Report 2021-101 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2021-101: K-12 Strong Workforce Program: State and Regional Administrative Shortcomings Limit the Program's Effectiveness in Supporting Grant Applicants (Release Date: February 2022)

Recommendation #1 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To enhance the quality of information the selection committees have available when determining whether applications best meet the workforce program's goals, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Chancellor's Office should specify in the RFA that applicants should include detailed information addressing all eligibility criteria, including information about the wage rates and demand for skilled workers in industries aligned with their CTE programs.

1-Year Agency Response

Implementation is complete.

The recommendation that applicants should include detailed information can be found in the K12 Scoring Rubric and online NOVA application for Round 5. The scoring rubric that is used to evaluate the applications at the regional level includes all required eligibility criteria. Each section in the RFA details the requirements that are inclusive of wage rates and the alignment with CTE programs. The online NOVA platform instructs the applicant that in order to receive the highest possible score and to prevent disqualification, the instructions in NOVA must be followed, all questions must be answered, and all requested information must be supplied.

Scoring Rubric https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-Website/Files/Workforce-and-Economic-Development/K12-RFAs/2022-2023/Round-5/k12swpround5scoringrubric81222a11y.pdf?la=en&hash=5B76DC4D5962EDE764AF0ABA4A15324469F4B291

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

The Round 5 RFA provides more specific directions to applicants. Specifically, it directs applicants to include information on how a project will lead to high-wage, high-demand career opportunities. This additional direction, in conjunction with the RFA's general guidance that applicants must answer all questions and supply all requested information, should enhance the quality of information available to selection committees when they are making award decisions.

6-Month Agency Response

This recommendation will be fully implemented and available in the Round 5 Request for Applications to be released at the end of August 2022

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

The Chancellor's Office stated that it will implement this change in the next grant application period, as recommended.

60-Day Agency Response

As stated in the Chancellor's Office response dated January 24, 2022, the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office does include eligibility criteria in the RFA as well as web links to each region's Strong Workforce Plan which includes regional wage rate and skilled workers demand. While the RFA has been explicit that applicants must describe how they will address the eligibility criteria, going forward the RFA can be more explicit that applicants that do not address all of the eligibility criteria in their proposal may not be considered. However, given that Selection Committees are ultimately responsible for determining local awards, the weight of the applicants' responses to the full range of eligibility criteria is a local decision.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

The Chancellor's Office's response does not align with our recommendation. We recommended the Chancellor's Office direct applicants to address all of the eligibility criteria, not that it state that applications that do not do so may not be considered. Although the Chancellor's Office is correct that regional selection committees are responsible for determining awards, they must evaluate applications according to the statewide eligibility criteria the Chancellor's Office establishes in the Request for Applications (RFA). Therefore, we encourage the Chancellor's Office to provide guidance in the RFA that encourages applicants to include information that improves the competitiveness of their applications and the information available to selection committees.

Recommendation #2 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To enhance the quality of information the selection committees have available when determining whether applications best meet the workforce program's goals, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Chancellor's Office should provide examples that address all of the eligibility criteria.

1-Year Agency Response

Implementation complete.

The Chancellor's Office updated the website of K12 regional selection committee

engagement meetings in their respective regions for Round 5. The selection committee engagement meetings can be found on the Chancellors Office website at:

https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Workforce-and-Economic-Development/K12-Strong-Workforce#accordion-3b897973-cf77-4ab8-8715-2965e6bd7d5f

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

We acknowledge the Chancellor's Office's action to post links to regional selection committee engagement meetings on its website. However, we disagree that this action fully implements our recommendation.

In the report, we describe that the Chancellor's Office provided examples on its website of the level of detail applicants should provide in their workforce grant applications, and that those examples did not address certain eligibility criteria. If the Chancellor's Office added information to those examples that addressed all of the eligibility criteria, applicants could readily locate guidance about particular aspects of their applications.

Instead, the Chancellor's Office has posted links to meetings, some of which are more than an hour long. Thus, applicants must spend time watching recorded material in the hope that it contains the piece of information they need. We encourage the Chancellor's Office to provide guidance in a more accessible format, such as posting examples addressing all of the eligibility criteria to its website in document form so that applicants may locate and refer to them more easily.

6-Month Agency Response

Each regional selection committee will be conducting RFA Engagement meetings in their respective regions. The Chancellor's office will be updating our website with the information and schedule of the engagement meetings and will post recordings of the meeting once available.

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

We will assess whether the information the Chancellor's Office provides on its updated website during the fiscal year 2022-23 application period fully implements our recommendation to provide applicants with examples that address all of the eligibility criteria. However, if it pursues the course of action it describes, the Chancellor's Office's success in implementing the recommendation will depend on the subject matter described in the recordings of regional committee engagement meetings that it says it will post.

60-Day Agency Response

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office recognizes that applicant resources, such as a range of examples for eligibility criteria, is potentially valuable for applicants, however this does not seem appropriate to include in future RFAs given that the evaluation of the proposals is determined at the local level via the established Selection Committees. It would be advisable to fund the regional leads to develop these types of resources for their regions. We will encourage local selection committees to provide more robust examples

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

The Chancellor's Office's response misrepresents the nature of our recommendation. This recommendation is not related to information provided in the Request for Applications (RFA). Rather, it pertains to the application examples that the Chancellor's Office has already posted on its website, which currently do not address all of the eligibility criteria established in the RFA. Further, we disagree with the Chancellor's Office's suggestion that applicant resources, such as these examples, should be developed at the local level. The eligibility criteria is established by the Chancellor's Office and thus it should provide examples of how to address those criteria. As such, we stand by our recommendation that the Chancellor's Office's examples should address all of the eligibility criteria.

Recommendation #3 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To ensure that all applicants can make informed decisions when applying for workforce grants, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Chancellor's Office should request selection committees to determine—before the Chancellor's Office issues the RFA—how they will address requests for funding that exceed the total amount they are allocated and to inform the Chancellor's Office of their decision and any selection criteria they will use so that it can include this information in the RFA.

1-Year Agency Response

Implementation complete.

For Round 5, each K12 Selection Committee has created criteria for award decisions. Each Selection Committee made decisions based on the merits of the proposed projects, proportionality of the request, and alignment with the intent of legislation, funding applications that best met the priorities of the region as set by the regional plan and local labor market demand. If the total amount requested was higher than the region's allocation, funding decisions were made by each regional selection committee. The decision-making criteria for Round 5 can be found through the following links:

- Bay Area - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- Central/Mother Lode - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- Inland Empire/Desert - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- Los Angeles - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- Orange County - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- North/Far North - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- San Diego/Imperial Counties - Round 5 Regional Criteria

- South Central Coast - Round 5 Regional Criteria

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

The Chancellor's Office's efforts resulted in each selection committee providing a description of its selection criteria, which should allow applicants to make better informed decisions when applying for workforce grants.

6-Month Agency Response

The Chancellor's Office will ensure each regional selection committee criteria for funding is included in the RFA and will ensure these criteria are transparent for applicant(s).

When requests for funding exceed the regionally allocated amount(s), the Chancellors Office will engage with the regional consortia and selection committee(s) during deliberations. The Round 5 RFA will include links to each region's selection committee criteria describing the process for allocating funding as described below:

Each regional Selection Committee will make decisions based on the merits of the proposed project, proportionality of the request, and alignment with the intent of legislation, funding applications that best meet the priorities of the region as set by the regional plan and local labor market demand. If the total amount requested is higher than the region's allocation, funding decisions will be made with the following in mind and a funding formula may be used to allocate excess funds.

The number of requests, size of request/s, number of students/teachers impacted, impact of the project.

How the application addresses a labor demand and identifies/demonstrates a gap in filling the demand.

How the application includes sectors and/or pathways with high wage earning potential and opportunity to reach and/or exceed a living wage.

Objectives and work plan lead to metrics that can be measured through data.

Objectives and work plan describe efforts to close equity gaps by improving access to and completion of high-skill/high-wage CTE opportunities for disproportionately impacted students.

Demonstrates clear outcomes that lead to post secondary and living wage jobs.

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

We are encouraged that the Chancellor's Office plans to ensure that the RFA will make selection criteria transparent for applicants. We look forward to determining if the implementation of this recommendation clearly communicates the details of each regional selection committee's actual methodology for using allocation criteria or selection criteria at the time of the one-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office agrees with the recommendation and will work with the Regional Consortia to ensure that a standardized process is developed and included in the RFA - This task will be implemented by August 2022

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

We look forward to reviewing the Chancellor's Office's documentation of how it has addressed this recommendation in its 6-month response.

Recommendation #4 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To ensure that all applicants can make informed decisions when applying for workforce grants, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Chancellor's Office should include in the RFA transparent and complete information about whether each selection committee has decided to fund all eligible applications and, if not, what selection criteria it will use.

1-Year Agency Response

- Implementation complete.

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's office provided guidance in the RFA for selection committees to consider funding to address regional investments and labor market needs. As stated in the RFA,

The K12 Selection Committee can take a variety of factors into consideration in making their funding decisions and are not required to fund the highest scoring applications that are determined not to align with the regional plans and/or do not meet regional economic needs (Education Code, Sections 88821 and 88830).

- K12 Selection Committees reserve the right to adjust the funding amount to align with the proposed scope of work in the application.

- The K12 Selection Committee may, at its discretion, award less than the amounts requested, based on review of the application and the committee's responsibility to ensure a portfolio of awards that best meets the needs of the region's economy and the intention of the legislation.

- When determining grant recipients under the K-12 component of the Strong Workforce Program, the K12 Selection Committee shall consider past performance of grantees before awarding additional funds to those reapplying for grants (Education Code, Section 88830(a)).

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

We reviewed the evidence the Chancellor's Office provided and in combination with the information provided in response to recommendation #3, we assessed this recommendation fully implemented. The Chancellor's Office's efforts have improved the transparency of selection criteria so that applicants can make better informed decisions when applying for workforce grants.

6-Month Agency Response

This item is pending. The Chancellor's Office will include the recommendation in the Round 5 RFA

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

60-Day Agency Response

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office disagrees with this recommendation to include criteria for the Selection Committees to be included in the RFA. Each of the regional selection committees are independent and develop criteria that reflect the unique requirements of their region. These criteria are included in each regional preliminary award announcement. In order to maximize funding, the California Community Colleges Chancellor's office will provide guidance in the RFA for selection committees to consider funding to address regional investments and labor market needs- This task will be completed in August 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

We urge the Chancellor's Office to reconsider its response to this recommendation. Because each selection committee develops criteria, it is important to inform applicants in those regions of that criteria. Providing applicants with the criteria used to select applications after those selections have already been made is of little benefit to applicants. Further, it is feasible and consistent with recommended practices for selection committees to determine selection criteria before evaluating applications, and for the Chancellor's Office to include that selection criteria in the RFA. Doing so would allow schools to make better-informed application decisions and appeal decisions that are inconsistent with selection criteria - such as the inappropriate denial of a charter school grant application in fiscal year 2020-21 that we described in our report. Finally, the guidance that the Chancellor's Office states it will provide regarding maximizing funding is not relevant to this recommendation.

Recommendation #5 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To provide LEAs equal access to the support staff who assist them with pursuing workforce grants, the Chancellor's Office should establish and implement a process by June 2022 for a regional consortium to propose modifications to the areas that its workforce pathway coordinators are assigned to serve. The Chancellor's Office should then obtain the state superintendent of public instruction's agreement to restructure service areas when it determines that doing so will improve the equality of LEAs' access to workforce pathway coordinators.

1-Year Agency Response

- Implementation complete.

The following process was established to inform the Chancellor's office of any modifications to Pathway Coordinator Service Areas.

The regional consortia, in partnership with the K12 and community college stakeholders, will annually evaluate the distribution of the K12 PCs within their region to consider availability of support, equity, and access.

If needed, the regional consortium may submit a proposal to modify the distribution of K12 PCs to the California Community College Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) to best suit the needs of the region. Modification proposals shall include an explanation of the proposed changes and a justification. Proposals are due September 30. CCCCO and Superintendent of Public Instruction will render decisions by October 31 to allow for changes to be implemented by the beginning of the following fiscal year.

There may be extenuating circumstances when a September due date would be incompatible with the needs of the region (e.g., a K12 PC vacancy or an LEA host opts out). In this scenario, a region may submit a proposal and the CCCCO and Superintendent of Public Instruction shall respond with a decision within 30 days of the request.

For justification purposes, modification proposals may include, but are not limited to...

o K12 district or site level ADA

o Community College FTE

o Geographical area

o Number of colleges, districts, school sites, etc.

o Distance

o Other information or data

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

The process the Chancellor's Office describes will, as we recommended, allow changes to pathway coordinator service areas--if it is used by the regional consortia. Although the Chancellor's Office did not indicate whether the regional consortia have used the process to date, we consider this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

This recommendation is mostly implemented. The Chancellor's office has been working with the regional consortia on a process and will work collaboratively with the Dept. of Education to implement the process. Anticipate completion by end of year.

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

60-Day Agency Response

The Chancellor's Office will survey the Regional Consortia to inform the Chancellor's Office of any changes or modifications to the Pathway Coordinators area by May 30, 2022 and each year thereafter will submit by March 15 for changes. The Chancellor's Office will work with the CA Department of Education to modify or restructure the service areas.

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

We look forward to reviewing documentation of the new procedure the Chancellor's Office describes, and the initial results of applying that procedure, in its six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #6 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To ensure that unspent funds appropriated for support positions in fiscal year 2018-19 are used for the purposes of creating, supporting, or expanding CTE programs, the Chancellor's Office should, before it issues the fiscal year 2022-23 RFA, add any unspent funds to the amount appropriated to the regional consortia for these purposes.

60-Day Agency Response

A formal notification was delivered to the Regional Consortia providing guidance and instructions for unspent funds appropriated in 2018-19. The RFA for FY2022-2023 has not been issued.

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

The Chancellor's Office chose to allocate the unspent funds to the regional consortia and allow the consortia to decide how to spend those funds, rather than adding the amount to the funds awarded for CTE programs through the fiscal year 2022-23 request for applications. In addition, the Chancellor's Office indicated that at the time of the allocation to the consortia the unspent amount was approximately $2 million, rather than the $2.6 million that we calculated. We did not determine the exact nature of the additional $600,000 spent in during the intervening months.

Recommendation #7 To: Los Angeles Regional Consortium

To ensure that its selection committee follows safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Los Angeles Regional Consortium should maintain internal documentation demonstrating its review for selection committee members' potential conflicts of interest. This documentation should include a comparison of the entities that applied and the conflicts reported by each selection committee member. The consortium should also keep records showing that selection committee members did not review applications for which they had conflicts of interest.

1-Year Agency Response

The LARC Chair and K14 Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) fully implemented a policy of keeping written records identifying the various entities that would benefit from each application if awarded. LARC will document the selection committee members who report having an interest in those entities and demonstrate that individuals with such an interest are not assigned to review those applications.

The policy was fully implemented for the 2022-23 K12 SWP selection process, LARC implemented the following policy with specific steps to guard against conflicts of interest.1. Before Calibration, each Selection Committee member completes the Selection Committee Agreement.2. K14 TAP pulls from Looker a report of the current round applications, along with the lead and partner LEAs on each application.3. K14 TAP cross checks the Looker report with Selection Committee employers and fills out the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet.4. K14 TAP sends the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to the Selection Committee for them to add any other real or perceived conflicts of interest.5. When NOVA auto assigns Selection Committee reviews, the K14 TAP uses the completed Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to check for any real or perceived conflicts of interest. If any are present, the reviews are reassigned.6. K14 TAP maintains an Assignment Spreadsheet reflecting reassignments and final assignments.7. During Deliberation, Selection Committee members recuse themselves from any discussions or actions involving a real or perceived conflict of interest. Deliberation minutes reflect the recusals.

Documents/spreadsheets used to fully implement the policy were emailed to Bonnie Roy as attachments.

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

Based on documentation of the consortium's efforts to guard against potential conflicts of interest for its selection committee, we assessed this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

The LARC Chair and K14 Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) adopted a policy of keeping written records identifying the various entities that would benefit from each application if awarded. LARC will document the selection committee members who report having an interest in those entities and demonstrate that individuals with such an interest are not assigned to review those applications. Effective with the 2022-23 K12 SWP selection process, LARC adopted the following policy with specific steps to guard against conflicts of interest.1. Before Calibration, each Selection Committee member completes the Selection Committee Agreement.2. K14 TAP pulls from Looker a report of the current round applications, along with the lead and partner LEAs on each application.3. K14 TAP cross checks the Looker report with Selection Committee employers and fills out the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet.4. K14 TAP sends the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to the Selection Committee for them to add any other real or perceived conflicts of interest.5. When NOVA auto assigns Selection Committee reviews, the K14 TAP uses the completed Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to check for any real or perceived conflicts of interest. If any are present, the reviews are reassigned.6. K14 TAP maintains an Assignment Spreadsheet reflecting reassignments and final assignments.7. During Deliberation, Selection Committee members recuse themselves from any discussions or actions involving a real or perceived conflict of interest. Deliberation minutes reflect the recusals. Documents/spreadsheets will be emailed to Bonnie Roy as attachments.

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

We appreciate the consortium's adoption of a policy and process to safeguard against potential conflicts of interest. Our assessment of whether it has fully implemented the recommendation is pending the consortium's submission of documentation demonstrating its review for potential conflicts of interest during the fiscal year 2022-23 application process.

60-Day Agency Response

The LARC Chair and K14 Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) adopted a policy of keeping written records identifying the various entities that would benefit from each application if awarded. LARC will document the selection committee members who report having an interest in those entities and demonstrate that individuals with such an interest are not assigned to review those applications. Effective with the 2022-23 K12 SWP selection process, LARC adopted the following policy with specific steps to guard against conflicts of interest.1. Before Calibration, each Selection Committee member completes the Selection Committee Agreement.2. K14 TAP pulls from Looker a report of the current round applications, along with the lead and partner LEAs on each application.3. K14 TAP cross checks the Looker report with Selection Committee employers and fills out the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet.4. K14 TAP sends the Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to the Selection Committee for them to add any other real or perceived conflicts of interest.5. When NOVA auto assigns Selection Committee reviews, the K14 TAP uses the completed Potential Conflict of Interest Spreadsheet to check for any real or perceived conflicts of interest. If any are present, the reviews are reassigned.6. K14 TAP maintains an Assignment Spreadsheet reflecting reassignments and final assignments.7. During Deliberation, Selection Committee members recuse themselves from any discussions or actions involving a real or perceived conflict of interest. Deliberation minutes reflect the recusals.

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

We look forward to reviewing documentation of the Consortium's use of its new process in its next response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #8 To: North/Far North Regional Consortium

To ensure that its selection committee follows safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the North/Far North Regional Consortium should maintain internal documentation demonstrating its review for selection committee members' potential conflicts of interest. This documentation should include a comparison of the entities that applied and the conflicts reported by each selection committee member. The consortium should also keep records showing that selection committee members did not review applications for which they had conflicts of interest.

1-Year Agency Response

North Far North will maintain and further document the safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, internal documentation notes were improved starting 22-23. NFN safeguards were established during the most recent application process for individuals wishing to serve on the K12 selection committee, whereby applicants were required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. In reviewing and selecting new committee members, conflicts of interest were documented. These conflicts of interest are referred to in the assignment of applications for review by Selection Committee Chairs and K-14 TAP. In the 2022-23 grant review and award process, the K14 TAP and committee chairs checked for conflicts of interest before assigning grants to selection committee members for review, selection committee members will be required to confirm that no conflict of interest exists on any of the applications assigned, and committee members will recuse themselves from participating in any funding decisions where a conflict of interest exists. The NFN documented that these processes were followed in their audit files.

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

The consortium provided documentation of its process for identifying conflicts of interest and preventing participants from participating in decisions on applications from those entities the participants identified as presenting a conflict.

6-Month Agency Response

When applying for the Selection committee, the application has a conflict of interest declaration they must agree to.

Before reading applications, the SC members sign another conflict of interest form.

After random assignments from the State application system, "NOVA", the regional staff, along with the Selection Committee chairs, review assignments and adjust according to the member's geographical proximity to an applicant's. i.e. Far North region LEA's generally read North region's and vice versa.

Once reviewing applications has begun, a Selection Committee member can self declare a conflict and request to be reassigned. Generally this only happens if they realize their own LEA or a conflicting LEA was included on the application without their prior knowledge.

We have developed a conflict of interest matrix to document each conflict of interest, as that was the part missing from our process previously. We have always had a process and we implemented the documentation portion during the '21-'22 Selection Committee Review and Scoring period. In the past, we relied on NOVA for the documentation, as we track it there as well, but we have implemented a separate tracking sheet moving forward.

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

We recommended that the consortium document its comparison of entities that applied for grants and the conflicts of interest reported by each selection committee member. The consortium's response does not clearly indicate that it will do so. We encourage the consortium to ensure that the process it adopts fully addresses our recommendation, and we look forward to assessing the status of the recommendation when the consortium provides supporting documentation at the time of its one-year response.

60-Day Agency Response

North Far North will maintain and further document the safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, internal documentation notes will be improved starting 22-23. NFN safeguards were established during the most recent application process for individuals wishing to serve on the K12 selection committee, whereby applicants were required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. In reviewing and selecting new committee members, conflicts of interest were documented. These conflicts of interest are referred to in the assignment of applications for review by Selection Committee Chairs and K-14 TAP. In the 2022-23 grant review and award process, the K14 TAP and committee chairs will check for conflicts of interest before assigning grants to selection committee members for review, selection committee members will be required to confirm that no conflict of interest exists on any of the applications assigned, and committee members will recuse themselves from participating in any funding decisions where a conflict of interest exists. The NFN will document that these processes were followed in their audit files.

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

We appreciate the consortium's efforts to prevent unfair grant decisions. Per the timeline the consortium describes, it will implement conflict-of-interest safeguards starting in the fiscal year 2022-23 round of the grant competition. Accordingly, we look forward to the consortium's 6-month response and will assess the documentation it submits demonstrating its implementation of this new process at that time.

Recommendation #9 To: South Central Coast Regional Consortium

To ensure that its selection committee follows safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the South Central Coast Regional Consortium should maintain internal documentation demonstrating its review for selection committee members' potential conflicts of interest. This documentation should include a comparison of the entities that applied and the conflicts reported by each selection committee member. The consortium should also keep records showing that selection committee members did not review applications for which they had conflicts of interest.

1-Year Agency Response

In particular response to #9 COI documentation, the SCCRC will maintain the following internal COI documentation—1) signed COI forms completed by Review Team and Selection Committee members, 2) comparison of entities that applied to be on the Selection Committee by sub-region and by college service area. A color-coded spreadsheet has been created that shows applicants by geographic sub-region and by college service area. This spreadsheet will be used by the Review Team when selecting the Selection Committee members for the 2022-23 Round 5 K12 SWP, and 3) spreadsheet showing conflicts identified for each member and documentation that members will not score applications where conflicts are noted. Regional Chair and K14 TAP are responsible.

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

Based on documentation of the consortium's efforts to guard against potential conflicts of interest for its selection committee, we assessed this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

The South Central Coast Regional Consortium agrees has updated its processes regarding documentation and reporting of conflicts of interest for the K12 SWP review team and selection committee members. This documentation now includes comparison information of the entities that have applied and documents any conflicts as reported by members. Records will be kept documenting any conflicts selection committee members may have including a statement of ascertaining no conflicts.

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

We appreciate the consortium's update to its process to safeguard against potential conflicts of interest. Our assessment of whether it has fully implemented the recommendation is pending the consortium's submission of documentation demonstrating its review for potential conflicts of interest during the fiscal year 2022-23 application process.

60-Day Agency Response

The South Central Coast Regional Consortium (SCCRC) convened the Regional Review Team of high-level K12 and community college administrators and the Regional Selection Committee on March 16th to present audit findings and discuss next steps for response and compliance with the response timeline (see supporting documentation titled: K12 SWP Audit PPT). The next Review Team meeting will be held on April 19 and the agenda for that meeting includes: 1) review and approval of the revised Conflict of Interest (COI) form (see supporting documentation), 2) review of the COI spreadsheet for assigning grant application readers showing comparison of entities that applied and conflicts identified for each member (see supporting documentation spreadsheet). The April 19th meeting will also include the finalization of Review Team members' votes selecting the Round 5 Selection Committee.

In particular response to #9 COI documentation, the SCCRC will maintain the following internal COI documentation—1) signed COI forms completed by Review Team and Selection Committee members, 2) comparison of entities that applied to be on the Selection Committee by sub-region and by college service area. A color-coded spreadsheet has been created that shows applicants by geographic sub-region and by college service area. This spreadsheet will be used by the Review Team when selecting the Selection Committee members for the 2022-23 Round 5 K12 SWP, and 3) spreadsheet showing conflicts identified for each member and documentation that members will not score applications where conflicts are noted. Regional Chair and K14 TAP are responsible.

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

We look forward to reviewing the documentation of the Consortium's use of its new process and forms in its next response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #10 To: Bay Area Community College Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the Bay Area Community College Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

The Regional Consortia have agreed upon a methodology that we will all use for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. This methodology will be implemented in this next round of K12 SWP funding. A full description of the methodology has been provided to the Auditor's office.

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

60-Day Agency Response

The regional consortia chairs and K-14 Technical Assistance Providers have met several times to develop a methodology to be used by all 8 consortia for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. The proposed methodology is currently being reviewed by each of the regional consortia. This review will be completed and a final common methodology will be adopted by mid-May, well in advance of when it is needed to be included in the Request for Applications for Round 5 of K12 SWP grants.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #11 To: Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

The Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium collaborated with the other regional consortia chairs and K14 Technical Assistance Providers to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use beginning the fiscal year of 22-23 grant application period. The requisite documentation illustrates a fair, consistent methodology.

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

60-Day Agency Response

The K-14 Technical Assistance Providers have met several times to develop a methodology to be used by all 8 regional consortia for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants applications will be eligible for funding. The proposed methodology is currently being reviewed by each of the regional consortia. This review will be completed soon, and a final common methodology will be adopted by mid-May, before the Request for Applications for Round 5 of K12 SWP grants is announced.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #12 To: Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

The regional consortia chairs, along with input from the K14 technical assistance providers, developed a mutually agreed upon approach to address score variations. The methodology will be applied beginning with applications submitted during Round 5 (fall 2022).

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

60-Day Agency Response

In response to the auditor's recommendation, in February the regional consortia established a small workgroup comprised of K14 TAPs to review current practices used by K12 Selection Committees across the state and to draft a standardized approach for handling score variations. A first draft was presented on March 23, 2022 to solicit feedback from the regional chairs, K14 TAPs, and regional fiscal agents. On April 1, 2022 the K14 TAP presented the first draft to the Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium K12 Selection Committee for their input. It is anticipated that regions will reach consensus on the standard approach by June 2022. Collectively, the regional consortia will submit their recommended process to the CCCCO for inclusion in the 2022-23 grant RFA. The Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium K12 Selection Committee will consistently follow the process when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria for 2022-23. Collectively, the regional chairs are the individuals responsible for establishing a statewide approach. The individual listed below (the IEDRC K14 TAP) will be responsible for communicating the process to our region's K12 Selection Committee members (once it is approved) and will ensure, in collaboration with the committee co-chairs, that the process is implemented consistently for applications submitted to the IEDRC in 2022-23.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #13 To: Los Angeles Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the Los Angeles Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, LARC and the other state regional consortium established a methodology for determining eligibility for K12 SWP funding adopted by the 8 Regional Consortia. This will be fully implemented and the regional consortium will be applying this methodology to the applications received in the next round of K12 SWP funding scheduled for this fall.

Link Determining Eligibility for K12 SWP Funding Criteria: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aLjXi4oufQA75ZAj3IXgi61Jwqe5pmhC/view?usp=sharing

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

60-Day Agency Response

A group of regional consortia chairs and K-14 Technical Assistance Providers have met several times to develop a methodology to be used by all 8 consortia for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. The proposed methodology is currently being reviewed by each of the Regional Consortia. This review will be completed and a final common methodology will be adopted by mid-May, well in advance of when it is needed to be included in the Request for Applications for Round 5 of K12 SWP grants.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #14 To: North/Far North Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the North/Far North Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

The regional consortia agreed upon a standard, statewide approach for addressing score variations. The NFN K12 Selection Committee will implement and follow this established process during the 2022-23 (Round 5) K12 Strong Workforce application review period when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria

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

60-Day Agency Response

In response to the auditor's recommendation, in February the regional consortia established a small workgroup comprised of K14 TAPs to review current practices used by K12 Selection Committees across the state and to draft a standardized approach for handling score variations. A first draft was presented on March 23, 2022 to solicit feedback from the regional chairs, K14 TAPs, and regional fiscal agents. It is anticipated that regions will reach consensus on the standard approach by June 2022. Collectively, the regional consortia will submit their recommended process to the CCCCO for inclusion in the 2022-23 grant RFA. The North Far North Regional Consortium K12 Selection Committee will consistently follow the process when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria for 2022-23. Collectively, the regional chairs are the individuals responsible for establishing a statewide approach. The individual listed below (the NFNRC K14 TAP) will be responsible for communicating the process to our region's K12 Selection Committee members (once it is approved) and will ensure, in collaboration with the committee co-chairs, that the process is implemented consistently for applications submitted to the NFNRC in 2022-23.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #15 To: Orange County Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the Orange County Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

Determining Eligibility K12SWP Audit recommendation is to have statewide process determining whether applications are eligible for funding. Criteria: Reduce the number of applications that require an additional reviewer for determining eligibility. Rationale: Find reviewers able to review applications in a relatively short time. Criteria: Bias the process towards ruling applications as eligible Rationale: This will increase the number of applications eligible for funding.

1. Region determines the number of reviewers that will score each application. 2. Reviewers read and score applications 3. Average score is determined for each application. An application is considered against each of the following steps in sequence. When a particular step determines the application's eligibility, it is not considered against any of the subsequent steps. 4. When the AVERAGE of ALL scores is >=75, the proposal is eligible and no additional reviewers are assigned. 5. When ALL individual scores are <75, the proposal is ineligible and no additional reviewers are assigned. 6. When the difference between the highest score and the lowest score is <20 AND the average score is <70, the proposal is ineligible and no additional reviewers are assigned. 7. If the above doesn't result in a determination of eligibility in regions using 4 or 5 reviewers. 7a. Applications with least 3 scores >=75, have their lowest score dropped and the average recalculated. Those with a recalculated average >= 75 are eligible. 7b. Applications with at least 3 scores < 75 have their highest score dropped and the average recalculated. Those with a recalculated average < 75 are ineligible. 8. For all remaining applications, an additional reviewer will be assigned. The lowest score will be dropped to arrive at a final average score. Recalculated average scores >= 75 will be eligible and those <75 will be ineligible.

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

60-Day Agency Response

The regional consortia chairs and K14 TAPs are in discussion about this recommendation and one drafted strategy has been presented to the group; however, some elements still need to be worked out over the course of the next couple of statewide meetings. We anticipate having a comprehensive process in place before the next Selection Committee meeting.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #16 To: San Diego/Imperial Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the San Diego/Imperial Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

The Regional Consortia Chairs and K-14 Technical Assistance Providers have agreed upon a methodology that we will all use for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. This methodology will be implemented in this next round of K12 SWP funding. A full description of the methodology will be provided to the Auditor's office.

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

60-Day Agency Response

A group of regional consortia chairs and K-14 Technical Assistance Providers have met several times to develop a methodology to be used by all 8 consortia for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. The proposed methodology is currently being reviewed by each of the Regional Consortia. This review will be completed and a final common methodology will be adopted by mid-May, well in advance of when it is needed to be included in the Request for Applications for Round 5 of K12 SWP grants.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #17 To: South Central Coast Regional Consortium

To ensure consistency in scoring applications, the South Central Coast Regional Consortium should collaborate with the other regional consortia to establish a standard approach for addressing score variations that selection committees statewide will use, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, when evaluating whether applications meet eligibility criteria.

6-Month Agency Response

A group of regional consortia chairs and K-14 Technical Assistance Providers collectively developed a standard methodology that will be used by all 8 consortia for addressing score variations and determining, based on reviewers' scores, which grants are eligible for funding. The approved methodology was reviewed by each of the regional consortia and will be utilized for the Round 5 K12 SWP grant application process.

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

60-Day Agency Response

At the February 16th statewide Regional Chairs meeting, it was noted that there does not appear to be a place for a "joint response" in the portal but rather each region should have the same wording and approach for addressing score variations. To this end the following was begun: 1) the statewide K14 TAPs convened in order to gather each region's current approach to score variations and then develop a proposed standardized statewide approach. In addition, it was decided that the most efficacious way to move forward statewide is to hold a once monthly statewide Joint Regional Chair/Fiscal Agent/K14 TAP meeting where these issues can be discussed with all. The joint group met on February 23, March 23 and will meet again on April 20. The proposed methodology is currently being reviewed by each of the Regional Consortia. This review will be completed and a final common methodology will be adopted by mid-May, well in advance of when it is needed to be included in the Request for Applications for Round 5 of K12 SWP grants. Therefore, this recommendation is not yet fully ready for implementation. Regional Chair and K14 TAP are responsible.

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

We look forward to reviewing the results of the consortia's collaboration in the six-month response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #18 To: Education, Department of

To ensure that policymakers and interested members of the public have accurate information at their disposal, Education should work with any parties that have used this erroneous figure, including but not limited to the State Board of Education and the Advisory Committee, to publish corrections on their webpages that disclose accurate information.

1-Year Agency Response

Fully implemented. As previously stated, Education took the following steps to ensure that the public was made aware of the correction to prior erroneous information that was previously posted.

1) On April 8, 2022, Education notified the SBE and the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee (CWPJAC) staff of the correction;

2) Education added a section on the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) program web page that lists prior SBE items, including the March 2020 meeting, where the erroneous information was published. Education then posted a statement of correction at the end of this list, denoted by two asterisks (Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) - Career Technical Education (CA Dept of Education).

Additionally, Education corrected the January 2020 CWPJAC information (Item 01 Slides) as follows, (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/gi/agendajan2020.asp).

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

The documentation that Education submitted demonstrates the actions it describes in its response. Therefore, we assessed this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

Fully implemented. As previously stated, Education took the following steps to ensure that the public was made aware of the correction to prior erroneous information that was previously posted.

1)On April 8, 2022, Education notified the SBE and the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee staff of the correction; and

2)Education added a section on the CTEIG program web page that lists prior SBE items, including the March 2020 meeting, where the erroneous information was published. Education then posted a statement of correction at the end of this list, denoted by two asterisks, on the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) program main web page - Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) - Career Technical Education (CA Dept of Education).

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

The correction Education describes does not address the inaccurate information that is posted on the Advisory Committee's website. As a result, we determine that this recommendation is partially implemented.

60-Day Agency Response

Education is taking the following steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the correction to prior erroneous information that was previously posted.

1) On April 8, 2022, Education notified the SBE and the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee staff of the correction;

2) Education is working on posting a statement of correction on the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) program main web page at Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) - Career Technical Education (CA Dept of Education); and

3) Education will also add a link on its CTEIG program main web page to the State Board of Education's March 2020 Board Item, where the erroneous figure was published to provide clarification on what is being corrected.

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

We look forward to reviewing the implementation of the steps Education indicates it is taking in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #19 To: Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium

To ensure that its selection committee follows safeguards designed to avoid unfair grant decisions, beginning with the fiscal year 2022-23 grant application period, the Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium should maintain internal documentation demonstrating its review for selection committee members' potential conflicts of interest. This documentation should include a comparison of the entities that applied and the conflicts reported by each selection committee member. The consortium should also keep records showing that selection committee members did not review applications for which they had conflicts of interest.

1-Year Agency Response

In accordance with the audit recommendation, The K14 TAP, the Selection Committee chairs, and the Regional Chair kept maintained internal documentation to avoid unfair grant decisions occurred for the Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium. This documentation included a conflict of interest and confidentiality form that all selection committee members had to agree to and submit before accessing the applications. Additionally, we tracked conflict of interests via an Excel sheet that required selection committee members to reveal conflicts and potential conflicts before they accessed the applications in NOVA. These records were maintained electronically and in print and have been sent to the auditor as proof of full implementation.

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

Based on documentation of the consortium's efforts to guard against potential conflicts of interest for its selection committee, we assessed this recommendation fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

The Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium plans to develop a conflict of interest document that requires selection committee members to disclose potential conflicts for the FY of 2022-23 and plans to keep a separate document that ensures selection committee members do not review applications where a conflict of interest has been identified.

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

The consortium's response does not specify whether it will maintain documentation demonstrating that it has compared the entities that applied and the conflicts reported by each selection committee member. We encourage the consortium to implement this key component of the recommendation and look forward to assessing its status at the one-year response point.

60-Day Agency Response

To ensure that the Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium follows safeguards that avoids unfair grant decisions, it plans to develop internal documentation that requires selection committee members to disclose potential conflicts of interest that details a comparison of the entities that applied with a description of the types of conflicts reported by each selection committee member. Additionally, it will keep records that supports selection committee members did not review applications from which they had conflict/s of interest. The documentation and internal processes will be adopted by the end of May before the selection committee convenes to review round 5 of the K12 SWP applications.

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

We look forward to reviewing the documentation of the Consortium's use of its new process in its next response to this recommendation.

Recommendation #20 To: Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium

To allow the Elite Academic Academy—Lucerne an opportunity to have its inappropriately denied fiscal year 2020-21 application reconsidered, the Inland Empire/Desert regional consortium should encourage the charter school to reapply for a workforce grant and should apply its selection criteria consistently and correctly when making its award decision.

1-Year Agency Response

The Inland Empire/Desert Regional Consortium (IEDRC) held three trainings after the release of the K12 Strong Workforce RFA for Round 5: 1) "Deep Dive into Round 5" on 8/30/22; 2) "Looking for the Life Preserver: Navigating the Challenges of K12 SWP" on 9/6/22; and "IEDRC Quarterly Meeting and K12 SWP Engagement" on 9/19/22.

Elite Academic Academy was invited to all of these events, however, they did not attend. Elite did not submit an application for Round 5 funding.

Additionally, the IEDRC's K12 Selection Committee publicized its selection criteria on the region's website (https://desertcolleges.org/strong-workforce/k12/k12-strong-workforce-2022-2023-round5-rfa-resources/). A link to the website was included in the RFA and it was shared during all K12 SWP trainings. During the selection process, the K12 Selection Committee co-chairs ensured that the criteria was consistently and correctly applied during funding decisions for the 2022-23 (Round 5) awards.

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

The consortium provided documentation of its efforts to fulfill our recommendation, which consisted of including the Elite Academic Academy (the academy) in announcements sent to groups of stakeholders about upcoming grant opportunities and training events. Although these minimal efforts may have fulfilled the letter of our recommendation, which we have therefore assessed as fully implemented, we do not believe that they have reduced the consequences of the consortium's previous error.

Specifically, we questioned whether the academy understood that its previous grant application was inappropriately denied and considered that information when deciding whether to reapply for a grant. Because of our concern, we reached out to an academy employee the consortium asserted it had contacted. She shared that the consortium had not informed her of the results of the audit or specifically encouraged the academy to reapply for a grant despite its prior experience. To address the harm done to the academy and ensure it is fully informed about its future grant opportunities, we encourage the consortium to communicate with the academy specifically about the issue we described in our report.

6-Month Agency Response

In response to the auditor's recommendation, in March 2022 the Inland Empire Desert Region's K12 Pathway Coordinator reached out to the Chief Student Development Officer/CTE Program Lead of Elite Academic Academy to provide specific information about the region's K12 Strong Workforce Program as well as provide information and offer assistance in connecting Elite Academic Academy to regional CTE resources. The region has also ensured that Elite Academic Academy is on regional K12 distributions lists and is invited to engagement meetings and training events. Although the K12 Pathway Coordinator will continue to be in contact with Elite over the next few months, as is appropriate to provide resources, etc., the State Auditor's recommendation cannot be fully implemented until the Chancellor's Office releases the K12 SWP Request for Applications for 2022-23 (which is anticipated to be in August 2022) and the region's K12 Selection Committee meets to make 2022-23 award decisions. At that time, the region's K12 Pathway Coordinator will again reach out to Elite Academic Academy and encourage them to apply for funding. The Inland Empire Desert Region's K12 Selection Committee met on 4/1/2022 to discuss the audit report and the selection criteria to be used for the 2022-23 RFA. Once the Committee agrees on the selection criteria, the committee's co-chairs will ensure it is applied consistently and correctly when making 2022-23 award decisions.

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

60-Day Agency Response

In response to the auditor's recommendation, in March 2022 the Inland Empire Desert Region's K12 Pathway Coordinator reached out to the Chief Student Development Officer/CTE Program Lead of Elite Academic Academy to provide specific information about the region's K12 Strong Workforce Program as well as provide information and offer assistance in connecting Elite Academic Academy to regional CTE resources. The region has also ensured that Elite Academic Academy is on regional K12 distributions lists and is invited to engagement meetings and training events. Although the K12 Pathway Coordinator will continue to be in contact with Elite over the next few months, as is appropriate to provide resources, etc., the State Auditor's recommendation cannot be fully implemented until the Chancellor's Office releases the K12 SWP Request for Applications for 2022-23 (which is anticipated to be in August 2022) and the region's K12 Selection Committee meets to make 2022-23 award decisions. At that time, the region's K12 Pathway Coordinator will again reach out to Elite Academic Academy and encourage them to apply for funding. The Inland Empire Desert Region's K12 Selection Committee met on 4/1/2022 to discuss the audit report and the selection criteria to be used for the 2022-23 RFA. Once the Committee agrees on the selection criteria, the committee's co-chairs will ensure it is applied consistently and correctly when making 2022-23 award decisions.

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

All Recommendations in 2021-101

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.