally, the District received less funding for excess utilities and budget overrides, and did not receive desegregation monies.

English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding (see pages 29 through 34)

Statute requires the Auditor General to review school district compliance with English Language Learner (ELL) requirements. In fiscal year 2006, the District identified approximately 8 percent of its students as English Language Learners and provided instruction for them in several different types of programs, including mainstream, Structured English Immersion, and Compensatory Instruction components. In compliance with statute, the District tested students with a primary home language other than English to identify ELL students and provided them language instruction. The District accounted for its ELL costs separately, but did not identify the incremental portion of those coststhat is, only the portion that is in addition to the cost of teaching students who are fluent in Englishand also included some costs that were not ELL-related. Based on its accounting records, the District likely received adequate funding to cover its fiscal year 2006 incremental ELL costs.

Office of theAuditor General page iii

ap

State

ge

iv

of

Arizona

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction & Background Chapter 1: Administration What are administrative costs? Administrative costs were similar to comparable districts Inadequate oversight of credit card and cell phone usage Recommendations

Chapter 2: Student transportation Background Transportation costs were lower overall than comparable districts, but fuel costs were high Driver safety and route efficiency can be improved Performance measures were not established and monitored Recommendations

Chapter 3: Plant operation and maintenance Total plant costs lower than comparable districts, but improvements can be made Recommendation

1 5 5 5 6 9

11 11 12 14 15 15

17 17 20

continued

Office of theAuditor General page v

continued

State ofArizona page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 4: Proposition 301 monies Background Expenditures totaling about $860,000 did not comply with statute Proposition 301 records were incomplete Recommendations

Chapter 5: Classroom dollars The District did not accurately report its fiscal year 2006 costs, but had a high classroom dollar percentage The District had lower per-pupil spending than the comparable districts and state averages Recommendation

Chapter 6: English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding Background Types of ELL Programs in Arizona Districts ELL Program Districts ELL funding and costs Recommendations

District Response

21 21 22 24 24

25 25 26 27

29 29 30 31 33 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables: 1 Total and Per-Pupil Administrative Cost Comparison Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 2 District Staffing Level Comparison Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 3 Students Transported, Route Mileage, and Costs Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 4 Plant Costs and Square Footage Comparison Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 5 Comparison of Utility Costs Per Square Foot Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 6 Comparison of Per-Square-Foot Plant Costs by Category Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited) 7 Comparison of Expenditure Percentages and Per-Pupil Expenditures by Function Fiscal Year 2006 (Unaudited)

Figure: 1 ELL Requirements for School Districts and Charter Schools House Bill 2064 Provisions

6

7 13 18 19 20

27

31

concluded

Office of theAuditor General page vii

pa

State

eg

viii

of

Arizona