Recommendations

Bellflower Unified School District Has Not Used Its Significant Financial Resources to Fully Address Student Needs June 2022 REPORT 2021-108 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento | CA | 95814 916.445.0255 | TTY 916.445.0033 For complaints of state employee misconduct, contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline: 1.800.952.5665 Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at auditor.ca.gov For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Public Affairs Office at 916.445.0255 This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports Michael S. Tilden Acting State Auditor June 23, 2022 2021-108 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: Located in Los Angeles County, the Bellflower Unified School District (Bellflower) has amassed a significant financial reserve—as much as $83 million in fiscal year 2020–21, which far exceeds the minimum amount the State requires. Bellflower consistently has not spent the amount it and its Board of Education (board) had determined was necessary to provide services to its students. Over the last six years, Bellflower could have used some of its available funding to address students’ needs and ensure that it consistently and adequately provided special education services to its students with disabilities. The imbalance between budgeted and actual spending results, in part, because the district has not clearly communicated its actual spending and available funding to the board, which has reduced the board’s ability to provide effective leadership and oversight. Meanwhile, Bellflower’s students’ math test scores on statewide assessments were below average, and although Bellflower’s graduation rate was higher than the state average, many graduating students were not prepared for college or careers. Bellflower also has not consistently provided required services and support to students with disabilities. According to decisions the Office of Administrative Hearings issued, Bellflower did not assess students who demonstrated indicators of need or did not provide the services that students’ Individualized Education Programs called for. By not providing these mandated services, the district deprived students of their rights to access equal education. Finally, the district did not always comply with laws intended to ensure transparency, such as not responding to requests for public records and not consistently complying with open meeting laws. To address these concerns, we made several recommendations to improve Bellflower’s processes. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA Acting California State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916.445.0255 | 916.327.0019 fax | www.auditor.ca.gov iv California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report CPA certified public accountant FCMAT Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team GFOA Government Finance Officers Association IEP Individualized Education Programs LCAP local control and accountability plan LCFF local control funding formula California State Auditor Report 2021-108 v June 2022 Contents Summary 1 Recommendations 3 Introduction 7 Audit Results Bellflower Has Not Presented Accurate Financial Information, Which Hindered Its Board’s Efforts to Address Student Needs 15 Bellflower Has Not Consistently Provided Required Services and Support to Students With Disabilities 23 During the Pandemic, Bellflower Did Not Adequately Mitigate Disruptions to Its Students’ Education 28 Bellflower Has Frequently Not Complied With Laws Intended to Ensure Public Transparency 33 Other Area We Reviewed 42 Appendix Scope and Methodology 43 Response to the Audit Bellflower Unified School District 45 California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the Bellflower Unified School District 71 vi California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 1 June 2022 Summary Audit Highlights . . . Results in Brief Our audit of the Bellflower Unified School District highlighted the following: Located in Los Angeles County, the Bellflower Unified School District (Bellflower) is overseen by a five‑member Board of » Bellflower has not clearly communicated its Education (board). The board selects a district superintendent financial position, which limits its board’s ability and together they set the district’s direction and ensure its to see that the district has spent less than it accountability to the public. Although Bellflower has had a budgeted to meet student needs. 15 percent decline in student enrollment since fiscal year 2015–16, its annual general fund revenue has generally remained steady. • Its financial reserves have grown to Nonetheless, Bellflower has consistently spent less than the $83 million, which is significantly higher than amounts that its board has approved in its annual budget to meet the minimum amount the State requires. the needs of its students. Further, the district’s reports to its board and the public have understated its growing financial reserves, » The district has not consistently provided mandated which—at $83 million in fiscal year 2020–21—are significantly services to students with disabilities. larger than the minimum amount that the State requires. • Administrative Hearings’ decisions on formal Bellflower has not clearly communicated its actual financial complaints show that Bellflower had not position and spending to its board, limiting the board’s ability to assessed students and had not provided the provide effective oversight and ensure that the district is meeting services and updates called for in students’ IEPs. the needs of its students. Bellflower spent from 9 percent to 31 percent less than it budgeted in each of the last six fiscal years. » Bellflower did not adequately mitigate disruptions In other words, it repeatedly did not spend what it and its board to students’ education during the pandemic. had determined was necessary to provide the services its students required. Bellflower stated that it has used a conservative approach • The district did not directly communicate with toward budgeting and spending to prepare for worst‑case scenarios. its students’ families about distance learning However, we are concerned that its current students may not be until late July 2020. receiving services they need under this approach. For example, Bellflower’s students’ scores on the most recent available statewide » The district has not consistently complied with math tests were below California’s average. Further, the California transparency laws. Department of Education (Education) website indicated that only 39 percent of Bellflower’s graduating students were prepared for • Bellflower did not always respond to public college or careers in fiscal year 2018–19. records requests as it was required to do, nor did it respond thoroughly and in a timely manner. Moreover, Bellflower has not consistently provided required services and support to students with disabilities. An indicator • It limited transparency and the public’s of this inconsistent support is the substantiated complaints that opportunity to address the board when it did parents have made about Bellflower. When a student’s parents or not disclose required information about its guardians are unable to resolve issues related to special education closed sessions. with a school district, they can file a complaint that may be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (Administrative Hearings) in the Department of General Services. Administrative Hearings decided 15 cases involving complaints with Bellflower in the past five years—a disproportionally high number compared to other school districts that serve more students with disabilities. In 14 of the 15 complaints involving Bellflower, Administrative Hearings ruled that the district did not comply with one or more areas of special education law. Specifically, Administrative Hearings 2 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 determined that Bellflower did not change services or make accommodations for students who were struggling to access their education, did not include measurable goals in students’ special education programs, or did not perform evaluations to determine whether students required special education services when it had evidence that such evaluations were warranted. Education also found instances of noncompliance when it investigated complaints that Bellflower had violated special education laws. Bellflower also did not adequately mitigate disruptions to education caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic. After closing its schools for in‑person instruction beginning in March 2020, the district did not directly communicate with its students’ families about distance learning until four months later, in late July 2020. Further, it did not take steps to adequately mitigate learning loss for English learners, foster youth, students who were experiencing homelessness, and students receiving special education services. For example, many parents who are not fluent in English expressed frustration during the school closures that they were unable to help their children learn because the district had not translated their children’s assignments and education platforms. Finally, Bellflower has not always complied with state laws that require transparency and has missed opportunities to improve its communication with the public. For example, the district did not respond to three of the 10 requests for public records we reviewed that it received in 2021, which is a violation of the California Public Records Act (Public Records Act). With four of the remaining seven requests, the district did not respond within the required time frame, did not adequately fulfill the public records request as required, or both. Bellflower also limited transparency and the public’s opportunity to address the board on closed session meeting topics when it did not comply with requirements to disclose certain information about its closed sessions. Moreover, the district did not always indicate where members of the public could review key planning documents before scheduled public meetings, which it must do according to state law. When the district is not transparent, it limits the public’s ability to participate in its decision making and provide informed feedback on its plans to improve student performance and increase student success. Agency Comments Although the district disagreed with some of our conclusions, it agreed to work with its board to discuss our recommendations and formulate action plans for continued improvement. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 3 June 2022 Recommendations The following are the recommendations we made as a result of our audit. Descriptions of the findings and conclusions that led to these recommendations can be found in the Audit Results section of this report. To ensure that it provides its board with an accurate accounting of its available funds, Bellflower should improve its budgeting practices by December 2022. Specifically, the district should evaluate its spending to date every month and more accurately estimate the planned expenditures it includes in its budgets. To ensure that its board has a clear understanding of the district’s financial position and of the unassigned funds available for programs and services for students, Bellflower should, by August 2022, revise its process for presenting its budget to the board for approval. The revised process should require district staff to present a financial overview that compares year‑to‑date budget amounts to year‑to‑date actual spending amounts. To increase transparency, the board should, by August 2022, adopt a policy for Bellflower to have its financial auditor present the district’s annual audited financial statements at a board meeting, along with an explanation of the district’s financial health. Further the policy should also require the financial auditor to present the budget‑to‑actual comparison from the district’s audit report and require district staff to explain variances. To ensure that Bellflower is not underinvesting in its current students, the board should adopt a general fund reserve policy by August 2022 that establishes a healthy but reasonable reserve amount (target reserve) for the district. It should require Bellflower’s staff to use the target reserve when determining funding available for the services the district provides, and staff should ensure that the budget presents any actions necessary to maintain the target reserve. To ensure that it is providing consistent and adequate services to its students with disabilities, Bellflower should review all its current Individual Education Programs (IEPs) before December 2022. As part of its review, the district should validate that student IEPs comply with legal requirements and that it is providing the services listed on the IEPs. In the future, the district should, as part of its annual review of IEPs, ensure that the IEPs comply with legal requirements and that it is providing the services listed on the IEPs. Bellflower should also take steps to ensure that it has a robust process for identifying students who may have a disability and to appropriately and promptly evaluate those students. 4 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 To ensure that it provides consistent and adequate services to all students with disabilities, by October 2022 Bellflower should develop a process to review any instances of noncompliance that either Administrative Hearings or Education identifies, determine the reason for that noncompliance, and establish protocols to address similar problems in the future. To ensure that Bellflower is prepared in the event of school closures in the future, by October 2022 Bellflower should amend its contingency plan to define roles and responsibilities for district staff, including identifying staff who will be responsible for communicating about school closures and distance learning as well as how those communications will be disseminated. Additionally, Bellflower should include in its contingency plan the district’s method for ensuring that it provides equitable access to distance learning for English learners, foster youth and youth experiencing homelessness, and students receiving special education services. To ensure that it complies with the Public Records Act, Bellflower should do the following by August 2022: • Respond appropriately, including redacting confidential information as authorized or required by state law, to the requests we identified in which the district did not provide all the requested documents. • Require that staff involved in responding to requests receive Public Records Act training. • Develop formal detailed procedures to ensure that staff track and respond to all requests for records in full compliance with the Public Records Act. • Establish policy and procedures to retain accurate records and supporting documentation to demonstrate its full compliance with all requirements of the Public Records Act. To ensure that its board meetings comply with all Ralph M. Brown Act requirements, Bellflower should do the following by August 2022: • Establish a process to verify that its board meeting agendas include an accurate listing of all closed session topics the board expects to discuss, including required descriptions. • Offer the opportunity for members of the public to directly address the board before or during consideration of each action item on the agenda and ensure that meeting minutes reflect the comments received. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 5 June 2022 To ensure compliance with state laws and to improve transparency and communication with the public, Bellflower should do the following by August 2022: • Before all board meetings, provide the board and the public with the same documentation, such as detailed reports of expenditures and full information on budget revisions, except to the extent such information is confidential and exempt from public disclosure by state law. • Include its local control and accountability plan and achievement plans as part of the agenda that it posts online for any board meetings in which it intends to discuss the plans. 6 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 7 June 2022 Introduction Background The Bellflower Unified School District (Bellflower) is located in south Los Angeles County and operates 10 elementary schools, two high schools (both grades seven through 12), one continuation high school, one home education academy, and one community day school. Bellflower’s Board of Education (board) consists of five members who are elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district and to ensure that the district is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. The board selects a superintendent to oversee the district’s day‑to‑day operations. Together, the board and superintendent work to set the direction for the district, establish its organizational structure, and ensure its accountability to the public. Bellflower’s student enrollment for fiscal year 2020–21 was 10,700, a decline of 15 percent Bellflower’s Student Population from fiscal year 2015–16. The text box provides information about the students Bellflower serves. Bellflower enrolled 10,700 students in fiscal year 2020–21. As Figure 1 shows, state and county enrollments • More than 70 percent, or 7,700 students, were eligible for also fell during this period, albeit by smaller free or reduced-price meals. percentages. News media sources have reported • About 17 percent, or 1,800 students, were designated concerns recently regarding declining enrollment English language learners. across the State, including declines of more than 15 percent at some school districts, which has • About 15 percent, or 1,600 students, had disabilities. spurred the Governor and the Legislature to Source: California Department of Education. consider changing how the State funds education to mitigate fiscal impacts of declining enrollment. However, as of this report, no changes to the state funding process have been made. [Insert Figure 1] Bellflower’s Revenue and Expenditures Despite Bellflower’s declining enrollment, its general fund revenue has generally remained steady during the last six fiscal years. As Figure 2 shows, the district’s primary source of funding is the State’s local control funding formula (LCFF), which represents roughly 80 percent of its general fund revenue. Under LCFF, school districts receive base funding that they can use for any local educational purpose, as well as additional amounts (known as supplemental and concentration funds) based on the proportionate numbers of students they serve who are English learners, youth in foster care, and youth from households with low incomes. The district’s total general fund revenue increased from $144 million in fiscal year 2015–16 to $166 million in fiscal year 2020–21. However, this increase was largely the result of the district’s receipt of $17 million in funds related to the COVID‑19 pandemic (pandemic), as we discuss below. [Insert Figure 2] 8 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Figure 1 Bellflower’s Enrollment Has Dropped Each Year Since Fiscal Year 2015–16 1 0% -1 -2 All California students -3 Los Angeles County students -4 -5 Bellflower students -6 -7 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 For fiscal year 2020–21, Bellflower had $142 million in general fund expenditures. Of this amount, $113 million, or 80 percent, was for employee [Insert Figure 3] salaries and benefits. Figure 3 shows the categories of expenditures. In March 2020, the Governor declared an emergency because of the pandemic. The federal government and the California Legislature passed several laws to provide monetary relief to school districts. These laws allocated $67 million in pandemic‑related funding to Bellflower. As we indicate above, it received $17 million in fiscal year 2020–21, of which it spent about $12 million during that year. We discuss the district’s use of these funds in the Audit Results. Oversight of California’s School Districts In fiscal year 2013–14, when they implemented the LCFF process to apportion funding to school districts, California lawmakers also shifted responsibility for school district accountability from the State to local stakeholders and board members. The LCFF process requires each school district to develop and annually update a local control and accountability plan (LCAP) that describes the district’s annual goals, services, and expenditures to address state and local priorities. A key requirement each district must follow when it develops its LCAP is gathering input from the public through parent advisory committees as well as parents, students, teachers, principals, administrators, school personnel, and the local community. Essentially, the public provides oversight of the school district by reviewing and giving input on the district’s draft LCAP, while the district is accountable to both the public and its board for carrying out the actions in the LCAP. tnemllornE ni egnahC egatnecreP launnA Fiscal Year Source: Enrollment data from Education. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 9 June 2022 Figure 2 Bellflower Receives Most of Its General Fund Revenue Through LCFF $180 160 140 Pandemic-related funds Other funding sources 120 LCFF 100 80 60 40 20 0 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 In addition to the public, the California Department of Education (Education) and county superintendents each play a role in overseeing school districts. Education collects and reports student data, such as enrollment information; provides accountability through annual updates to the California School Dashboard (dashboard), a tool that reflects how districts are performing in various priority areas defined in law; and conducts compliance monitoring to ensure that districts spend funding in accordance with the law. It is also responsible for investigating and resolving special education complaints it receives related to districts. Consistent with federal law, Education has established two complaint processes: one that is internal through Education and one that functions through an agreement with the Office of Administrative Hearings (Administrative Hearings), an independent office housed within the Department of General Services (General Services). Figure 4 describes these two separate complaint processes. [Insert Figure 4] )snoillim ni( tnuomA Fiscal Year Source: Bellflower’s audited financial statements and accounting records for fiscal years 2015–16 through 2020–21. 10 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Figure 3 Bellflower’s Major General Fund Expenditure Categories Include Employee Salaries and Benefits, Books and Supplies, Special Education, and Operations Employee Salaries and Benefits: $113 million (80%) Other Expenditures Operations: Computer/Technology $4.9 million (17%) Related Services: Special Education $3 million (10%) Services: $5.4 million (19%) Contracted Education Services: $2.8 million (10%) Books and Supplies: $7.5 million (26%) Capital Outlay: $1.5 million (5%) Transportation Services: $1.5 million (5%) Administration and Other: $1.1 million (4%) Legal: $1 million (4%) Source: Bellflower’s accounting records for fiscal year 2020–21. County superintendents review and approve school districts’ budgets and LCAPs. In Los Angeles County, the superintendent is supported by the staff at the County Office of Education. County superintendents may provide recommended amendments to the LCAPs; however, they have no role in ensuring that school districts implement the approved LCAPs. In addition, county offices are generally responsible for processing their school districts’ expenditures, including determining whether the districts have properly authorized the expenditures and assigned them to the correct fund. For example, a county office determines whether a district has the funds available to cover the total amount of its payroll and has used the correct funding sources based on each employee’s position. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 11 June 2022 Figure 4 Education Is Responsible for Two Special Education Complaint Processes EDUCATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS' COMPLAINT PROCESS COMPLAINT PROCESS Education receives a written complaint that a district Administrative Hearings receives a complaint from a may have violated special education law or regulation. family or district when they disagree about special education requirements. Education screens the complaint to ensure that all necessary information is included and, if not, it If the parties agree to mediation, contacts the complainant to obtain the missing the complaint goes to mediation. information. Once it receives all the information, it assigns an investigator to the complaint. If mediation is unsuccessful, or if the parties do not agree to mediation, the complaint goes to a due Education notifies the complainant and the district process hearing, where an administrative law judge that it is investigating the allegation(s). oversees a trial-like process to determine the outcome of the complaint. Education’s investigator requests the district to respond to the complaint by providing After hearing witness statements and seeing documentation addressing the allegation(s). accepted documented evidence, the administrative law judge determines whether the district met special education requirements. The investigator completes the investigation, including reviewing documents, interviewing relevant parties, and If a party disagrees with the decision, the party may making school site visits if necessary. file an appeal in a state or federal court. The investigator determines whether the district has violated special education law and completes a written report, which Education mails to the involved parties within 60 days of receiving the complete complaint request. Source: Websites of Education and General Services. 12 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Finally, all California school districts have access to the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist K–14 educational agencies in identifying, preventing, and resolving financial, operational, and data management challenges. FCMAT provides services to help avert fiscal crisis but also to promote sound financial practices, create efficient organizational operations, and train and develop high‑level business staff. In most cases, school districts or county offices ask FCMAT for help. In addition, the State’s fiscal year 2018–19 budget authorized additional funding for FCMAT to provide more proactive and preventive services to fiscally distressed school districts. As a result, FCMAT identified situations in which it would engage school districts or county offices, such as when a county office designates a school district as a lack of going concern—a designation that county superintendents can apply to a school district if they believe the school district may be unable to meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years. Oversight of Fiscally Independent School Districts State law allows a school district to bypass county office oversight of most of its expenditures, other than debt service, if the state superintendent of public instruction (state superintendent) grants that district fiscal independence. Fiscally independent districts are authorized to issue their own payments for expenses rather than being dependent on county offices to provide oversight and make payments. Figure 5 shows the process through which a school district may become fiscally independent. FCMAT conducted a survey of county offices in February 2020 and determined that only 10 school districts in California were fiscally independent. This number does not include Bellflower, whose continued status as a [Insert Figure 5] fiscally independent school district is a matter of ongoing litigation. The state superintendent granted Bellflower fiscal independence effective July 1, 2016. However, in June 2019, the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LA County Office) recommended that the state superintendent revoke Bellflower’s fiscal independence. In its recommendation to the state superintendent, the LA County Office cited its staff’s findings regarding Bellflower’s cash reconciliation and budget assumptions, financial control weaknesses that a third‑party accounting firm had identified, and findings from Bellflower’s annual financial audit report. The state superintendent agreed with the LA County Office’s recommendation and revoked Bellflower’s fiscal independence effective July 1, 2019. However, Bellflower did not agree or comply with the revocation and has continued to operate as a fiscally independent district. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 13 June 2022 Figure 5 Only the State Superintendent Can Grant Fiscal Independence A school district that wishes to become fiscally independent files a written application with the county superintendent. Once the county superintendent receives the application, state law requires the county superintendent to hire a certified public accountant (CPA) or public accountant to review the district’s accounting controls. The CPA or public accountant reports findings and recommendations to the county superintendent, county auditor, and the district applying for fiscal independence. The county superintendent forwards the district’s application, along with its recommendations, the recommendations of the county auditor, and the CPA or public accountant report on accounting controls to the state superintendent for approval or disapproval. The state superintendent will approve the application if he or she finds that the accounting controls are adequate. If the state superintendent finds the accounting controls are not adequate, he or she will not approve the application. Source: State law. In early June 2020, the LA County Office filed a lawsuit to compel Bellflower to comply with the state superintendent’s revocation of its fiscal independence, a matter that was pending at the time of our audit. In mid‑September 2020, the LA County Office used its authority under state law to designate Bellflower as a lack of going concern. In the written notice to Bellflower, the LA County Office stated that the district had ignored the state superintendent’s revocation order, refused to comply with its directives related to oversight, and denied it access to its fiscal records. Bellflower disagreed with and appealed to Education about the lack of going 14 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 concern designation in September 2020 and Education denied the district’s appeal. Bellflower filed a lawsuit in early November 2020 asking the court to direct the LA County Office and the state superintendent to desist from claiming that it might be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current fiscal year. The two lawsuits have been consolidated and are currently awaiting trial. Because the revocation process is a pending legal matter, we did not review this as part of the audit. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 15 June 2022 Audit Results Bellflower Has Not Presented Accurate Financial Information, Which Hindered Its Board’s Efforts to Address Student Needs Since fiscal year 2015–16, Bellflower has consistently spent less than it budgeted each year to provide services to its students. The district overstated its expenditures in its budgets and interim financial reports to the board and the public, limiting the ability of both to assess its actual spending. Because Bellflower has spent less than budgeted, its unassigned general fund balance—the amount of money it has available to spend on any activity—has grown considerably, reaching $83 million by the end of fiscal year 2020–21. In fact, Bellflower’s current reserve is 42 percent of its total expenditures— significantly higher than the 3 percent minimum amount that state law requires. Neither underspending nor a growing fund balance are inherently problematic. However, Bellflower’s failure to clearly communicate its true financial position to its board has limited the board’s ability to provide effective oversight and to ensure that the district is meeting the needs of its students. In fact, Bellflower’s students have struggled on some indicators of academic performance, suggesting that the district should devote at least part of its unassigned general fund to providing additional resources and services. Bellflower’s underspending and growing general fund balance will be difficult for the board to address until the district begins presenting it and the public with clear and accurate information about its financial position. Through Its Budgets and Financial Reports, Bellflower Has Frequently Misrepresented Its Spending to the Board and the Public Bellflower’s annual budget represents the collective efforts of the district, its board, and its residents to determine the expenditures necessary to meet the needs of its students given the district’s available funding. Each year, Bellflower develops a budget that identifies its proposed general fund expenditures and estimated revenue for the next fiscal year, together with its estimated actual expenditures and revenue for the current fiscal year. State law requires each school district to present its proposed budget at a public meeting and to identify the expenditures necessary to implement its LCAP. It also requires each school district to obtain its board’s approval of its budget. These processes are intended to ensure that a district’s spending reflects the needs of its students within the constraints of available funding. 16 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Nonetheless, in each year since fiscal year 2015–16, Bellflower has spent less on providing services to its students than the amount its board approved in its annual budget. Figure 6 shows the levels of spending compared to the final approved budget amounts during the past six fiscal years. In the first four of these years, the district spent roughly 9 percent less than it had budgeted to meet the needs of its students, while in fiscal years 2019–20 and 2020–21, that gap rose to 16 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Although Bellflower received $17 million in fiscal year 2020–21 for pandemic relief and spent $12 million of those funds, the district’s underspending of pandemic relief funds was 8 percent of the spending gap during that fiscal year. Moreover, Bellflower consistently underspent in categories that directly impact students, such as books and supplies, and salaries and benefits for teachers. Underspending its budgeted amounts so consistently and in such important categories raises questions about how well the district is meeting its commitments to [Insert Figure 6] its students. Further, Bellflower provided overstated expenditure information to its board regarding its actual spending need throughout the fiscal year. Each June district staff present—and the board approves—a budget before the next fiscal year starts, which the district refers to as its original budget. Then, during the year, the district adjusts its budgeted revenue and expenditures as more information becomes available, ultimately yielding a budget that it refers to as the final budget. However, despite increasing its planned spending during the fiscal year, the district has rarely spent the increased Figure 6 Bellflower Spent Less Than It Budgeted During Fiscal Years 2015–16 Through 2020–21 $250 $206 Final budget expenditures 200 $169 $168 $149 $151 $149 150 $157 Final actual expenditures $133 $135 $138 $141 $142 100 Examples of the amounts budgeted and not spent: • $31 million for books and supplies 50 • $28 million for salaries and benefits for teachers 0 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 )snoillim ni( tnuomA Fiscal Year Source: Bellflower’s audited financial statements for fiscal years 2015–16 through 2020–21. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 17 June 2022 budgeted amounts, as Figure 7 shows. In fact, over the last six years, Bellflower increased its budgeted expenditures by a total of $128 million, $104 million of which it never spent. This pattern of obtaining budget authority for additional expenditures but never spending most of the increases is misleading. [Insert Figure 7] Figure 7 Although Bellflower Regularly Increased General Fund Budgeted Expenditures During the Fiscal Year, It Often Did Not Spend the Increases or Its Original Budget Amounts $210 200 190 180 Additions to budgeted expenditures 170 Original budgeted expenditures 160 150 Final actual expenditures 140 130 120 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21* )snoillim ni( tnuomA Fiscal Year Source: Bellflower’s budgets and audited financial statements for fiscal years 2015–16 through 2020–21. * Bellflower increased its budget in fiscal year 2020-21 because it received pandemic funding from the Learning Loss Mitigation Fund, Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant, and other sources, but its actual spending remained flat. Bellflower has also provided misleading interim financial reports to its board. State law requires that districts submit two interim reports to their governing bodies for approval during the year. These reports compare the status of their actual spending to the budgeted amounts and must include whether the district will be able to meet its financial obligations. All of Bellflower’s interim reports since December 2018—like all of its budgets during that same period—have shown projections of deficit spending and declining fund balances. However, the district’s actual revenue and expenditures are significantly different from its projections. For example, in its fiscal year 2018–19 interim report in December 2018, district staff projected that Bellflower’s deficit spending of $34 million would reduce its unassigned general fund balance to $29 million by the end of fiscal year 2020–21. However, the district’s projections of deficit spending were overly conservative, and actual spending resulted in a surplus that grew the unassigned general fund balance to $83 million. We discuss the district’s general fund balance in more detail below. 18 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Bellflower Has Amassed a Significant Unassigned General Fund Balance Select Fund Balance Classifications Restricted: Amounts that are restricted to specific purposes A school district’s total general fund balance either through externally imposed constraints by creditors, can contain funding that falls into a number of laws, or regulations or through constitutional provisions classifications, some of which we describe in or enabling legislation. For example, school districts must the text box. For instance, a district must use its spend special education funding for support and services restricted funds for the specific purposes for which for special education students. they were intended, such as providing students with Assigned: Amounts in a general fund that are intended food services and special education services. In to be used for a specific purpose. This intent is expressed contrast, a district can use its unassigned funds for by the entity itself or an official to whom the entity has any purpose that aligns with its mission and goals. delegated this authority. An entity can change this funding Largely because it has consistently underspent designation if needed. its budgeted amounts, Bellflower has amassed a Unassigned: The general fund balance that has not been significant unassigned general fund balance, as [Insert Figure 8] [Insert text box] assigned to the other classifications above. Figure 8 shows.1 Source: Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Since fiscal year 2015–16, the district’s planned expenditures and unassigned general fund balance have increased despite its steady revenue and falling enrollment. One of Bellflower’s justifications for significantly increasing its unassigned general fund balance is its belief that its state funding will be reduced because of its falling enrollment and that it will need its accumulated unassigned funds to maintain student services and to avoid having to cut student programs as it had to do in the past. However, we do not find Bellflower’s justification compelling: although its enrollment has fallen for the last six years, its unassigned general fund balance has increased by $39 million during this same period. Given that the district has not needed to use its general fund balance to compensate for a loss in revenue in recent years, we do not understand why it anticipates needing to do so in the near future. Moreover, the Governor and the Legislature are currently considering changing the State’s approach to funding education to mitigate the fiscal impacts of declining enrollment. Bellflower’s unassigned general fund balance exceeds both the minimum reserve amount that state law requires and the minimum amount that the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practice recommends. Under state law, school districts of Bellflower’s size must maintain a reserve of at least 3 percent of their total expenditures. However, Bellflower’s current reserve is 42 percent. The GFOA recommends that general purpose 1 The State and the federal government allocated Bellflower $67 million in COVID-19 relief funding, as indicated in the Introduction. However, the district has not yet received all of this funding and the amounts it has received do not impact its general fund unassigned balance because the funding is restricted and not unassigned. We discuss the status of the district’s spending of these funds later in the report. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 19 June 2022 Figure 8 Bellflower’s Unassigned General Fund Balance Is Growing and Has Consistently Exceeded Required and Recommended Minimum Levels $90 General fund unassigned fund balance 80 70 60 50 40 30 Two months of general fund expenditures 20 (GFOA recommendation) 10 Statutorily required minimum of 3 percent of expenditures 0 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 government entities maintain a general fund reserve of no less than two months—or 17 percent—of their general fund operating expenditures. Bellflower’s unassigned balance of $83 million represents over seven months of general fund expenditures or more than three times GFOA’s guidance. To inform its fiscal decision making, a district can adopt a reserve fund policy that establishes the ideal amount of funding it will maintain in its reserves, and GFOA recommends establishing a formal policy. However, Bellflower does not have such a policy. Bellflower’s problematic budgeting processes have hindered the board and the public from easily knowing that the district was accumulating a significant unassigned general fund balance. The original budgets )snoillim ni( stnuomA Fiscal Year Source: Bellflower’s audited financial statements for fiscal years 2015–16 through 2020–21, state law, and the GFOA. 20 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 that the district presented and the board approved showed deficit general fund spending—spending in which the district’s planned expenditures exceed its planned revenue, requiring it to spend its reserve funding—in three of the last six years. The final budgets showed planned deficit spending in all six years. However, the district’s expenditures exceeded its revenue only in fiscal year 2018–19, when it spent $3.2 million more than it received. Moreover, this year was an anomaly because Bellflower made a one‑time payment of $6 million to pay off the outstanding balance on debt it had issued previously. In each of the other five years, Bellflower’s general fund revenue exceeded its expenditures by an average of $13 million. In other words, the board approved budgets that should have lowered the district’s available unassigned general fund balance, and instead the district underspent those budgets and continued to accumulate unassigned funds. When the district presents its budget for an upcoming year, it has the opportunity to inform the board about the actual general fund balance. However, Bellflower has not presented its board with a clear picture of the district’s available funding. Instead, it has consistently overstated its current year estimated expenditures when projecting its year‑end financial position, which have not clearly shown that it was accumulating a significant and growing unassigned general fund balance. By doing so, it reduced its estimated year‑end general fund balance, making it appear to have Bellflower has understated its fewer resources than it had. The district then used this understated general fund beginning balance year‑end balance as its beginning balance for the next fiscal year’s to the board from $17 million to budget. Consequently, Bellflower has understated its general fund $24 million for each of the past beginning balance to the board from $17 million to $24 million for [Insert Figure 9] several years. each of the past several years, as Figure 9 shows. Finally, the district has mischaracterized its general fund balance. As part of its budget presentation to its board, the district provides its anticipated general fund balance with amounts broken down by classification. For example, in June 2018 Bellflower’s proposed budget estimated that the ending total general fund balance for fiscal year 2017–18 would drop to $54 million and that only $13 million was unassigned. However, not only was the projected general fund balance inaccurate but the description of the fund balance was also inaccurate. In fact, the district’s audited financial statements for fiscal year 2017–18 show that the general fund balance rose to $73 million, with an unassigned amount of $62 million—significantly more than $13 million. Although Bellflower’s budget for fiscal year 2021–22 did not show significant amounts as assigned, its past mischaracterizations likely contributed to the district amassing the growing unassigned general fund balance. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 21 June 2022 Figure 9 Bellflower Has Consistently Understated Its Unassigned General Fund Balance at the Beginning of Each Fiscal Year $90 80 Amount available but 70 not reported to the board 60 50 40 Beginning fund balance 30 reported to the board 20 10 0 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 Bellflower Did Not Provide Accurate Financial Information, Limiting Its Board’s Ability to Invest in Additional Services for Students When we asked Bellflower’s associate superintendent for business and personnel services (associate superintendent) about the district’s budgeting practices, she stated that its approach is to present the board with the worst‑case scenario. As a result, Bellflower’s projections for its remaining expenditures in June each year have been far off from reality. With little time left in the fiscal year, staff present an unlikely scenario: that it will spend significant amounts in the last few weeks of the year. For example, as part of the fiscal year 2020–21 budget presentation to its board in June 2020, the district projected that it would end fiscal year 2019–20 with general fund expenditures of $168 million, resulting in its expenditures exceeding its revenue by $15 million. However, the district’s actual expenditures for the fiscal year were just $141 million—$27 million less than this worst‑case scenario— and the district had a $9 million revenue surplus. Only presenting the worst‑case scenario provides a one‑sided view of the district’s finances to the board. )snoillim ni( tnuomA Fiscal Year Source: Bellflower’s annual budgets and audited financial statements for fiscal years 2015–16 through 2020–21. 22 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 By providing inaccurate information, the district has reduced the board’s ability to make informed decisions and provide effective leadership and oversight. District staff do not provide the board with year‑to‑date actual expenditures compared to its year‑to‑date budget when presenting the proposed budget and interim financial reports. Because this information is absent, the board is likely to remain unaware of Bellflower’s current actual financial position. The financial audit is the only document that provides an accurate picture of the district’s financial situation. Of the six years we reviewed, only in the most recent year did the district staff provide the board with a high‑level presentation of the fiscal year 2020–21 audited financial statements. Even so, although district staff accurately described the increase to the general fund balance and the year‑end balance in the general fund, it did not describe how these actual amounts were different from planned amounts presented in budgets and interim reports. Moreover, a best practice for public entities is to have the independent financial auditor present the audit report and a financial overview of the entity to give the board an independent view of the entity’s finances. Bellflower’s board would benefit from a similar practice—having the district’s independent auditor provide it a financial overview of the district—as well as requiring district staff to explain variances between the budgeted and actual amounts. We question why, in the absence of a formalized reserve policy that sets a maximum target reserve, Bellflower decided to grow its unassigned general fund balance rather than invest in its students. According to Education’s dashboard, which reports the results of annual standardized testing, Bellflower’s students’ most recent test scores from fiscal year 2018–19 were near the state average for English language arts but were 17 points below the state average for math, indicating that Bellflower’s students needed additional Bellflower could have used some assistance in math.2 Over the last six years, Bellflower could have of its available funding to close an used some of its available funding to provide its students with extra achievement gap. math teachers, tutors, and additional programs to try to close this achievement gap. For example, given that the average midrange teacher salary for fiscal year 2019–20 for districts of Bellflower’s size in California was $84,000, the district could have added a math teacher to each of its 10 elementary schools and both high schools for under $2 million per year instead of increasing its unassigned general fund balance to over $80 million. In addition to math instruction, Bellflower’s graduating students likely would have benefited from additional services over the past six years. Although Bellflower’s graduation rate in fiscal year 2018–19 2 According to Education’s dashboard, because of the pandemic, there are no testing results for fiscal year 2019–20, and testing participation for fiscal year 2020–21 varied. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 23 June 2022 was about 7 points higher than the state average, Education’s College and Career Indicator showed that only 39 percent of Bellflower’s graduating students were prepared for college or careers, which is lower than the statewide average of 44 percent. The district could have used its available funds to better ensure that its students were ready for their lives after high school. Further, as we discuss in the sections that follow, Bellflower has not consistently provided required services to its students with disabilities and did not fully mitigate the effects of the pandemic on student learning. We find it problematic that Bellflower has amassed a growing reserve when it is not meeting the needs of so many of its students. Bellflower Has Not Consistently Provided Required Services and Support to Students With Disabilities Bellflower lacks sufficient processes to ensure that it consistently provides mandated services and support to students with disabilities. Federal law requires states to have policies and procedures to identify students with disabilities that interfere with their ability to learn and to offer those students special education services through an Individualized Education Program (IEP) so that they can access a free, appropriate public education. State law has delegated this responsibility to school districts. Figure 10 explains the process through which school districts must identify and assist such students. As we describe in Figure 4, there are two complaint processes at the state level: one through Administrative Hearings for resolving disputes about special education requirements and one through Education for determining whether districts are complying with special education laws. We reviewed complaint determinations that Administrative Hearings and Education made over the last five years to assess whether Bellflower provided adequate and consistent services to students with disabilities. [Insert Figure 10] Over the past five years, Administrative Hearings has reached decisions on 15 complaints against Bellflower. As Figure 11 shows, Bellflower had about the same number of decisions issued by Administrative Hearings as school districts with much larger populations of students with disabilities. In fact, Bellflower accounted for 4 percent of all the decisions Administrative Hearings has issued since July 2016, even though the district represents just a fraction of a percentage of the 820,000 students with disabilities Administrative Hearings determined enrolled in California public schools. Moreover, Administrative that Bellflower failed to comply in one Hearings determined that Bellflower failed to comply in one or or more areas of special education more areas of special education law in 14 of the 15 complaints. law in 14 of 15 complaints. [Insert Figure 11] As Table 1 shows, Bellflower failed to conduct sufficient student assessments to determine whether the students required special education services in 11 of the complaints. Specifically, the district 24 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Figure 10 State Law Requires School Districts to Provide Certain Services to Students With Disabilities 1 State law requires school districts to identify and assess the disabilities of students and then create an IEP that will meet those students' assessed needs. 3 2 Using the evaluation(s), each eligible student's parents or guardian, teachers, and school district Once a student’s parents or guardian administrators (collectively referred to as an IEP team) consent to initial evaluation(s) to meet to create an IEP that describes the following: determine whether a disability affects the • how the disability affects the student's education student's ability to access an education, a district has 60 days to conduct the initial • the student's current educational needs evaluation(s) and hold an IEP meeting. • the special education and related services the district will provide the student • measurable annual goals to determine the student's progress 5 4 At least once annually, the IEP team must meet to do the following, After the IEP team has agreed among other activities: on the contents of the IEP, the • review the student's progress district must provide the special education and related • determine whether the student services to the students. is achieving the identified goals • determine whether the IEP needs revisions Source: State law. either waited for parents to request an evaluation or failed to conduct an evaluation despite having sufficient evidence that a student might be eligible for services. Administrative Hearings also found in four complaints that Bellflower did not conduct the required IEP meetings, and in eight complaints, Bellflower did not include measurable goals in its IEPs. Finally, Administrative Hearings often found the district did not change services or make accommodations [Insert Table 1] for students who were struggling to access their education. Administrative Hearings also noted that Bellflower provided conflicting or inaccurate evaluation results to parents, which, in at least one instance, did not include the required information to help the parents understand their student’s needs. Moreover, Administrative Hearings found that Bellflower sometimes did not perform sufficient California State Auditor Report 2021-108 25 June 2022 Figure 11 A Disproportionate Number of Administrative Hearings’ Special Education Decisions Have Involved Bellflower Number of Decisions Number of Administrative Hearings Issued Students With Disabilities* Over the Last Six Fiscal Years Fewer students 1,666 20 more decisions Bellflower In Comparison… Nearly 49 TIMES as 81,424 28 many students with just Los Angeles Unified School District EIGHT MORE DECISIONS 9,837 Nearly SIX TIMES 16 as many students Long Beach Unified School District 7,119 More than FOUR TIMES 17 as many students Capistrano Unified School District Source: Administrative Hearings’ decisions for the last six fiscal years and Education’s cumulative enrollment data for students with disabilities for the 2020–21 school year. * Cumulative enrollment for the 2020–21 school year. assessments because it used outdated evaluation tools, conducted the wrong evaluation for a student’s age range, did not follow the required protocols for the evaluations, and relied on old IEP data instead of conducting a new evaluation. In its decisions, Administrative Hearings sometimes also identified the reasons for Bellflower’s failures to uphold special education law, as Figure 12 illustrates. [Insert Figure 12] Education reached similar conclusions when it investigated eight complaints, containing 14 distinct allegations, that it received related to Bellflower for fiscal years 2016–17 through January 25, 2022. Separate from the complaint process involving Administrative Hearings, Education investigates written complaints 26 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Table 1 Bellflower Consistently Failed to Develop IEPs and Conduct Sufficient Evaluations in Accordance With Special Education Laws TYPE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VIOLATION DID NOT PROVIDE REQUIRED DID NOT CONDUCT SERVICES OR OFFER DID NOT INCLUDE DID NOT CONDUCT VIOLATED IEP MEETING AS APPROPRIATE MEASURABLE SUFFICIENT PROCEDURAL COMPLAINT REQUIRED SERVICES GOALS FOR IEPS ASSESSMENTS SAFEGUARDS* 1 X X 2 X 3 X X 4 X 5 X X X X 6 X 7 X X 8 X X X 9 X X X 10 X X X X 11 X X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X X 15 Source: Analysis of Administrative Hearings’ decisions for the last five years. * Procedural safeguards include an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability to examine all records relating to their child, participate in meetings for their child, as well as the requirement that school districts provide families with written notice before taking certain actions and obtain written parental consent before conducting assessments or beginning special education services. it receives from parents who believe a school district has violated special education laws. In its investigations of Bellflower, Education found five instances in which the district had not provided the services in a student’s IEP and one instance where it failed to conduct a timely assessment after agreeing to do so at an IEP meeting. In total, Education found that Bellflower violated special education laws in seven of the 14 allegations it investigated. According to its special education administrator, Bellflower attempts to learn from the Administrative Hearings’ decisions and from the investigations Education conducts. Despite this claim, when we asked him about whether Bellflower has done any broad analysis to identify systematic weaknesses in its provision of services to students with disabilities that have led to Administrative Hearings’ decisions, he stated that he was unaware of any analysis. He also stated that the district holds annual special education training for teachers California State Auditor Report 2021-108 27 June 2022 Figure 12 Select Quotes From Administrative Hearings Decisions That Show Reasons for Bellflower Not Upholding Special Education Law “Bellflower’s failure to complete the IEP prior to the start of the 2019–2020 school year left student “Bellflower owed student the duty to without an offer of placement and services.” evaluate him and failed in that duty.” “More disturbing, by utilizing the 2015 “Student had been reading at a fourth or fifth cognitive scores, Bellflower predetermined grade level since ninth grade, and was not student’s cognitive levels. By doing so, making progress…Bellflower Unified still did Bellflower relieved itself of needing to not provide any interventions to help consider whether more challenging student access his education.” goals were appropriate.” “Student’s teacher did not refer him for special education assessment because she believed student’s academic struggles were due to a lack of motivation rather than a disability. Bellflower thus allowed the subjective opinion of a staff member to circumvent its responsibility to thoroughly assess student.” Source: Administrative Hearings’ decisions. on developing IEPs. Bellflower provided more than 1,000 pages of training documents to demonstrate its response to the issues identified by Administrative Hearings and Education. However, only a small number of these materials appear to have been created in response to specific Administrative Hearings’ findings. In addition, many of the materials are not dated and Bellflower did not provide sufficient evidence of who attended the more relevant trainings. Bellflower also did not demonstrate any efforts to analyze the types of violations that continue to recur at Bellflower. When we discussed our concerns about Administrative Hearings’ and Education’s findings with Bellflower, it stated that it serves about 1,800 students who qualify for special education and that these complaints represent a small fraction of that population. We are concerned that this response indicates that Bellflower does not see its failure to provide legally required services as a serious problem. Although Bellflower is correct that the findings represent a small fraction of its students with disabilities, Figure 11 demonstrates that a larger percentage of its students had complaints 28 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 decided by Administrative Hearings than students receiving services in other districts. Further, our review of those decisions and Education’s investigations found that Bellflower often failed to provide adequate and consistent services to students, violating federal and state special education laws. Despite the need for Bellflower Despite the need for Bellflower to provide critical and legally to provide critical and legally required services to its students with disabilities, it has not taken required services to its students with actions to improve its processes for doing so. Until it prioritizes disabilities, it has not taken actions providing consistent and adequate services to students with to improve its processes for doing so. disabilities, these students are likely to continue to struggle to receive from Bellflower the education to which they are entitled. During the Pandemic, Bellflower Did Not Adequately Mitigate Disruptions to Its Students’ Education Bellflower reported in June 2020 that pandemic‑related school closures had greatly impacted its teachers, staff, students, and families, yet it did not take critical steps that might have mitigated some of these disruptions. The Governor issued an executive order in April 2020 that required each school district to complete a written report explaining the changes to program offerings it had made in response to school closures and identifying the effects that school closures had on students and families. Education named this report the COVID‑19 Operations Written Report, and Bellflower completed its district‑specific report in June 2020. In addition, instead of the standard LCAP, state law required each school district to complete a Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan for the 2020–21 school year explaining how it was addressing the impact of the pandemic on students, staff, and the community; the district’s plans for distance learning; and how it would ensure access to devices and connectivity for all students, among other information. To identify the actions that Bellflower took in response to the pandemic and the manner in which it communicated these actions to its community, we reviewed these two documents as well as Bellflower’s social media posts from the time period in question. Instead of implementing a centralized districtwide approach to communicating with families after it closed schools in March 2020, Bellflower’s communications indicate that it relied on individual school sites and teachers to communicate with families and to determine how to provide instruction to students. Bellflower created a teacher resource website on March 23, 2020. The district also held meetings with school principals in the months after it closed schools, which the superintendent indicated were to discuss the resources available to teachers and other relevant topics while schools were closed. Although Bellflower announced on social media on April 1, 2020, that it would not resume in‑person learning California State Auditor Report 2021-108 29 June 2022 during the remainder of the school year, that communication did not contain any information about how the district would conduct learning. After closing its schools in March 2020, Bellflower posted on its website a list of educational resources for students and families, as well as select low or no cost Internet options. However, the district did not provide any information about the district’s approach to remote learning for the remainder of the 2019–20 school year, instead indicating that teachers would be reaching out to students. Bellflower did not provide the public with information Bellflower did not provide the public about distance learning during the pandemic until July 30, 2020, with information about distance when it first presented a Frequently Asked Questions document learning during the pandemic until (FAQ) on its website. According to the district, it then received a July 30, 2020. number of additional questions, causing it to update the FAQ on August 7, 2020. Some parents expressed their frustrations on social media about the district’s poor communication, including its FAQ. Bellflower’s delayed response to Internet connectivity issues for its families further compounded the negative effects that the pandemic had on the education of many of its students. Although Bellflower had distributed 4,600 Chromebooks to students by June 2020, it was aware that some students still had connectivity issues. Specifically, despite identifying in its June 2020 COVID‑19 Operations Written Report that connectivity remained an issue for many families, Bellflower did not announce that it would provide Internet connectivity to families who requested it until July 2020, four months after its schools closed. After schools resumed in August 2020, Bellflower notified its principals that it would begin providing hotspots to school sites, but the district was not able to provide us with further information about how or when its school sites actually supplied families and students with Internet connectivity. When we asked the superintendent about whether Bellflower coordinated a large‑scale effort to identify and contact students and families who needed Internet connectivity and Chromebooks, she indicated that individual school sites determined how to accomplish this task. Given that Bellflower had $60 million in its unrestricted general fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2018–19, it had available funding to quickly provide the needed connectivity for its students. Critically, Bellflower’s approach during school closures did not adequately identify or address barriers for its more than 1,800 English learners and their families. In May 2020, Bellflower added resources for English learners to its teacher resource website. In its Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan, Bellflower indicated that it conducted a survey in which parents who were not fluent in English expressed that they found Google Classroom—one of the district’s teaching platforms—challenging because it was not translated. When we asked Bellflower how it addressed this concern, the superintendent stated that all assignments were on Google 30 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 so parents could have used Google Translate if they needed help translating their children’s homework during distance learning and that school sites and teachers were responsible for communicating to parents about this resource. However, Bellflower did not provide this information on its teacher resource site until September 27, 2020. It is unclear why Bellflower did not provide this information directly to families. Our review of the district’s website confirmed that it does not instruct parents to use Google Translate. The lack of translated classroom materials might explain in part why only 83 percent of Bellflower’s English learners showed up for distance learning, a lower percentage than the district’s average for all students of 87 percent. Foster youth and students experiencing homelessness also faced challenges during the pandemic that Bellflower did not adequately address. After it closed schools, Bellflower contacted many of its families who have foster youth and students experiencing homelessness and identified several barriers, such as difficulty contacting teachers and not being able to access school meals, Chromebooks, and Internet connectivity. However, despite being aware of barriers as early as June 2020, when the district reported that 10 percent of its foster youth did not show up a single time for virtual school during school closures, Bellflower still had not implemented a plan to address these students’ attendance and participation issues when school began in August 2020. Bellflower wrote in its Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan, which its board approved in September 2020, that all foster youth and students experiencing homelessness would complete a needs assessment to identify barriers to accessing their education. However, it did not specify when students would perform these assessments or whether it would rely solely on the students and their families to self‑identify barriers. Bellflower indicated that someone from Child Welfare and Attendance—a specialized student support service that normally handles persistent student attendance or behavior problems—would contact the students. However, Bellflower was not able to provide any evidence of the assessments Bellflower is unable to demonstrate it planned to conduct in the 2020–21 school year or what actions, that it took appropriate action if any, it took to address the barriers the students identified. It is in response to the needs of foster troubling that despite suspecting that these students would have youth and students experiencing educational barriers, Bellflower is unable to demonstrate that it took homelessness during the pandemic. appropriate action in response during the pandemic. During school closures and distance learning, Bellflower also failed to adequately serve some of its students with disabilities. As we discuss in the previous section, Bellflower has not consistently provided required services and support to students with disabilities. The pandemic exacerbated these problems. In its investigations of complaints, Education found that during the pandemic Bellflower did not provide two students with required services outlined in their IEPs and delayed another’s student assessment. Similarly, California State Auditor Report 2021-108 31 June 2022 Administrative Hearings found that from March 30, 2020, through June 4, 2020, the district provided a student with worksheets that had no educational benefit because they were below the student’s ability. Additionally, the district did not provide aide services to the student, without which the student had difficulty navigating the Google Classroom and video conferencing software. Consequently, Administrative Hearings concluded that the student missed opportunities to improve his grades. Bellflower’s weak response to the challenges that the pandemic Bellflower’s weak response to the presented was not the result of a lack of funding. Like school districts challenges that the pandemic throughout California, Bellflower received federal and state funds presented was not the result of a specifically to address these challenges. Table 2 shows the source and lack of funding. amount of pandemic‑related funding that Bellflower was granted and the amounts it spent. As of May 2022, the district had spent $16.7 million to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. For example, it spent more than $4 million on supplies, such as face masks, plastic shields, and sanitizer to keep students safe while on campus. It also spent $1.7 million on computer hardware and equipment as well as $540,000 for data communication lines. We found that Bellflower complied with requirements to obtain and incorporate community feedback into its decisions for spending these funds. [Insert Table 2] The district has committed $7.5 million of its remaining unspent balance of $50.5 million in pandemic‑related funding to goods and services it has not yet received. According to Education, state and federal spending deadlines require Bellflower to spend $1.1 million before the end of July 2022, $2 million more by September 2022, $2.7 million by June 2023, $9 million by September 2023, and the remainder by September 2024. If it does not do so, it may have to return the funding. At its October 2021 board meeting, Bellflower adopted a plan to spend some of this funding. This plan indicates that the district intends to spend nearly $5 million to address lost instructional time including tutoring and summer learning; $11 million on ensuring the safety of in‑person learning, which will include upgrades to technology at its schools; and the remaining $8 million on interactive hardware, temporary counselors, and resources for learning. However, Bellflower’s plan does not connect any of its planned actions to goals in its LCAP or Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan, and the plan does not provide detailed metrics it will use to monitor whether the actions it is taking address student needs. Additionally, Bellflower’s plan does not indicate the extent to which the district intends to spend its funding to address the unique needs of its English learners, foster youth and students experiencing homelessness, or its special education students despite the educational disruptions that these groups faced because of the pandemic. 32 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Table 2 State and Federal Pandemic Relief Acts Have Allocated Bellflower $67 million AMOUNT REMAINING EXPEND OR AMOUNT GRANTED AMOUNT SPENT TO BE EXPENDED PERCENTAGE OBLIGATE COVID-19 RELIEF SOURCES (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) REMAINING END DATE Learning Loss Mitigation Funding $1.0 $1.0 $0.0 0% 6/30/2021 Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant 4.6 0.0 4.6 100 9/30/2024 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 9.7 9.7 0.0 0 5/31/2021 Economic Security Act (CARES Act) Elementary and Secondary School 2.7 1.6 1.1 41 9/30/2022 Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) I ESSER II 10.8 3.3 7.5 69 9/30/2023 Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant (Includes allocation from Education’s 1.2 0.0 1.2 100 9/30/2023 ESSER II funding) Assembly Bill 86— 4.5 0.0 4.5 100 9/30/2024 In-Person Instruction Grant Governor’s Emergency Education 0.8 0.0 0.8 100 9/30/2022 Relief Fund (GEER) I GEER II 0.3 0.0 0.3 100 9/30/2023 ESSER III 24.4 0.0 24.4 100 9/30/2024 Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant (Includes allocation from Education’s 2.2 0.0 2.2 100 9/30/2024 ESSER III funding) Assembly Bill 130—Expanded Learning 2.7 0.0 2.7 100 6/30/2023 Opportunities Program Reopening Schools Fund* 1.9 0.8 1.1 58 7/31/2022 Senate Bill 117—COVID-19 LEA 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 Not identified Response Funds* Miscellaneous* 0.2 0.1 0.1 50 9/30/2022 TOTALS $67.2 $16.7 $50.5 75% Source: Education and Bellflower’s financial systems and funding information. * Bellflower provided information for these pandemic-related sources of funding. Moreover, despite the funding it received, Bellflower has not demonstrated that it took an active leadership role in responding to the educational disruptions caused by the pandemic. Bellflower indicated in its Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan that it would purchase software and provide professional development, among other actions. Bellflower also indicated that it planned to conduct assessments of its students to identify learning loss. Bellflower conducted these assessments in the fall of 2020 and again in the spring of 2021. The results of the assessments indicate that many students’ academic performance declined during the pandemic. Despite its planned actions and the results of the assessments that it conducted, the only centralized effort that Bellflower could describe taking in response to the results of California State Auditor Report 2021-108 33 June 2022 student assessments was that it implemented a summer academy in 2021. According to Bellflower, this academy served 413 elementary and middle school students. Finally, we are concerned that Bellflower still may be unprepared Bellflower still may be unprepared for for an emergency situation that would require it to close its schools an emergency situation that would again. As part of its process for reopening schools for in‑person require it to close its schools again. learning in April 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Health required schools in Los Angeles County to develop a contingency plan in the event they need to partially or completely close due to an outbreak of COVID‑19 in the schools or the community. We reviewed Bellflower’s contingency plan and found that the plan does not contain meaningful information that addresses the disruptions the district faced when schools closed in March 2020. Specifically, the plan does not include information about how the district or its schools will communicate to its families, provide Internet connectivity, or assess and address the educational barriers that its English learners, foster youth, homeless youth, and students receiving special education face when schools close. Given the shortcomings in Bellflower’s previous responses to challenges in these areas that we discuss above, including more information in its contingency plan could help the district better lead its staff and families through an emergency situation. Bellflower Has Frequently Not Complied With Laws Intended to Ensure Public Transparency Bellflower has not always complied with key transparency laws, limiting the public’s ability to oversee its operations. For example, in three of the 10 instances we reviewed, the district did not respond to requests for public records, despite the fact that state law mandates that it do so. Further, it did not respond to four of the other seven requests within the required time frame, did not adequately fulfill the public records request as required, or both. Bellflower also did not comply with state law that requires it to disclose specific pending litigation, such as the case name or names, for existing litigation its board planned to discuss in closed session during meetings. In addition, Bellflower often did not indicate where the public could review a key planning document describing the district’s annual goals, services, and expenditures to address state and local priorities for the upcoming year. Finally, its decision to hold in‑person board meetings during the pandemic without making them available virtually hindered public participation. Taken as a whole, these deficiencies have limited the public’s ability to help Bellflower define the needs of its students and may have created distrust about its operations. 34 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Bellflower Restricted Public Access to Information When It Failed to Comply With the California Public Requirements for Responding to a Records Act Public Records Request State law authorizes the public to inspect records during Bellflower violated the California Public Records office hours and requires public entities to promptly provide Act (Public Records Act) when it failed to provide requested copies. members of the public with the records they State law generally requires that within 10 days of receiving requested. The Public Records Act allows the a request for information, a public entity must respond public to have access to information concerning indicating whether it has documents that are responsive to the operations of public entities, including school the request, whether any of the documents requested are districts. As the text box describes, state law allows exempt from disclosure, and, if so, the legal provision that access to public records and requires public entities exempts them. to respond to a request and to provide assistance To the extent possible, public entities must help a requester to the requester. Nonetheless, when we reviewed make the request focused and effective including by a selection of 10 public records requests that identifying records and information that are responsive to Bellflower received in 2021, we found that it failed the request and by providing suggestions for overcoming to respond to three and inappropriately responded any basis for denying access to the records. [Insert text box] to four others. Source: State law. Bellflower’s associate superintendent is responsible for responding to requests. Her justifications for failing to do so in these three instances are unconvincing. Specifically, she did not respond to two requests because she believed they were sales tactics and not legitimate requests. However, if a record is subject to disclosure, the Public Records Act does not allow a public entity to limit access to a public record based on the purpose for which it was requested. The associate superintendent did not respond to the third request because she thought the information requested was confidential. However, state law requires the district to respond even when requested records are confidential. Specifically, if declining to release records, the district must provide the legal reasons why. Further, when we reviewed the remaining seven requests, we found an instance in which Bellflower responded to a requester but did not provide the public records, in violation of the law. Specifically, on the day before a school board meeting, Bellflower received an email request for documentation related to two agenda items—its fiscal year 2021–22 proposed budget for the local control funding formula and its LCAP. The request also asked that Bellflower attach public documents to the agenda for all future meetings. Bellflower responded to the request within the required time frame but after it held the meeting and told the requester the records had been available for review at its office for the three business days before the meeting. Bellflower ultimately did not provide the requested public records and created an unnecessary barrier to public access to key information about its plans to improve students’ performance. We find this response particularly confusing because Bellflower generally posts its LCAP, one of the documents California State Auditor Report 2021-108 35 June 2022 requested, on the district website and could have easily provided it in response to the requester or directed the requester to the district website, as state law allows. Instead, its response needlessly created the impression that it was being evasive. Since November 2013, Bellflower’s own policies regarding public records requests have aligned with the requirements in state law. Nonetheless, for three of the seven requests to which the district responded, it did not do so within its required time frame and did not disclose all required records or explain why the records were exempt. For example, in a request for contract documents and related invoices, the district took eight additional days beyond the required 10‑day time frame to respond to one request and disclosed only four of seven requested contracts and two associated invoices. In its response, the district failed to explain whether it had records for the remaining requests or to provide the required legal exemptions explaining what records it had not disclosed. When we asked about this request, the associate superintendent told us that Bellflower did not have records to produce but could not explain why it did not communicate this fact to the requester. Until Bellflower embraces its responsibility to provide the public Until Bellflower embraces its appropriate access to its records, it will likely continue to violate responsibility to provide the public its own policies and state transparency laws. Bellflower staff stated appropriate access to its records, it that the district did not maintain any records of requests it received will likely continue to violate its own before 2021 and therefore is unable to demonstrate whether it policies and state transparency laws. complied with requirements for earlier requests. According to the associate superintendent, she developed procedures to receive and track all requests and responses beginning in January 2021 and had received 20 requests as of November 2021, when we selected items for testing. The associate superintendent has not formalized the procedures and stated that she verbally communicated them to district staff receiving public records requests. However, Bellflower’s recent practices when responding to requests raise questions about whether it fully understands its obligations. For example, the associate superintendent explained that when the district receives a public records request that appears to be junk mail, the district’s practice in most cases is not to respond unless it receives a second request. However, when Bellflower fails to respond to such requests, it restricts the public from its fundamental—in fact, constitutional—right to access information and participate in and monitor the activities of a public agency. Further, it limits families from understanding how the district is addressing their students’ needs. 36 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 By Not Consistently Complying With the Ralph M. Brown Act, Bellflower Hindered the Public’s Ability to Participate at Board Meetings Although Bellflower complied with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) requirements for posting meeting agendas, it did not always comply with requirements for closed sessions—private meetings of a legislative body on specifically enumerated topics outlined in state law. The Legislature enacted the Brown Act with the intent that legislative bodies, including the boards of school districts, take actions and conduct deliberations openly. To that end, the Brown Act includes two key provisions: entities must post agendas at least 72 hours before the scheduled regular meeting at locations that are accessible to the public and on its website; and local boards may discuss and take action on only items or subjects that are listed on the posted agenda. We selected 10 board meetings from January 2017 through October 2021 and found that Bellflower complied with the Brown Act requirements for posting agendas. However, it limited transparency when it did not comply with the requirements related to closed sessions. The Brown Act allows local boards to meet in closed sessions to discuss and take action on certain confidential topics, but local entities must include a brief description of these closed session items on the agenda. For example, the Brown Act allows a local board to hold a closed session to discuss litigation with its legal counsel. State law requires the agenda to provide a description of the matter to be discussed. A local board may safely comply with this requirement by indicating on its agenda the case name or names for existing litigation and the number of potential cases for anticipated litigation. Nine of the meeting agendas we reviewed indicated closed sessions. On eight of these agendas, Bellflower included items that the board would discuss in closed session but did not always describe those items in accordance with the law. Specifically, in these eight instances, Bellflower stated that it would be meeting with its legal counsel but did not identify the cases it planned to discuss. When the district Bellflower’s Frequent Closed Session Topics does not provide the details the Brown Act requires 1. Student matters on its agenda, it limits transparency and the public’s opportunity to address the board on the closed 2. Personnel—superintendent’s evaluation/performance session topic. 3. Public employee discipline/dismissal/release According to Bellflower’s superintendent, the 4. Conference with legal counsel district generally lists on its agendas all five closed 5. Labor negotiations session topics shown in the text box so that Source: Selected Bellflower board meeting agendas from 2017 the board can discuss unexpected confidential through 2021. matters that arise before a meeting. For example, Bellflower may not have any student matters to California State Auditor Report 2021-108 37 June 2022 discuss in closed session when it distributes its meeting agenda, but it includes the topic in case a student matter comes up after the agenda is distributed and before the meeting occurs. The district’s practice of including these five topics that the board may or may not discuss in closed session does not violate the Brown Act. However, the district must provide a brief description for each closed session item. Further, the district’s practice of including items consistently on the agenda may contribute to concerns surrounding transparency. State law limits the subjects that boards can discuss and take action on in closed session to subjects that might reveal confidential information. According to the League of California Cities, secrecy breeds distrust and a good practice is to only go into a closed session when necessary. The superintendent stated that when reconvening in open session, the board president will list which items that it discussed in closed session. However, the point of the agenda is to provide the public with advance notice of the topics the board will discuss or take action on to facilitate public participation in government. Although it does not violate the Brown Act, Bellflower’s practice of posting a list of topics it may or may not discuss during closed session may hinder the public’s ability to be informed and provide comment. State law also requires school boards to take minutes, and Bellflower recognizes in its board bylaws that maintaining accurate minutes provides a record of board actions and helps to foster public trust. Nonetheless, the board’s minutes for two of the nine meetings we reviewed that included closed sessions do not describe the topics the board discussed in those sessions that occurred at the end of the public meeting. According to the superintendent, the board sometimes reconvenes to closed session at the end of a public meeting to continue discussing confidential topics that were listed in the agenda but that the board did not finish discussing earlier. The superintendent stated that on these occasions, the board announces to the public that it will continue its discussion of closed agenda items that do not require action. However, the meeting minutes in these two instances did not foster public trust because they did not reflect the board’s rationale for returning to closed session or indicate the items that it planned to discuss. In addition, Bellflower’s meeting minutes did not always indicate Bellflower’s meeting minutes whether the district allowed the public to comment during did not always indicate whether meetings. The Brown Act requires meetings to provide the public the district allowed the public to with an opportunity to directly address the board. However, in comment during meetings. three of the 10 meetings we reviewed, the agendas indicated an opportunity for public comment but the meeting minutes did not record such comments or indicate that no comments were made. For one other meeting we reviewed, Bellflower’s agenda did not include an opportunity for public comment and the meeting minutes did not indicate whether the discussion was opened for 38 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 public comment. The superintendent stated that she directed staff to record comments under the agenda item to which the comments referred and that the absence of public comments in the minutes indicates that none were made. Although state law does not require meeting minutes to reflect when the public does not comment, the district cannot demonstrate that it allowed for public comments without indicating in minutes that it did so, including whether there were comments. Bellflower’s Lack of Transparency Has Unnecessarily Limited Public Involvement Bellflower has not always provided the public with access to its LCAP as state law requires. As we describe in the Introduction, state law requires school districts to annually develop and update their LCAPs, which describe the districts’ goals, services, and expenditures to address state and local priorities. A key statutory requirement to the LCAP’s development is public input, and school districts must present their draft LCAPs during a public hearing to solicit recommendations and comments. Although state law requires districts to indicate on the agendas for those meetings where the public may review their draft LCAPs, Bellflower has often not done so, as Table 3 shows. The superintendent stated that since assuming her role in July 2018, the district has posted the draft LCAP on its website for review before the public hearing. Nonetheless, as Table 3 shows, the district’s agendas did not indicate where the public could review the plan The district hindered the public’s for the meetings when the district presented it for discussion, such ability to ensure that its LCAP as providing a link to where the plan was located on its website. reflected the needs of students and Consequently, it hindered the public’s ability to ensure that its LCAP [Insert Table 3] the community. reflected the needs of students and the community. Moreover, the district could not substantiate that it provided its board with complete meeting materials related to its draft LCAP in 2019. The district initially provided us the meeting materials it gave its board for the June 2019 board meeting to discuss the LCAP in a public hearing. When we noted that the materials did not include the district’s draft 2019 LCAP although the agenda indicated the plan would be discussed, the superintendent subsequently provided us the missing LCAP. However, the documentation did not show that it had been provided to the board before the meeting when it was discussed. Further, a board member we spoke to said she could not recall whether she received the draft 2019 LCAP in the meeting materials, but she indicated that she must be able to review, ask questions, or seek clarification before making a decision to vote on the plan. Similarly, Bellflower did not provide the board with its 2019 School Plans for Student Achievement (achievement plans). These are annual one‑year spending plans for each of the district’s 15 school sites that describe the schools’ goals to improve student outcomes, evidence‑based services, California State Auditor Report 2021-108 39 June 2022 Table 3 Bellflower Has Limited the Public’s Ability to View Its Annual LCAP WAS THE LCAP DID THE AGENDA INDICATE WHERE MEETING DATE DISCUSSION / ACTION* ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA? THE PUBLIC COULD REVIEW THE PLAN? June 1, 2017 Discussion No No June 18, 2017 Action No Yes June 7, 2018 Discussion No No June 21, 2018 Action No Yes June 13, 2019 Discussion No No June 20, 2019 Action No Yes September 23, 2020† Discussion No No September 24, 2020† Action N/A—available on district website Yes June 10, 2021 Discussion No No June 17, 2021 Action Yes N/A—attached to agenda Source: Bellflower’s board meeting agendas and minutes. * Discussion = Presentation of the plan. Action = Board vote to approve the plan. † State law was amended because of the pandemic to replace the LCAP for school year 2020–21 with the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan. and proposed expenditures. State law requires the board to review and approve the achievement plans at a public meeting whenever the district makes meaningful changes that affect certain academic programs. However, for 2019 the district did not provide any of the achievement plans to its board for review before the board members voted to adopt the plans. Instead, the district provided only a summary that described the achievement plans’ requirements and annual development, review, and update process. The district did not indicate in the summary whether it had made meaningful changes to its achievement plans. Although the summary indicates the achievement plans were available in the district office for board members to review, we find it concerning that the district did not provide the plans directly to the board members. The superintendent stated that based on a request from former board members, Bellflower’s practice is to make one hard copy of each of the achievement plans available for review at the district. However, she was uncertain whether all the board members reviewed the achievement plans and she agreed it would be a good idea if the district provided the achievement plans by email. Further, although the district’s agenda informed the public the plans were available for review at the district, by not providing complete information to the board and public, the district missed an opportunity to ensure transparency and it hindered the board and public from providing adequate oversight. 40 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 We also identified instances when Bellflower attached documents to board meeting agendas that were not the same documents it provided to the board and that were of limited use to the public. For example, Bellflower provided its board with a detailed report of expenditures by purchase order, including its vendors’ names, descriptions of its purchase, the school sites that made the purchases, and the purchase cost. However, it provided the public with only a list of purchase order numbers and an aggregated summary of the total number of purchase orders and amount by fund. Similarly, the district did not provide full information to the public about certain revisions to its budget. According to the superintendent, the board requested a detailed listing of purchase orders and more information concerning the revised budget. Further, she indicated these documents are available for the public to review by request before or at the board meeting. According to state law, any written information provided to all or a majority of board members that concerns matters subject to discussion at an open meeting must be made available for public inspection upon request. Further, in its guide on the Brown Act, the California League of Cities highlights that this law should be viewed as a tool to facilitate the business of local government agencies and that local policies that go beyond its minimum requirements may help instill public confidence and avoid problems. Therefore, Bellflower should provide the public with the same documents that it provides to its board members. During the Pandemic, Bellflower Limited Public Participation When It Did Not Make Its Board Meetings Available Virtually Bellflower hindered public Bellflower hindered public participation in board meetings during participation in board meetings the pandemic by continuing to hold those meetings only in person. during the pandemic by continuing to After proclaiming a state of emergency as a result of the COVID‑19 hold those meetings only in person. pandemic, the Governor signed an executive order in March 2020 that suspended certain requirements in the Brown Act so that local legislative bodies, such as school boards, could make meetings accessible by telephone or video to all members of the public. The goal of the executive order was to grant agencies the flexibility to meet remotely during the pandemic, in part because of stay‑at‑home orders. The majority of the districts that were similar in size to Bellflower that we reviewed throughout Los Angeles County and the State made their school board meetings available virtually to the public beginning in March or April 2020. However, Bellflower did not transition to virtual board meetings until January 2021. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 41 June 2022 Bellflower’s superintendent stated that the district did not transition to virtual board meetings until January 2021 because it was not required to hold virtual meetings and because it believed it could safely hold in‑person meetings under the guidelines that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health had issued. However, state and local public health orders generally directed people to stay home in 2020. Moreover, Bellflower did Bellflower did not enable public not enable public access to these meetings by telephone or video. access to board meetings by Additionally, like other school districts, Bellflower closed its schools telephone or video during the in March 2020 and did not return to in‑person instruction until pandemic in 2020. April 2021, which may have confused members of the public about their ability to attend in‑person board meetings held at Bellflower schools. Finally, people may have been hesitant to attend in‑person board meetings because of challenges related to the pandemic, such as health concerns, family care, and transportation. Bellflower returned to holding only in‑person board meetings in October 2021. The superintendent stated that the district returned to in‑person meetings once the executive order expired and because it could not meet new state requirements for virtual board meetings. Specifically, a new state law that took effect in September 2021 imposed additional requirements for a legislative body to hold virtual meetings, such as requiring the members to decide by majority vote that conducting in‑person meetings would present imminent health and safety risks. She further stated that the district’s virtual meeting platform was incapable of providing real‑time public comment as required. The superintendent asserted that nothing in the law requires the district to provide virtual meetings or to livestream access to its meetings. However, this explanation is unconvincing. State law does not prohibit Bellflower from livestreaming its in‑person board meetings, which would have provided the public an additional opportunity to safely participate. Moreover, the district used a virtual meeting platform from January 2021 to October 2021 that featured telephone access, which it could have used to comply with requirements related to real‑time public comments. Ultimately, Bellflower began livestreaming in‑person board meetings in March 2022. However, the district’s livestreaming platform does not enable the public to comment in real time during a meeting. Although not a requirement, allowing real‑time comments would provide greater opportunity for public participation. 42 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 OTHER AREA WE REVIEWED Meal Services During the Pandemic Despite logistical barriers, Bellflower worked quickly after it closed schools to establish an agreement with a local organization to distribute meals. The Governor issued an executive order on March 13, 2020, that ensured that districts would continue to receive state funding to provide meals in noncongregate settings through programs consistent with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s requirements, among other things. On the same day, Bellflower announced that it would close its schools on March 16, 2020. The district informed its community on March 17, 2020, that it was not approved to provide meals to students and referred them to nearby cities and authorized centers for meal services. On March 18, 2020, Bellflower then provided the community a detailed list of the nearby school districts where families could get meals. By March 20, 2020, Bellflower had arranged for its students to obtain meals at a nearby YMCA beginning on March 23, 2020, while it worked to obtain approval to distribute meals at one of its school sites. The district began distributing meals at its nutrition center on April 6, 2020. These steps are consistent with Bellflower’s description in its COVID‑19 Operations Written Report of the steps it took to provide meals during school closures, while maintaining social distancing practices. PPlleeaassee rreeffeerr ttoo tthhee sseeccttiioonn bbeeggiinnnniinngg oonn ppaaggee 33 ttoo fifinndd tthhee rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss tthhaatt wwee hhaavvee mmaaddee aass aa rreessuulltt ooff oouurr aauuddiitt fifinnddiinnggss.. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA Acting California State Auditor June 23, 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 43 June 2022 Appendix Scope and Methodology The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor to conduct an audit of Bellflower’s governance and its financial and ethical practices and performance. The table below lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them. Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and Reviewed relevant laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures related to Bellflower’s regulations significant to the audit objectives. operation and oversight. 2 Review the actions and activities of Bellflower • Reviewed a selection of 10 board meetings that occurred from January 2017 through October 2021 and the board over the past five years and to determine whether the district and board adhered to applicable Brown Act requirements. determine the following: • Reviewed a selection of 36 actions the board made in the 10 meetings we selected above and a. To the extent possible, whether determined whether it adhered to applicable laws, bylaws, and policies. The superintendent and administrative, fiscal, and programmatic board members as of March 2022 (current board members) confirmed that the board does not actions were unethical, unlawful, improper, take action in closed session. We identified concerns where Bellflower did not follow statutory or wasteful. requirements related to meeting agendas, including the location where the LCAP and proposed b. Whether the district and board adhered to budget is available for public inspection, board review of achievement plans, and timely board the Public Records Act and the Brown Act. approval of financial statements. Further, our review of the actions determined no apparent board conflict-of-interest or a commitment of unethical or wasteful actions. • Interviewed Bellflower’s staff and reviewed documentation related to a selection of 10 information requests Bellflower received to determine whether it complied with the Public Records Act. • Reviewed a selection of four statements of economic interest filed between 2018 and 2022 and determined the district staff and board member we reviewed had filed their forms timely. • Interviewed Bellflower’s staff and reviewed relevant documentation to assess the effect of its decision to hold in-person board meetings during the pandemic. • Interviewed Bellflower’s staff and current board members, and reviewed relevant documentation and determined the board has ultimate responsibility of the district and district staff have little authority to take administrative, fiscal, and programmatic actions without board approval. • Interviewed Bellflower’s staff and reviewed relevant documentation and determined the district could improve its process for making board meeting materials publicly available to increase community engagement. 3 To the extent possible, identify Bellflower’s • Reviewed Bellflower’s financial records and audited financial statements to identify its major major categories of expenditures and trends categories of expenditures over the past five fiscal years and to assess trends in its revenue and of enrollment, revenue, and expenditures expenditures. We focused our review on the district’s general fund. Aside from the large debt over the past five years, including Bellflower’s service payment the district made in fiscal year 2018–19, we found no significant changes in the expenditures related to increased state and trends of expenditures, including legal and consulting services. Although we noted higher legal federal funds such as CARES Act funds, and legal expenditures in fiscal year 2020–21, the litigation between Bellflower and the LA County Office and consulting services. began in June 2020, which may account for some of the increase. • Reviewed Education’s reports to determine Bellflower’s enrollment trends during the past five fiscal years. • Reviewed Bellflower’s financial records to identify its pandemic-related expenditures and confirmed the accuracy of those expenditures by comparing them to reports the district submitted to Education. We also interviewed Bellflower staff regarding how the district plans to spend state and federal pandemic-related funds. • Interviewed current board members for perspective on Bellflower’s financial position, budget practices, enrollment trends, pandemic relief, and legal expenditures. continued on next page… 44 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 4 To the extent possible, determine how the level • Attempted to compare district’s legal expenditures to other districts. However, because of consulting and legal services expenditures districts can have different legal strategies, this comparison was not meaningful. compares to other school districts. Further, • Reviewed Bellflower’s professional/consulting services and operating expenditures and found it determine whether Bellflower obtained and was higher than the state average for unified school districts, yet not dissimilar from a selection considered parent and community input on of similarly sized school districts and other districts in Los Angeles County. how to spend CARES Act funds. • Interviewed Bellflower staff and reviewed relevant plans and documents to determine whether the district complied with applicable requirements for obtaining community feedback and incorporating this feedback into its decisions for spending pandemic-related funds. We determined that Bellflower adopted these plans at a public meeting and submitted them to the LA County Office for review and approval. • Interviewed members of Bellflower’s Parent Advisory Committee, District English Learner Advisor Committee, and District Advisory Group to gain perspective on parent and community involvement regarding planned spending of pandemic-related funding. 5 To the extent possible, determine whether the • For a selection of 10 meetings, reviewed meeting materials Bellflower provided its board members. superintendent or other key employees have Interviewed current board members and Bellflower staff involved in preparing information for misrepresented or withheld information that board meetings to understand whether the district misrepresented or withheld information. was necessary for the board to govern and make • Interviewed current board members and reviewed relevant documentation to evaluate the board’s decisions or if they directed other employees process for directing district staff who prepare materials for the board. We found no concerns. to engage in questionable, unethical, or • Interviewed current board members and Bellflower staff involved in preparing information illegal practices. for the board to determine whether board members or district staff had engaged in or were directed to engage in questionable, unethical, or illegal practices. We found no concerns. • Reviewed financial information in the board materials and compared it to Bellflower’s audited financial statements to determine whether the presented information was accurate. 6 Evaluate the adequacy and consistency • Reviewed the results of Education’s investigations of complaints involving Bellflower from of educational programs and services by fiscal years 2016–17 through 2020–21. determining the following: • Reviewed the complaint decisions that Administrative Hearings issued from 2017 through 2021. a. To the extent possible, whether the school • Reviewed and evaluated Bellflower’s actions and communication with its families during the district complied with laws requiring it to pandemic, including any complaints filed during this time. provide specific services and instruction to students with disabilities. b. The extent of disruptions to educational programs and services, including meal services, for students during the pandemic and whether the district took reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on students. 7 To the extent possible, review the oversight roles • Reviewed documentation and determined that the LA County Office and Education complied of Education, the LA County Office, and FCMAT with the legal requirements to grant Bellflower fiscal independence. concerning the school district’s fiscal stability • Reviewed relevant documentation to understand the status of pending litigation involving and independence and identify any relevant Bellflower, Education, and the LA County Office regarding the revocation of Bellflower’s fiscal steps these entities and the district should take independence. In accordance with audit standards, we did not review the revocation process as to improve academic quality and student success part of the audit in order to avoid interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. and to increase community engagement. • Interviewed staff at the LA County Office, Education, and FCMAT and reviewed relevant documentation to understand their oversight roles related to school districts generally and Bellflower specifically. Interviewed Bellflower management about its perspective of the oversight provided by the LA County Office and Education. We did not identify any significant concerns related to the oversight roles of these entities. • The district is well positioned to address issues related to academic quality, student success, and community engagement. Through work we conducted to address objectives 2, 3, 5, and 6, we made recommendations to the district to improve academic quality and student success, and to increase community engagement. In light of this fact, we do not have specific recommendations to the other entities. 8 Review and assess any other issues that are None identified. significant to the audit. Source: Audit workpapers. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 45 June 2022 Note: California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 71. 46 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 1 2 3 1 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 47 June 2022 4 4 48 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 4 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 49 June 2022 50 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 51 June 2022 52 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 5 6 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 53 June 2022 54 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 55 June 2022 56 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 7 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 57 June 2022 58 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 59 June 2022 8 60 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 61 June 2022 62 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 9 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 63 June 2022 64 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 65 June 2022 66 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 67 June 2022 10 11 68 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 12 13 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 69 June 2022 14 70 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 71 June 2022 Comments CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to the audit from Bellflower. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the response. Rather than comment on all of the individual areas of Bellflower’s response that we believe are deficient or misleading, we have summarized our comments according to the respective sections in its response. 1 We disagree with Bellflower’s assertion that our report does not provide the appropriate background and context for the issues we describe or is incomplete. We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which state law requires us to follow, and our office’s thorough quality control process. Audit standards require us to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to support our conclusions and recommendations. As with all of our audits, we engaged in extensive research and analysis to ensure that our report presented a thorough and accurate representation of the facts, and included all relevant information in our report. 2 Bellflower incorrectly states that we did not identify financial problems. Beginning on page 15, we describe several problems related to how Bellflower inaccurately presented financial information to its board and the public. These problems include, as we describe on pages 16 and 17, the district’s misleading practice of obtaining budget authority for additional expenditures but never spending most of the increases. On page 20, we describe that the district consistently projected deficit spending that did not come to fruition and instead added to its unassigned general fund balance. Further, although we do not characterize any of our findings as wrongdoing, we did find several areas of noncompliance during our review. For example, beginning on page 23 we discuss that Bellflower has not consistently provided legally required services and support to students with disabilities, as evidenced by the decisions issued by Administrative Hearings and the investigations performed by Education over the last five years. Moreover, on pages 34 and 35, we discuss that Bellflower has not complied with legal requirements related to public records requests, and on pages 36 and 37 we discuss how the district was noncompliant with the Brown Act. 72 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 3 The district states that it presently has 13,806 students enrolled, which is an increase from previous years. On page 7 we present Bellflower’s enrollment as 10,700 students, which was based on the district’s enrollment for fiscal year 2020–21. 4 Bellflower’s response is concerning as it attempts to downplay the financial problems we identified by asserting that its board is well informed and that its significant reserve is unquestionably good. We acknowledge in our report that the district’s budget and interim reports provide projected financial information. We also clearly state on page 15 that neither underspending nor a growing fund balance are inherently problematic. Our concern is that the district has consistently overstated its expenditures in its budgets and interim financial reports to the board and the public and has failed to clearly communicate its true financial position to its board. Specifically, as we state on page 17, Bellflower’s budgets and interim reports since December 2018 have shown projections of deficit spending and declining fund balances, yet its actual revenue and expenditures are significantly different from its projections. Consequently, the district has amassed a significant and growing unassigned general fund balance. Bellflower’s response indicates that the growth of its reserve is consistent with statewide trends. We did not independently review the statewide trends on reserves that the district presents in its response on page 49. However, as we state on page 18, Bellflower’s current reserve was 42 percent of total expenditures, which is significantly larger than the statewide trends the district shows. Further, we find it problematic, as we state on page 23, that Bellflower has amassed a growing reserve when it is not meeting the needs of so many of its students. 5 In accordance with audit standards, we did not evaluate the revocation process as part of the audit to avoid interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. Therefore, we do not comment on any related points in Bellflower’s response or opine on its accuracy. 6 Bellflower’s response used a page number reference from a draft copy of our report. Since we provided Bellflower the draft copy, page numbers have shifted. 7 Bellflower’s response to our conclusions about its special education program is incorrect. We did not limit our review of Bellflower’s implementation of special education and related services to a review of Administrative Hearings’ data. Rather, our review included an analysis of this data as well as an examination of the decisions that Administrative Hearings’ issued, of the complaint investigations conducted by Education, and of the special education trainings Bellflower stated it provided its staff. Therefore, our conclusions about Bellflower are based on a variety of sources of information, not solely the data on which Bellflower focused in its response. California State Auditor Report 2021-108 73 June 2022 Additionally, unlike our broader review, Bellflower’s response focuses specifically on a single metric: complaints filed. This metric is unreliable as a sole indicator of how well Bellflower serves its students because the number of complaints filed is dependent on many factors other than Bellflower’s quality of service. Further, Bellflower indicates that one explanation for its high rate of complaints before Administrative Hearings is that it will not reach a settlement agreement when attorneys ask for large dollar amounts in fees to settle the complaint. Though this fact may explain why Bellflower has a higher rate of complaints decided in hearings, the fact remains as we state on page 23, Administrative Hearings determined that Bellflower failed to comply in one or more areas of special education laws in 14 of 15 complaints. Finally, despite our efforts to understand the steps Bellflower had taken in response to Administrative Hearings’ decisions and Education’s investigations, only in early June 2022 did the district provide the trainings it asserts address the noncompliance with special education laws. As we indicate on page 27, we reviewed more than 1,000 pages of training documents Bellflower provided to demonstrate its response to the issues identified by Administrative Hearings and Education. However, only a small number of these materials appear to have been created in response to specific findings of Administrative Hearings. In addition, many of the materials are not dated and Bellflower did not provide sufficient evidence of who attended the more relevant trainings. Bellflower also did not demonstrate any efforts to analyze the types of violations that continue to recur. Moreover, Bellflower’s continued pattern of noncompliance with special education laws as we describe in the section starting on page 23 demonstrate that problems persist despite any trainings or other actions the district may have taken over the last five years. As a result, we stand by our recommendation that the district should review all its current IEPs to validate compliance with legal requirements and to ensure that it is providing the services listed on the IEPs. 8 The evidence we reviewed during our audit does not support Bellflower’s claim that it implemented a coordinated approach to mitigating the impact of school closures. On page 28, we describe how Bellflower relied on individual school sites and teachers to communicate with families and to determine how to provide instruction to students. We acknowledge on page 29 that after it closed schools in March 2020 Bellflower posted on its website a list of educational resources for students and families, as well as select low or no cost Internet options. Bellflower’s response states that it implemented a coordinated approach to mitigating the impact of the closure and a proactive approach to support students, parents, teachers. However, as we describe on page 29, Bellflower did not provide any information to families about its approach to remote learning for the remainder of the 2019–20 school year, 74 California State Auditor Report 2021-108 June 2022 instead indicating that teachers would be reaching out to students. Bellflower’s response does not address the concerns we describe on page 29 involving students’ access to Internet connectivity, nor does its response address the barriers affecting English learners and their families or foster youth and students experiencing homelessness that we describe on pages 29 and 30. Further, the district’s response does not address the concerns that Education and Administrative Hearings identified related to the pandemic, which we describe on pages 30 and 31, including not providing services listed on student IEPs, a delayed assessment, and assigning a student work that had no educational benefit. Our conclusion that Bellflower did not adequately mitigate disruptions to its students’ education during the pandemic is well supported. 9 The district has confused our concerns that only 39 percent of Bellflower’s graduating students were prepared for college or careers in fiscal year 2018–19 as evidence that Bellflower did not mitigate learning loss for English learners, foster youth, students who were experiencing homelessness, and students receiving special education services. We describe the district’s percentage of graduating students who are prepared for college or career on page 23 as one potential area in which the district could have used its available funding to better ensure that its students were ready for their lives after high school. It would be inappropriate to use indicators from fiscal year 2018–19 as evidence that the district did not mitigate learning loss after it closed schools in March 2020 and therefore we did not attempt such a comparison. 10 Despite the district’s efforts to begin tracking public records requests in 2021, as we state on page 35, the district has not yet formalized the procedures for this process. Instead, the district shared with us that it verbally communicated the new procedures to the staff receiving public records requests. Further, we report that the district’s recent practices when responding to requests raise questions about whether the district fully understands its obligations. On page 33 we stated that the district did not respond to three of the 10 requests we reviewed and did not provide timely or complete responses to another four requests. As we state on page 35, when Bellflower fails to respond to requests for records, it restricts the public from its fundamental, constitutional right to access information and participate in and monitor the activities of a public agency. Further, it limits families from understanding how the district is addressing their students’ needs. 11 Bellflower correctly states that the Brown Act seeks to assure open meetings, public comments, and transparency. Although the district indicates that it had begun including brief descriptions for closed session items on its agendas, as required by the Brown Act, we stand by our recommendation that Bellflower should establish a process to California State Auditor Report 2021-108 75 June 2022 verify that its board meeting agendas include an accurate listing of all closed session topics the board expects to discuss. We look forward to reviewing the documentation of the district’s implementation in its 60‑day response. However, the district is incorrect when it asserts that our conclusions about public trust are subjective. On page 37, we describe that Bellflower will sometimes reconvene a closed session at the end of a public meeting to consider items it did not have sufficient time to address during the meeting’s previous closed session. We then observe that Bellflower’s meeting minutes did not reflect its reasons for returning to a closed session in two instances and we conclude that the absence of an explanation in the minutes did not foster public trust. Our conclusions about the district’s incomplete meeting minutes is based on Bellflower’s board bylaws, which recognize that maintaining accurate minutes provides a record of board actions and helps to foster public trust. Further, incomplete meeting minutes are objectively less informative to the public than complete meeting minutes and provide less transparency into the operations of the board. Failing to provide information and decreasing transparency are practices that hurt, not promote, the public trust. 12 Table 3 accurately reflects the errors we identified in our review. As we describe on page 38 Bellflower did not comply with a key statutory requirement to indicate on its meeting agendas where the public could review the draft LCAP before a public meeting to solicit recommendations and comments. We are pleased that the district indicates it has corrected this concern and look forward to reviewing the documentation of its implementation in its 60‑day response. 13 Bellflower states that it is not clear what evidence exists for our conclusion that public participation in board meetings was limited by the fact that it did not offer a virtual meeting option during the early months of the pandemic. As we state on page 40, the Governor’s executive order suspended certain requirements in the Brown Act to make meetings accessible by telephone or video to all members of the public with the goal of allowing flexibility to meet remotely during the pandemic, in part because of stay‑at‑home orders. In addition to the stay‑at‑home orders, as we indicate on page 41, people may have been hesitant to attend in‑person board meetings because of challenges related to the pandemic, such as health concerns, family care, and transportation. Given these circumstances, without a virtual option attendance was limited to individuals willing and able to attend in person. Had Bellflower made the meetings available virtually, more people could have attended. For these reasons, we concluded that Bellflower limited public participation when it did not make its board meetings available virtually during the pandemic. 14 We stand by the title of our report, which is supported by the conclusions and findings we present throughout the report.