D IVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY O FFICE OF THE N EW Y ORK S TATE C OMPTROLLER Report of Examination Period Covered: July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2015 2016M-47 Unadilla Valley Central School District Special Education Services Thomas P. DiNapoli
12
Embed
Unadilla Valley Central School District · 2017. 12. 12. · Email: [email protected] Serving: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Division of LocaL Government & schooL accountabiLity
o f f i c e o f t h e n e w y o r k s t a t e c o m p t r o L L e r
APPENDIX A ResponseFromDistrictOfficials 6APPENDIX B Audit Methodology and Standards 8 APPENDIX C How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report 9 APPENDIX D LocalRegionalOfficeListing 10
Table of Contents
11Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity
State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller
Division of Local Governmentand School Accountability April2016
DearSchoolDistrictOfficials:
AtoppriorityoftheOfficeoftheStateComptrolleristohelpschooldistrictofficialsmanagetheirdistrictsefficientlyandeffectivelyand,bysodoing,provideaccountabilityfor taxdollarsspent tosupportdistrictoperations.TheComptrolleroverseesthefiscalaffairsofdistrictsstatewide,aswellasdistricts’compliancewithrelevantstatutesandobservanceofgoodbusinesspractices.Thisfiscaloversight is accomplished, in part, throughour audits,which identify opportunities for improvingdistrict operations and Board of Education governance. Audits also can identify strategies to reduce district costs and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard district assets.
Following is a report of our audit of theUnadillaValleyCentral SchoolDistrict, entitledSpecialEducationServices.ThisauditwasconductedpursuanttoArticleV,Section1oftheStateConstitutionandtheStateComptroller’sauthorityassetforthinArticle3oftheNewYorkStateGeneralMunicipalLaw.
Office of the State ComptrollerDivision of Local Governmentand School Accountability
State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller
2 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller2
Background
Introduction
Objective
Scope andMethodology
The Unadilla Valley School District (District) is located in fivetowns inChenangoCounty, four towns inOtsegoCountyandonetown in Madison County. The District is governed by the Board of Education (Board),which is composed of seven electedmembers.The Board is responsible for the general management and control of theDistrict’sfinancialandeducationalaffairs.TheSuperintendentofSchools(Superintendent)istheDistrict’schiefexecutiveofficerandisresponsible,alongwithotheradministrativestaff,fortheDistrict’sday-to-day management under the Board’s direction.
TheDistrict operates one schoolwith approximately 900 studentsand160 employees.TheDistrict’s budgeted appropriations for the2015-16 fiscal year are $18.6million,which are funded primarilywithStateaidandrealpropertytaxes.
The District provided in-house special education programs and relatedservicesto18studentsin2013-14and24in2014-15insteadof contracting with an alternative authorized special education provider, such as the Board of Cooperative Educational Services(BOCES),otherschooldistrictsorprivatespecializedfacilities.TheDistrict is a component unit of the Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego (DCMO) BOCES and generally contracts with this BOCES for special education services it cannot provide itself.1 Total special education costs, which include services provided in-house and atalternativeproviders,were$1.7millionin2014-15.
The objective of our audit was to determine whether the District provided special education services in a cost-effective manner. Our auditaddressedthefollowingrelatedquestion:
• Are District officials providing in-house special educationservices to students in a cost-effective manner?
We examined theDistrict’s financial records for special educationservices for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015. WeexpandedourscopebacktoJuly1,2011tofurtheranalyzetrendsandchanges in special education costs.
1 The District also contracted with the following providers for services it could not providein-housein2013-14or2014-15:GeorgeJuniorRepublicSchool,UpstateCerebral Palsy, Vanderheyden, New York School of the Deaf, CooperstownCentral School District and the Children’s Home of Wyoming Conference.
33Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity
Comments ofDistrict Officials
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted governmentauditingstandards(GAGAS).Moreinformationonsuchstandards and the methodology used in performing this audit are includedinAppendixBofthisreport.Unlessotherwiseindicatedinthisreport,samplesfortestingwereselectedbasedonprofessionaljudgment,asitwasnottheintenttoprojecttheresultsontotheentirepopulation.Where applicable, information is presented concerningthe value and/or size of the relevant population and the sample selectedforexamination.
FederalandState lawsand regulations require that schooldistrictsprovide special education programs for students with disabilities. Districtofficialshavearesponsibilitytoprovidetheseservicesinacost-effectivemannertoensuretaxdollarsarespentinaprudentandeconomicalmanner.Officialscanchoosetoprovidetheseeducationalservices in-house or contract with an alternative authorized provider2 for these services.
District officials provided special education services to Districtstudents in a cost-effective manner and saved the District a total of approximately$339,000inprogramandrelatedservicescostsduringthe2013-14and2014-15fiscalyears.Inaddition,theDistrictprovidedservicestostudentsinaneighboringdistrictandreceived$60,000intuition revenue during this same time period. We commend District officials for providing cost-effective special education services tostudents. Prior to the District’s current administration, DCMO BOCESdiscontinued operating two special education service classrooms housed at the District. The District began operating these classrooms toprovidespecialeducationservicesusingDistrictstaff.Inthe2013-14 fiscal year, the District implemented a third special educationclassroom,acceptedstudentsfromoutsidetheDistrictandexpandedits special education programs to include related services such as occupational and speech therapies. We compared the District’s in-house costs to provide these services to the lowest cost alternative provider’s3tuitionrateandfoundthattheDistrictsavedapproximately$339,000overthesetwoyears.
2 SuchasBOCES,otherschooldistrictsorprivatespecializedfacilities3 We assumed the lowest alternative provider had capacity to accept the in-house
students and would provide an appropriate learning environment.
55Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity
rate charged was appropriate for recovering the costs to the District for providing these programs and related services.
District officials developed these in-house programs because theywanted to continue offering special education within the District and makeuseoftheclassroomsDCMOBOCESvacated.Districtofficialsreview the special education student population annually to determine if there is capacity for additional classrooms. They determined that there was capacity and resources to add another program level beginninginthe2013-14fiscalyear.Asaresultofprovidingspecialeducationservicesin-house,theDistrictisabletocontinuerealizingcost savings for its own students and generate tuition revenue. Inaddition, this approach saved the costs of transporting students toother locations and kept the children in their home school.
• WeinterviewedDistrictofficialsconcerningtheestablishmentofspecialeducationandrelatedservices within the District. We reviewed the District’s cost analysis regarding the establishment of these services for reasonableness.
• Wecalculated thedirectcostsofspecialeducationservicesofferedby theDistrict, suchassalaries,benefits,materials,suppliesandtextbooks.Wealsoallocatedtherelatedservicescostsbased on the number of therapy sessions provided as a percentage of total sessions to each classroom.
• We compared the total costs of special education classrooms operated by the District to the tuition rate charges to verify that the District is recovering the costs for any students attending from other districts.
• We selected alternative providers the District used for other students during the audit scope. WeobtainedtuitionratesforalternativeprovidersthrougheithertheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment’s Rate Setting Unit or from the rates listed on the providers’ invoices. We compared these costs to our calculation of costs to determine the cost savings.