RUSD FPM Debrief

1. RUSD FPM Debrief Nick Chitwood Teacher on Special Assignment Academic English Learners/Student Support Riverside Unified School District

2. Review Basics • Reviewed areas • BASP (Before and after school programs) • CE (Compensatory Ed) • EL (English Learner Online) • FM (Fiscal Monitoring) • HE (Homeless Education) • Reviewed sites • Two Elementary (Title I) • Two High School (EIA Only)

3. Timeline Summary • RUSD Selected for Online Review and Notified – 2/15/2013 • RUSD attends CDE training for FPM – July 2013 • More oriented towards in-person reviews • Upload deadline – 3/15/2014 • Review Dates – 4/14 to 4/18/2014

4. Preparation Process • Individual meetings conducted with site key contacts in Fall to review monitoring instruments • As a results of many personnel transitions over the course of FPM process from identification to final review we held a group meeting on February 3, 2014 to coordinate responsibilities for response to monitoring instruments with possible overlap (especially fiscal monitoring)

5. Preparation Facts by Area • BASP • 142 total documents • All uploaded by upload deadline (3/15/2014) • CE • 246 total uploads (includes time accounting and job descriptions for approximately 51 CE personnel between district/reviewed sites) • 174 uploaded by 3/15/2014 • Feedback from reviewer occurred on 3/27/2014 (Right before spring break) • 56 additional documents uploaded before review • 16 additional documents uploaded week of review

6. Preparation Facts by Area • EL • 86 Total documents • 62 by 3/15/2014 • 20 in response to reviewer feedback and questions starting 3/24/2014 • 4 documents uploaded week of review (including one financial report in 4 different forms!) • FM • 86 total documents • 11 by 3/15/2014 (We had a conference call with reviewer, and she asked for broad lists of expenditures/personnel, and then picked 30 transactions and 12 personnel to sample in greater detail) • 18 documents uploaded prior to review start • 57 documents uploaded week of the review based upon requests for further information from reviewer

7. Preparation Facts by Area • HE • 38 documents uploaded • 34 uploaded by 3/15/14 deadline • 4 uploaded before review

8. Preparation Reflection • Transitions in personnel necessitated more group discussion of all key personnel involved with the review to get a clear sense of everyone’s perception of responsibilities and roles • Differing reviewers had different ideas regarding sampling and selection of expenditures/personnel • FM reviewer had conference call in early February to clarify procedures and set up a sampling system • CE reviewer wanted documentation for ALL personnel charged to the program, creating a much larger documentation burden

9. Preparation Reflection • Create a much earlier deadline for sites for documentation upload. Two weeks early was not enough for some of the four sites. • This will allow more time for review of content of the submitted documentation, as opposed to struggling to meet upload deadlines • Written communication tended to make things seem pretty stark • Follow-up phone conversations helped to cut through the official language

10. Communication/Rapport with Reviewers • Some are proactive, some are non-responsive • CAIS is not great for communication, it really exists for formal communication • Phone calls are incredibly useful to both get clarification about reviewer needs, as well as to make the case regarding potential findings • At first I was very careful regarding the things I said, out of fear of opening up more issues for possible review • As I built rapport, it seemed to loosen up towards working with the reviewer towards solutions

11. Instrument Items of Note • CE-01: Parent involvement policy • Agendas must include parent review of the 1% • CE-07: SSC Composition • All sites must hold elections, even if the number of volunteers matches the number of open spots • CE-32: Objective Criteria Identifying Students • This item requires board policy on the FPM instrument. However, documentation of multiple criteria used at private schools may be used to satisfy requirements instead.

12. Instrument Items of Note • FM-02 – Allowable costs • FOOD! Title I/Title III Food is not allowed for: • Food for parents, unless light refreshments for non-state mandated parental involvement activities • Full meals for students • Food for student incentives • Food for student entertainment events

13. Instrument Items of Note • CE-08 – SSC Approves SPSAs • Minutes must be detailed enough to show a sufficient level of engagement by the Site Councils at all four sites in regards to SPSA approval • Transactions in SPSAs should: • Not be for state mandates (graduation, CAHSEE) • Not be for base program publications (student planners) • Be clearly delineated as coming from district administrative set-aside if for non-direct services • Be clearly aligned to SPSAs goals and activities

14. Instrument Items of Note • CE-08 Ideas for Resolution • Improve procedures and training in regards to minutes taken at sites to better support documentation of SSC required activities • Rewrite SPSAs to better articulate budgeted expenses with needs assessment and action plan based upon identified strategies for instructional improvement

15. Instrument Items of Note • CE-18 Supplement Not Supplant • Coordination of Title I funds with Title IV funds may not be allowable • Title I funds should not fund Common Core expenses (State funding for this program) • Suggested Response • Improved Job Descriptions/Time Accounting to better articulate Title I responsibilities of affected personnel

16. Instrument Items of Note • CE-27 – Annual Evaluation of SPSA Services • Similar to CE-08 should provide enough detail in minutes to support fulfillment of these responsibilities. • CE-27 Suggested Response • Improve procedures and training in regards to minutes taken at sites to better support documentation of SSC required activities

17. Instrument Items of Note • EL-11 – EIA Funds Disbursed to School Sites • Maximum 2% is allowable for indirect services in Title III • EL-11 Suggested Response • Upload documents with the understanding that reviewers may have program expertise, but not fiscal expertise, and provide appropriate support for understanding of fiscal documentation

18. Instrument Items of Note • EL-15 – Teacher Credentialing • All teachers must have CLAD • EL-15 – Suggested Response • Develop a plan to get all teachers certified • CDE requires MOUs with all affected teachers • Avoid enrolling students with teachers without the appropriate credential

19. Instrument Items of Note • CE-19/FM-01 – Time Accounting • Monthly effort as documented on PARs should not be percentage based, but instead document hours of effort • Matching percentages of budget and effort may be difficult to support in reviews unless personnel have a very predictable schedule

20. Instrument Items of Note • CE-19/FM-01 Suggested Response • Move some personnel to semi-annual PARs based upon more nuanced definition of “cost objective” • Examples of cost objectives • Title I • Title II • BASP (Title IV/ASES) • Others can move to the substitute accounting system for 2014/2015 and file only semi-annual certifications • Some personnel may need to do daily logging as part of a monthly PAR