Report 2017-116 Recommendation 11 Responses

Report 2017-116: Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County: Because It Disadvantaged Some Families and Misused State Funds, It Could Benefit From Increased Monitoring by the California Department of Education (Release Date: April 2018)

Recommendation #11 To: Education, Department of

To ensure that its contractors can effectively make program improvements and maintain successes in ways that are meaningful to their stakeholders, Education should adopt measures to ensure its contractors follow the terms of their contracts by demonstrating that their board members conduct a critical appraisal of each education program.

1-Year Agency Response

Education's status on this recommendation is unchanged; no additional comments will be forthcoming.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation despite Education continuing not to concur. In its initial response to the audit, Education mischaracterizes our recommendation by stating that we expected 4Cs' board members to conduct a separate critical appraisal. As we state on page 32 of the audit report, we expected that the assessment involve board members actively identifying program strengths and weaknesses and suggesting approaches for the organization to take action. This effort can be performed in conjunction with staff's efforts through a comprehensive assessment. However, 4Cs' board minutes do not reference any involvement by board members in the assessment and instead indicate that the members were simply informed by staff of the status of 4Cs' contracts.

6-Month Agency Response

Education's status on this recommendation is unchanged; no additional comments will be forthcoming.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation despite Education continuing not to concur. In its initial response to the audit, Education mischaracterizes our recommendation by stating that we expected 4Cs' board members to conduct a separate critical appraisal. As we state on page 32 of the audit report, we expected that the assessment involve board members actively identifying program strengths and weaknesses and suggesting approaches for the organization to take action. This effort can be performed in conjunction with staff's efforts through a comprehensive assessment. However, 4Cs' board minutes do not reference any involvement by board members in the assessment and instead indicate that the members were simply informed by staff of the status of 4Cs' contracts.

60-Day Agency Response

Education continues to not concur with the CSA's recommendation for the reasons expressed in Education's prior response; the CSA misconstrues the intent of the Program Self Evaluation process requirement. The Program Self Evaluation process was adopted through the regulatory process. Education is the administrative and regulatory agency charged with implementation and oversight over the program. As such, its interpretation of its regulation is entitled to deference.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We continue to stand by our recommendation. In its initial response to the audit, Education mischaracterizes our recommendation by stating that we expected 4Cs' board members to conduct a separate critical appraisal. As we state on page 32 of the audit report, we expected that the assessment involve board members actively identifying program strengths and weaknesses and suggesting approaches for the organization to take action. This effort can be performed in conjunction with staff's efforts through a comprehensive assessment. However, 4Cs' board minutes do not reference any involvement by board members in the assessment and instead indicate that the members were simply informed by staff of the status of 4Cs' contracts.

All Recommendations in 2017-116

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.