Performance Audit ______

PERFORMANCE AUDIT ____________ The School District of Philadelphia Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania ____________ May 2016 Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Superintendent Ms. Marjorie G. Neff, SRC Chairperson School District of Philadelphia School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130 Dear Dr. Hite and Ms. Neff: Our performance audit of the School District of Philadelphia (District) evaluated the application of best practices in the areas of academics, governance, finance, data integrity, and textbook inventory. In addition, this audit determined the District’s compliance with certain relevant state laws, regulations, contracts, and administrative procedures (relevant requirements). This audit covered the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2014, except as otherwise stated and was conducted pursuant to Section 403 of The Fiscal Code, 72 P.S. § 403, and in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. During our audit, we found significant instances of failing to apply best practices and noncompliance with relevant requirements, as detailed in our six audit findings. A summary of the results is presented in the Executive Summary section of the audit report. Our audit findings and recommendations have been discussed with the District’s management, and their responses are included in the audit report. We believe the implementation of our recommendations will improve the District’s operations and facilitate compliance with legal and administrative requirements. We appreciate the District’s cooperation during the course of the audit. Sincerely, Eugene A. DePasquale May 10, 2016 Auditor General cc: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA School Reform Commission Table of Contents Page Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 3 Findings and Observations .......................................................................................................... 5 Finding No. 1 - The District Faces Persistent Financial Challenges and Without Strong Legislative Support for a Commitment to Change the Current Funding Structure, Its Structural Deficit Will Remain Unresolved ............................................................................................. 5 Finding No. 2 - The District Failed to Ensure that Textbooks and Other Educational Materials were Properly Accounted for After the Closure of 23 School Buildings ................................................................................... 20 Finding No. 3 - The District’s School Reform Commission Failed to Conduct Timely Performance Evaluations of the Superintendent and Did Not Enter into an Employment Contract with the Deputy Superintendent ............ 28 Finding No. 4 - The District Failed to Ensure that 43 Percent of School Bus Drivers We Tested Met All Employment Requirements ................................... 34 Finding No. 5 - The District Failed to Ensure that Its School Police Officers Met All Employment Requirements and Minimum Annual Training Hours ..................................................................................................... 44 Finding No. 6 - The District’s Student Data Submitted to PDE to Calculate State Subsidies and Used for Educational Decision-Making Was Not Sufficiently Reliable ....................................................................... 56 Status of Prior Audit Findings and Observations ....................................................................... 62 Appendix A: Audit Scope, Objectives, and Methodology ......................................................... 72 Appendix B: Individual School Building SPP and PSSA Scores ............................................... 77 Distribution List .......................................................................................................................... 83 Executive Summary Audit Work The Pennsylvania Department of the Finding No. 2: The District Failed to Auditor General conducted a performance Ensure that Textbooks and Other audit of the District. Our audit sought to Educational Materials were Properly answer certain questions regarding the Accounted for After the Closure of 23 District’s application of best practices and School Buildings. In June 2013, the compliance with certain relevant state laws, District simultaneously closed 23 of its regulations, contracts, and administrative school buildings. We found internal control procedures and to determine the status of weaknesses related to the inventory and corrective action taken by the District in distribution of textbooks and other response to our prior audit educational materials from those buildings. recommendations. These weaknesses caused textbooks to sit idle in storage for approximately two years, Our audit scope covered the period while the District ordered new textbooks July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2014, except when it may have already had usable books as otherwise indicated in the audit scope, in storage, potentially creating an objectives, and methodology section of the unnecessary cost to the District report. (see page 20). Audit Conclusion and Results Finding No. 3: The District’s School Reform Commission Failed to Conduct Our audit found significant instances of Timely Performance Evaluations of the failing to apply best practices and Superintendent and Did Not Enter into noncompliance with certain relevant state an Employment Contract with the Deputy laws, regulations, contracts, and Superintendent. The District’s School administrative procedures, as detailed in the Reform Commission (SRC), which performs six audit findings within this report. the same functions as a typical elected school board, failed to timely establish Finding No. 1: The District Faces performance criteria and conduct Persistent Financial Challenges and performance evaluations of the District Without Strong Legislative Support for a Superintendent in accordance with the Commitment to Change the Current Superintendent’s contract. In addition, the Funding Structure, Its Structural Deficit District failed to comply with the Public Will Remain Unresolved. The District’s School Code (PSC) when it did not execute heavy reliance on government subsidies and a written employment contract, which its restricted ability to control its local includes performance measures, with its revenue streams, coupled with mandatory Deputy Superintendent, who was second in expenses—driven by fixed costs and rapidly command to the Superintendent rising charter school tuition—growing faster (see page 28). than revenue, have left the District with a persistent structural deficit (see page 5). School District of Philadelphia Performance Audit 1 Finding No. 4: The District Failed to Finding No. 6: The District’s Student Ensure that 43 Percent of School Bus Data Submitted to PDE to Calculate State Drivers We Tested Met All Employment Subsidies and Used for Educational Requirements. The District failed to meet Decision-Making Was Not Sufficiently its statutory obligations related to the Reliable. The District’s student data employment of individuals having direct electronically submitted to PDE for the contact with children. Specifically, we 2012-13 reporting year was not supported in found that 21 of 49 bus drivers tested many cases by source documentation, and (43 percent) failed to meet at least one we therefore concluded that the data was not employment requirement. Most sufficiently reliable. Specifically, we found significantly, we found that the District used a lack of permanent student records to two bus drivers who were ineligible for support data submitted to PDE. We also employment based on prior criminal found discrepancies between attendance convictions (see page 34). reports and classroom roll sheets. Consequently, the District did not supply Finding No. 5: The District Failed to PDE with complete and accurate student Ensure that its School Police Officers Met data for usage in average daily membership All Employment Requirements and and average daily attendance calculations. Minimum Annual Training Hours. The District’s failure to maintain accurate The District failed to ensure that its school student data has been a continual problem, police officers have met all employment as we found similar issues during our prior requirements and have completed minimum audits dating back to the 1990s annual training requirements. Specifically, (see page 56). we found that 16 of the 33 officers we tested (48 percent) had at least one deficiency Status of Prior Audit Findings and related to the three background clearances Observations. With regard to the status of required prior to employment of individuals our prior audit recommendations to the having direct contact with children. District from an audit released on Additionally, we found that the District March 16, 2011, we found that the District continues to employ new officers that have had taken

Load more