Introduction

Background

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is one of the largest school districts in the nation and is the largest in California, serving most of the city of Los Angeles and all or part of 31 smaller cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. For fiscal year 2015–16, LAUSD employed nearly 60,000 individuals—about 27,000 of whom are teachers—to educate more than 528,000 students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. LAUSD consists of six geographically organized local district offices overseen by the LAUSD Board of Education and district superintendent.

Reassignment of Teachers From Classrooms After Allegations of Misconduct

According to its data, over the past five fiscal years LAUSD has removed more than 600 teachers from their classrooms for some period of time to formally investigate allegations of misconduct. This type of removal is referred to as reassignment. As of June 2016, LAUSD’s data indicate that 104 teachers were reassigned pending the resolution of the allegations against them. In some instances, reassignment ends when teachers separate from the district, either by resigning or because the district dismisses them. In other cases, teachers return to work after the conclusion of the investigation, either with or without a lesser form of discipline than dismissal.

Information we obtained by surveying a selection of California public school districts indicates that removing teachers in response to misconduct allegations is a common practice. Specifically, 59 of 60 districts responding to our survey stated that their district had removed a credentialed teacher in the past five years in order to investigate an allegation of the teacher’s misconduct. All 59 have a current practice of removing credentialed teachers from their classrooms in order to investigate allegations of misconduct. Further, those districts all responded that they might remove teachers in response to allegations of violent or sexual misconduct, which is also LAUSD’s policy. Many responding school districts also indicated that they may remove teachers in response to alleged drug or alcohol use, inappropriate language, or verbal abuse. When we followed up with a selection of these districts, they generally reported that the underlying goal of their practices in this area is to ensure safety, which is also the stated goal of LAUSD’s policy. Finally, many districts reported that they may remove teachers in order to prevent them from interfering with the investigation into their misconduct, a practice LAUSD’s policy also includes.

Table 1 summarizes the number of teacher reassignments at LAUSD for each of the last five fiscal years, 2011–12 through 2015–16. As the table shows, LAUSD has reassigned fewer teachers in recent years after reaching a high of 195 reassignments during fiscal year 2012–13. However, teacher reassignments increased from 63 in fiscal year 2014–15 to 90 reassignments during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2015–16, or by more than 40 percent. We reviewed all of LAUSD’s reassignment policies that were in effect during our audit period, the oldest of which was published in 2010. During that period, reasons in the policies for why teachers should be reassigned have been consistent. However, LAUSD has no formal policy for how to categorize misconduct in the database it uses to track reassignments. Therefore, the categories shown in the table, which are drawn from the database, may not be consistent. For example, a similar allegation might have been characterized as inappropriate language in one case and sexual misconduct in another.

Table 1
LAUSD Teacher Reassignments for Fiscal Years 2011–12 Through 2015–16

	Fiscal Year
Misconduct Type	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15	2015–16*	Grand Total
Drugs or alcohol	2	2	1	3	3	11
Inappropriate language	1	4	5	4	5	19
Sexual misconduct†	67	39	36	23	37	202
Violence	66	103	41	24	37	271
Other‡	42	47	26	9	8	132
Totals	178	195	109	63	90	635

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of data obtained from Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Incident Reporting System Database (database).
Note: LAUSD does not establish clear or mutually exclusive definitions for incident types in its policy. As a result, similar circumstances may be reported in different categories.
Refer to Table 4 for the discussion on the reliability of the data presented here.
* Reflects data from July 1, 2015, through June 1, 2016.
^† LAUSD breaks sexual misconduct into multiple categories related to contact and harassment.
^‡ LAUSD’s database has an other category, as well as several categories with relatively few instances of reassignment, such as fraud and finances. We combined all those categories into other for this table.

Table 2 provides information about the range and median length, in calendar days, of the reassignment cases LAUSD resolved for fiscal years 2011–12 through 2015–16, regardless of when the teacher was originally reassigned. LAUSD’s acting director of the Student Safety Investigation Team (Investigation Team) told us that complex cases can take longer to resolve. In addition to the fact that the misconduct categories are not always clearly defined, there are other reasons a reassignment may take more or less time to complete, including how promptly investigators begin and how long it takes LAUSD administrators to impose discipline or return teachers to class. We discuss the timeliness and appropriateness under its policy for specific reassignments in the Audit Results section of this report.

Table 2
Number and Length of Reassignments LAUSD Resolved for Fiscal Years 2011–12 Through 2015–16, by Misconduct Type

		Days*
Misconduct Type	Total Completed	Median	Shortest	Longest
Drugs or alcohol	13	405	22	617
Inappropriate language	13	578	69	1,485
Sexual misconduct†	195	380	0	2,121
Violence	275	309	0	1,988
Other†	139	226	0	2,272

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of data obtained from Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Incident Reporting System Database (database).
Note: LAUSD does not establish clear or mutually exclusive definitions for incident types in its policy. As a result, similar circumstances may be reported in different categories.
Refer to Table 4 for the discussion on the reliability of the data presented here.
* Data are current as of June 1, 2016. Length is measured in calendar days.
^† LAUSD breaks sexual misconduct into multiple categories related to contact and harassment.
^‡ LAUSD’s database has an other category, as well as several categories with relatively few instances of reassignment, such as fraud and finances. We combined all those categories into other for this table.

Since May 2014, it has been LAUSD’s policy for reassigned teachers to remain at home while their cases are resolved instead of reporting to a district office during the workday. The school districts responding to our survey also reported that most teachers stay at home while reassigned. A minority of districts reported that some teachers may be reassigned to an alternative administrative site or district building or in a different location at their normal school site. Additionally, as is the case at LAUSD, all districts we surveyed reported that the districts continue paying teachers over the course of their removal from the classroom. Districts continue to pay reassigned teachers because state law requires that school districts act to dismiss teachers before they stop paying them. We provide more detailed information from the results of the survey in Appendix A.

LAUSD Policy Requirements for Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Employee Misconduct

LAUSD’s policy states that employees will be reassigned when the safety of students, schools, or the workplace is clearly at risk. Since at least 2010, LAUSD policy has consistently stated that employees should not be reassigned in response to competence or judgment issues unrelated to safety. LAUSD has updated its reassignment policy three times since July 2010. Some iterations of that policy, including the current policy published on August 5, 2015, and revised in May 2016, cite examples of the types of misconduct that may cause an employee to be reassigned. The current policy also states that teachers may be reassigned if their presence disrupts district operations or threatens the integrity of an investigation. Although these and other aspects of LAUSD’s reassignment policy apply to both credentialed teachers and classified and administrative employees, such as bus drivers and school administrators, the audit request directed us to focus our review on credentialed teachers.

LAUSD’s policy includes various time frames and directives for investigating and resolving the cases of reassigned teachers, many of which we reviewed and report on in the Audit Results section of this report. Figure 1 depicts key elements of the current policy and the responsible parties involved. Some of the steps in the policy represent changes in the length of time or responsibility from previous versions of the policy. These changes include assigning responsibility for all formal reassignment investigations to LAUSD’s Investigation Team and shortening the timeline goal for investigations from 120 workdays to 90 workdays. However, the Investigation Team’s acting director told us that in complex cases, the district’s intention is still to allow investigators 120 workdays. The 90‑day versus 120‑day distinction for more complex cases was specified in the May 2016 policy revision. Other aspects of the policy, such as the five‑day preliminary assessment period, have existed for multiple policy versions going back to July 2012.

Relevant Previous Audits of LAUSD by the California State Auditor

In November 2012, the California State Auditor (State Auditor) issued a report titled Los Angeles Unified School District: It Could Do More to Improve Its Handling of Child Abuse Allegations, Report 2012‑103. As part of that review, the audit report noted that the district did not investigate some allegations in a timely manner, and the State Auditor recommended that LAUSD increase its oversight of open investigations into alleged misconduct. In response, the district created the Investigation Team to investigate all allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct and to help administrators conduct other types of investigations thoroughly and in a timely manner.

Figure 1
LAUSD’s Process for Resolving Allegations of Teacher Misconduct

Figure 1, a flow chart-style graphic showing the process for and various stages within LAUSD’s process for resolving allegations of teacher misconduct.

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of LAUSD policy bulletin number 6532, dated August 5, 2015.
* Responsible parties include the Human Resources department and the Office of the General Counsel.

In 2015 the State Auditor also conducted a follow‑up audit that reviewed LAUSD’s revised policies and procedures related to investigating teachers as well as 12 allegations the Investigation Team handled. The audit report noted that the district had made improvements in the time it took to complete its investigation of an allegation. Specifically, for the 12 cases reviewed, the audit reported that the Investigation Team complied with the district’s policy at that time to complete investigations within 120 workdays.

Procedural Due Process Rights for Credentialed Teachers Accused of Misconduct

Both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution specify that the government may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In this regard, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a California public employee’s permanent civil service job, such as that of a permanent LAUSD teacher, is property that is subject to the due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions. Under this ruling, LAUSD generally may not dismiss a permanent teacher from his or her job without ensuring that the teacher has been notified of the reason for the dismissal and is provided with an opportunity to challenge the disciplinary action. These rights of permanent teachers are called procedural due process rights.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed us to determine whether LAUSD’s reassignment processes were sufficient to protect the due process rights of teachers who had been reassigned for significant periods of time. Because reassigned credentialed teachers are on paid administrative leave during LAUSD’s investigation into their alleged misconduct, procedural due process rights generally do not apply to the reassignment process. By contrast, disciplinary actions that LAUSD decides to undertake as a result of its investigations into the allegations associated with reassigned teachers, such as dismissing them, could trigger procedural due process requirements if LAUSD takes action to stop paying those teachers.

Scope and Methodology

The Audit Committee directed the State Auditor to conduct an audit of LAUSD’s credentialed employee discipline process. Table 3 outlines the audit objectives approved by the Audit Committee and our methods for addressing them.

Table 3
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

	Audit Objective	Method
1	Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.	Reviewed applicable laws and regulations significant to the audit objectives.

2	Determine the circumstances under which the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) houses teachers who are the subject of a misconduct investigation, and determine the cost of housing teachers, based on the per‑teacher cost and overall cost, for the past five years. In determining these costs, include the cost of compensating the housed employee and the cost of a substitute teacher (substitute), whenapplicable.*	Reviewed LAUSD’s policy for reassigning teachers for allegations of misconduct. Reviewed relevant portions of LAUSD’s contract with its credentialed teachers. Obtained expenditure amounts from LAUSD for reassigned teachers’ salaries and benefits for fiscal years 2011–12 through 2015–16. Using information in LAUSD’s Incident Reporting System Database (database) of reassigned employees, determined the total number of school days teachers were reassigned each year between fiscal year 2011–12 and June 1, 2016. Used general compensation information for LAUSD substitutes, including benefits, to estimate the total costs associated with replacing reassigned teachers during that time period. Reviewed the actual assignment and compensation information, including benefits, for a selection of 18 teachers reassigned during fiscal years 2011–12 through 2015–16 and their substitutes to determine the actual costs of these reassignments.

3	Survey a selection of school districts regarding their policies and practices used when a teacher is the subject of an investigation for misconduct requiring his or her removal from the classroom.	Used information from the California Department of Education and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Teacher Credentialing) to identify the California public school districts with the most teachers, school sites, and reports of teacher misconduct in order to identify a selection of districts to survey. We used these data primarily as background or contextual information; as such, no data reliability assessment was necessary. Selected 71 California school districts to survey regarding their policies and practices for employee discipline processes. We received 60 responses and analyzed the results of the 59 districts that indicated they had removed one or more teachers from the classroom in the last five years in response to allegations of misconduct. Conducted follow‑up interviews with a selection of eight school districts to collect more specific information about how the districts manage teacher reassignments and the reasons for those processes.

4	Determine the reasons LAUSD houses teachers who are the subject of a misconduct investigation, evaluate the appropriateness of those reasons, and determine whether other, less costly alternativesexist.	Reviewed LAUSD’s policy bulletin concerning teacher reassignments. When we began our review in March 2016, LAUSD had published its most recent policy in August2015. This policy instituted new timelines and responsibilities for managing teacher reassignments. We therefore focused our review on individual teacher reassignments that took place between August 2015 and March 2016. In May 2016, LAUSD published minor revisions to the existing policy. When those revisions were relevant to the results of our testing, we discuss them in the body of the report. Reviewed case documentation and interviewed decision makers to determine whether the rationale decision makers used to formally reassign 10 teachers accused of violent or sexual misconduct between August 2015 and March 2016 was consistent with decisions to return 10 other teachers accused of the same categories of misconduct to the classroom. Reviewed current practices at LAUSD for reassigning teachers that may contribute to unnecessary costs.

5	For a selection of teachers, assess the manner in which their cases were evaluated, investigated, and resolved. For a selection of teachers who have been housed for a significant amount of time, determine whether the investigations related to those teachers were conducted timely. Also, to the extent possible, for those cases that are still unresolved or were not resolved timely, determine whether the process LAUSD uses to investigate teacher misconduct and to house teachers who are the subject of such an investigation is sufficient to protect the procedural due process rights of the teachers involved.	Reviewed a selection of 21 teachers reassigned under the August 2015 employee misconduct policy to assess the timeliness with which LAUSD resolved the cases and the consistency of LAUSD’s communication with the teachers. Using LAUSD’s database, identified 15 teacher reassignment cases that were at least twoyears old and still ongoing when we began our review in March 2016. We reviewed case documentation for those 15 cases and interviewed responsible LAUSD staff to determine why they were still open and what factors contributed to the delays in resolving thecases. Identified the procedural due process rights of credentialed teachers.
6	Evaluate whether housing teachers who are on paid leave pending the outcome of a misconduct investigation is a reasonable practice, and determine whether LAUSD follows appropriate policies and practices in making the decision to house such employees.	Analyzed the results of our survey of California school districts, described in Objective 3, to determine whether they have policies that include removing teachers from the classroom during an investigation of alleged misconduct. Reviewed case documentation and conducted interviews with LAUSD administrators to determine the rationale used in deciding to formally reassign 11 teachers between August 2015 and March 2016 whose alleged misconduct, as categorized in LAUSD’s database, did not appear to be consistent with LAUSD’s reassignment policy.

7	Determine, to the extent possible, whether employees, including those employees who had been housed for a significant period of time during the last five years, ultimately have disciplinary action taken against them by LAUSD or by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing with respect to their teaching credential.	Obtained data from Teacher Credentialing and created a summary of disciplinary actions taken against LAUSD teachers in the last five years. We used these data primarily as background or contextual information; as such, no data reliability assessment was necessary. For reassignments begun and resolved between July 1, 2011, and June 1, 2016, determined the number and proportion of teachers who returned to class, resigned, or were dismissed from LAUSD during each year. The results of that analysis are given in Table 9. For the selection of 18 teachers we reviewed under Objective 2, determined what, if any, discipline LAUSD issued to the seven teachers who ultimately returned to theclassroom. When reviewing a separate selection of 15 long‑running open reassignment cases under Objective 5, determined what disciplinary actions were taken against thoseteachers.

8	Review data from the last five years concerning the number of credentialed school employees at LAUSD who have been housed and the length of time they have been housed. To the extent possible, categorize and present the data grouped by the type of misconduct alleged.	Reviewed LAUSD’s database and determined the number of reassignments each year between July 1, 2011, and June 1, 2016, categorized by the types of misconduct used in LAUSD’s database. The results of this review are provided in Table 1. For those misconduct types, and for all cases LAUSD resolved between July 1, 2011, and June 1, 2016, also determined the range and median number of days those reassignments were active. The results of this review are provided in Table 2.

9	To the extent possible, review the impact on students whose teachers have been housed.	Asked LAUSD and the school districts we surveyed what steps they take to minimize disruption to classroom instruction when a teacher is removed.. Reviewed credential information for all of the substitutes that replaced the 18 teachers we reviewed for Objective 2 to determine whether they were appropriately credentialed both for the classrooms they served in and the amount of time they served in thoseclassrooms.

10	Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.	Reviewed training records for a selection of reassigned teachers to assess whether they completed any training during the period of their reassignments.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request 2016‑103, and information and documentation identified in the table column titled Method.
* LAUSD’s policy for removing teachers from classrooms in response to alleged misconduct refers to that practice as reassignment. Therefore, we use that term in place of housing in this table and throughout the report.

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we relied on various electronic data files that we obtained from the entities listed in Table 4. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily required to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer‑processed information that we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Table 4 describes the analyses we conducted using data from these information systems, our methodology for testing them, and the limitations we identified in the data. Although we recognize that these limitations may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Specifically, although we base certain conclusions about the number and length of LAUSD’s teacher reassignments on these data, our overall findings and the recommendations we make as a result of those findings are supported by our review of additional documentation and evidence, such as individual reassignment case files. Further, we present these data because they represent the best available data source of this information.

Table 4
Methods Used to Assess Data Reliability

INFORMATION SYSTEM	PURPOSE	METHOD AND RESULT	CONCLUSION
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Incident Reporting System Database as of June 1, 2016	To select allegations of misconduct forreview.	This purpose did not require a data reliability assessment. Instead, we needed to gain assurance that the population of allegations of misconduct reported through email was complete for our review purposes. However, in accordance with its record retention policy, LAUSD did not maintain all email records necessary for our testing, so we did not perform this testing.	We were unable to determine whether the universe from which we made our selection wascomplete.
	To determine the number, length, status, and cost of LAUSD teacher reassignments between fiscal years 2011–12 and 2015–16.	We performed accuracy testing for a random sample of 29 incidents of alleged employee misconduct and verified that the supporting documentation matched key data elements, including date fields that we used to determine the length of teacher reassignments. We identified a total of 12 errors. Specifically, we found four errors in the removal date that were inaccurate by a range of one to eight days. Additionally, we found eight errors in the resolution date that were inaccurate by a range of one day to 135 days. Because of the significance of the errors identified in our accuracy testing and because LAUSD did not maintain all email records necessary for our testing, we did not perform completeness testing.	Not sufficiently reliable. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Further, we present these data because they represent thebest availabledata source of this information.
LAUSD Systems Applications and Products (SAP) accounting system	To obtain the salary and benefit costs of reassigned teachers for fiscal years 2011–12 through 2015–16.	We did not perform accuracy testing on these data because SAP is a mostly paperless system. Alternatively, we could have reviewed the adequacy of selected information system controls but determined that this level of review was cost‑prohibitive. To gain some assurance of the completeness of the salary and benefit amounts provided, we traced and materially agreed the amounts provided to the audited financial statements for fiscal years 2011–12 through 2014–15. The audit for fiscal years 2015–16 was not yet complete at the time of our review.	Undetermined reliability. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Further, we present these data because they represent thebest availabledata source of this information.

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of various documents, interviews, and data from LAUSD.