SCO
Yolo County
Read the report at Yolo County ↗
YOLO COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Report of Review
AUDIT RESOLUTION PROCESS
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 and FY 2011-12
J C
OHN HIANG
California State Controller
October 2013
J C
OHN HIANG
California State Controller
October 10, 2013
Jorge O. Ayala, Ed.D.
County Superintendent of Schools
Yolo County Office of Education
1280 Santa Anita Court, Suite 100
Woodland, CA 95776-6127
Dear Dr. Ayala:
The State Controller’s Office reviewed the Yolo County Office of Education’s (COE) audit
resolution process for local education agency (LEA) exceptions noted in the annual audit reports.
The review covered fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 and FY 2011-12.
Our review found that the Yolo COE followed its audit resolution process for FY 2010-11 and
FY 2011-12. As a result, the Yolo COE was in compliance with California Education Code
section 41020, except for two late submissions by the LEAs of their FY 2010-11 LEA
certifications of corrective action plans and a FY 2011-12 LEA corrective action plan that was
not dated.
If you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Baez, Chief, Financial Audits Bureau, by
phone at (916) 322-7656.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
JVB/kw
cc: Diane Cirolini, Associate Superintendent
Yolo County Office of Education
Sandi Fowles, Director
Yolo County Office of Education
Peter Foggiato, Director
School Fiscal Services Division
California Department of Education
Arlene Matsuura, Education Fiscal Services Consultant
School Fiscal Services Division
California Department of Education
Dan Troy, Principal Program Budget Analyst
Education Systems, Department of Finance
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Contents
Review Report
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 3
Views of Responsible Official ........................................................................................... 3
Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 3
Finding and Recommendation .............................................................................................. 4
Attachment—Yolo COE’s Response to Draft Report
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Review Report
Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) reviewed the Yolo County Office of
Education’s (COE) audit resolution process for local education agency
(LEA) exceptions noted in the annual reports for fiscal year (FY) 2010-
11 and FY 2011-12. Our review found that the Yolo COE followed its
audit resolution process for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12, except for late
submission of LEA certifications of corrective action plans and a FY
2011-12 LEA corrective action plan that was not dated.
Background California Education Code section 41020(n) requires the State Controller
to annually select a sampling of county superintendents of schools to
perform a follow-up review of the audit resolution process. Results of
these reviews are reported to the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) and the county superintendents of the schools that were reviewed.
Furthermore, California Education Code section 41020(n) states that the
State Controller shall require auditors to categorize audit exceptions in
the audit report in such a manner that both the county superintendent of
schools and the SPI can discern which exceptions they are responsible
for ensuring that LEAs correct.
The Yolo COE provides coordination of educational programs and
professional and financial supervision for five LEAs under its direct
jurisdiction. In addition, the county superintendent of schools maintains
special schools and programs countywide independent of the LEAs.
County superintendents of schools are required to do the following:
Review, for each of their school districts, the audit exceptions relating
to attendance, inventory of equipment, internal control, and any
miscellaneous items; and determine whether the findings have been
corrected or an acceptable plan of correction has been developed
(California Education Code section 41020(i)(1));
Review audit exceptions related to instructional materials program
funds, teacher misassignments, and school accountability report cards.
The county superintendents must also determine whether the
exceptions have been corrected or an acceptable plan of correction has
been developed (California Education Code section 41020(i)(2));
Review audit exceptions related to attendance exceptions or issues
that shall include, but are not limited to, those related to revenue
limits, adult education, and independent study (California Education
Code section 41020(j)(1));
-1-
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Notify the LEA and request the governing board of the LEA to
provide to the county superintendent of schools a description of the
correction or plan of correction by March 15 (California Education
Code section 41020(j)(2));
Review the description of the correction or plan of correction and
determine its adequacy and, if its response was not adequate, require
the LEA to resubmit a portion of its response (California Education
Code section 41020(j)(3));
By May 15, certify to the SPI and the SCO that the county has
reviewed all applicable exceptions, and state that all exceptions have
been corrected or an acceptable plan for correction has been submitted
by the LEA to the county superintendent, except as noted in the
certification. In addition, identify by LEA any attendance-related
exceptions or exceptions involving state funds, and require the LEA
to submit the appropriate reporting forms to the SPI for processing
(California Education Code section 41020(k));
Review LEAs’ unresolved prior year audit exceptions when the
California Department of Education defers to the county (California
Education Code section 41020(l)); and
Adjust subsequent local property tax requirements to correct audit
exceptions relating to LEA tax rates and tax revenues (California
Education Code section 41020(o)).
Objective, Scope, Our review was conducted under the authority of California Education
Code section 41020(n). Our review scope was limited to determining
and Methodology
whether or not the Yolo COE followed its audit resolution process in
resolving audit exceptions. Our review did not include an evaluation of
the sufficiency of the action taken by the LEA and the Yolo COE to
address each exception, nor did it assess the degree to which each
exception was addressed. Specifically, our review was limited to the
following procedures.
Verifying whether the Yolo COE addressed all attendance, inventory
of equipment, internal control, and miscellaneous exceptions. In
addition, we verified whether the Yolo COE addressed any findings
on instructional materials program funds, teacher reassignments, and
school accountability report cards. However, with respect to
exceptions based on sample items, our review did not include a
determination of whether or not the exception results were properly
quantified and addressed at a districtwide or countywide level;
Verifying whether the Yolo COE notified LEAs that they must submit
completed corrective action forms to the Yolo COE by March 15,
2012, and March 15, 2013, for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12,
respectively. Our review did not include an assessment of the LEAs’
progress with respect to taking corrective action;
-2-
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Verifying whether the Yolo COE required the LEAs to submit the
appropriate reporting forms to the SPI for any attendance-related
exceptions that affect state funding;
Reviewing the letters of certification due on May 15, 2012, and
May 15, 2013, that the Yolo COE sent to the SPI and the SCO with
respect to any resolved and unresolved audit exceptions;
Verifying whether the Yolo COE followed up with unresolved prior
year audit exceptions the SPI required the Yolo COE to conduct; and
Verifying whether the Yolo COE adjusted subsequent local property
tax requirements to correct audit exceptions relating to LEA tax rates
and tax revenues.
Conclusion Our review found that the Yolo COE followed its audit resolution
process for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12. As a result, the Yolo COE was
in compliance with California Education Code section 41020 for FY
2010-11 and FY 2011-12 except for late submissions by the LEAs of the
FY 2010-11 certification of corrective action plans and a FY 2011-12
LEA corrective action plan that was not dated.
Views of Our conclusion and review finding were provided to the Yolo COE for
review in a draft report issued August 15, 2013. The Yolo COE’s
Responsible
response is included as an attachment to this report.
Official
Diane Cirolini, Associate Superintendent, generally agreed with the
conclusion and review finding presented in the report.
Restricted Use This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Yolo
COE, the California Department of Education, the California Department
of Finance, and the SCO; it is not intended to be and should not be used
by anyone other than these specified parties. This restriction is not meant
to limit distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.
Original signed by
JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
October 10, 2013
-3-
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Finding and Recommendation
FINDING— During our review of the form letters sent from the Yolo County Office
LEA corrective of Education (COE) to the local education agencies (LEAs) and the
actions plans LEAs corrective action plans submitted to the Yolo COE, we noted the
following deficiencies:
submitted to COE
late and undated
The form letter sent to the LEAs from the Yolo COE does not
specify that the LEA submit a description of the correction or plan of
correction to the Yolo COE by March 15, as required by the
California Education Code.
The corrective action plan submitted by Washington Unified School
District for the fiscal year (FY) 2010-11 audit exceptions was not
submitted to the Yolo COE until March 16, 2012, which is
subsequent to the March 15 deadline.
The corrective action plan submitted by Esparto Unified School
District for the FY 2010-11 audit exceptions was not submitted to the
Yolo COE until May 11, 2012, which is subsequent to the March 15
deadline.
The corrective action plan submitted by Davis Joint Unified School
District for the FY 2011-12 audit exceptions did not include a date of
submission to determine whether the corrective action plan was
submitted before the March 15 deadline
California Education Code section 41020(j) states, in part:
(2) If a description of the correction or plan of correction has not been
provided as part of the audit required by this section, then the county
superintendent of schools shall notify the local educational agency and
request the governing board of the local educational agency to provide
the county superintendent of schools a description of the corrections or
plan of correction by March 15.
Recommendation
The Yolo COE should:
Modify the form letter sent to the LEAs to include a request of the
correction(s) or plan(s) of correction by no later than March 15.
Maintain a log of the dates of request, subsequent contact, and date
the LEA correction(s) or plan(s) of correction are received.
COE Response
Finding 1 – LEA corrective actions plans submitted to COE late
and undated
o The form letter sent to the LEAs from the Yolo COE does not
specify that the LEA submit a description of the correction or
plan of correction to the Yolo COE by March 15, as required by
the California Education Code.
-4-
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Response
o The form letters for 2010-11 resolution process were sent on
February 6th with a request for the corrective action plan
within 30 days, complying with the March 15th, deadline for
responses.
o YCOE will however, follow the recommendation to modify
the form letter to request the correction(s) or plan(s) of
correction by no later than March 15.
Finding 1 – The corrective action plan submitted by Washington
Unified School District for the fiscal (FY) 2010-11 audit
exceptions was not submitted to the Yolo COE until March 16,
2012, which is subsequent to the March 15 deadline.
Response
o The letter from Washington Unified School District is dated
March 16, 2012, and was a result of follow-up communication
with the district revealing the district was just finishing the
letter. This 1 day delay did not cause a delay in the
certification process to the State Controller’s Office.
Finding 1 – The corrective action plan submitted by Esparto
Unified School District for the 2010-11 audit exceptions was not
submitted to the Yolo COE until May 11, 2012, which is
subsequent to the March 15 deadline.
Response
o Esparto Unified School District had just hired a new Assistant
Superintendent of Business on January 3rd. YCOE had been in
communication with the new Assistant Superintendent and
knew the submission would be delayed as the new Assistant
Superintendent needed more time to resolve the findings.
Finding 1 – The corrective action plan submitted by Davis Joint
Unified School District for the FY 2011-12 audit exceptions did
not include a date of submission to determine whether the
corrective action plan was submitted before the March 15 deadline.
Response
o The small number of districts and findings, as well as YCOE’s
relationship with the districts allows for an efficient yet less
formal process for tracking and following up on audit
resolutions. In addition to utilizing copies of the initial formal
letters sent to district, if necessary, YCOE also regularly
communicates with districts during the follow-up process,
including via personally, e-mail or phone call. YCOE has the
e-mails and phone log documenting the repeated requests to
Davis Joint Unified School District for the corrective action
plan which was submitted May 14th. YCOE will follow the
recommendation to date the LEA correction(s) or plan(s) of
correction when received, and place the corresponding e-mails
or dates of phone calls/visits in the Audit Finding Resolution
Folder.
-5-
Yolo County Office of Education Audit Resolution Process
Attachment—
Yolo COE’s Response
to Draft Report
State Controller’s Office
Division of Audits
Post Office Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250-5874
http://www.sco.ca.gov
S14–COE–900