Los Angeles County Office of Education Report

County Office Evaluation April 22, 2021 Los Angeles County Office of Education Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer April 22, 2021 Debra Duardo, Ed.D., Superintendent Los Angeles County Office of Education 9300 Imperial Highway Downey, CA 90242 Dear Superintendent Duardo: On February 4, 2020 the Los Angeles County Office of Education entered into an agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Managment Assistance Team (FCMAT) for a study to perform the following: Prepare an initial analysis of the county office fiscal oversight provided to the inglewood Uni- fied School District using FCMAT’s County Office Evaluation Tool, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Los Angeles County Office of Education and extends thanks to its staff for their cooperation and assistance during our review. Sincerely, Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer 1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647 www.fcmat.org Table of Contents Table of Contents About FCMAT ...................................................................................................ii Background.......................................................................................................1 County Office Evaluation Guidelines ...................................................................1 Study Team ................................................................................................................2 County Office Evaluation Tool .....................................................................2 Summary ....................................................................................................................2 Scale ............................................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................8 Appendices ......................................................................................................9 Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education I About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial, human resources and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices, support the training and development of chief business officials and help to create efficient organizational operations. FCMAT’s data management ser- vices are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and inform instructional program decisions. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state superintendent of public instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the LEA to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and rec- ommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 seidutS fo rebmuN About FCMAT FCMAT has continued to make adjustments in the types of support provided based on the changing dy- namics of K-14 LEAs and the implementation of major educational reforms. FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional learning opportunities to help LEAs operate more effectively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) division of FCMAT assists the California Department of Edu- cation with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). CSIS also hosts and maintains the Ed-Data website (www.ed-data.org) and provides technical expertise to the Ed-Data partnership: the California Department of Education, EdSource and FCMAT. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. AB 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. AB 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education II About FCMAT AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. AB 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibili- ties to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and ex- panded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. On September 17, 2018 AB 1840 was signed into law. This legislation changed how fiscally insolvent dis- tricts are administered once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting the former state-centric system to be more consistent with the principles of local control, and providing new responsibilities to FCMAT associated with the process. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform more than 1,000 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superin- tendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Michael H. Fine, Chief Execu- tive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education III Introduction Introduction Background In September 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1840, making a significant change in how insolvent school districts are administered after they receive a state emergency appropriation. As part of that legislation, Education Code Sec- tion 41326(l), the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) was given the responsibility of reviewing the fiscal oversight performed by the county superintendent of schools for any district receiving an emergency apportionment. FCMAT is required to report its findings to the Legislature and provide a copy of that report to the Department of Finance, the super- intendent of public instruction (SPI), and the president of the State Board of Education (SBE). This report is required to include findings regarding fiscal oversight actions that were or were not taken and may include recommendations for an appropriate legislative response to improve fiscal oversight. In the years following the initial report of fiscal oversight performed by the county superintendent of schools, FCMAT will per- form annual reviews of the county office’s effectiveness in overseeing the district. Although the Inglewood Unified School District received an emergency appropriation on September 14, 2012, per Senate Bill (SB) 533, Chapter 325, bringing the district under state receivership with a state-approved emergency appropriation for $55 million, this is the initial report for the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) under AB 1840. FCMAT is reviewing the current fiscal oversight of the county superintendent of schools, as there was no provision for such a review when SB 533 was signed. County Office Evaluation Guidelines FCMAT entered into a study agreement with LACOE on February 4, 2020, and a study team interviewed county office staff on October 28, 2020 after collecting data and reviewing documents. Following fieldwork, the study team continued to review and analyze documents. This report is the result of those activities. FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be functioning well are general- ly not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Associated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness and clarity. In addition, this guide emphasizes plain language, discourages the use of jargon, and capitalizes relatively few terms. Study Team The team was composed of the following members: Joel Montero Nicolas Schweizer FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Consultant Misty Key Sheldon Smith FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Consultant Leonel Martínez FCMAT Technical Writer Each team member reviewed the draft report to confirm accuracy and achieve consensus on the analysis. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 1 County Office Evaluation tool County Office Evaluation Tool The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) has developed the County Office Evaluation Tool (COET) to help assess the effectiveness of county offices in fiscal oversight of school districts that have received an emergency apportionment. The COET includes 36 questions and is intended to satisfy the requirements of AB 1840 for review and assessment of the oversight process a county superintendent of schools is using to assess the general fiscal health of school districts in his or her county, determine how well those districts are adhering to Education Code requirements, and communicate with those districts about these issues. The tool identifies the key review elements performed by county office staff in their review of annual budgets, interim reports and unaudited actuals. Responses to each of the elements are confined to “yes” or “no.” Oversight performance is assessed using a risk protocol based on the number of “no” responses related to the assessment of each element. The team gathers information through an initial document request and interviews of county office staff. Once all documents are reviewed and interviews are assessed, elements can be assigned yes or no answers. The greater the number of “no” answers to the questions in the analysis, the higher the score, which points to a lack of sufficient oversight. To help the county office understand the “no” responses, narratives are included that give the reason for the response and actions that may be needed to obtain a “yes” answer. Identifying issues early with districts at risk of insolvency is key to restoring and maintaining their fiscal health. Diligent oversight will help a district better understand its financial objectives and strategies to sustain a high level of fiscal efficiency and overall solvency. County Office Name: Los Angeles County Office of Education Date of Fieldwork: October 28, 2020 Summary In February 2012, the governing board of the Inglewood Unified School District declared the district fiscally insolvent. On September 14, 2012, the governor approved SB 533, Chapter 325, bringing the district under state receivership with a state-ap- proved emergency appropriation for $55 million. This declaration occurred after several years of financial struggles and intense monitoring by LACOE. The issues that eventually led to the insolvency at the district were many but were punctuated by consis- tently overstating average daily attendance (ADA), understating California State Teachers’ Retirement System payments, under- stating certificated salary expenses, continued deficit spending, and declining enrollment. In addition the district was plagued with mismanagement, rapid and ongoing turnover in senior staff and flawed facilities management. The district’s administration and board made efforts to avoid the takeover with last minute expenditure reductions, but after years of deficit spending, the district’s structural budget imbalance was too large, and the district projected a negative cash balance would occur on March 31, 2013. The Los Angeles County Office of Education provides fiscal oversight to all of the school districts in the county as a result of the original AB 1200 legislation signed into law in 1991 and expressed in the California Education Code Section 42127 and related subsections. FCMAT assessed the county office’s involvement with the district during the course of its normal oversight respon- sibilities and specifically during the period that led to the district’s declaration of insolvency and beyond, up to and including the date of this review. FCMAT reviewed the fiscal oversight of the qualifying district by the county superintendent of schools utilizing documents prepared by county office staff (see attached document request list), both historical and current, as well as conducting a series of online interviews with individuals who are key to the oversight process. FCMAT asked a series of ques- tions relating to the time leading up to the insolvency, in addition to reviewing oversight practices currently employed by the county office, and also interviewed district staff. Some of the county office’s external business staff worked at the county office at the time of the district’s insolvency, which added to the completeness of the historical record. FCMAT’s findings indicate that the fiscal oversight actions taken by the county office during the study period in question were appropriate and adequate within the guidelines contained in the California Education Code and were consistent with the best practices established in a variety of other documents including the County Office Fiscal Oversight Guide and the County Office Fiscal Procedural Manual. FCMAT found that in its oversight of the district, the county office applied the indicators of fiscal distress during the certification process and appropriately qualified the district in a timely fashion. Moreover, the county office applies the process of fiscal oversight consistently with all school districts and programs within its purview. The majority of the review elements included in the COET were evidenced in the documentation and forms provided by the county office used to perform its AB 1200 oversight reviews. Where information was not available in the documentation, staff described a robust re- view process that included all of the elements. The formal and documented fiscal reviews conducted by the county office seem capable of identifying when a district is in risk of fiscal insolvency. Though not fully documented, the county office also performs historical trend analysis and does its own Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) calculations to verify the district’s numbers. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 2 County Office Evaluation tool The district’s recovery has been hampered by high turnover in state administrators and changes in both county and district ad- ministrations. Each of these transitions in leadership have come with different approaches to solving the district’s issues. Further hampering the district’s recovery was the simultaneous declining enrollment. Interviews with County Superintendent Debra Duardo indicated she has utilized a team approach to support the district in its recovery, which is a different tactic than had been used in the past. She chose County Administrator Erika Torres, who spends a significant amount of time building the Inglewood Unified School District’s school board capacity. Torres has created a comprehensive plan and timeline to eventually return governance authority to the Inglewood community. FCMAT found that communication between the county superintendent, county office staff and county administrator in the current model of oversight was timely and consistent, with a focus on district recovery. FCMAT found that the county office staff and superintendent rely heavily on the feedback from the county adminis- trator when making determinations about current and future solvency of the district and strategic decisions related to collective bargaining and resource allocation. The change from state to county oversight of the district, pursuant to AB 1840, motivated the county office to increase its en- gagement and support of the district. As a result, the county office developed a comprehensive support model for districts in need including: • A team of county office and district staff meet regularly to review FCMAT reports and develop action plans, identifying and prioritizing concrete areas and actions. • A county office support team works closely with district staff, focusing on building capacity in the areas that have been prioritized. The focus of the county office staff is to build knowledge and skills with existing district staff and to build systems. • There is a focus on building governing board capacity, including establishing regular governance committees with board members. The county superintendent indicates that the county office’s experience with the district has motivated it to be more aggressive in the oversight and support of districts than in the past. The support model being implemented by the county office shows early indicators of success and could be considered for replication elsewhere. The county administrator believes that local control could be restored in the district in two to three years. However, this is an extremely aggressive timeline for a district that has had deep structural issues for decades and experienced many setbacks. Furthermore, the model is resource- and time-intensive, and it is not clear if a county office lacking the capacity and resources of LACOE could achieve the same level of success. The following section of this report focuses on FCMAT’s review of LACOE’s fiscal oversight actions based on the COET. All of the areas assessed are listed below. A notation of “yes” indicates that FCMAT found sufficient evidence to support that appropriate fiscal oversight actions were taken. If an area has an indication of “no,” FCMAT found either insufficient documentation or a lack of focus with respect to that particular responsibility. If the exclusion in the area is material, it is noted in the narrative. Narrative is included for all of the items assessed. At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the county office of education (COE) receive and retain certifications with original signatures? 1 Yes Yes Yes Verified in document review for 2019-20 adopted budget and First Interim Re- view Work Program and for 2018-19 unaudited actuals. Did the COE review the status of all import, export, general ledger and supplemen- tal checks? 2 Documented as a standing item in the Interim Review Work Program process; Yes Yes Yes these items were checked during the document review and were supported during interviews. Did the COE verify whether allowable exceptions (also known as explanations) in the technical review process were reasonably explained? 3 Yes Yes Yes Verified in interviews and notes made by county office staff in the Interim Review Work Program process. Did the COE verify whether there were no fatal “F” exceptions in the technical review process? 4 Yes Yes Yes Verified in interviews and notes made by staff in the Interim Review Work Pro- gram process. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 3 County Office Evaluation tool At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the COE review transfers being made from restricted funds (e.g., building fund, bond interest and redemption fund, self-insurance fund, etc.)? 5 Yes Yes Yes Verified in interviews and Form SIAA and SIA review in the Interim Review Work Program form. Did the COE review Form A and determine whether the prior year’s P-2 and annual ADA agreed with the actual attendance report? LACOE utilizes a sophisticated ADA trend analysis and compares budget/inter- 6 Yes Yes Yes im and multiyear ADA projections with prior year(s) unaudited actuals. LACOE monitors Inglewood’s ADA projections, and the county office has frequent cali- bration discussions with the district chief business official (CBO) and staff. Did the COE investigate and determine the reason for any significant change in ADA since the prior reporting period? LACOE and Inglewood have frequent dialogue regarding ADA changes, 7 Yes Yes Yes pressures, and corresponding revenue adjustments. Additionally, the COE comments and records in the interim/budget Review Work Program any ADA adjustments and documents the underlying reasons for them. Did the COE verify if the enrollment and ADA projections are reasonable for at least the past three years? 8 Yes Yes N/A LACOE compares current year ADA with prior year ADA reported at unaudited actuals as a baseline variable when examining ADA for reasonability. Did the COE review the reasonableness of the explanations in the Criteria and Standards form? Documented in the interim/budget Review Work Program, the comment review 9 is documented during this process, and re-examined during the subsequent Yes Yes N/A work-paper review prior to the district’s letter being written. Per interviews with staff, LACOE will call the district if there are any vague explanations or com- ments that do not make sense based on what is actually occurring in the district. Did the COE review the reasonableness of multiyear commitments listed in the Criteria and Standards by comparing them with the information in the most recent audit report? 10 LACOE’s Audit Review Work Program (#11) has a standing item for comparing Yes Yes N/A the audit with the interim report, and asks for written confirmation by the local educational agency (LEA) when the adjustments are made to the district’s bud- get/interim reports. Did the COE review retiree health and welfare benefits liabilities for reasonable- ness by comparing them with the information in the most recent audit report? Nothing is specifically called out in LACOE’s review process on this particular 11 element other than the Interim Review Work Program under Audit Adjustment/ Yes Yes N/A Findings section. However, various interviews indicated that some attention was paid to this issue. FCMAT recommends a review of the processes and proce- dures that would support this element of the COE review. Did the COE check the accuracy of the status of any salary settlement or nego- tiations against current bargaining agreements as presented in the Criteria and Standards and the Public Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Agreement? 12 Yes Yes N/A FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the COE for the 2018-19 fiscal year. However, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 4 County Office Evaluation tool At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals If the district received a qualified or negative certification, did the COE review the AB 1200 disclosure documents and provide a written analysis regarding the viability and affordability of the collective bargaining agreement within the 10-day 13 statutorily required period? N/A Yes N/A The district submitted the AB 1200 disclosure documents for its 2018 collective bargaining agreements late, so the county office included its analysis of the agreements in its response to the district’s 2018-19 first interim report. Did the COE compare budget to actuals for all revenues and expenditures while also considering historical trend data? The county office indicated these comparisons were completed for budget, interim, and unaudited actuals, and provided examples of the documents used 14 to complete them. However, the forms the county office uses to document its Yes No No review of interim reports and unaudited actuals do not indicate these compar- isons were made. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these comparisons were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE review the “% of difference” column for reasonability? The county office indicated this review was completed at budget, interim, and unaudited actuals. However, the forms the county office uses to document its 15 Yes Yes No review of unaudited actuals do not indicate this check for reasonability was completed. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were complet- ed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether the district’s reserve calculation meets the applicable percentage of reserve requirement in object 9789? FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the county office for the 16 Yes Yes Yes 2018-19 fiscal year. However, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether the Local Control Funding Formula revenue (object 8011) agrees with the LCFF Calculator for the current year and in the multiyear projection? The county office indicated these verifications were completed for budget, inter- 17 im, and unaudited actuals by running its own LCFF calculations. However, the Yes No No forms the county office uses to document its review of interim reports and unau- dited actuals do not indicate these verifications were completed at all reporting periods. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether local taxes agree with the most recent J-29B? The county office indicated these verifications were completed for budget, inter- im, and unaudited actuals, and provided the documents used to complete them. 18 However, the forms the county office uses to document its review of the budget, No No No interim reports, and unaudited actuals do not indicate these verifications were completed. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were complet- ed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether the district’s assumptions and budgeted revenues are reasonable based on the latest information on the state budget, School Services of California, Inc. dartboard, and LCFF Calculator? 19 FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the county office for Yes Yes N/A the 2018-19 fiscal year. However, FCMAT could not verify that these checks for reasonableness were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 5 County Office Evaluation tool At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the COE determine whether salaries and benefits (including increases and/or decreases due to settlements of negotiations) are reasonable as budgeted in the current year and in the multiyear projection? Is the budget consistent with assump- tions and Criteria and Standards information? 20 Yes Yes N/A FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the county office for the 2018-19 fiscal year. However, FCMAT could not verify that these checks for reasonableness were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE identify and determine the reasonableness of the increases and/or decreases in financing sources/uses? The county office indicated these checks for reasonableness were completed for budget, interim, and unaudited actuals. However, the forms the county office 21 Yes Yes No uses to document its review of unaudited actuals does not indicate this check was completed. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether the base year totals in the multiyear projection match the Form 01 totals? The county office indicated these verifications were completed for budget and 22 interim. However, the forms the county office uses to document its review of the No No N/A budget and interim reports does not indicate these verifications were complet- ed. In addition, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. If line B10 on the multiyear projection was used, did the COE verify whether detailed assumptions or information was included from the district to explain the adjustment? 23 FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the county office for the Yes Yes N/A 2018-19 fiscal year. However, FCMAT could not verify that these checks were completed in 2017-18 because insufficient documentation was provided for that year. Did the COE verify whether projections for supplies, services, capital outlay and other expenditures (e.g., energy costs, health and welfare, one-time expenses, 24 etc.) appear reasonable? Yes Yes Yes The county office’s process to verify projections for these details as reasonable is listed within the review checklist. Did the COE verify whether prior year ending balances were forwarded correctly as beginning balances? 25 The county office verified the prior year ending balances were posted correctly N/A Yes Yes as beginning balances in the interim and actuals review processes. This verifica- tion is not applicable during the budget review. Did the COE verify whether the district projects maintaining the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty, consistent with the guidelines established in the Criteria 26 and Standards, for the current plus two subsequent years? Yes Yes N/A The county office verified the district projects maintaining the minimum reserve at each budget and interim cycle. Did the COE verify whether the beginning cash balance for July 1 on the cash flow was reasonable and forwarded correctly from the prior year? 27 The cash flow projection is not required at budget adoption. Adequate evidence N/A Yes Yes indicated the county office verifies the beginning cash balance postings at other review cycles during the year. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 6 County Office Evaluation tool At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Does the COE monitor cash flow monthly at a minimum and communicate with the district regarding concerns about cash balance? 28 Adequate evidence indicated the county office monitors/reconciles the cash Yes Yes Yes flow monthly and communicates regularly with the district regarding cash bal- ances. The county office posts the beginning balances on behalf of the LEAs. Did the COE identify any tax revenue anticipation notes (TRANS) that were issued in the budget year, including a schedule for repayments, and, if so, did the COE verify whether the receipts and payments are included in the cash flow worksheet 29 Yes Yes Yes and booked in the general ledger in 9640 - Current Loans? The county office’s review checklist includes a specific prompt to identify any TRANs receipts or repayments. Did the COE monitor or identify any temporary borrowing between funds and use of appropriate object codes by the district? 30 The evidence from the review checklist and from the interviews demonstrated Yes Yes Yes any temporary borrowing between funds would be identified and monitored for appropriate use of object codes and repayment. Did the COE verify whether prior year accruals, suspense accounts, and general ledger/balance sheet transactions are reconciled by the district at each reporting 31 period? Yes Yes Yes The checklist demonstrates the balance sheet accounts are reviewed. Interviews also indicated the process and procedures related to this review take place. Did the COE review compliance with maintenance of effort and Current Expense of Education (CEA) for applicable reporting periods? 32 The CEA compliance is not applicable at the budget or interim reporting peri- N/A N/A Yes ods. Adequate evidence indicates the county office reviews compliance with the CEA during the review of unaudited actuals. If the district is deficit spending, did the COE note the levels of deficit spending and communicate the COE’s concerns to the district in the budget and/or interim letters sent to the district’s governing board? 33 Yes Yes Yes The response/action letters to the district’s governing board include details related to the county office’s concerns about deficit spending and is well docu- mented in writing in review notes. If the district has contingent liabilities, did the COE measure the district’s ability to manage debt service or eliminate the liability and the effect on the ending fund 34 balance? Yes Yes Yes There is adequate evidence to support the county office’s review of debt service by including the payments in all reporting periods. If the COE received disclosures of non-voter-approved debt from the district, did the COE respond within the statutory timeline? There was no activity in this area during the time period reviewed. However, 35 Yes Yes Yes staff explained the process to review non-voter-approved debt pursuant to statute and demonstrated the topic is communicated regularly for awareness of code requirements to all districts. Is the COE monitoring the training of administrators who have budget authority and financial management responsibilities? Staff described the county office is doing more targeted support and trainings with 36 Yes Yes Yes the district in the areas identified that can be improved. There has been a recent focus on internal controls, processes for contracting out for work, and completing purchase order encumbrances once expenses are committed or obligated. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 7 County Office Evaluation tool Total “No” Responses 11 Scale: 0 – 20, favorable oversight performance 21 – 39, marginal oversight performance 40 – above, poor oversight performance Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 8 Appendices Appendices Appendix A - Document Request List Appendix B - Study Agreement Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 9 Appendices Los Angeles County Office of Education County Office Evaluation Review Documentation Request List Interviews: October 28, 2020 Please upload all documents, using the item number below, to FCMAT’s SharePoint document repository by June 30, 2020. Document(s) needed that pertain to the fiscal oversight of Inglewood Unified School District 001 COE organizational chart 002 Business services organizational chart 003 Completed checklists/files used to review each financial reporting period (adopted budget, first interim, second interim, unaudited actual) for the preceding two years 004 Communication to the district for interims and budget submission 005 Communication to the district regarding auditor selection and audit guidelines 006 Copy of district audit and resolution of findings including the COE correspondence regarding findings and follow-up of audit corrective actions 007 Communication to district regarding special education monitoring and forms 008 COE external business department organizational chart with responsibilities for perform- ing district oversight tasks 009 Policies/procedures established for district oversight and financial review 010 COE procedure/process for tracking district ADA (historical and/or projections) 011 COE procedure/process for validating LCFF calculations Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 10 Appendices Conclusion The Los Angeles County Office of Education provided favorable oversight performance based on the County Office Evaluation Tool developed by FCMAT. FCMAT will continue to perform an annual review of the effectiveness of the county office of education’s oversight of the district. [E.C. 41326(l)(3)] 012 Budget approval (disapproval) letters to district, last two years 013 Interim certification letters to district, last two years 014 Lack of going concern letters to district, last two years 015 Unaudited actuals letters to district, last two years 016 Any communication from the COE to the CDE/SCO regarding the district fiscal solvency, last two years 017 Any relevant communication between COE and COE-assigned fiscal advisor to the district 018 Any relevant contracts or forms pertaining to employment of fiscal advisor 019 Communication to the districts of J29 property tax statements 020 COE review and correspondence with district regarding public disclosure of collective bar- gaining 021 Cash reconciliations and monitoring performed by the COE 022 COE review and correspondence with district regarding non-voter-approved debt Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 11 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 12 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 13 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 14 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Los Angeles County Office of Education 15