LAO recommends more spending transparency for county offices of education

The Legislative Analyst’s Office is recommending that county offices of education be required to expand reporting on their spending. The public, particularly parents of students who attend county-run schools, deserve more transparency, the LAO said in a report, which the Legislature had requested. It was released Thursday.

The 58 county offices, one for each county, have a range of responsibilities. They operate  court schools within juvenile halls for incarcerated students and community schools for expelled students or those seeking an alternative to a comprehensive school setting.  They also are responsible for overseeing fiscally unsound school districts and helping districts with poorly performing student groups designated for academic assistance. Since the passage of the Local Control Funding Formula, their oversight roles have broadened.

Their state funding reflects their size, from tiny offices serving one school district in Alpine County, to Los Angeles with 80 districts. On top of a uniform base grant they get extra money tied to the number of districts and student enrollments. They also operate optional programs, including career technical education, child care, migrant education programs and adult education.

County offices have discretion over how to spend state money.  “However, this flexibility also makes state oversight of (county office) activities more difficult,” the LAO said. For example, the Local Control and Accountability Plans, which counties must write detailing goals and actions for the schools they run, cover only a slice of funding they receive, the LAO said.

The LAO’s recommendations include:

• Requiring county offices to write an annual report summarizing their major activities, services, and policy initiatives.
• Establishing county office-specific outcome metrics for county-run schools. Some state accountability measurements, such as standardized test scores and graduation, rates, don’t fit county schools whose students attend short-term. Alternative measures might be pre‑ and post‑tests of skills, and program credits while enrolled, the LAO said.
• Requiring an expenditure report encompassing multiple sources that would break down spending by program. The format should enable cross-county comparisons, the LAO said. This type of reporting, which fiscal accountability groups have long called for, would establish a precedent. The administrations of Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom have opposed uniform accountability codes as an encroachment on local control.

Derick Lennox, senior director of Governmental Relations & Legal Affairs for the California County Superintendents, said his organization was receptive to the report’s recommendations.

“I give the LAO credit for naming ways county offices of education can increase our visibility and accountability to the general public,” he said in a statement. “While COE budgets and spending are already publicly available, the information can be quite complex. Similarly, the current LCAP requirements make it challenging to clearly describe the services and supports we provide to our students enrolled in our juvenile court and county community schools.”