Report 2019-113 Recommendation 1 Responses

Report 2019-113: The University of California: Qualified Students Face an Inconsistent and Unfair Admissions System That Has Been Improperly Influenced by Relationships and Monetary Donations (Release Date: September 2020)

Recommendation #1 To: University of California

To protect the fairness and integrity of its admissions processes, the Office of the President should establish systemwide protocols for admissions processes by the fall 2021 admissions cycle that prohibit the following:
- Giving authority to any one person to make a final admissions decision.
- Consideration of an applicant's familial or other personal relationships to university staff or faculty in an admissions decision.
- Communication between a campus's development office and its admissions office about applicants and prospective applicants.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

From November 2022 through January 2023, the Office of the President communicated with the State Auditor's office by phone and email to obtain additional detail on the specific documentation for each campus that the State Auditor found insufficient to fully implement this recommendation. Based on this feedback, we followed up with the campuses to update their policies and procedures to address the State Auditor's concerns.

It is the role and responsibility of the chief admissions officer to make and approve all final admission decisions unless specifically stated. The chief admissions officer is the person held accountable for admission decisions based on the recommendation of others; however, some situations may require protocols, as recommended by the CSA, to have decisions reviewed by more than person. When such procedures exist, they will be followed, but under normal circumstances and in the course of performing the duties of the job, the chief admissions officer has the authority to make final decisions on admissions which supports the use of qualifying policy language prohibiting the authority for any one person to make a final admission decision only "outside established protocol."

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The University has now provided evidence that the campuses have updated their policies to prohibit consideration of applicant's familial or personal relationships to faculty and staff in admissions decisions. Also, the campuses now all prohibit communication between a campus's development office and admissions office about applicants and prospective applicants. Finally, each campus has a policy prohibiting any one person from making a final admission decision outside established protocol. We reviewed each campus's selection policies and procedures and found that the selection protocols they contain appear to mitigate the risk of the improper influence in admissions decisions that we identified in our report.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

In March and April 2022, the Office of the President communicated with the State Auditor's office by phone and email to obtain additional detail on the specific documentation for each campus that the State Auditor found insufficient to fully implement this recommendation. Based on this feedback, we followed up with the campuses to update their policies and procedures to address the State Auditor's concerns.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

This recommendation remains only partially implemented. As we have noted before, the Office of the President has not established a set of systemwide protocols as we recommended, and the campuses have taken different approaches to implementing this recommendation. Based on the documentation that the Office of the President provided, UC Berkeley and UCLA continue to be the only two campuses that have fully implemented this recommendation. The remaining campuses have not adopted sufficient prohibitions in all of the recommended areas. These deficiencies increase the risk of improper influence in admissions decisions.

We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when the Office of the President formally documents prohibitions against these actions and ensures that campuses are consistently addressing these areas.

1-Year Agency Response

The University president required all campuses to implement this recommendation and to document the processes and procedures, via a letter sent in November 2020. All campuses have submitted documentation of local policy and practices, which are under the purview of local governance, that prohibit

a. Giving authority to any one person to make a final admissions decision.

b. Consideration of an applicant's familial or other personal relationships to university staff or faculty in an admissions decision.

c. Communication between a campus's development office and its admissions office about applicants and prospective applicants.

The Office of the President reviewed each campus's submissions to ensure the new processes and procedures addressed the recommendation. Additionally, the Office of the President worked with the campuses to clarify and strengthen local policy language prohibiting communication between development offices and admissions offices.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

This recommendation remains only partially implemented. The Office of the President has not established a set of systemwide protocols as we recommended.

In the absence of systemwide protocols, the Office of the President provided documentation showing each campus's actions to address this recommendation. Unfortunately, the campuses have approached implementation of this recommendation differently than one another and of the nine undergraduate campuses, only Berkeley and UCLA have adopted policies and procedures which fully address all the elements of this recommendation.

Most, but not all campuses, now prohibit communication between the development office and the admissions office about applicants and prospective applicants. The different approaches taken by the campuses reveals an uneven approach across the system to addressing the potential influence of donations on admissions decisions. Further, some campuses still have not prohibited a single individual from making admissions decisions, which increases the risk of improper influence in admissions decisions.

We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when the Office of the President formally documents prohibitions against these actions and ensures campuses are consistently addressing these areas.

6-Month Agency Response

The University president has required all campuses to implement this recommendation and to document the processes and procedures, via a letter sent in November 2020. All campuses have submitted documentation to address processes and procedures for identifying and reporting inappropriate behavior to influence admissions decisions. The Office of the President reviewed each campus's submissions to ensure the new processes and procedures addressed the recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

This recommendation remains pending because the Office of the President has not established a set of systemwide protocols as we recommended.

Further, the Office of the President provided documentation from each campus to substantiate their completion of this recommendation. Berkeley was the only campus of the nine undergraduate campuses that had adopted policies and procedures which fully address all the elements of this recommendation. The campuses sometimes took divergent approaches from one another, emphasizing the value of a single systemwide approach. For example, several campuses only took steps to prohibit communication between development offices and admissions offices beginning three months prior to an application cycle. In contrast, Berkeley's prohibition was absolute and not restricted to a particular period of time.

We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when the Office of the President formally documents prohibitions against these actions.

60-Day Agency Response

The University president has issued a letter to the campus chancellors to implement this recommendation immediately and provide documentation of follow-through no later than January 15, 2021.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

The Office of the President provided the letter that the University president issued to campuses. We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when the Office of the President formally documents prohibitions against these actions.

All Recommendations in 2019-113

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.