Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Report Number : 2016-109

Uniform Complaint Procedures
The California Department of Education’s Inadequate Oversight Has Led to a Lack of Uniformity and Compliance in the Processing of Complaints and Appeals

Responses to the Audit

Use the links below to skip to the specific response you wish to view:





California Department of Education

January 11, 2017

Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: “Uniform Complaint Procedures: The California Department of Education’s Inadequate Oversight Has Led to a Lack of Uniformity and Compliance in the Processing of Complaints and Appeals,” Report No. 2016‑109, January 2017

The California Department of Education (Education) appreciates the opportunity to comment and provide proposed corrective actions to the recommendations outlined in the California State Auditor’s (CSA) Audit Report No. 2016‑109, titled: “Uniform Complaint Procedures: The California Department of Education’s Inadequate Oversight Has Led to a Lack of Uniformity and Compliance in the Processing of Complaints and Appeals.”

Perspective Comments

To provide better perspective to the CSA’s audit report, Education has the following comments.

1

There is a disconnect between the report title and headers within the report, which could lead the public to believe that Education has failed to properly implement the Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) process. In fact, the information and data contained in the report indicates that Education has substantially complied with the UCP, and demonstrates that when a 60‑day timeline applies to complaints, Education typically met that deadline. Furthermore, Education reaffirms that a 60‑day timeline does not apply to the majority of programs subject to the UCP appeal process, and the data fails to distinguish between appeals in which such a timeline did or did not apply. Consequently, the CSA’s determination of whether Education met 60‑day timelines, which did not exist, is misleading and subjective.

Recommendation No. 1:

To ensure that it consistently processes complaints and appeals in a timely manner and that it investigates and reviews all UCP complaints and appeals in compliance with state law and regulations, Education should designate a central office to receive all complaints and appeals by July 2017. This central office should do the following:

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

3
2

Education does not concur with the recommendation to establish a central UCP office. Education currently has systems and processes in place to ensure that complaints and appeals are addressed in compliance with state law and regulations. A centralized office for the oversight of all UCP complaints and appeals is not required in law. Furthermore, in order to comply with the CSA’s recommendation to establish a centralized office, additional staff and funding would be required to manage the work as recommended by the CSA. Moreover, this recommendation is inconsistent with CSA’s recommendation that a standard 60‑day timeline should apply regardless of the subject matter of the complaint; creation of a centralized office could actually incur additional time, complexity, and bureaucracy to the current process. Since the UCP process applies to many programs across Education, no one office has the expertise or program knowledge to substantively respond to all complaints and appeals. Therefore, a centralized office taking in and distributing all UCP complaints and appeals could delay the time for when a program office would begin to consider the substance of the complaint or appeal.

4

Education partially concurs with the recommendation to establish a database; neither a single database nor a common set of data are required in law. Nevertheless, as Education informed the CSA, it is in the process of creating a centralized tracking database system which could be utilized by program offices to enter receipt and important deadlines for complaints and appeals. Education has been actively developing a Sharepoint, or similar program, which it intends to roll out this spring or summer. This program will enable Education to track and monitor program offices progress in processing UCP complaints and appeals.

7
6
5

Education does not concur with the CSA’s 60-day recommendation. The CSA has improperly imposed a uniform 60‑day rule for appeals that does not exist in law, applied it to Education, and determined that Education was in certain instances out of compliance. Separate from the issue of whether or not a uniform 60‑day rule is desirable, it is inappropriate for the CSA to find Education noncompliant with a nonexistent law, and then base recommendations on this presumed noncompliance. In this regard, the CSA reports that Education failed to complete certain matters within 60 days, without identifying whether, in each of those instances, Education had a legal obligation to do so. In addition, in certain cases, the CSA appears to have incorrectly classified appeals as complaints and improperly imposed a 60‑day timeline. Finally, with respect to complaints, the report fails to emphasize that the CSA’s data, shows that 86% of all complaints were received by the Special Education Division (SED), and 98% of them were completed within 60 days.

9
8

Education does not concur with the CSA’s conclusion that no offices besides SED have procedures and policies in place. For example, the Nutrition Services Division (NSD) and Categorical Programs Complaints Management office have well-established policies and procedures for processing complaints and appeals. As for policies and procedures, the UCP regulations provide significant guidance on how complaints and appeals must be handled by Education. While policies and procedures and a standard investigation report are not required in law, Education will review whether policies and procedures for processing complaints and appeals are necessary.

12
11
10

Additional Comments: Education takes timeliness seriously. The CSA has overstated and/or misstated timeliness problems. Specifically, with respect to initial receipt of complaints, the CSA’s data shows that 2,562 of 2,598 complaints, or 98.6%, were initially received in the correct division; 618 of 675 appeals, or 91.2%, were initially received in the correct division; and only 15 of 675 appeals, or 2.2%, were delayed by 30 days or more in arriving in the correct division. Furthermore, although the CSA cites examples relating to the UCP complaints and appeals that have been filed with the Office of Equal Opportunity, Education addressed this issue nearly two years ago when it formed the new Educational Equity UCP Appeals Office (Educational Equity). Finally, the CSA cites delays in Educational Equity “starting the clock;” however, the CSA fails to note that the law does not in fact provide a timeline for Educational Equity appeals.

Recommendation No. 2:

To ensure that its regulations are consistent and align with state and federal requirements, by July 2017 Education should initiate revising its regulations as follows:

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

13

Education cannot comment on this recommendation. The reference to “align with state and federal requirements” in this recommendation is unclear, as the CSA fails to identify any state or federal requirement with which Education’s UCP is not currently aligned.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

Education partially concurs with this recommendation. Education is willing to discuss this recommendation with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to determine if Education would be allowed to utilize the UCP process to handle future complaints that Education receives directly. The requirement to have a complaint process at the state level is a condition of federal law, and is required where necessary. With regard to nutrition programs, the USDA has mandated that complaints be handled in a particular manner if they are received by the state. There are policies and procedures established by the USDA for processing such complaints, depending on the food program at issue (see, e.g. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/fd/mb04405.asp). In addition, any appeals received by the state of a complaint filed with the LEA is handled in compliance with the UCP regulations.

Under Title 5, California Code of Regulations (5 CCR) 4610, the UCP applies to “(6) Child Nutrition Programs established pursuant to Education Code sections 49490 through 49570.” These sections implement various federal nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, special milk program, child care food program, and summer food service program. Furthermore, the UCP process does allow for Education to accept complaints under direct intervention in certain instances (see 5 CCR 4650).

In parallel with UCP provisions, each of the programs under applicable federal regulations has the same complaint investigation requirement for the state agency:

Investigations. Each State agency shall promptly investigate complaints received or irregularities noted in connection with the operation of the Program, and shall take appropriate action to correct any irregularities. State agencies shall maintain on file, evidence of such investigations and actions. FNS and OIG may make reviews or investigations at the request of the State agency or where FNS or OIG determines reviews or investigations are appropriate.

14

Although the UCP applies to nutrition programs, it applies only to complaints at the school district level which go through the usual UCP process of investigation by the district and possible appeal to Education. However, if a parent calls or contacts Education directly (which is the majority of the complaints Education receives) and does not elect to file a UCP complaint with the school district, Education has a federal obligation to investigate the complaint “promptly.” However, that investigation is governed by Education’s own procedures (which is subject to federal oversight) and not by the UCP or its timelines. The USDA recently approved of this process during a Civil Rights Compliance Review that was conducted on August 24–28, 2015.

Recommendation No. 3:

To ensure that it complies with UCP regulations and makes complainants aware of the outcome of investigations, beginning February 2017 Nutrition Services should provide them with investigation reports, even when the complainants request anonymity from the LEAs involved.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

Education concurs with this recommendation. If contact information is submitted, Education will provide investigation reports to complainants.

Recommendation No. 4:

To ensure that its regulations are consistent and align with state and federal requirements, Education should revise its regulations to allow LEAs to extend investigations under exceptional circumstances that constitute good cause if the LEAs document and support with evidence the reasons for the extensions.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

17
16
15

Education partially concurs with this recommendation. Education will review the recommendation to determine what is feasible. However, the regulations at issue are approved by the State Board of Education (SBE), therefore, Education does not have authority to make the recommended changes. Furthermore, the reference to “align with state and federal requirements” is unclear, as the report does not identify a state or federal requirement that provides for LEAs to do this. The UCP regulations currently provide that when Education conducts a direct investigation, it may extend its time if (1) exceptional circumstances exist that constitute good cause with respect to the particular complaint, and provided that (2) the complainant is informed of the extension and the reasons therefore and (3) the facts supporting the extension are documented and maintained in the complaint file. 5 CCR, Section 4662(b). With respect to special education complaints, this regulation is consistent with the portion of the relevant federal special education regulation that states that the state education agency may extend its time if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint [see Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations, 300.152(b)(1)(i)]. Separately, the UCP regulations currently provide that an LEA may extend its investigation time if the complainant agrees in writing [see 5 CCR, Section 4631(a)].

Recommendation No. 5:

After it makes the recommended regulatory changes to allow extensions under exceptional circumstances, Education should review LEAs’ extensions to investigations as part of its Federal Program Monitoring to ensure that the LEAs’ documentation is sufficient and that their reasons adequately justify such extensions.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

18

Education partially concurs with this recommendation. In regard to Federal Program Monitoring, the UCP regulations currently provide that, in reviewing a LEA decision on a complaint investigation, the CDE determines whether substantial evidence exists that the LEA followed its complaint procedures [see 5 CCR, Section 4633(d)(1)]. To the extent the recommendation seeks to have Education monitor and oversee whether LEAs have properly provided extensions based on good cause, this recommendation would require additional resources and staff.

Recommendation No. 6:

To ensure that all charter schools comply with state law and regulations related to the UCP, to the extent a charter school engages in programs that are subject to UCP, Education should do the following:

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

Education concurs with this recommendation. Education will include charter schools in its selection of LEAs as part of the federal program monitoring process (UCP 1-3), just as it selects any other type of school (i.e. high schools, middle schools, elementary schools). However, charter school authorizers are responsible for oversight of charter schools they authorized, dependent charter schools are schools of the LEA. In this regard, the charter schools are subject to review when the LEA is reviewed. In addition, appeals about a charter school regarding particular programs, such as pupil fees, are reviewed for compliance with UCP processes and procedures.

Recommendation No. 7:

To ensure it examines sufficient review samples to detect LEAs’ noncompliance with UCP laws and regulations, Education should revise its UCP monitoring criteria by July 2017, to increase its random selection of complaint files at each LEA to a minimum of 10 percent or 10 complaint files, whichever is greater.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

Education concurs with this recommendation. Education’s UCP monitoring criteria will be revised to select a minimum of 10 percent or 10 complaint files, whichever is greater. Federal program monitoring is one part of the Education’s monitoring activities. In handling individual UCP appeals, Education is required to review whether the LEA followed its UCP processes, whether the LEA’s decision contains necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law, whether the LEA’s decision contains appropriate corrective actions and whether the LEA ensured that corrective actions were completed (see 5 CCR, sections 4632 and 4633). Therefore, Education monitors compliance with the UCP process each time it reviews an appeal; this is an additional mechanism for ensuring LEA compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Recommendation No. 8:

Education should revise the UCP regulations to formally establish a uniform time limits for filing all types of complaints.

Education's Comments and Corrective Actions

Education partially concurs with this recommendation. Education will review the recommendation and take appropriate action as necessary. However, the regulations at issue are approved by the SBE; therefore, Education does not have authority to make the recommended changes.

If you have any questions regarding Education’s comments or corrective actions, please contact Kevin W. Chan, Director, Audits and Investigations Division, by e-mail at kchan@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Michelle Zumot
Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction

MZ:kl





Comments

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit from Education. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of Education’s response.

1

Our report title and headings are consistent and accurately reflect the issues we discuss in the report. For example, as we describe, Education did not always meet specified time frames for completing investigations and reviews. Further, as we state, in our reviews of files across all divisions of Education, we also noted inconsistencies in the ways the divisions reported the results of their investigations of complaints or reviews of appeals. Moreover, as we state in the Introduction, federal and state laws and federal regulations require Education to monitor LEAs to ensure their compliance with a broad range of federal education program requirements, including requirements related to the UCP. However, as we discuss, because of the large number of charter schools in the State and the deficiencies we found with the two charter schools in Los Angeles Unified and two in San Diego Unified, we are concerned that Education does not include LEA‑authorized charter schools in its UCP compliance reviews. Therefore, we stand by our report title and headings. Further, we disagree with Education’s assertion that our report fails to distinguish between appeals in which a 60‑day timeline did or did not apply or that our determination in this area is misleading and subjective. We discuss these differences and discuss our disagreement regarding Education’s assertion further in Comment 5.

2

We disagree that Education currently has systems and processes to ensure that complaints and appeals are addressed in compliance with state law and regulations. For example, as we describe, it did not always meet specified time frames for completing investigations and reviews. Further, as we state, Nutrition Services did not always meet the requirements related to issuing investigation reports.

3

Education shared some of its concerns regarding the creation of a central office with us during the audit, and we include its perspective in the Audit Results. However, as we state, we believe that a central office for receiving complaints and appeals would help eliminate complainants’ confusion about where to send a complaint or appeal and would streamline the process by preventing complaints and appeals from being delayed by going to an incorrect division. Our recommendation to Education is to designate a central UCP office, which we believe could be implemented with existing resources. For example, it could designate as the central UCP office one of its divisions that is currently responsible for addressing UCP complaints and appeals. Without first assessing these possibilities, we believe that Education prematurely asserts that additional staff and funding would be required to manage the work as recommended or that the creation of the central office could incur additional time, complexity, and bureaucracy. Finally, we believe Education can train the existing staff of the designated central office to effectively identify the division responsible for addressing the issue included in the complaint or appeal.

4

Education’s response is unclear as to why it partially concurs with our recommendation to establish a single database to record and track all investigations of complaints and reviews of appeals. We can only presume that it is because we recommended that establishing the database be a duty of the central office that Education has concerns about. Nevertheless, Education’s response indicates that it is actively developing such a database and indicates it will be completed by spring or summer of this year.

5

We disagree with Education’s assertion. Our report clearly states which programs have a 60‑day time frame specified in law or regulations. As we state, federal regulations require Education to issue decisions within 60 days of receiving complaints related to special education. Similarly, state law requires Education to issue decisions within 60 days of receiving appeals related to courses without educational content or to homeless or foster youth. Moreover, both state law and UCP regulations state a 60‑day time frame for completing appeals related to pupil fees. Further, we state that Education staff told us that the Educational Equity UCP Appeals Office (Educational Equity) makes every effort to use the 60‑day timeline to comply with requirements of a lawsuit settlement agreement. As we state, in our review of 30 files in eight divisions, we identified 13 instances in which four divisions did not complete investigations and reviews within 60 days. Further, as we state, of the 13 cases, one was an appeal related to the After School Education and Safety Program, for which UCP regulations do not require a time frame for completion. We also modified the text to clarify that although Educational Equity exceeded the 60‑day mark for four appeals and two complaints, three of the appeals occurred before Education signed the settlement agreement in November 2015. Nevertheless, because of the various provisions in federal regulations and state law and regulations we describe above, as we state, we believe that 60 days is a reasonable time frame for Education to issue decisions on all complaints and appeals. Therefore, we recommended that Education initiate revising its regulations so that all programs have the 60‑day time frame for completing investigations of UCP complaints and reviewing UCP appeals.

6

We have accurately classified complaints and appeals in our report. Further, we note that Education’s response does not provide any detail to support why it believes that we have incorrectly classified appeals as complaints.

7

We disagree with Education’s assertion. We clearly state in the Audit Results that Education received more than 2,900 complaints during fiscal years 2013–14 through 2015–16. We further state that Special Education received 2,551 of the complaints and completed 2,505, or nearly all of them, within 60 days.

8

We stand by our conclusion. Education refers to two divisions—Nutrition Services and Categorical Complaints Management—as having well‑established policies and procedures. However, as we state, Nutrition Services’ director acknowledged that Nutrition Services has not always adhered to regulations and that it does not have policies and procedures for handling UCP complaints. Further, during our audit, the programs administrator for Categorical Complaints Management also told us that her office does not have written policies and procedures for processing UCP complaints and appeals.

9

We disagree that the UCP regulations provide significant guidance on how complaints and appeals must be handled by Education. For example, as we state, the lack of a uniform time frame for completing investigations of complaints and reviews of appeals in the UCP regulations has resulted in the divisions adopting inconsistent practices for addressing complaints and appeals.

10

We disagree that we have overstated or misstated timeliness problems. We state in the Audit Results that our review found that the wrong division received 57 of the 675 appeals sent to Education from July 2013 through June 2016. We also state that the wrong division received 36 of the 2,958 complaints during the audit period (Education incorrectly stated this total as 2,598). We believe that nearly 100 complaints and appeals sent to the wrong division is a problem as delays in processing can result. For example, we note that 15 appeals were not referred to the correct division for 30 days or more, with one appeal taking 473 days to be referred.

11

Education misses the point of our finding. We acknowledge that Education formed Educational Equity in April 2015 to address UCP complaints and appeals that had been filed with the Office of Equal Opportunity (Equal Opportunity). We further point out that the backlog of complaints and appeals that Educational Equity inherited included some that Equal Opportunity had received incorrectly and took more than 30 days to be forwarded to other divisions for processing. Our point is when a complaint or appeal is received in the incorrect division, Education risks that it may not get forwarded to the appropriate division in a timely manner.

12

Education’s response is disingenuous. As we state, in discussing the time frames related to complaints and appeals that Educational Equity handles, an education administrator stated that there is no requirement in regulation that prescribes the time limit for appeals. Instead, she stated that Educational Equity makes every effort to use the 60‑day timeline to comply with requirements of a lawsuit settlement agreement signed in November 2015. The lawsuit settlement agreement requires that Education use its best, good faith, and objectively reasonable endeavors to render a decision on an appeal within 60 days of the receipt of an appeal.

13

We are disappointed that Education did not ask us for clarification during the period it was reviewing the draft report if it believed this recommendation was unclear. Our recommendation has two parts. The reference to aligning regulations with state and federal requirements refers to the second part of the recommendation to allow Nutrition Services to investigate all complaints as direct intervention.

14

We disagree with Education’s statement, which indicates that a Nutrition Services complaint filed directly with Education is not covered under UCP. As we note in Table 1 and again in the Audit Results, Nutrition Services complaints have been included under UCP since regulations were first adopted in 1991. Further, as we state, we believe that complying with UCP regulations, particularly its timelines, would achieve Education’s obligation under federal regulations to investigate complaints promptly. Therefore, it is important for Education to clarify its regulations to specifically allow Nutrition Services to investigate all complaints it receives as direct intervention.

15

Although we agree that the State Board of Education (board) must approve changes to its regulations, it is Education’s responsibility to initiate those changes. Therefore, Education should work with the board to implement our recommendation.

16

We disagree that our text is unclear. In implementing our recommendation, we expect Education to consider any state and federal requirements that might govern the programs being covered under the UCP. For example, federal regulations governing Special Education complaints do not allow for an extension of the 60‑day time frame.

17

Education misses the point of our recommendation. The regulations allow an LEA to extend its investigation time if the complainant agrees in writing. However, the regulations allow Education to extend investigations under exceptional circumstances that constitute good cause. We believe the regulations should similarly allow LEAs the ability to extend investigations under exceptional circumstances that constitute good cause.

18

We are puzzled by Education’s response. As we state in the Introduction, Education’s Categorical Complaints Management is responsible for both the on‑site and desk reviews of LEAs’ compliance with laws and regulations related to UCP. We further state that Categorical Complaints Management also reviews a random selection of LEAs’ UCP files and decisions to ensure that they meet specified regulatory requirements. Considering that Categorical Complaints Management already reviews complaint files and decisions, Education’s existing reviews could evaluate LEAs’ documentation and rationale for any extensions.



Back to top





Los Angeles Unified School District

January 11, 2017

Elaine M. Howle, CPA
State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: LAUSD Response to January 2017 Confidential Draft State Audit Report on Uniform Complaint Procedures

Dear Ms. Howle,

The Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD" or "District") has reviewed the draft audit report pertaining to Uniform Complaint Procedures and appreciates the opportunity to submit the following response.

A. LAUSD's Response to State Audit Recommendations:

  1. Recommendation: "To minimize the number of complaints they receive through the UCP process that do not fall within the purview of the UCP regulations, Los Angeles Unified [redacted] should establish a mechanism that allows specified inidividuals for the district to discuss with complainants, in a timely manner, how best to address their issues or complaints and to determine whether their complaints fall under the purview of the UCP before they file complaints. "

    District Response:
    The District is committed to providing a safe working and learning environment and ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal laws. The District will maintain its efforts to minimize the number of complaints received through the UCP process that do not fall within the purview of the UCP regulations.

    For example, the District through its Educational Equity Compliance Office ("EECO" or "office"), has made several adaptations to its website (e.g. posted frequently asked questions, additional resources) and created a new office specific email address this past school year in order to provide its stakeholders additional mechanisms for resolving their concerns. The District currently advocates to contact the office through a plethora of mediums, including but not limited to providing contact information for both the District and community stakeholders to reach the office on prominently placed posters in schools and offices, brochures sent home to families and made available in school offices, policies directed to staff, and the annually distributed Parent Student Handbook. Many publications are issued annually to ensure wide dissemination of the information and to encourage communication with the District and community stakeholders. Additionally, the office regularly and proactively trains District and community stakeholders on this topic resulting in follow‑up contacts or referrals to the office. Currently, the EECO provides daily phone assistance to callers to clarify appropriate complaint venues and remedies and redirects callers to appropriate resources when approrpiate. However, the EECO has also fully implemented during the review the auditor's recommendation and has posted language on its frequently visited website explicitly encouraging District and community stakeholders to call for support with consideration of resources and complaint options.

    The EECO has refined its business practices dramatically over the last three years resulting in more efficient intake, timelier responses, and education of District and community stakeholders regarding referrals, resolutions and various informal and formal complaint venues. An analysis of the EECO's UCP data tracking reflects a reduction in UCPs filed during the 2015‑16 school year as compared to the previous school year and the trend appears to continue in the 2016‑17 school year. This analysis is supported by UCP logs provided to the auditors during the review.

  2. Recommendation: "To ensure that they can defend their extensions of complaint investigations that are authorized by existing UCP regulations, Los Angeles [redacted] should obtain agreements from complainants before extending the investigations beyond the required 60 days."

    District Response:
    The District will maintain its efforts to ensure it can defend extensions of complaint investigations that are authorized by existing UCP regulations by obtaining agreements from complainants before extending the investigations beyond the required 60 days.

    The EECO in recent months has instituted the use of an electronic date calculator through its case management software ensuring accurate calculation of due dates within the 60 days. Further as articulated in the draft audit at page 24, the EECO subsequent to a previous Federal Program Monitoring audit uses any resources available to complete investigations within the 60 day timeline as noted on draft audit page 24 and has minimized the number of extensions requested as well. Nonetheless, the EECO agrees with the auditor's recommendation and in extenuating circumstances, the EECO will seek to obtain extensions if needed in a manner consistent with the law.

  3. Recommendation: "To ensure that it meets the legally required time frames for remedying issues alleged in Williams complaints, Los Angeles Unified's Educational Equity Compliance Office should work closely with the divisions responsible for addressing the issues in the Williams complaints to ensure they are completed timely. Further, it should ensure that it maintains the appropriate documentation to demonstrate that it complied with the requirements for issuing decisions within 45 days."

    District Response:
    The District will maintain its efforts to meet the legally required time frames for remedying issues alleged in Williams complaints. EECO will continue to work closely with the divisions responsible for addressing issues in the Williams complaints to ensure they are completed timely.

    For example, the EECO has contemporaneously revised its initial correspondence to parties addressing Williams complaints to emphasize the 30 business day timeline for job completion and has also initiated sending reminder messages to relevant District partners to include references to the 30 business day timeline in order to ensure compliance so that a written response can be finalized by the 45 business day timeline required under the law. Additionally, EECO will continue to maintain and refine electronic logs in its networked database tracking both job status and finalc ase resolution timelines.

  4. Recommendation: "To ensure that all charter schools comply with state law and regulations related to the UCP, to the extent a charter school engages in programs that are subject to UCP, Los Angeles Unified should by June 2017 revise its review procedures to verify that all charter schools' policies and procedures meet the requirements of UCP regulations, including required content, during its monitoringcreviews."

    District Response:
    The District will revise its charter oversight review procedure for charter schools' UCP policies and procedures prior to June 2017 as stipulated and consequently for implementation in the 2017‑18 school year as discussed with the auditors.

B. Comments to Specific Sections:

pp.15: The draft report states, "However, Los Angeles Unified staff informed us very late in the audit process that it had not identified all UCP complaints to us. Specifically, when we first visited Los Angeles Unified, we asked for all UCP complaints that it received during our review period. Although Williams complaints have different time frames, as we discuss later, they are covered under UCP regulations. However, Los Angeles Unified staff did not tell us, until after we completed our field work and met with them to discuss our findings that it tracked Williams complaints separately and had not provided those to us."

District Response:
The California State Auditor's audit objectives relayed to the District were to review the State's implementation of UCP, and representative LEAs as part of that. Based on prior California Department of Education ("CDE" or "State") audits, the State's cyclical Federal Program Monitoring ("FPM") review of the District's UCP process over several review cycles entailed a review of UCP logs, and specifically excludes Williams logs in those reviews. Further, the State defines UCP log in its most recent past review document as follows: "A UCP complaint log is an official record of non‑Williams UCP complaints." In fact, the State's review instrument bifurcates UCP and Williams, as evidenced in various Federal Program Monitoring review related documents provided to the auditors.

Williams complaints have different notice requirements, postings, complaint forms, complaint processes, timelines, investigations/remedies, appeals, reporting to the Board/County, public hearings and charter school accountabilities (e.g., opt in).

6

The District provided the auditors UCP logs in a manner consistent with prior State audits on this topic. As stated on page 15 of the draft audit, the auditors requested UCP logs. At no point during their initial fieldwork and prior to the exit meeting, did the auditors request Williams logs specifically and as stated based on this office's prior experience with CDE and FPM audits which bifurcated Williams complaints, it was reasonable for this office not to have raised the issue. Only when reference was made at the exit interview to Williams did this office alert the auditors that the information on Williams was not accurate and that there are separate logs/records for this type of complaint. As a result, three school years of Williams logs, along with supporting complaint files for approximately 1700 complaints, were provided to the auditors in 8 business days.

pp.31: The report states, "According to Education's website each charter school's authorizing entity is responsible for ensuring it operates in compliance with all applicable laws and its charter."

7

District Response:
The charter school, as a Local Educational Agency with its own governing board, is responsible for ensuring compliance with conducting investigations and the District is responsible for oversight but ultimate responsibility for implementation of UCP policy and procedures and compliance with complaint investigations is the school.

pp.32: The report states, "However, in our review of the 2015‑16 site annual report which was provided by Los Angeles Unified School District as the most recent review for this charter school, we did not find any areas noted for improvement or corrective actions related to UCP."

8

District Response:
The District requests the report acknowledge that areas of improvement for UCP were noted for Lashon Academy in its 2014‑15 oversight report which was provided to the auditors.

pp.32: The report states, "The senior coordinator responsible for ensuring this charter school's compliance stated that the persion or unit responsible for receiving complaints is identified on the UCP complaint form. According to the senior coordinator, the school staff explained to her that the procedures, policies, and forms are combined to collectively represent policies and procedures, and therefore she believed the school was compliant."

9

District Response:
The District requests that the statement attributing ensuring compliance to the senior coordinator be amended to clarify that the role of the Charter Schools Division is to oversee whether the charter school has appropriate UCP policies and procedures consistent with law and not necessarily to ensure the charter schools' or local education agency and its governing board's compliance with implementation of UCP policy and procedures and the underlying investigation and outcome of a complaint.

Additionally, the District wishes to acknowledge and express gratitude for the informal conversations with the auditors to address some accuraces and changes to the language in the draft audit report that are not reflected here. The time and effort of the audit team in engaging this review are appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact Julie Hall‑Panameño, Director, Educational Equity Compliance Office at (213) 241-7682 or Julie.hall@lausd.net.

Sincerely,

Michelle King
Superintendent





Comments

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit from Los Angeles Unified. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of Los Angeles Unified’s response

1

As we indicate in the Audit Results and throughout the report, our audit focused on complaints received and closed in fiscal years 2013–14 through 2015–16. Therefore, we cannot verify Los Angeles Unified’s claim that it has fully implemented our recommendation. However, we look forward to reviewing the documentation Los Angeles Unified provides to us to demonstrate its implementation of this recommendation in its 60‑day response to our recommendations.

2

We disagree with Los Angeles Unified’s assertion that its business practices have resulted in more efficient intake. Although the total number of complaints it received decreased from 319 in fiscal year 2013–14 to 218 in fiscal year 2015–16, the number of complaints it received during these years that were not under the purview of UCP regulations has remained relatively constant, ranging from 112 in fiscal year 2013–14 to 115 in fiscal year 2015–16. As a result, the percentage of complaints filed that fall outside of UCP regulations has increased during the three years we reviewed, from 35 percent in fiscal year 2013–14 to 53 percent in fiscal year 2015–16. This further supports our recommendation that Los Angeles Unified establish a mechanism that allows specified individuals for the district to promptly discuss with complainants how best to address their issues and complaints and to determine whether their complaints fall under the purview of the UCP before they file complaints.

3

We provided Los Angeles Unified with a redacted draft report that contained only those portions relevant to Los Angeles Unified. Therefore, the page numbers that Los Angeles Unified cites in its response do not correspond to the page numbers in our final report.

4

We revised this recommendation from the draft report that we provided to Los Angeles Unified for its review and response. As we state in the Audit Results, Los Angeles Unified staff informed us very late in the audit process that it had not identified all UCP complaints as we requested. As a result, we asked for additional information regarding these Williams complaints from Los Angeles Unified, but we did not receive all of the information in time to complete our assessment before we provided the draft report to Los Angeles Unified. Based on our review of the additional documentation provided, we revised the second sentence of the recommendation to state that Los Angeles Unified should ensure that it maintains the appropriate documentation to demonstrate that it complied with requirements for remedying the issues in Williams complaints within 30 working days.

5

We look forward to receiving documentation, as part of Los Angeles Unified’s 60‑day response to our recommendations, for the revised correspondence to which Los Angeles Unified refers, as well as any other actions it takes, to demonstrate implementation of this recommendation.

6

We disagree with Los Angeles Unified’s characterization of our request. As we state in the Audit Results, when we first visited Los Angeles Unified, we asked for all UCP complaints that it received during our review period. Although Williams complaints—complaints about instructional materials, teacher vacancies or misassignments, and school facilities—have different requirements for the timeliness of issuing decisions, the content of the decisions, and for appeals, these complaints are covered under UCP regulations and are therefore UCP complaints. Further, as we also state, Los Angeles Unified staff informed us, after we completed our fieldwork and met with them to discuss our findings, that it tracks Williams complaints separately because of the differences in the requirements and had not provided those to us.

7

We are perplexed by Los Angeles Unified’s comment. We do not state in our report that a charter school’s authorizing entity, such as Los Angeles Unified, is responsible for implementation of a charter school’s UCP policy and procedures and compliance with complaint investigations. However, we do state that according to state law and Education’s website, each charter school’s authorizing entity is responsible for ensuring it operates in compliance with all applicable laws and the terms of its charter. In fact, Los Angeles Unified’s own website includes the same language.

8

Los Angeles Unified misses the point of our finding. We reviewed the most recent annual oversight review in fiscal year 2015–16 for this charter school because we expected that these reviews would identify current deficiencies such as those we identified during our review of the charter school’s compliance with UCP regulations. Regardless of the areas of improvement that Los Angeles Unified identified in its earlier reports, as we state in the Audit Results, in our review of the fiscal year 2015–16 annual site visit report for this charter school, we did not find any noted areas of improvement or corrective actions related to the UCP.

9

Los Angeles Unified is referring to our text that describes the senior coordinator as being responsible for ensuring this charter school’s compliance. We did not amend the text for the reasons noted in Comment 7.



Back to top





San Juan Unified School District

January 11, 2017

Elaine M. Howle, CPA
State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Response to Draft Audit Report — Uniform Complaint Procedures
January 2017

Dear Ms. Howle:

Thank you for the opportunity for the San Juan Unified School District ("District") to respond to the draft audit report, "Uniform Complaint Procedures," number 2016‑109, dated January 2017.

The District appreciates the feedback from the California State Auditor's office concerning the recommendations to improve the District's Uniform Complaint Procedure ("UCP") process, and is always willing to receive additional recommendations to assist in this endeavor. The District acknowledges the findings of your report which:

In response to these findings/recommendations, the District will review its complaint processes to respond to complaints in a timely and appropriate manner. The District is in the process of revising its formal Board Policy (BP) and Administrative Regulation (AR) 1312.3 concerning the UCP process, and will have the revised BP/AR in place no later than May 1, 2017. The District will ensure that BP/AR 1312.3 specifically identifies:

The District will also ensure that its responses to UCP complaints include the legally required elements identified in the BP/AR 1312.3.

1

The District believes it has informal processes in place to discuss with individuals how best to address their issues and complaints, and to determine whether their issues and complaints fall under the UCP process, but will further discuss and identify ways to ensure that such processes are more prominently displayed on the District's website as well as ensure that District administrators are aware of the various processes.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with your department on our mutual efforts to ensure that the District has an appropriate and legaly viable UCP process, and we look forward to continuing to improve for student and community access.

Sincerely,

Linda C. T. Simlick
General Counsel
San Juan Unified School District

c: Kent Kern, Superintendent
Donna O'Neil, Associate Superintendent, Schools and Student Support
Paul Oropallo, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
Trent Allen, Senior Director, Community Relations





Comment

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit from San Juan Unified. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of San Juan Unified’s response.

1

We are puzzled by San Juan Unified’s assertion that it believes it has informal processes to discuss with individuals how best to address their issues and complaints and to determine whether their issues and complaints fall under the UCP process. During our audit, San Juan Unified’s general counsel told us that she usually does not attempt to resolve matters informally because it is her understanding that the LEA has to provide a written response to all filed complaints. Therefore, she almost always conducts a formal investigation. As we state Audit Results, of the 75 complaints San Juan Unified received from July 2013 through June 2016, 41 complaints, or 55 percent, did not meet UCP criteria. Also, as we discuss, establishing a mechanism that allows a structured but less formal process for individuals to discuss with LEAs how best to address their complaints and to determine whether those complaints fall under the purview of the UCP could help LEAs more efficiently process UCP complaints.



Back to top





San Diego Unified School District

January 11, 2017

Elaine M. Howle, CPA
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Report Regarding Uniform Complaint Procedures Review 2016‑109

Dear Ms. Howle:

San Diego Unified School District has received the draft report in the above matter. We have read the report and understand the recommendations. We will proceed to implement the recommendations.

Very truly yours,

ANDRA M. DONOVAN
General Counsel

AMD/dmh



Back to top