BILINGUAL, MIGRANT, AND SELECTED KING-CHAVEZ-PARKS INITIATIVE PROGRAMS

Michigan Office of the
Auditor General
Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General

EXECUTIVE DIGEST #3125098
BILINGUAL, MIGRANT, AND SELECTED KING-CHAVEZ-PARKS INITIATIVE PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION
This report, issued in January 2000, contains the results of our performance audit of the Bilingual, Migrant, and selected King-Chavez-Parks (KCP) Initiative Programs, Department of Education.

AUDIT PURPOSE
This performance audit was conducted as part of the constitutional responsibility of the Office of the Auditor General. Performance audits are conducted on a priority basis related to the potential for improving effectiveness and efficiency.

BACKGROUND
Article 8, Section 3 of the State Constitution vests in the State Board of Education the leadership and general supervision over all public education.

The Office of Field Services, Department of Education, administers a number of departmental programs, including the State-funded Bilingual Program and the federally funded Migrant Program. The objective of the Bilingual Program is to assist limited English proficient (LEP) students develop cognitive skills in their native language while acquiring skills in English and achieve in all school subject areas at a rate commensurate with their age, ability, and grade level. The objective of the Migrant Program is to ensure educational continuity for migrant children in an effort to improve school achievement, decrease drop-out rates, and increase high school completion rates.

The Department allocates Bilingual and Migrant Program funds to participating school districts based on eligible student counts. For fiscal years 1996-97 through 1998-99, funding for the Bilingual Program was $4.212 million per year while funding for the Migrant Program ranged from $9.377 to $12.852 million per year. As of July 31, 1999, the Office of Field Services had 30 full-time equated employees to administer all of its programs.

The KCP Initiative, Office of Postsecondary Services, administers the State-funded Future Faculty Fellowship Program (FFFP) and the College Day Program (CDP). The objective of FFFP is to increase the pool of minority candidates pursuing full-time faculty teaching careers in postsecondary education in the State. The objective of CDP is to introduce underrepresented minority secondary students in grades 6 through 11 and their parents to university campuses and college preparatory information, knowledge, and skills.

The Legislature annually appropriates funds directly to the 15 public universities that participate in these two programs. Funding for FFFP and CDP ranged from $1.156 to $1.202 million and from $1.141 to $1.187 million for fiscal years 1996-97 through 1998-99, respectively. As of July 31, 1999, the Department had 5.5 full-time equated employees to administer all of the KCP Initiative's programs.

AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Bilingual Program.

Conclusion: We concluded that the Bilingual Program was generally effective. However, our assessment disclosed reportable conditions regarding program monitoring, student-to-endorsed bilingual teacher ratio data, and identification of program services (Findings 1 through 3).

Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Migrant Program.

Conclusion: We concluded that the Migrant Program was generally effective. However, our assessment disclosed reportable conditions regarding program monitoring, Statewide identification and recruitment, and development of the Migrant Education Data System (Findings 4 through 6).

Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of FFFP and CDP within the KCP Initiative.

Conclusion: We concluded that FFFP was somewhat effective. Although FFFP provided fellowships to minority candidates, these fellowships often did not result in the candidates becoming full-time faculty in postsecondary education in Michigan. Also, we concluded that CDP was generally effective. Our assessment disclosed two material conditions for FFFP:

The KCP Initiative's guidelines for universities' use in selecting individuals to receive FFFP fellowship awards were not comprehensive (Finding 7).

The Department agrees with this finding and informed us that it has initiated corrective action to comply with the corresponding recommendation.
The KCP Initiative waived the contract liability of numerous FFFP fellows and closed the contracts as fulfilled without the fellows' completion of teaching requirements (Finding 8).
The Department agrees with this finding and informed us that it has complied with the corresponding recommendation.
Our assessment also disclosed reportable conditions for FFFP regarding the management of unused funds, interest and collection fees on defaulted loan accounts, administrative hearings for appeals, administrative rules and approval of policies and procedures, and full-time equated teaching (Findings 9 through 13).

Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Department's administration of the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and FFFP and CDP.

Conclusion: We concluded that the Department's administration of the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and CDP was generally effective and that the Department's administration of FFFP was moderately effective. However, in addition to certain administrative functions, which we reported on in our first, second, and third objectives, we noted a reportable condition relating to the lack of continuous quality improvement processes (Finding 14).

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records of the Bilingual, Migrant, and selected King-Chavez-Parks Initiative Programs, which included the examination of student files and other records of four school districts and five universities. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

Our audit procedures included an examination of Department, school district, and university records for the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and CDP primarily covering the 1995-96 through 1998-99 school years. Our examination of Department and university records for FFFP covered the 1986-87 through 1998-99 school years.

To accomplish our first objective, we reviewed applicable State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed Bilingual Program staff at the Department and school districts. Also, we surveyed school districts that participated in and others that did not participate in the Program to obtain certain data. Further, we reviewed Program oversight activities provided to school districts. In addition, we visited four school districts that operated bilingual programs to examine documentation supporting reported LEP students and to review certain operational practices. At each school district, we selected a random sample of bilingual program participants and evaluated program progress and accomplishments.

To accomplish our second objective, we reviewed applicable federal regulations, State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed Migrant Program staff at the Department and school districts. Further, we reviewed the Program's identification and recruitment of eligible migrant children and oversight activities provided to school districts. In addition, we visited four school districts that operated migrant programs to examine documentation supporting reported migrant students and to review certain operational practices. At each school district, we selected a random sample of migrant program participants and evaluated program progress and accomplishments.

To accomplish our third objective, we reviewed applicable State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed FFFP and CDP staff at the Department and universities. Also, we reviewed the collection procedures for FFFP recipients in default and the provision of waivers to recipients relieving them of contractual obligations. Further, we reviewed the procedures for reallocating FFFP funds to universities. In addition, we visited five universities that operated FFFPs to examine documentation supporting fellowships funded and to review certain operational practices. We selected a random sample of FFFP fellows and evaluated fellow selection, progress, and fulfillment of FFFP requirements.

To accomplish our fourth objective, in addition to certain administrative functions that we reviewed and reported on in our first, second, and third objectives, we interviewed Bilingual and Migrant Program staff and FFFP and CDP staff at the Department, school districts, and universities. We reviewed the Department's process for evaluating the effectiveness of the Bilingual and Migrant Program staff and FFFP and CDP.

AGENCY RESPONSES
Our audit report contains 14 findings and 15 corresponding recommendations. The Department's preliminary response indicated that it agrees with the findings and all but 1 of the recommendations.

Full Audit Report - #3125098 - BILINGUAL, MIGRANT, AND SELECTED KING-CHAVEZ-PARKS INITIATIVE PROGRAMS

Documents prefaced by require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®, a free application available on the Adobe homepage.

This page was created on 01/11/2000.


INTRODUCTION This report, issued in January 2000, contains the results of our performance audit of the Bilingual, Migrant, and selected King-Chavez-Parks (KCP) Initiative Programs, Department of Education.

AUDIT PURPOSE This performance audit was conducted as part of the constitutional responsibility of the Office of the Auditor General. Performance audits are conducted on a priority basis related to the potential for improving effectiveness and efficiency.

BACKGROUND Article 8, Section 3 of the State Constitution vests in the State Board of Education the leadership and general supervision over all public education. The Office of Field Services, Department of Education, administers a number of departmental programs, including the State-funded Bilingual Program and the federally funded Migrant Program. The objective of the Bilingual Program is to assist limited English proficient (LEP) students develop cognitive skills in their native language while acquiring skills in English and achieve in all school subject areas at a rate commensurate with their age, ability, and grade level. The objective of the Migrant Program is to ensure educational continuity for migrant children in an effort to improve school achievement, decrease drop-out rates, and increase high school completion rates. The Department allocates Bilingual and Migrant Program funds to participating school districts based on eligible student counts. For fiscal years 1996-97 through 1998-99, funding for the Bilingual Program was $4.212 million per year while funding for the Migrant Program ranged from $9.377 to $12.852 million per year. As of July 31, 1999, the Office of Field Services had 30 full-time equated employees to administer all of its programs. The KCP Initiative, Office of Postsecondary Services, administers the State-funded Future Faculty Fellowship Program (FFFP) and the College Day Program (CDP). The objective of FFFP is to increase the pool of minority candidates pursuing full-time faculty teaching careers in postsecondary education in the State. The objective of CDP is to introduce underrepresented minority secondary students in grades 6 through 11 and their parents to university campuses and college preparatory information, knowledge, and skills. The Legislature annually appropriates funds directly to the 15 public universities that participate in these two programs. Funding for FFFP and CDP ranged from $1.156 to $1.202 million and from $1.141 to $1.187 million for fiscal years 1996-97 through 1998-99, respectively. As of July 31, 1999, the Department had 5.5 full-time equated employees to administer all of the KCP Initiative's programs.

AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Bilingual Program. Conclusion: We concluded that the Bilingual Program was generally effective. However, our assessment disclosed reportable conditions regarding program monitoring, student-to-endorsed bilingual teacher ratio data, and identification of program services (Findings 1 through 3). Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Migrant Program. Conclusion: We concluded that the Migrant Program was generally effective. However, our assessment disclosed reportable conditions regarding program monitoring, Statewide identification and recruitment, and development of the Migrant Education Data System (Findings 4 through 6). Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of FFFP and CDP within the KCP Initiative. Conclusion: We concluded that FFFP was somewhat effective. Although FFFP provided fellowships to minority candidates, these fellowships often did not result in the candidates becoming full-time faculty in postsecondary education in Michigan. Also, we concluded that CDP was generally effective. Our assessment disclosed two material conditions for FFFP: The KCP Initiative's guidelines for universities' use in selecting individuals to receive FFFP fellowship awards were not comprehensive (Finding 7). The Department agrees with this finding and informed us that it has initiated corrective action to comply with the corresponding recommendation. The KCP Initiative waived the contract liability of numerous FFFP fellows and closed the contracts as fulfilled without the fellows' completion of teaching requirements (Finding 8). The Department agrees with this finding and informed us that it has complied with the corresponding recommendation. Our assessment also disclosed reportable conditions for FFFP regarding the management of unused funds, interest and collection fees on defaulted loan accounts, administrative hearings for appeals, administrative rules and approval of policies and procedures, and full-time equated teaching (Findings 9 through 13). Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Department's administration of the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and FFFP and CDP. Conclusion: We concluded that the Department's administration of the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and CDP was generally effective and that the Department's administration of FFFP was moderately effective. However, in addition to certain administrative functions, which we reported on in our first, second, and third objectives, we noted a reportable condition relating to the lack of continuous quality improvement processes (Finding 14).

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records of the Bilingual, Migrant, and selected King-Chavez-Parks Initiative Programs, which included the examination of student files and other records of four school districts and five universities. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our audit procedures included an examination of Department, school district, and university records for the Bilingual and Migrant Programs and CDP primarily covering the 1995-96 through 1998-99 school years. Our examination of Department and university records for FFFP covered the 1986-87 through 1998-99 school years. To accomplish our first objective, we reviewed applicable State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed Bilingual Program staff at the Department and school districts. Also, we surveyed school districts that participated in and others that did not participate in the Program to obtain certain data. Further, we reviewed Program oversight activities provided to school districts. In addition, we visited four school districts that operated bilingual programs to examine documentation supporting reported LEP students and to review certain operational practices. At each school district, we selected a random sample of bilingual program participants and evaluated program progress and accomplishments. To accomplish our second objective, we reviewed applicable federal regulations, State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed Migrant Program staff at the Department and school districts. Further, we reviewed the Program's identification and recruitment of eligible migrant children and oversight activities provided to school districts. In addition, we visited four school districts that operated migrant programs to examine documentation supporting reported migrant students and to review certain operational practices. At each school district, we selected a random sample of migrant program participants and evaluated program progress and accomplishments. To accomplish our third objective, we reviewed applicable State statutes, administrative rules, and Department policies and procedures. We interviewed FFFP and CDP staff at the Department and universities. Also, we reviewed the collection procedures for FFFP recipients in default and the provision of waivers to recipients relieving them of contractual obligations. Further, we reviewed the procedures for reallocating FFFP funds to universities. In addition, we visited five universities that operated FFFPs to examine documentation supporting fellowships funded and to review certain operational practices. We selected a random sample of FFFP fellows and evaluated fellow selection, progress, and fulfillment of FFFP requirements. To accomplish our fourth objective, in addition to certain administrative functions that we reviewed and reported on in our first, second, and third objectives, we interviewed Bilingual and Migrant Program staff and FFFP and CDP staff at the Department, school districts, and universities. We reviewed the Department's process for evaluating the effectiveness of the Bilingual and Migrant Program staff and FFFP and CDP.

AGENCY RESPONSES Our audit report contains 14 findings and 15 corresponding recommendations. The Department's preliminary response indicated that it agrees with the findings and all but 1 of the recommendations.