Consequences Of Poor Financial Practices

Comments 30

• CO1
  LAUSD follows California Department of Education requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. The California Department of Education established specific requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. 164 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • Low-income students are primarily identified through their eligibility for the Free or Reduced Price Meals (FRPM) under the National School Lunch Program, but may also be determined to be eligible under certain other programs that support low-income students. • English Learners are identified as students with an English Language Acquisition Status of “English Learner” in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) on the annual census day (first Wednesday in October). • Foster Youth are identified directly through information obtained from the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) or the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). LAUSD followed these requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students.
• CO2
  LAUSD’s annual comprehensive audit includes an audit of the reported student count using California Department of Education audit guidelines. The most recent audit found only one incorrectly classified student. The California Department of Education also developed and provided detailed guidelines for conducting audits of reported student counts. An audit of the reported student count, using these guidelines, is conducted annually as part of the LAUSD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. For the most recently completed audit (FY 2014-2015), the auditor selected and tested a sample of the Free and Reduced Price Meal (FRPM) and English Learner (EL) eligibility of 2,956 students from 40 schools as reported in the CALPADS. This included examining supporting documentation for the selected students and verifying their respective eligibility. Of the 2,956 students tested, 1,025 students were selected for verification of their English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) designation of English Learner (EL). One student was noted as incorrectly reported in CALPADS as English Learner as of the census. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165
• CO3
  The method for distributing LCFF funds statewide based on the “unduplicated count” of LCFF students underrepresents the needs of students that meet two or all three of the qualifying criteria for LCFF funding, and underfunds the programs and services required to meet the needs of these students. Exhibit 3 shows the certified pupil counts for LAUSD for the three fiscal years. Exhibit 3 LAUSD Certified Pupil Counts LAUSD Under LCFF Certified Certified Total Low- English Foster / Duplicated Un- Un- Year Migrant Enrollment income Learner Homeless Total Duplicated Duplicated Total Percentage FY 2013-14 558,468 428,162 154,110 21,735 1,188 605,195 454,448 84.61% FY 2014-15 545,838 408,898 141,490 6,367 654 557,409 431,236 83.49% FY 2015-16 529,791 415,701 141,243 13,005 681 570,630 429,646 83.49% Source: California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Unduplicated Pupil Count Source File, California Department of Education Note: Low Income students include those eligible for the Free or Reduced Price Meal Program (FRPM) as well as directly certified. As this exhibit shows, there are a significant number of LAUSD students that are Low- income, and either English Learner, Foster Youth, or both. The unduplicated count does not take this overlap in needs, and qualifications, into account. For example, a student may be a Low-income Foster Youth who also needs to learn English. This student would only be counted once when LCFF supplemental and concentration funds are being calculated. However, this student’s needs are much more substantial that a student who is Low-income only. The cost for LAUSD to meet the additional needs of the student with multiple qualifications is also substantially higher. C. Programs And Services Funded With LCFF Supplemental And Concentration Funds
• CO4
  LCFF supplemental and concentration funds received by LAUSD in FY 2013-2014 were used to continue to fund previously existing programs and services provided to LCFF qualified students. In FY 2013-2014 LAUSD received a total of $700 million in LCFF supplemental and concentration funds. LAUSD has historically invested in programs and services to support Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. The funds received in FY 2013-2014 were used to fund the ongoing operations of these programs and services. The largest amount of these allocated funds ($449.9 million) were used to continue to provide services to LCFF qualified students that were in special education programs. 166 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT This amount was determined based on the percentage of LCFF qualified students that were participating in special education programs. LAUSD’s analysis showed that 79% of students participating in special education programs were also LCFF qualified students. The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) reviewed this analysis and approved the allocation of these LCFF funds to support special education programs. Approximately $103 million of these funds were allocated directly to schools to support specific needs identified by schools. These funds were allocated based on the number and percentage of LCFF qualified students at each school using the LAUSD Student Equity Based Index (SEBI). This index shows the total unduplicated count and percentage of LCFF students for each LAUSD school. Approximately $56 million of these funds were used to support the “Options” program for targeted youth, which provides an optional or alternative educational setting that takes into consideration life needs and increases the likelihood of these students graduating. Approximately $25 million of these funds were allocated to provide adult and career education for targeted students. Another $25 million was used to support English Learners through development of English Learner Master Plan and providing English Learner Instructional Coaches, and the Accelerated Academic Literacy Program Standard English Learner support program. Thirteen million dollars of these funds were allocated to support the LAUSD school police. The use of these funds for school police was discontinued beginning in FY 2015-2016 based on input and feedback received from the community. Additional funds were used to support academic, college and career counseling ($13 million), student engagement ($12 million), and parental engagement ($1.8 million) for targeted youth.
• CO5
  LCFF supplemental and concentration funds received by LAUSD in FY 2014-2015 were used to fund previously existing programs and services provided to LCFF qualified students, as well as to expand some of these programs, and implement additional new programs. For FY 2014-2015 LAUSD received a total of $837.1 million in LCFF supplemental and concentration funds, an increase of $137.1 million over FY 2013-2014. LAUSD used these funds to continue investments in programs and services to support Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. In addition, LAUSD expanded a number of programs and services that previously existed, and developed and implemented new programs and services. Previous funding to support targeted students in special education programs and to provide adult and career education and English Learner supports continued with minor 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 167 increases. Approximately $50 million of the funding provided was allocated directly to schools to support specific needs identified by schools. New programs and services developed included teacher retention and support ($27.6 million) to improve the quality of teachers, Foster Youth Support and Family Source Centers ($9.9 million) to provide services directly to Foster Youth, Instructional Technology Support ($4.3 million), Targeted Instructional Support ($34.7 million), the Arts Program ($2.5 million) and the School Climate / Restorative Justice Program ($4.2 million). Cal and the non-profit organization Communities for Los Angeles Student Success (CLASS) conducted a review of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF.5 The review concluded that a relatively small percentage of the total budget was designated to be invested in LCFF qualified and targeted students. The review recommended the entire supplemental and concentration grant funds be considered discretionary, and budgeted and distributed more directly to the target student population. 5 “Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula: Steps Taken by LAUSD in Year Two, 2014-2015,” Research Findings from the University of California, Berkeley for the CLASS Coalition and United Way of Greater Los Angeles (June 2015)(hereafter “Cal/CLASS Findings”). 168 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 4 shows the allocation of LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds to programs and services, including planned future investments, by Fiscal Year. Exhibit 4 LAUSD LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Allocation of Funds - FY 2013-14 thru FY 2017-18 (In Millions of Dollars) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Goal 1: 100% Graduation Adult and Career Education - Targeted Youth $24.8 $25.0 $24.8 $24.8 $24.8 Teacher Retention and Support (REED) $27.6 $32.4 $32.4 $32.4 School Autonomy $103.3 $154.1 $161.8 $174.8 $178.8 Options Program $56.5 $57.8 $58.5 $59.5 $59.5 Realigned After-School Program $7.3 $7.3 $7.3 Diploma Program $2.0 $2.0 Academic, College & Career Counseling $13.0 $13.0 $14.0 $14.0 A-G Immediate Intervention Plan $15.0 $15.0 $15.0 Goal 2: Pr oficiency f or All Foster Youth Support / Family Source Centers $9.9 $12.9 $13.9 $13.9 School Readiness Language Development $22.0 $22.0 $22.0 Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Plan $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 Targeted Special Education Supports $449.9 $452.6 $449.9 $449.9 $449.9 Special Education Over-Referral $22.4 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 English Learner Supports $25.8 $28.4 $52.6 $52.6 $52.6 Instructional Technology Support $4.3 $9.0 $9.0 $9.0 Targeted Instructional Support $34.7 $47.1 $68.5 $70.5 Arts Program $2.5 $26.4 $33.8 $33.8 Goal 3: 10 0% Attendance Targeted Support - Student Engagement $12.0 $38.3 $45.3 $47.3 Homeless Youth Program $1.8 $1.8 $1.8 District Wide Student Engagement $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 Goal 4: Parent, Commu nity and St udent Engagement Targeted Parental Involvement $1.8 $6.4 $4.6 $5.3 $5.3 Goal 5: Ensure School Safety School Climate / Restorative Justice Program $4.2 $7.2 $9.2 $9.2 School Police $13.0 $13.1 On-Going Major Maintenance $16.5 $16.5 $16.5 Totals $700.0 $865.9 $1,030.6 $1,087.1 $1,095.1 Source: Data received from Los Angeles Unified School District Fiscal Budget by WatsonRice Consultants. Exhibit 5, beginning on the following page, provides a description of the programs and services funded using LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds listed in Exhibit 4. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 169 Exhibit 5 Programs Funded with LAUSD LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Program Title Program Description Goal 1: 100% Graduation Provides access to credit recovery programs for students that have fallen behind in course work for graduation are given access to support programs to get them back on track to graduate. Programs also provide Adult and Career Education - Targeted Youth optional programs of study in career technical education or certificate programs through the Regional Occupation Centers/Programs, Career Technical Education, Regional Occupation Centers/Programs, and Credit Recovery Programs Increase support to sites with high turnover and high concentrations of targeted students. Supports include Teacher Retention and Support (REED) staffing, professional development augmentations and recruitment and retention enhancements. Also includes new teacher support and assistance. Provide additional budget autonomy to schools to support the academic plan on each campus. Schools receive an allocation to provide for local decision-making on how to provide supports to targeted students. Funds School Autonomy are distributed using the District’s student equity based index. Enhances school climate, supports academic planning and instructional interventions, campus safety and school maintenance, registration and clerical support. Support at risk youth with an optional educational setting. A majority of youth that participate in the program are Low-income and English Learners. By Options Program providing an optional educational setting that takes into consideration a number of life needs, the program increases the likelihood of these students graduating. Support the realignment of after school services to better serve at risk and targeted youth including a more rigorous and structured learning environment to ensure Realigned After-School Program targeted (Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth) students are receiving proper academic support and intervention. Focuses on high schools with the highest dropout rates and their feeder middles schools with the most at risk Diploma Program students. Intent is to increase graduation rates at schools with highest dropout rates. Provide additional counseling resources to support academic and college and career counseling for high Academic, College & Career Counseling school students. Resources will be distributed through a prioritization of school sites using the District's Student Equity Based Index. 170 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Provide interventions to improve success in meeting advancement and graduation requirements. Includes A-G Immediate Intervention Plan addressing scheduling constraints for students not making sufficient progress or are behind. Goal 2: Proficiency for All Augmentations to counselors, psychiatric social workers, behavior specialists, pupil services and attendance counselor aides, and pupil services and attendance counselors specifically supporting Foster Youth. Foster Youth Support / Family Source Centers Individualized Education Plans for each Foster Youth student. Develop MOUs regarding Foster Youth school transfers, implement data tracking infrastructure, and identify baseline data necessary to minimize Foster Youth transfer rate. Offer targeted school readiness language development classes at school sites based on the District's Student School Readiness Language Development Equity Based index to prepare youth for transitional and traditional kindergarten. The program is a full day, 180 school day preschool program to prepare children for kindergarten. The Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Plan program follows the same time schedule as other elementary classrooms. Special education services for targeted students including integration of students in General Education settings, Infant and Preschool Program, Special Day Program, Resource Specialist Program, Extended School Year, Transition Services, Special Education Targeted Special Education Supports Service Centers, Language and Speech, Occupational Therapy/Physical Therapy, Educationally Related Intensive Counseling Services (ERICS),Transportation, English Learner, Standard English Learner, and Long Term English Learner Supports. Special Education Services enhanced with resources to address the over referral and identification of students. Recent findings have disproportionately impacted Special Education Over-Referral student subgroups with over-referrals to special education programs. The program investment provides additional staff to assist with IEPs and the appropriate special education identification. Implementation of the English Learner Master Plan supporting English Learner and Standard English Learners. Services provide a multi-tiered system of supports for English Learner, Standard English Learners, and struggling readers, inclusive of English Learner Supports reclassified fluent English proficient students (RFEPS). Provide for English Learner Instructional Coaches, Accelerated Academic Literacy Program standard English Learner support program, and support the implementation of the District’s English Learner Master Plan. Ensure school sites receive the support to enhance and utilize technology available at each site as well as Instructional Technology Support provide professional development to teachers on utilizing tools to enhance instruction. Allocates information technology resources and support to areas 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 171 in the District that have deficits in tech support. Targeted Instructional and administrative supports for library services, instructional material, class size reduction for middle and high school math and English Targeted Instructional Support classes. Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. Establish a targeted Arts program that utilizes the District’s Arts equity index to determine areas of need. The LCFF targeted populations of Low –income, Foster Youth and English Learner students are used to Arts Program populate the arts equity index. Specifically, the arts equity index identifies school sites that need greater resources to restore base levels of arts programs. The effort will bring parity to school sites throughout the District. Goal 3: 100% Attendance Resources provided to school sites to receive clerical support, counseling/registration time, custodial, nurses, health services and additional support personnel (Pupil Targeted Support - Student Engagement Services and Attendance counselors). Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. Support 9th Street School because of high numbers of mental health issues and traumatic events (the school is located in Skid Row, and has a high concentration of Homeless students). Provide support in each of the new local districts to serve as district liaisons for Homeless students and families as required by law. Support proper Homeless Youth Program identification of Homeless students in compliance with the federal McKinney-Vento Act. Provide services and support to identified students to ensure timely enrollment, advocate for school stability, and provide supplemental services and resources as needed. Six Pupil Services Attendance aides to support Homeless in each local district. Support the implementation of a District-wide expansion of best practices and training to develop strong student leadership and voice in the District. Create multiple pathways and opportunities for student engagement, leadership development, and purposeful collaboration to develop a Student Leadership and Engagement Plan to District Wide Student Engagement be included in the Single Plan for Student Achievement, ensure that student leaders participate and engage in District-wide student engagement efforts, create a process that allows all students to review and comment on the development and implementation of school plans, budgets, and programs. Goal 4: Parent, Community and Student Engagement Provide more resources to support parent engagement at the local level: Increase parental engagement. training, and workshops across the district. Resources Targeted Parental Involvement are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. 172 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Goal 5: Ensure School Safety Promote School Climate and Student Engagement at campuses of highest need, based on unduplicated student concentrations. An effort to develop and maintain: holistic, safe and healthy school environments, effective positive behavior support and interventions, commitment to a District-wide culture of positive and humanistic approach to working with students, staff and School Climate / Restorative Justice Program parents. Funds are prioritized utilizing the District’s equity index and through the identification of sites with high incidences of conflict and suspensions. Restorative Justice counselors and teacher advisors will be provided to school sites for purposes of building positive practices and school culture to address student behavior and conflict. Provide support for school police based on allocation of LCFF students. LCFF support for school police was School Police discontinued based on input and feedback received through the Community Engagement process. Targeted maintenance to school sites with greatest On-Going Major Maintenance need. D. LCFF Funds Allocated To Schools It is important that investments in targeted students be made directly to schools to the extent practical, especially since most learning within LAUSD actually occurs at individual schools.
• CO6
  LAUSD has invested LCFF funds directly in elementary, middle and high schools in a manner that targets those schools with the largest number or percentage of LCFF qualified and targeted students. LAUSD made investments directly in elementary, middle and high schools based on the number and percentage of Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. LAUSD used a duplicated count to determine these investments. Using this approach, a Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth student would be counted 3 times, once for each category, rather than just once when using the unduplicated count approach. LAUSD’s position is that this is a more equitable approach, given that it is more challenging and costly to provide services to students facing multiple challenges. Exhibit 6, on the following page, shows the LCFF investments made in FY 2015-2016 directly to schools using the duplicated count of LCFF students, referred to as the Student Equity Based Index (SEBI). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 173 Exhibit 6 LAUSD LCFF Investments Made Directly to Schools By Local District Elementary Schools Number of Total Average Total LCFF LCFF Per Local District Schools Students Duplicated % Investment Student Central 88 45,592 154% $16,518,041 $362.30 East 79 44,800 157% $17,063,177 $380.87 Northeast 66 39,681 137% $13,291,804 $334.97 Northwest 78 41,921 106% $9,827,213 $234.42 South 83 50,740 137% $17,679,262 $348.43 West 95 45,968 103% $11,742,627 $255.45 Totals / Averages 489 268,702 132% $86,122,124 $319.41 Middle Schools Central 16 13,447 143% $8,529,017 $634.27 East 14 16,008 138% $9,592,774 $599.25 Northeast 14 16,887 126% $7,529,790 $445.89 Northwest 14 19,361 96% $5,121,361 $264.52 South 13 15,591 120% $6,925,742 $444.21 West 16 14,323 112% $6,300,779 $439.91 Totals / Average 87 95,617 122% $43,999,463 $471.34 High Schools Central 23 20,444 129% $19,575,346 $957.51 East 26 26,387 123% $20,494,201 $776.68 Northeast 16 21,976 110% $17,557,284 $798.93 Northwest 10 18,176 88% $5,431,605 $298.83 South 18 19,229 107% $11,441,338 $595.00 West 17 19,170 101% $8,914,032 $465.00 Totals / Average 110 125,382 110% $83,413,807 $648.66 Source: LAUSD Student equity - based index and existing and proposed investments for FY 2015-2016 Span, Special Ed, Continuation High, Opportunity, or community day schools not included. As Exhibit 6 shows, schools in the local districts with the highest percentage of LCFF qualified or targeted students received the highest LCFF funding per student. For example, the East Elementary School Local District had a total of 157 percent (duplicated count) of students meeting the LCFF qualifications. The funding per elementary student in the East Local District was $380.87. The West Elementary School Local District had a total of 103 percent (duplicated count) of students meeting the LCFF qualifications. The funding per elementary student in the West Local District was $255.45. 174 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The Cal and CLASS review of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF concluded funds were distributed to high schools consistently with the SEBI. Those Findings also concluded that this was not the case with distribution of funds to elementary schools. E. Metrics Used To Track And Evaluate The Impact Of LCFF Investments Performance measurement and reporting demonstrates the success or effectiveness of organizational or program activities in addressing a specific need or attaining a specific goal. A meaningful performance measurement framework includes a balanced set of indicators, ensures the collection of sound and reliable indicator data, provides for the analysis and reporting of indicator information and drives service improvement efforts and the testing of new initiatives. Performance measures should generally be quantified, meaning a number, to allow for comparison of performance from year to year.
• CO7
  LAUSD has developed and uses a comprehensive set of performance metrics or indicators to track, evaluate, and report progress made toward specific goals using LCFF funds. LAUSD developed performance metrics for each of the key goals established. Exhibit 7 shows these metrics, including historical performance and annual targets going forward. For example, performance metrics for the goal of 100% graduation include the graduation rates, dropout rates, and the percentage of students on track for advancement or graduation. The performance metrics also include the percentage metrics demonstrating college preparation, and advanced placement rates. Information on targets, and historical and current performance, is useful in evaluating the progress being made toward each established goal. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 175 Exhibit 7 LAUSD LCFF Performance Metrics, Targets and Results By LCAP Goal, With Annual Targets and Actual Performance 100% GRADUATION HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (All Schools) 67% 68% 70% 74% 1 68% 70% 71% High School Cohort Dropout Rate 20% 17% 17% Not New Goal 8% 5% Available Middle School Cohort Dropout Rate Not Benchmark B - 1% B - 2% Available Percentage of High School Students On-Track for 35% 35% 41% New Goal 45% 50% A-G with a “C” (Grades 9-12) Percentagge of Students Demonstratingg Collegge CST SBAAC Preparedness in ELA as Measured by the 11th 14% 14% 16% 14% Benchmark 15% 16% Grade EAP Percentagge of Students Demonstratingg Collegge CST SBAAC Preparedness in Math as Measured by the 11th 10% 7% 8% 5% Benchmark 6% 7% Grade EAP Percentage of AP Exam Takers with a Qualifying 41% 39% 39% 39% 41% 43% 45% Score of “3” or Higher Percentage of 12th Grade Students Who Have 57% 66% 59% 61% 63% Completed a Free Application for Federal Students Aid (FAFSA) PROFICIENCY FOR ALL HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentagge of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade ELA2 48% 48% 31% Benchmark 32% 33% Percentagge of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade Math 45% 45% 26% Benchmark 27% 28% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Fluent Engglish Students DIBELS (EO, IFEP, RFEP) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 79% 78% New Goal 84% 89% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Engglish Learners ((ELD DIBELS 1-2) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 15% 11% New Goal 16% 17% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Engglish Learner ((ELD 3-5)) DIBELS Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 53% 53% New Goal 58% 63% Percentage of English Learners Who Reclassify as 16% 13% 14% 17% 16% 18% 20% Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) Percentage of English Learners Who Have Not 29% 27% 24% 24% 26% 24% 22% Reclassified in 5 Years (LTEL) Percentage of English Learners Making Annual 56% 53% 56% 54% New Goal 60% 62% Progress on the CELDT Percentage of Foster Youth with an Annually 66% 65% 85% 100% Updated Comprehensive Academic Assessment Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Are in 55% 56% 57% 65% New Goal 59% 60% the General Education Program at Least 80% of the School Day Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who 4.9% 4.5% 4.1% 3.5% New Goal 3.6% 3.2% Attended Nonpublic Schools 1 This rate reflects the preliminary graduation rate as of November 2015 and is subject to change. 176 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 7 LAUSD LCFF Performance Metrics, Targets and Results By LCAP Goal, With Annual Targets and Actual Performance 100% ATTENDANCE HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Attending 172-180 Days 65% 68% 71% 71% 70% 71% 72% Each School Year (96% or Higher Attendance Rate) Percentage of Students with Chronic Absence 15% 12% 12% 13% 11% 10% 9% (Missing 16 Days or 91% or Lower Attendance) Percentage of Staff Attending 96% or Above 67% 66% 72% 73% New Goal 76% 78% PARENT, COMMUNITY AND HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Who Feel a Part of Their 81% New Goal 83% 85% School (Question on School Experience Survey) Parent Participation on School Experience Survey 32% 33% 31% 40% 35% 40% 45% Percentage of Schools Training Parents on 67% 35% 45% 55% Academic Initiatives by Providing a Minimum of Four Workshops Annually Percentage of Parents Who State that Their 60% Benchmark 62% 64% Schools’ Parent Centers Provide Useful Resources to Support Their Children’s Education SCHOOL SAFETY HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Single Student Suspension Rate 2.9% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% New Goal 0.8% 0.7% Instructional Days Lost to Suspension 25,948 12,651 8,841 6,221 8,250 8,100 8,050 Expulsion Rate 0.02% 0.05% 0.05% 0.01% New Goal 0.04% 0.03% Percentage of Schools Ensuring Effective and Fair 22% 44% 69% 65% 71% 79% Handling of Student Behavior by Promoting Positive Solutions Through the Reform of Student Discipline Policies (Measured by Implementation of the Discipline Foundation Policy) Percentage of Students Who Feel Safe at School 76% 78% 70% New Goal 82% 84% BASIC SERVICES HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Teachers that are Appropriately 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% Credentialed for the Students They are Assigned to Teach Percentage of Teachers Completing Educator 23% 25% 20% 20% 20% Development and Support: Teachers (EDST) Performance Evaluation Process Percentage of Schools Providing Students with 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Standards-Based Instructional Materials by Meeting Williams Act Requirements Percentage of Facilities that are in Good Repair 99% 97% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% Percentage of Secondary Students with an Annual 58% 76% Not Available 59% 100% 100% Individual Graduation Plan (IGP) Source: LAUSD LCAP Scorecard, February 2016 F. LAUSD LCFF Public Input, Transparency And Accountability Efforts The LCFF legislation requires substantial effort to involve and engage parents, pupils, and other stakeholders. It also requires each district to describe the process used to consult with parents, pupils, school personnel, local bargaining units as applicable, and 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 177 the community and how this consultation contributed to development of the LCAP or annual update.
• CO8
  LAUSD has put substantial effort into public input, transparency and accountability as part of the LCAP and budgeting process as required by the LCFF legislation. Exhibit 8 provides an overview of LAUSD’s public input, transparency and accountability efforts conducted as part of developing the two required LCAPs under LCFF. Exhibit 8 Overview of LAUSD LCAP Public Input, Transparency and Accountability Efforts Input / Feedback Method FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Community Input Meetings About 100 32 Community Members Participating Not Available 1,783 Partner Organization Meetings 12 29 Community Survey Responses 10,483 16,673 As this exhibit shows, for the current LCAP, 32 meetings were held by LAUSD to engage community stakeholders and obtain preliminary input for the development of the current LCAP, with 1,783 community members attending. Twenty-nine additional input sessions were held with partner organizations and offices to gather feedback from stakeholders on the goals, targets, and investments of the LCAP and to identify desired revisions to the LCAP. A survey was also developed to solicit additional feedback from the community on the priorities of the LCAP and the District’s goals. The survey was administered both in- person and online. A total of 16,673 individual responses were received. LAUSD published a Community Feedback Report, which summarized the responses, including a ranking of LCAP goals, obstacles to achieving the goals, and suggested strategies. The Cal and CLASS Findings of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF concluded, despite LAUSD’s efforts, many school personnel, parents and students felt uninformed about LCFF goals and strategies. The review further found that “teachers would appreciate more transparency around how budgets are made at both the District and school level. 178 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Teachers and students believe that they could contribute insight regarding how to best support learning and well-being in their school communities.” 6 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 The Los Angeles Unified School District should follow California Department of Education requirements for counting and reporting, according to the Local Control Funding Formula, Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students 9.2 The Los Angeles Unified School District’s annual comprehensive financial audit should include an audit of the reported student count using the California Department of Education’s audit guidelines 9.3 The Los Angeles Unified School District should lobby the California Legislature to consider revising the method for distributing Local Control Funding Formula funds statewide based on the new “unduplicated count” to an approach that considers the needs of students that meet two or all three of the qualifying criteria for Local Control Funding Formula funding. 9.4 The Los Angeles Unified School District should expand its investment of Local Control Funding Formula funds directly in elementary, middle and high schools in a manner that targets those schools with the largest number or percentage of Local Control Funding Formula qualified and targeted students. 9.5 The Los Angeles Unified School District should use a comprehensive set of performance metrics or indicators to track, evaluate, and report progress made toward specific goals using Local Control Funding Formula funds, and make adjustments as new information is obtained and new lessons learned. 9.6 The Los Angeles Unified School District should expand its public input and feedback efforts as part of the Local Control Accountability Plan development process to increase transparency and involvement with students, parents, and school personnel. 6 Cal/CLASS Findings, p. 13. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179 VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all
• CO9
  The new machine The new voting experience being designed by the RR/CC will make many changes to the current voting process. This new voting experience includes an interactive sample ballot, VBM, early voting, weekend voting, vote centers to replace precinct polling places, and Election Day registration. Key to this experience is a completely re-conceived ballot marking device which will replace the InkaVote system currently used by RR/CC.
• CO10
  A new voting experience In this new voting experience, it is conceived that a voter will be able to visit any vote center. Early voting will take place at centers throughout the county. The number of centers would increase on Election Day. It is estimated that there will be more than 240 voting centers during the early voting phase of a primary or general election, and about 645 centers on Election Day throughout the county. These centers could be located at post offices, libraries, universities and any governmental building of the city or county, among other public sites. Additionally, there are opportunities for public/private partnerships by utilizing commercial venues to broaden outreach capabilities. There will no longer be assigned polling places which an individual must use to cast his or her vote. Vote Center check-in will include use of real-time electronic voter rolls (e-pollbooks) to verify voter eligibility. While providing maximum convenience for the voter, this also assures that the voter has not already voted at another center or through the mail. Voters provide signatures, as they currently do, during this check-in process. Same day registration (on Election Day) will be available using the voter registration system at a certain number of locations. This process will immediately add the new voter to the electronic voter rolls. After check-in is complete, voters will be directed to a machine, called a Ballot Marking Device (BMD), to mark their ballots. Once a voter inserts the paper ballot which he or she received at check-in, the BMD will display that voter’s appropriate ballot style. There can be approximately 500 different ballot styles for any given election. A voter will be able to pre-mark his or her selections on an Interactive Sample Ballot (ISB), made available to voters prior to the voting period, and then may simply scan the QR code24 generated by the ISB to load his or her selections on the BMD. The ISB is being developed to allow voters to make ballot selections and generate a QR code with their selections embedded. If the voter does not pre-mark selections on the ISB, he or she will mark the ballot using the touch screen surface on the BMD. 24 A “quick-response” code (QR) is a two-dimensional barcode which is widely used in industry and consumer advertising. Characteristics include fast readability, high data storage capacity, and reliability even when partially damaged. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 139 When the voter has completed marking his or her ballot, the machine will show the voter exactly what choices he or she has selected, and the voter will then be prompted to verify those selections. The voter has the option to make changes if necessary. When satisfied, the voter designates completion and the BMD produces a paper ballot. The paper ballot has both the QR code and human readable text on it. The voter may then verify the selections printed on the paper ballot. Once verified, the ballot is deposited into the BMD’s integrated ballot box. The paper ballot is the official ballot of record and, consistent with the current process, serves as an audit trail for any recount or other purpose. The BMD is designed to be completely accessible to voters with a varying range of requirements and preferences, and to provide a private voting experience to each voter. It allows for configuration of the touchscreen interface, including language selection. It also provides an audio ballot option, with headphones and a tactile keypad. Finally, it provides ports for voters who wish to connect assistive technology devices. Images of the newly designed BMD, provided to CGJ by RR/CC and reprinted with permission from the RR/CC, are on the opposite page. If a voter arrives at a vote center with a completed vote by mail (VBM) ballot, he or she can simply drop off the voted ballot at the vote center. If the voter prefers, the ballot can be surrendered and he or she can vote in person using a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) through the vote center process. VBM ballots will continue to be mailed back to RR/CC up to and including Election Day. Neither the cost per machine nor the number of total machines needed at each vote center has yet been determined. To date, the county has invested approximately $11.2 million in the research, design and development of new voting system technologies.25 These expenses include costs associated with the development of design and engineering specifications for the new BMD, as well as the development of the tally system framework.26 The county has committed an additional $4.6 million for the completion of the project’s current design and engineering phase. Initial funding was provided through a Productivity Investment Fund grant from the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission. The bulk of the investment made to date by Los Angeles County as well as a considerable portion of the cost to manufacture and deploy the new system will be reimbursed to the county through dedicated funds established for such purposes under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA)27 and California Proposition 41(Voting Modernization Bond).28 25 The County of Los Angeles hired IDEO to build the new, modular system intended to adapt over time. It is designed, developed and owned by the county. https://www.ideo.com/work/one-device-for-all 26 This is the system that actually counts the paper ballots. It consists of high-speed document scanners which convert the paper ballots to images, and the software that processes the images in order to read the QR codes and tallies the votes they contain. 27 http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx 28 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/laws-and-standards/voting-modernization/ 140 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 E. Voting in the Future: On-line Voting or Random Electors Early Voting will be a certainty with the same time allotted for all methods. Physical voting at a predetermined location will always be available, although the number of physical locations will decrease, and VBM will always be an option. Dismal voter turnout will continue to be a problem in off-year and minor local elections. The act of voting should be made easier so that the habit of voter participation will be established. When Los Angeles County’s new voting system is implemented over the next few years, beginning in 2018, voting at a physical location will have reached its potential. Any further improvements will be minor tweaks. VBM is in the same situation. Only on-line voting has major developmental potential. When voting evolves, however, to the point where on-line and VBM predominate, it makes sense for voters to be restricted to choosing to either cast their ballots on-line or by permanent VBM, with voting at a physical location perhaps only available for major elections. Such a change would accomplish the goals of lowering the cost of conducting minor local elections (and allow them to be held at any time) and also greatly relieving voter fatigue.
• CO11
  Beyond “one man, one vote”: random electors Another model imagines that a pre-determined number of voting citizens, selected at random, would become electors with the power to vote in a given election. The government would pay each elector a substantial sum to ensure their voting.29 The exact details are not important here. The important idea is that a small number, but not too small, of registered voters be selected and given the right to vote. They will then be paid to vote. Using voter registration rolls for selecting “electors” could additionally and dramatically increase the number of citizens who register to vote. Many changes to voting laws at all government levels would, of course, be necessary to implement this idea, but if voter turn-out 29 Jason Brennan, Lisa Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against, Cambridge University Press (2014), Chapter 2. (“In a voting lottery, all citizens have the same equal fundamental political status. While in universal suffrage, every citizen has one equal vote, in a voting lottery, every citizen has equal eligibility to vote. Elections proceed normally, with candidates working to gain support from voting-lottery eligible citizens. Shortly before the election, the system selects a pre-determined number of citizens at random. These citizens—and these citizens only—become “electors”, imbued with the power to vote. To ensure turnout, the government pays each elector a substantial sum to vote. [footnote omitted] They are not forced to vote. We might perhaps ask them to sign a contract committing them to voting (in exchange for the payment), and then allow them to be punished for breach of contract if they renege. This involves compulsion, but only compulsion to which citizens genuinely consent.”) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 143 languishes we may as a society need to completely reform how decision making takes place. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conferenced on several occasions with the RR/CC and visited that department’s headquarters in Norwalk. Presentations, reports, exemplars, and other documents provided by the department were reviewed. Members read academic research and reviewed studies pertaining to the voting experience in California and other states. Members contacted media companies and inquired about their policies and procedures with regard to public service announcements. IV. FINDINGS
• CO12
  The RR/CC has formed a working group to study expanding Early Voting in Los Angeles County before Election Day.
• CO13
  A pilot project may be put in place to open one or two “will call” ballot pick up centers in each of the supervisorial districts for the June 2016 primary.
• CO14
  Additional Early Voting sites may be added for the Presidential General election in November 2016.
• CO15
  Radio and television stations charge for advertisements depending on the popularity of the show during which the advertisement is to run. Public service announcements are also run, but only when other advertisers have not purchased time slots. 144 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• CO16
  The RR/CC’s budget for voter outreach is $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. The RR/CC is requesting $750,000 for fiscal year 2016-2017. This amount is still not enough to promote the turn-out to vote campaign on television, radio, and other forms of communication mediums.
• CO17
  The RR/CC has negotiated package deals with media companies that include placement of turn-out-related “branded” announcements on a range of locations: billboards, kiosks, etc., across a range of businesses in the county.
• CO18
  The California Secretary of State has negotiated a deal with Metro to provide coordinated “branded” voter outreach messaging on bus shelters and buses.
• CO19
  Vote By Mail (VBM) ballots are most commonly challenged for lack of a voter signature on the return envelope.
• CO20
  If a voter’s signature does not compare with the signature affidavit on file (according to the automated signature verification software), the envelope is reviewed manually. Voters in this situation are contacted and provided the opportunity to sign a new affidavit. A new state law, codified in California Elections Code section 3019 (f)(1) (A), permits the RR/CC to request such a new affidavit up to seven (7) days following Election Day.
• CO21
  A recent change in California law, codified in California Elections Code section 4103, permits VBM ballots postmarked on Election Day to be counted if they are received no later than three days after Election Day.
• CO22
  New VBM ballots are being designed and may be used in the 2018 election cycle.
• CO23
  When implemented, the new interactive sample ballot (ISB) is planned to be able to automatically populate a voter’s ballot with his or her choices before the voter enters the vote center. Changes to those choices can be later made by the voter when he or she is using the completely redeveloped ballot marking device (BMD), before the official paper ballot is generated.
• CO24
  When implemented, the new voting experience is planned to include the ISB, expanded Early Voting (including weekend voting), Election Day registration, vote centers to replace precinct polling places, and new BMDs.
• CO25
  After implementation of the new BMD, Early Voting is planned at numerous locations around the county. For about 10 days before Election Day, there will be many early/weekend vote centers available, the quantity of which will more than double on Election Day.
• CO26
  Voting roll books are planned to be replaced by real-time electronic voter rolls to verify voter eligibility. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 145
• CO27
  Many special requirements are planned to be accommodated on the new BMD such as a touchscreen interface, language selection, audio input, headphones, a tactile keypad and ports for voters to connect assistive technology devices. The new BMD is planned to be completely accessible and provide a private voting experience for each voter
• CO28
  The new BMD is planned to replace the currently-used InkaVote machines. The new machines are being developed using federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds and will employ computer technology that will create a paper ballot that will be the official ballot of record.
• CO29
  The $55 million still available is adequate to complete development and testing of the new BMD.
• CO30
  The purchase of new BMD will require additional funding. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Los Angeles County should give full financial support to the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk’s efforts to bring the new voting system to fruition. 7.2 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should make all reasonable efforts to develop and test the new BMD so that the new machines are able to be used county wide no later than the 2020 election. 7.3 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should offer the new voting system, which is the most up-to-date technological method for secure voting, to other counties throughout the nation for a reasonable fee. 7.4 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should provide a minimum of five additional, secure Early Voting sites in the county for the 2016 Presidential General Election and also allow VBM ballot drop off at each site. 7.5 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should allocate funding to provide additional personnel to staff any additional, secure Early Voting or “will call” sites established for the 2016 Primary and Presidential General Elections. 7.6 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should institute a “will call” system of Early Voting for the next election after 2016, and determine optimal procedures and voter use. 7.7 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should take advantage of free publicity on individual city websites and city cable channels to 146 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT promote the upcoming changes in the voting system as each one is implemented. 7.8 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should address the public meetings of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and all of the cities in Los Angeles County to discuss opportunities for citizen involvement in voter outreach. 7.9 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should expand its use of social media for voter outreach in future elections, and should consider enlisting the public to help create and disseminate voter outreach messages. 7.10 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should make appearances on morning and evening televised newscasts to discuss and promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.11 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should schedule interviews on radio to promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.12 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should publicize the fact that VBM ballots can be postmarked on Election Day and still be counted. 7.13 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should initiate a study and complete it by January 1, 2017, to determine methods to increase the use of VBM ballots, including government payment of return postage and voter outreach regarding VBM procedures. 7.14 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should reconsider sending a ballot, using business reply envelopes, to each registered voter. 7.15 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should organize a committee, to meet at least once per year, to re-examine the implementation of on-line voting. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933 (c) and 933.05 require a written response to all

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.