|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Somerton Elementary 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 Learners (ELL) program.
Administration (see pages 5 through 9)
In fiscal year 2006, Somerton ESD’s administrative costs per
pupil were 51 percent higher than those of other districts with a similar number
of students. The higher costs were primarily due to having more administrative
positions. Some of the additional positions are related to the District’s
decision to operate smaller schools and to administer more federal and state
grants. However, some of the additional staffing appears excessive relative to
comparable districts’ staffing levels. Further, the District did not establish
adequate access controls to safeguard its accounting system and needs to improve
its purchasing procedures to ensure all purchases are properly approved.
Student transportation (see pages 11 through 13)
The District’s transportation costs per mile were 11 percent
higher than the comparable districts’ costs. This contributed to Somerton ESD’s
spending more on student transportation than it received in related revenues,
subsidizing its program by approximately $116,000 in fiscal year 2006. The
District may be able to reduce costs by making its routes more efficient and by
limiting the amount of nondriving time for which it pays bus drivers. Further,
the District should establish and monitor performance measures, such as cost per
mile and cost per rider, to better manage its transportation program.
Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 15 through 19)
In fiscal year 2006, Somerton ESD spent 38 percent more per
square foot on plant operation and maintenance costs than comparable districts.
The District had higher salary and benefits costs because it had more plant
employees than the comparable districts’ average. Further, the District had
higher communications and electricity costs. Communications costs were higher
because the District pays significantly more for data and voice communication
lines because of the District’s location and to support a large number of
telephones and computers. The District provides a telephone for each classroom
and an extension for most employees. Further, while the state standard is one
computer for every eight students, the District reported maintaining one for
every five students. The District is able to provide these additional
communication lines because it qualifies for a program that reimburses 90
percent of these costs. The District also provided cell phones for 34 employees
while the comparable districts reported little or no cell phone costs. Finally,
the District’s electricity costs were 45 percent higher per square foot than the
comparable districts’, which appeared to result from higher usage. The
District’s significant use of its facilities during nonschool hours by both
students and nonstudent groups, such as for adult education purposes, likely
contributed to this higher usage.
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
purposes. Somerton ESD spent its Proposition 301 monies for purposes authorized
by statute. However, the majority of its performance pay goals did not promote
improved performance since they were based on activities already expected of
employees. Further, performance pay was awarded to some employees not meeting
the stated goals, and documentation was not maintained for some awards.
Classroom dollars (see pages 25 through 28)
Statute requires the Auditor General to determine the
percentage of every dollar Arizona school districts spend in the classroom.
Therefore, auditors reviewed the District’s recording of classroom and other
expenditures to determine their accuracy. Generally, the District correctly
classified its fiscal year 2006 transactions in accordance with the Uniform
Chart of Accounts for school districts. Relatively minor accounting errors
decreased the District’s fiscal year 2006 classroom dollar percentage to 50
percent, which is 8.3 points below the state average for the same fiscal year.
In fiscal year 2006, the District spent $7,006 per student, which was higher
than both the comparable districts’ and state averages. The District had
additional resources available from federal and state grants because a large
proportion of its students were migrant, English language learners, or were
living at or below the poverty level. Despite its higher overall spending, the
District’s classroom dollar percentage remained low because the District also
spent proportionately more of its resources on administration, plant operations,
food service operations, and support services.
English Language Learners programs, costs, and funding
(see pages 29 through 35)
Statute requires the Auditor General to review school
district compliance with English Language Learner (ELL) requirements. In fiscal
year 2006, Somerton ESD identified approximately 66 percent of its students as
English Language Learners, one of the highest percentages reported by any
district in the State. The District provided instruction for ELLs in Mainstream
and Structured English Immersion (SEI) programs. However, the District will need
to substantially change its program to meet state standards. District officials
stated that they are currently working to develop a program in line with the
state requirements and plan to implement the changes in the 2008-2009 school
year.
District officials were unaware of the new accounting
requirements that took effect at the beginning of fiscal year 2007 requiring
districts to identify and report ELL incremental costs. As a result, Somerton
ESD did not separately account for ELL-related costs, and these costs could not
be determined from the District’s records.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
