Legislative Commission

STATE OF NEVADA

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (775) 684-6800

RANDOLPH J. TOWNSEND, Senator, Chairman

Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Secretary

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

401 S, CARSON STREET

CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701-4747

Fax No.: (775) 684-6600

LORNE J. MALKIEWICH, Director

(775) 684-6800

INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE (775) 684-6821

MORSE ARBERRY, JR., Assemblyman, Chairman

Mark W. Stevens, Fiscal Analyst

Gary L. Ghiggeri. Fiscal Analyst

PAUL V. TOWNSEND, Legislative Auditor (775) 684-6815

DONALD O. WILLIAMS, Research Director (775) 684-6825

BRENDA J. ERDOES, Legislative Counsel (775) 684-6830

Legislative Commission

Legislative Building

Carson City, Nevada

We have completed an audit of the Washoe County School District. This audit

was required by Chapter 5, Statutes of Nevada 2003, 20th Special Session. The

purpose of legislative audits is to improve government by providing the Legislature,

state and local officials, and Nevada citizens with independent and reliable information

about the operations of government agencies, programs, activities, and functions. The

results of our audit, including findings, conclusions, recommendations, and the District's

response, are presented in this report.

We wish to express our appreciation to the management and staff of the Washoe

County School District for their assistance during the audit.

Respectfully presented,

Paul V. Townsend, CPA

Legislative Auditor

September 3, 2004

Carson City, Nevada

(NSPO Rev. 1-04)

(OJ 1578E

STATE OF NEVADA

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

AUDIT REPORT

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10

Background......................................................................................................... 10

General......................................................................................................... 10

Student Enrollment....................................................................................... 11

Expenditures and Staffing ............................................................................ 11

Sources of Funding ...................................................................................... 13

Scope and Objectives ......................................................................................... 15

Findings and Recommendations............................................................................. 17

Financial Management........................................................................................ 17

Federal Revenues From Medicaid Can Be Increased.................................. 17

Food Service Program Does Not Include All Revenues or Costs................. 20

Sufficient Controls Exist Over Legislative Funding ....................................... 25

Facilities Management ........................................................................................ 27

District’s Process for Cleaning Saves Money ............................................... 28

Construction Management Policies and Procedures Need Updating ........... 29

Capital Projects Planning Could Be Strengthened ....................................... 30

Improvements Needed in Energy Conservation Program ............................ 30

Maintenance and Housekeeping Lack Complete Policies and

Procedures...............................................................................................33

Personnel Management ...................................................................................... 35

Personnel Program Accomplishments.......................................................... 35

Improvements Needed in Planning and Evaluating Recruitment Efforts ...... 36

STATE OF NEVADA

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

AUDIT REPORT

Table of Contents

(continued)

Page

Better Management Data Needed................................................................ 37

Position Control Could Be Improved............................................................. 38

Clearly Defined and Structured Training Program Is Needed....................... 38

Transportation..................................................................................................... 40

Bus Routing Could Increase Efficiency......................................................... 41

Bus Replacement Policy Needed ................................................................. 44

Vehicle Operating Information Not Available ................................................ 47

Fuel Usage Controls Could Be Improved ..................................................... 49

District Organization............................................................................................ 51

Staffing and Administrative Costs Per Pupil Were Reasonable.................... 51

Dollars to the Classroom Favorable ............................................................. 53

Opportunities for Better Governance............................................................ 54

Operating Oversight Could Be Strengthened ............................................... 55

Organizational Changes............................................................................... 58

Employee Health Plans....................................................................................... 59

Health Plans Have Reasonable Oversight ................................................... 59

Appendices

A. Audit Methodology........................................................................................ 61

B. Washoe County School District Personnel Survey....................................... 66

C. Survey of Exiting Teachers........................................................................... 86

D. Response From Washoe County School District.......................................... 89

LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Background

Washoe County School District (WCSD) is the second

largest school district in the State and, according to the

National Center for Education Statistics, the 65

largest

district in the country for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year

2004, the WCSD operated 91 schools, excluding charter

schools. This includes 3 schools in Gerlach/Empire, 1 in

Wadsworth, 3 in Incline Village, and 84 in the Reno/Sparks

area. There are 61 elementary schools, 14 middle schools,

12 high schools, and a special education school. In addition,

the District operates Washoe High School (alternative high

school), Truckee Meadows Community College High School,

and the Regional Technical Institute.

Washoe County School District’s mission is to provide

each student the opportunity to achieve his or her potential

through a superior education in a safe and challenging

environment in order to develop responsible and productive

citizens for a diverse and rapidly changing community. A

seven-member Board of Trustees governs the District by

establishing District policies and employing the

superintendent to serve as the chief executive officer in

charge of day-to-day operations. Five board members

represent specific geographic areas and two other members

are elected at-large for 4-year terms.

Washoe County School District has experienced

moderate growth during the past 5 years. In that time, the

District’s student enrollment increased 12% to 58,903 in

fiscal year 2003. During the same period, the District’s

instructional staff increased 8% to 3,617. According to the

Nevada Department of Education’s (NDOE) NRS 387.303

report, the District had over 5,300 full-time equivalent (FTE)

positions in fiscal year 2003. The NDOE report does not

include over 1,000 employees that are paid from accounts

not reported to the State, such as nutrition services, federal

programs, and hourly/daily labor. In addition, the District had

over 1,600 substitute teachers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The District received funding from two major sources:

the State Distributive School Account (DSA) and local

sources. The District’s basic support guarantees for fiscal

years 2004 and 2005 from the DSA are $4,161 and $4,301

per student, respectively. In addition, the District receives

state support for such areas as special education, class-size

reduction, adult diploma education, regional professional

development program, and remedial education. During

fiscal year 2003, the District had revenues of about $401.9

million excluding capital projects and the bond accounts.

Local revenues accounted for 63% of revenues, with state

sources accounting for a little over 29%.

Washoe County School District had expenditures of

about $393 million in fiscal year 2003, excluding capital

outlays and bond accounts. About 58% of these

expenditures were for regular, vocational, special, and other

instructional programs, while about 7% went for admin-

istration.

Purpose

This audit was required by Chapter 5, Statutes of

Nevada 2003, 20

Special Session, and was conducted

pursuant to the provisions of NRS 218.737 to 218.890. This

audit included a review of the District’s activities from July 1,

2002 through December 31, 2003. The purpose of the audit

was to evaluate the District’s operations in these six areas:

• Financial Management – Are there sufficient controls

to provide accountability for financial resources?

• Facilities Management – Are construction, main-

tenance, and facility usage programs properly

planned and controlled?

• Personnel Management – Are recruitment and

retention efforts adequate to ensure qualified staff?

2 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

• Transportation – Are student transportation

programs adequately planned to ensure the safe and

efficient transportation of students?

• District Organization – Does the organizational

structure enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of

Board governance and District management?

• Employee Health Plans – Is the health plan

appropriately managed?

Results in Brief

The District’s financial and administrative operations

compare favorably to other states’ best practices and peer

districts. Further, the District’s administrative staffing ratios

and costs appear reasonable when compared to other

districts’ averages, and the District has done a good job in

getting more of every dollar spent into the classroom.

Despite these efforts, we identified some opportunities for

cost savings and increased revenues of about $3.6 million

annually. These opportunities exist because Medicaid

reimbursements are not maximized, food service operations

could collect more fees, and bus routing could be more

efficient. Additional opportunities exist for savings by

implementing an energy management plan, better analyzing

energy retrofitting contracts, and monitoring vehicle

operating information.

The District can also improve its accountability by

increasing planning efforts and compiling operational data to

manage its personnel resources more effectively. Further,

accountability and governance enhancements could occur

by continuing to develop a capital improvement plan and

expanding the focus of the internal audit section.

Developing complete policies and procedures and

periodically reviewing them in accordance with Board policy

would also strengthen the District’s governance.

3 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Principal Findings

• The District is not collecting all available Medicaid

funding. For example, the District collected

substantially less per student than Clark County

School District in the last 3 years and did not seek

reimbursement for outreach activities until April 2004.

With improved oversight of the Medicaid

reimbursement process, WCSD could realize about

$2 million annually in additional federal revenues.

(page 17)

• Opportunities exist for improving the food service

program that would reduce the burden on the General

Fund. The District could collect about $300,000

annually by charging a small fee to students that

qualify for reduced-price meals. Fourteen of the 17

Nevada school districts and 2 of 3 peer districts

surveyed charge eligible students for reduced-price

meals. One peer district indicated their Board policy

is to not charge for these meals. Washoe County

School District officials stated the Board of Trustees

made the decision not to charge for reduced-price

meals over 10 to 15 years ago. However,

documentation to support the Board’s decision was

not provided. We recognize the sensitivity of this

issue, but believe the Board needs to formally decide

whether to continue the current practice of not

charging for reduced-price meals. (page 21)

• In fiscal year 2002, the Plant Facilities Department

developed a process for cleaning District buildings

that District records indicate saved over $600,000

annually. The concept is known as Process Cleaning

and recently received the Cashman Good

Government Award. (page 28)

• Although the District’s construction and bond

transactions are well documented, the policies and

procedures governing this area could be improved to

4 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

ensure good business practices are followed. For

example, construction management does not have

procedures addressing allowable construction costs,

use of bond funds, and project management. In

addition, change order review and authorization

procedures have not been formally developed and the

Plant Facilities Department lacks procedures to

ensure it is awarded reimbursements from utility and

road construction. (page 29)

• The District has made some efforts to be energy

conscious, but more work needs to be done.

Specifically, the District can improve its planning to

achieve greater energy conservation. In addition,

some energy conservation agreements were not

competitively bid and some did not accomplish

significant energy savings. (page 30)

• The WCSD has developed programs to improve

recruitment and retention of employees. For

example, WCSD is in the process of implementing an

online application system. This system should

streamline the process and enable better tracking of

recruiting efforts. In addition, the District has taken

action to identify why teachers leave the District.

(page 35)

• The Human Resources Division would benefit from a

formal recruitment and retention plan. Prior audit,

consultant, and internal reports advised the Division

to develop a recruitment and retention plan. In 1999,

it drafted a document containing the components of a

recruitment plan. However, the plan was not

completed. A plan is important because the District

faces recruitment challenges when having to hire 400

to 500 new teachers each year. (page 36)

• The District does not currently compile data on the

results of its recruitment efforts. Monitoring results of

efforts would allow the District to more efficiently

utilize its scarce resources. For example, with the

historical data the District could evaluate the results of

5 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

various job fairs, and then eliminate those non-

producing recruiting locations. (page 37)

• The District’s human resources information system

does not provide basic data needed by personnel

managers to effectively manage operations. The

information system cannot provide accurate position

counts, calculate turnover rates without significant

effort, and produce vacancy reports. (page 37)

• The District needs to implement a better district-wide

position control system. A position control system

acts as a budgetary control, helping to ensure

personnel expenditures do not exceed budgets.

Accurate position information is also essential for

budget preparation, trend analysis, and workforce

forecasting. (page 38)

• The District does not have a comprehensive plan

regarding district-wide training goals and objectives.

Prior audit recommendations and studies have

pointed out the need to develop a consolidated

training plan that addresses not just teachers and

administrators but all District staff development.

(page 38)

• Despite positive changes in recent years, the

reporting structure and responsibilities of WCSD’s

training program are still unclear. This past year, the

District reorganized its training program to be in effect

for the 2004-2005 school year. Although this

structure appears to be a good start, it could be more

clearly structured and the responsibilities more clearly

defined. (page 39)

• The Transportation Department can increase

efficiency in bus routing through several best

practices from other states and the student

transportation industry. These best practices include

the use of computerized routing software and

staggered school start times. They could generate

6 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

savings to the District of over $1.3 million annually.

(page 41)

• The District has made some efforts in recent years to

replace buses in a timely manner, but further

improvements are needed. Older buses cost

significantly more to operate and are less likely to

have the latest safety features. Over 60% of the

District’s buses are older than 14 years and have

been driven an average of 270,000 miles. (page 44)

• The Transportation Department does not have vehicle

operating information in a usable format. While fuel

usage for two of the District’s three transportation

facilities has been entered into the new fleet

management system, vehicle maintenance records

have not. This information is in paper files at the

various facilities. In addition, historical information

prior to August 2003 cannot be loaded to the new

database. As such, the Department is unable to

determine and analyze vehicle operating costs.

(page 47)

• In fiscal year 2004, the District purchased over

670,000 gallons of fuel at a cost of over $850,000.

However, the District’s controls over vehicle fuel at its

transportation facilities are not adequate. In addition,

the District does not have the vehicle operating

information to analyze vehicle fuel consumption to

identify variances and fluctuations. (page 49)

• According to the National Center for Educational

Statistics’ latest information for 2003, the District

ranks favorably with its peer districts in administrative

staff and teacher per pupil ratios. For example, there

are 343 students per every administrator and 16

students per teacher. The District’s administrative

costs of $771 per pupil also are reasonable when

compared to others. (page 51)

• The District has done a good job in getting more of

every dollar spent into the classroom. For fiscal year

7 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2001, WCSD had 61.3 cents of every dollar going into

the classroom, while peer districts averaged 60.1

cents. (page 53)

• Although policies and procedures have been

developed, many date back to 1997 and 1998.

District policy requires the Board to review policies on

a four-year cycle, one-quarter being reviewed

annually. We found the Board reviews policies as

presented by staff for amendment, but found no

evidence of a routine policy review as required.

(page 55)

• The internal auditor spends most of the time auditing

the student activity funds. Although auditing the

activity funds is important, the internal auditor should

expand her review to include district-wide operations.

(page 56)

• The processes used by District staff and others are

reasonable to provide good oversight of the health

plans. Health coverage represents a considerable

cost to the District. As such, oversight by the District

is necessary to ensure its fiduciary responsibility to its

employees and taxpayers. (page 59)

Recommendations

This report contains 29 recommendations to improve

the financial and administrative operations of the Washoe

County School District. The recommendations identify

opportunities to increase revenues, reduce costs, and

improve accountability. Our report contains five

recommendations on financial management, including

procedures to increase federal revenues and improve food

service controls. We also identified six recommendations to

improve the management of the District’s facilities. Six

recommendations were made to help with the recruitment,

retention, and training of personnel. In addition, we made

six recommendations to help operate the Transportation

8 LA04-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Department more efficiently. The report also has five

recommendations concerning the District’s organization to

enhance accountability to the Board and the public. Finally,

we made one recommendation concerning the District’s

employee health plans. (page 102)

Washoe County School District Response

The School District, in its response to our report,

accepted all 29 recommendations. (page 89)

9 LA04-19

LA04-19

Introduction

Background

Throughout the nation, school districts are facing many challenges relating to

education delivery. Other states, including Florida, Texas, and Arizona, have

addressed these concerns through audits designed to promote efficiency. During the

2001 Legislative Session, AB 672 directed the Legislative Auditor to conduct a

preliminary performance audit survey of the Clark and Washoe County School Districts.

The purpose of the survey was to identify potential audit issues in these districts. As a

result of the survey, the 2003 Legislature, during the 20

Special Session, directed the

Legislative Auditor to conduct a performance audit of Washoe County School District.

General

Washoe County School District (WCSD) is the second largest school district in

the State. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, it was the 65

largest district in the country for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, the District

operated 91 schools, excluding charter schools. This includes 84 schools in the

Reno/Sparks area, 3 in Incline Village, 3 in Gerlach/Empire, and 1 in Wadsworth. There

are 61 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 12 high schools, and a special education

school. In addition, the District operates Washoe High School (an alternative high

school), Truckee Meadows Community College High School, and the Regional

Technical Institute.

The District’s mission is to provide each student the opportunity to achieve his or

her potential through a superior education in a safe and challenging environment in

order to develop responsible and productive citizens for a diverse and rapidly changing

community. A seven-member Board of Trustees governs the District by establishing

District policies and employing the superintendent to serve as the chief executive officer

in charge of daily operations. Five board members represent specific geographic areas

and two other members are elected at-large for 4-year terms.

Over the last 2 years, 15 of the 21 schools in Nevada that were recognized by

the Nevada Department of Education for outstanding student academic performance

LA04-19

were in WCSD. In addition, all three exemplary schools recognized in fiscal year 2003

by the Department were in WCSD. Further, the U.S. Department of Education

recognized seven other schools in the District as “Blue Ribbon Schools”. Finally, a

national publication recently recognized five of the District’s high schools as being

among the best public high schools in the nation at preparing students for college.

Student Enrollment

Washoe County School District has experienced moderate growth in student

enrollment during the past 5 years. The District’s student enrollment increased 12%

from fiscal year 1999 to 2003. Exhibit 1 shows student enrollment for WCSD for the last

5 years, as determined in September of the fiscal year.

Exhibit 1

Student Enrollment

Fiscal Years 1999-2003

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1999-2003

52,641 54,053 55,651 57,583 58,903 12%

Source: Nevada Department of Education, NRS 387.303 Reports.

Expenditures and Staffing

WCSD had expenditures of about $393 million in fiscal year 2003, excluding

capital outlays and the bond accounts. About 58% of these expenditures were for

regular, vocational, special, and other instructional programs, while about 7% went for

administration. Exhibit 2 shows the District’s expenditures for fiscal year 2003.

12 LA04-19

Exhibit 2

Expenditures (Millions)

Fiscal Year 2003

Operation and

Maintenance

$33.2

(8%)

Student

Transportation

$12.6

(3%)

Food Service

Operations

$13.5

(3%)

Debt Service

$39.2

(10%)

General and

School

Administration

$25.8

(7%)

Student and

Instructional

Support

$33.6

(9%)

Other Support

and Community

Service

$9.5

(2)

(2%)

Program Instruction

$225.6

(1)

(58%)

Source: Washoe County School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal

Year 2003.

Note: Exhibit excludes capital outlays and bond accounts.

(1)

Includes regular, special, vocational, adult, and other instructional programs.

(2)

Includes business and central services support, other support, and community service.

According to the Nevada Department of Education’s (NDOE) NRS 387.303

report, the District had over 5,300 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in fiscal year

2003. The NDOE report does not include over 1,000 employees that are paid from

accounts not reported to the State, such as nutrition services, federal programs and

hourly/daily labor. In addition, the District had over 1,600 substitute teachers. Teachers

represent almost 70% of the District’s staff and have increased about 8% from fiscal

year 1999 to 2003. Exhibit 3 shows a breakdown of employees by function as reported

to NDOE for fiscal year 2003, and exhibit 4 shows the instructional staff growth from

fiscal year 1999 to 2003.

13 LA04-19

Exhibit 3

FTE Employees by Function

Fiscal Year 2003

Function

Instructional Staff 3,617 67%

Instructional Support Staff 440 8

Administrative Staff 427 8

Other Staff 882 17

Total

5,366 100%

% of TotalNumber

Source: Nevada Department of Education, NRS 387.303 Report.

Exhibit 4

Instructional Staff

Fiscal Years 1999 - 2003

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

1999-2003

3,349 3,356 3,436 3,584 3,617 8%

Source: Nevada Department of Education, NRS 387.303 Reports.

Sources of Funding

School districts receive funding from two major sources: the State Distributive

School Account (DSA) and local sources. Local sources provide the largest share of

school district revenue. These include the Ad Valorem Property Tax, Local School

Support Tax, Government Services Tax, and other sources. In addition, school districts

receive revenues for specific purposes, such as class-size reduction, special education,

and adult diploma education. The 2003 Legislature approved statewide appropriations

to the DSA of $1.63 billion for the 2003-2005 biennium. This is a $325 million increase,

or about 25%, over the previous biennium.

The Nevada Plan is the means used to finance elementary and secondary

education in the State’s public schools. A basic level of financial support is guaranteed

to each school district by the State through this Plan. The goal of the Nevada Plan is to

LA04-19

ensure adequate educational opportunity for all students regardless of the wealth of the

school district. The state’s share of the Nevada Plan’s funding is distributed through the

DSA. The amount of state aid received by each district is developed by a formula that

allows for differences in costs and local wealth. As such, the basic support is adjusted

for each district based on economic and geographic characteristics and a wealth

adjustment. This results in districts with fewer resources getting a higher per-pupil

allocation of state money than districts with more resources.

WCSD’s basic support guarantees for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 from the DSA

are $4,161 and $4,301 per student, respectively. In addition, the District receives state

support for such areas as special education, class-size reduction, adult diploma

education, regional professional development program, and remedial education. The

District received about $36.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for these programs.

During fiscal year 2003, Washoe County School District had revenues of about

$401.9 million, excluding capital projects and the bond accounts. Local revenues

accounted for 63% of the District’s revenue, with state sources accounting for a little

over 29%. Exhibit 5 shows the District’s revenue sources between local, state, and

federal sources.

15 LA04-19

Exhibit 5

Revenue Sources and Amounts (Millions)

Fiscal Year 2003

Government

Service Tax

$11.3

(2.8%)

Local Food

Service

$6.2

(1.5%)

Local School

Support Tax

$117.0

(29.1%)

Other Local

Sources

$7.1

(1.8%)

Federal

$31.0

(7.7%)

State

$117.8

(29.3%)

Other

$1.3

(.3%)

Property Taxes

$110.2

(27.5%)

Source: Washoe County School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,

Fiscal Year 2003.

Note: Exhibit excludes capital projects and bond accounts.

Scope and Objectives

This audit was required by Chapter 5, Statutes of Nevada 2003, 20

Special

Session, and was conducted pursuant to the provisions of NRS 218.737 to 218.890.

The Legislative Auditor conducts audits as part of the Legislature’s oversight

responsibility for public programs. The purpose of legislative audits is to improve

government by providing the Legislature, state and local officials, and Nevada citizens

with independent and reliable information about the operations of government agencies,

programs, activities, and functions.

This audit included a review of the District’s activities from July 1, 2002, through

December 31, 2003. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the District’s

operations in these six areas:

• Financial Management – Are there sufficient controls to provide accountability

for financial resources?

LA04-19

• Facilities Management – Are construction, maintenance, and facility usage

programs properly planned and controlled?

• Personnel Management – Are recruitment and retention efforts adequate to

ensure qualified staff?

• Transportation – Are student transportation programs adequately planned to

ensure the safe and efficient transportation of students?

• District Organization – Does the organizational structure enhance the

effectiveness and efficiency of Board governance and District management?

• Employee Health Plans – Is the health plan appropriately managed?

LA04-19

Findings and Recommendations

The District’s financial and administrative operations compare favorably to other

states’ best practices and peer districts. Further, the District’s administrative staffing

ratios and costs appear reasonable when compared to other districts’ averages, and the

District has done a good job in getting more of every dollar spent into the classroom.

Despite these efforts, we identified some opportunities for cost savings and increased

revenues of about $3.6 million annually. These opportunities exist because Medicaid

reimbursements are not maximized, food service operations could collect more fees,

and bus routing could be more efficient. Additional opportunities exist for savings by

implementing an energy management plan, better analyzing energy retrofitting

contracts, and monitoring vehicle operating information.

The District can also improve its accountability by increasing planning efforts and

compiling operational data to manage its personnel resources more effectively. Further,

accountability and governance enhancements could occur by continuing to develop a

capital improvement plan and expanding the focus of the internal audit section.

Developing complete policies and procedures and periodically reviewing them in

accordance with Board policy would also strengthen the District’s governance.

Financial Management

We found that financial management practices were generally sound. However,

there are opportunities to increase revenues and improve accountability. For example,

the District could increase collections from Medicaid about $2 million annually by

ensuring all Medicaid reimbursements are billed and received. In addition, the food

service program could collect an additional $300,000 annually by charging for reduced-

price meals, and should account for all its costs.

Federal Revenues From Medicaid Can Be Increased

Washoe County School District (WCSD) is not collecting all available Medicaid

funding. WCSD has collected substantially less per student from Medicaid than Clark

18 LA04-19

County School District (CCSD) in the last 3 years. In addition, WCSD did not seek

reimbursement for Medicaid outreach activities until April 2004, 3 years after CCSD first

sought reimbursement. With improved oversight of the Medicaid reimbursement

process, WCSD could realize about $2 million annually in additional federal revenues.

Furthermore, the District should explore with State Medicaid personnel the opportunity

of obtaining reimbursement for unbilled services previously provided. Medicaid

generally permits retroactive billing for 2 years.

The Medicaid Program allows school districts to enroll as providers of Medicaid

services for school-based, health services provided to disabled students. These

services are referred to as Direct Services. Typical services include speech therapy,

physical therapy, and psychological counseling. Individual claims are submitted to

Medicaid for services provided to eligible students, with the assistance of an

independent contractor. CCSD collected five times the amount WCSD did on a per

pupil basis for Direct Services over the past three fiscal years. Exhibit 6 shows the

amounts per pupil received by WCSD and CCSD from Medicaid for Direct Services

from fiscal years 2001 to 2003.

Exhibit 6

Medicaid Revenues Per Pupil

Direct Services

Fiscal Years 2001 to 2003

2001 2002 2003

vg.

WCSD

0.86$ 3.24$ 5.08$ 3.10$

CCSD

10.24$ 18.48$ 20.24$ 16.48$

Source: Auditor calculations based on WCSD and

CCSD accounting records and NRS 387.303

reports.

Note: The average column is based on the total direct

services provided per pupil for fiscal years 2001 to

2003, not on the average of the yearly amounts

shown in the exhibit.

Medicaid also reimburses school districts for medical outreach activities provided

to students and their families. This is referred to as Administrative Claiming. A

quarterly claim to Medicaid is generated following a time sampling of staff activities.

Reimbursable activities include:

LA04-19

• referral of students/families for Medicaid eligibility determinations

• provision of health care information and interagency coordination of

medical services

• referral, coordination, and monitoring of health services

However, WCSD did not seek reimbursement for Administrative Claiming activities until

April 2004, while CCSD began its administrative claiming process in April 2001. CCSD

collected over $7.7 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 from Medicaid for

Administrative Claiming.

Based on the amount received per pupil by CCSD in fiscal year 2003, we

estimate WCSD could be collecting about $2 million annually in additional revenue from

Medicaid. In addition to assisting school districts in meeting the costs of providing

health-related services, student health can be improved through increased student and

family awareness of available community services.

The District has not provided adequate fiscal oversight of the Medicaid

reimbursement process for medical services provided to eligible students. Specifically,

one WCSD staff person and the independent contractor largely perform the

reimbursement process with little oversight. WCSD fiscal managers indicated they were

not involved in the Medicaid process, leaving oversight to special education program

managers. However, discussions with program managers also found a lack of

involvement with the reimbursement process. As stated by the contractor’s

representative, WCSD has not placed a high priority on Medicaid reimbursements and

the clerical staff involved has no authority to require program staff to submit service

records and other information needed to bill Medicaid. The representative agreed that

WCSD’s process needed more management oversight.

In addition, we identified several weaknesses with the District’s process for billing

Medicaid. For example:

• WCSD has very few written policies and procedures on the process.

• There is very little oversight of the staff person involved with the process.

• Staff is not monitoring the independent contractor’s process for Medicaid

billings and payments.

LA04-19

Good internal controls are important in any organization to ensure management’s

directives are carried out. Controls are an integral part of an organization’s

accountability of government resources and achieving effective results. As shown,

because of limited controls over the Medicaid process, the District has not received its

fair share of federal Medicaid funding.

Additional opportunities exist to increase federal reimbursement when the State

Medicaid Plan is amended. Transportation services provided to eligible students that

need specially equipped vehicles are reimbursable Medicaid expenses. However, the

federal regulations regarding transportation expenses were revised, requiring more

detailed documentation in order to receive reimbursement. As such, until the State

Medicaid agency develops the methodology for claiming special needs transportation

services, school districts cannot get reimbursed. The State has committed to the

districts that the State Plan amendment will be effective January 2005. Once the State

Plan is amended, the District needs to incorporate the requirements into the Medicaid

process and begin collecting for eligible transportation services. Reimbursement for

transportation services may be substantial. Prior to the federal regulation being revised

and reimbursements being stopped to the districts, CCSD collected about $800,000

during calendar year 2001. Therefore, it is important a process is in place to ensure the

District receives reimbursement from Medicaid for eligible transportation services.

Food Service Program Does Not Include All Revenues or Costs

Opportunities exist for improving the food service program that would reduce the

burden on the General Fund, resulting in more money available for the classroom or

other operations. The District could collect about $300,000 annually by charging a

small fee to students that qualify for reduced-price meals. In addition, accounting

records indicate that food operations has shown a profit for the last several years.

However, in fiscal year 2003, at least $900,000 in food service costs were not charged

to this account. Finally, the District could do a better job in monitoring the food service

contractor.

An effective school food service program provides students with nutritional,

reasonably-priced meals. During fiscal year 2003, the food service program collected

over $13 million, averaging about 28,000 meals a day. The District operates a central

LA04-19

kitchen and several self-contained kitchens at various school sites. The central kitchen

provides meals for elementary schools, while middle and high schools have self-

contained kitchens.

Opportunities for Revenue From Reduced-Price Meals

The District is not realizing all revenues available from food service operations.

We found the District is not charging any fee to students that received a reduced-price

lunch or breakfast. The District could have collected about $300,000 during fiscal year

2003 by charging a fee allowed under the federal lunch and breakfast programs.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program

(SBP) subsidize school districts for meals served to eligible children. The federal meal

programs provide federal funds through the Nevada Department of Education.

Depending on household income, children may qualify for either a free or reduced-price

meal. Children that do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals can pay the full meal

price. Exhibit 7 shows the meal prices charged by the District and related federal

reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2003.

22 LA04-19

Exhibit 7

Washoe County School District

Meal Pricing Schedule

for Fiscal Year 2003

Student

Paid

Revenue to

District

Student

Paid

Revenue

to District

Paid 1.00 0.22$ 1.22$ 1.75 0.20$ 1.95$

Reduced $ .87-$1.10* $ .87-$1.10 1.74$ 1.74$

Free $1.17-$1.40* $1.17-$1.40 2.14$ 2.14$

Paid 1.00 0.22$ 1.22$ 2.00 0.20$ 2.20$

Reduced $ .87-$1.10* $ .87-$1.10 1.74$ 1.74$

Free $1.17-$1.40* $1.17-$1.40 2.14$ 2.14$

Paid 1.00 0.22$ 1.22$ 2.00 0.20$ 2.20$

Reduced $ .87-$1.10* $ .87-$1.10 1.74$ 1.74$

Free $1.17-$1.40* $1.17-$1.40 2.14$ 2.14$

Adult

1.50 1.50$ 2.50 2.50$

High School

Breakfast Lunch

Elementary

Middle School

Federal

Reimbursement

Federal

Reimbursement

$$-

Source: District records and Federal Register.

* Breakfast reimbursement rates vary depending on the percentage of children eligible for free

and reduced-price status at the school level.

The federal programs allow districts to charge up to 40 cents for reduced-price

lunches and 30 cents for reduced-price breakfasts. The District served about 624,000

reduced-price lunches during fiscal year 2003 and 191,000 reduced-price breakfasts

during the same period. If the District had charged the maximum fee allowed for these

meals, it would have collected about $300,000. According to the Nevada Department of

Education, 14 of the 17 Nevada school districts charge eligible students for reduced-

price meals. In addition, two of three peer districts surveyed indicated they charge

eligible students for reduced-price meals. The other peer district indicated their Board

policy is to not charge for these meals. Although the food service operation is reported

to be operating at a profit, as we discuss later in this chapter, not all costs are being

23 LA04-19

charged to this area. This additional revenue would help offset these costs making

more General Fund money available for other uses.

According to District officials and nutrition services management, the Board of

Trustees made the decision not to charge for reduced-price meals over 10 to 15 years

ago. However, District staff could not provide any documentation of the Board decision.

We recognize the sensitivity of this issue, but believe the Board needs to formally

decide whether to continue the current practice of not charging for reduced-price meals.

All Program Costs Not Charged

Even though the District reports food service operations have been profitable, all

costs associated with its operations are not charged to the Nutrition Services Fund.

District policy 3546 states the nutrition program will recover the cost of labor, food and

supplies from those served, except in special cases where students qualify for free or

reduced-price meals. However, we identified at least $900,000 in food service costs not

being charged to the food service account. As we have stated, General Fund dollars

used for food services takes money away from the classroom or other general

operations.

We reviewed the food service’s operating information for fiscal year 2003 and

identified at least $433,000 of costs directly attributable to the program that were being

paid by the District’s General Fund. In addition, every school incurs costs for

maintenance, janitorial, utility, and insurance of its cafeteria. These costs should also

be allocated to the food service program. Exhibit 8 summarizes the unallocated costs

we identified for FY 2003. Most of the costs shown are attributable to the central

kitchen only and do not include nutrition services costs at the individual schools.

Exhibit 8

Unallocated Food Service Costs

Fiscal Year 2003

Cost Description FY 2003 Costs

Utilities 214,747$

Insurance 4,197

Interest on Debt Service 214,585

Total Unallocated Costs 433,529$

Source: Auditor analysis of District records.

LA04-19

In addition, depreciation charges on food service equipment and indirect costs

totaling at least $490,000 for fiscal year 2003 were not fully recovered from the

program. According to District records, depreciation on food service equipment and the

central kitchen facility was about $200,000. Further, many federal programs allow

indirect costs at around 2% to 3.65%. Indirect costs are those central service costs not

directly attributable to food services. For fiscal year 2003, this projects to about

$280,000 to $500,000 of indirect costs that central services should recover from the

food service operations. However, the central office allocated only about $25,000 a

year for indirect costs.

District accounting methods do not report what nutrition services actually costs to

operate. To report the actual costs to operate food services programs, many school

districts, including Clark County School District, use enterprise fund accounting. We

surveyed the five peer districts provided to us by the WCSD. Three of the five peer

districts use enterprise fund accounting. Enterprise fund accounting is useful to

governments because it helps focus on the cost of providing services and the portion of

those costs being paid by the user fees. At present, the District uses a special revenue

fund that does not provide information on what nutrition services actually costs to

operate. Therefore, District management may not have the information to make

informed decisions regarding the food service operation.

By accurately tracking program revenue and costs, the District could better

monitor and adjust fees, supported by detailed program analyses. Although the District

does also consider market and political constraints, policy makers would be better able

to make informed decisions if provided with complete cost data.

Better Food Service Contract Monitoring Needed

Since November 2000, the District has contracted the management of food

services. However, the District needs better monitoring controls over the food service

contract. For example, contractor billings lacked supporting documentation and

evidence of review. Although the billing we examined appeared reasonable, we had to

obtain the supporting information from the contractor.

Currently, the food services operation is a shared responsibility. The

management company is responsible for managing the food service operations and

LA04-19

supervising all food service employees. The District is responsible for paying all food

service operating costs, certain costs incurred by the management company, and a

management fee based on meals served. In addition, the District provides all food

service staff.

We reviewed a billing from the management company totaling $59,000. The

billing reviewed had no evidence of District review and the District could not provide

documents to support the amounts being charged. The management company was

paid approximately $674,000 in fiscal year 2003 or about 5% of food service

expenditures. As such, it is important to ensure the propriety of the billings. Internal

control standards require that transactions be properly reviewed and authorized prior to

payment. Further, control standards require significant transactions to be documented,

and the documentation should be readily available for examination.

Sufficient Controls Exist Over Legislative Funding

The District has sufficient controls in place over the textbooks, instructional

supplies and instructional hardware appropriation, and additional funding provided

during the 2001 and 2003 Legislative Sessions to help ensure the monies are used as

required. We reviewed the District’s request and expenditure process applicable to the

additional legislative funding. We also reviewed the controls the District has to ensure

textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware funds are appropriately

spent. We found the District had controls in place to ensure the money spent, to date,

was used for its stipulated purpose. Exhibit 9 provides information about special

legislative funding from the 2001 and 2003 Legislative Sessions.

26 LA04-19

Exhibit 9

Washoe County School District

Special Legislative Funding

2001 and 2003 Legislative Sessions

Session

Year

Bill

Number Purpose

mount

Available

Statewide

Amount to

District

2001 SB 8

Provides additional funding for

unexpected energy costs.

$ 6.5 Million $ 1 Million

2001 SB 9

Provides additional funding for

programs that are at risk of termination.

$ 5 Million $ 750,000

2003 SB 1

Provides additional funding for

Educational Technology.

$9.95 Million $1.1 Million

2003 SB 8

Provides funding to the DSA for

textbooks, instructional supplies, and

instructional hardware, including an

additional amount of $50 per student

approved by the Legislature. $131 Million

(1)

$ 18 Million

(1)

Source: Auditor analysis of 2001 and 2003 Special Legislative Funding.

(1)

Estimate based on student counts. Amount may be adjusted when Department of

Education completes student count audit.

Recommendations

1. Develop procedures and increase fiscal management oversight

over the process for obtaining reimbursement from the Medicaid

Program for school-based health services.

2. Adopt a policy to establish the fee charged for reduced-price

meals.

3. Consider amending policy to require all direct and indirect costs

be recovered by food service operations.

4. Consider establishing food service operations as an enterprise

fund.

5. Develop monitoring procedures to ensure monthly billings from

the food service contractor are appropriate.

LA04-19

Facilities Management

Aspects of the Plant Facilities Department operate effectively; for example, the

District has implemented a housekeeping method that has resulted in significant

savings. However, other areas could be improved. The District’s growth requires

significant construction management, but comprehensive construction management

policies and procedures have not been developed and capital projects planning could

be strengthened. Further, the District has made some efforts to be energy conscious,

but more work needs to be done. Finally, the Maintenance and Housekeeping Divisions

need more complete policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that

goals will be met.

The Plant Facilities Department is responsible for 91 schools, excluding charter

schools, and approximately 6.5 million square feet of building space, including portable

classrooms. Exhibit 10 shows the increase in schools over the past 5 years in the

District.

Exhibit 10

Number of Schools by Type

Fiscal Years 2000-2004

School Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Growth

2000-2004

Elementary Schools 58 59 59 61 61 5%

Middle Schools 13 13 13 13 14 8%

High Schools

(1)

12 12 14 14 15 25%

Special Education 1 1 1 1 1 0%

Total

84 85 87 89 91 8%

Source: Washoe County School District facility records.

(1) Includes Truckee Meadows Community College High School, Washoe High School, and Regional

Technical Institute.

In addition to the schools already serving Washoe County, the District will open

Shaw Middle School in Sparks in the fall of 2004. Over the next 5 years, the District is

planning the following:

• renovations to older schools

• 2 new middle schools

• 3 new elementary schools

LA04-19

• additions to 3 high schools as needed

• a modern technology and communication system

• phase II completion of the new Incline Elementary School

In November 2002, voters approved a rollover bond program to continue

financing capital improvements. To provide oversight of the bond rollover program, the

Plant Facilities Department was divided into two separate sections. The Plant Facilities

Administrator has oversight of maintenance, housekeeping, and regulated systems.

The Bond Program Administrator is responsible for construction, architecture, planning,

and remodeling. In total, the Plant Facilities Department had non-bond expenditures of

approximately $33 million in fiscal year 2003.

District’s Process for Cleaning Saves Money

In fiscal year 2002, the Plant Facilities Department developed a process for

cleaning District buildings that District records indicate saved over $600,000 annually.

The concept is known as Process Cleaning and recently received the Cashman Good

Government Award. A number of other governmental entities have requested the

District provide training on the Process Cleaning method.

Process Cleaning uses a systematic cleaning method that focuses on sanitizing

student and staff spaces. As a result of the new method, the District was able to reduce

its janitorial staff by 25 full-time equivalents (FTEs), saving the District about $610,000

annually. Currently, 80 of the District’s 97 schools and non-school sites have

implemented the Process Cleaning method. According to housekeeping officials, the

remaining sites should implement the new method during fiscal year 2005.

Housekeeping officials do not anticipate additional savings when the remaining sites

implement the new method because these sites are already staffed using the Process

Cleaning method staffing levels. However as new schools are constructed, the reduced

staffing levels required by the new method should continue to generate savings to the

District.

An efficiency achieved from the Process Cleaning method was to increase the

square footage staff custodians cleaned. As shown in Exhibit 11, the area cleaned per

staff custodian increased from about 24,500 square feet to about 27,200 or an increase

of over 11%. This occurred with a decrease in staff of 4% and a 6.6% increase in total

LA04-19

square footage. Exhibit 11 shows the increase in cleaning area resulting from the

Process Cleaning method.

Exhibit 11

Staff Custodian Cleaning Square Footage

Fiscal Years 2002-2004

2002 2003 2004

Percent Change

2002 - 2004

Cleaning Square Footage

Per Staff Custodian

24,561 27,152 27,284 11.1%

Total Staff Cleaning Square

Footage District-wide

5,507,703 5,593,316 5,872,780 6.6%

Number of Staff Custodians

(FTEs)

224.25 206 215.25 -4%

Source: Washoe County School District Housekeeping Division.

Furthermore, the Process Cleaning method appears to be effective despite the

larger cleaning areas and less staff. We surveyed District employees and found that

customer feedback was positive.

Our survey found that 73% of 422 respondents felt

the buildings are adequately cleaned.

Construction Management Policies and Procedures Need Updating

Although the District’s construction and bond transactions are well documented,

the policies and procedures governing this area could be improved to ensure good

business practices are followed. For example, District staff indicated they follow NRS

393.220 to 393.3293 that provide detailed guidance for the sale, exchange, and lease of

property. These statutes provide the framework for the District to follow, but not the

detailed procedures the District uses to comply with them. Further, the Board has

developed a policy and administrative regulation for the acquisition and disposition of

real property, but the policy and regulation are not comprehensive. Examples of other

areas where comprehensive policies and procedures should be developed include the

following:

• Construction management does not have procedures addressing allowable

construction costs, use of bond funds, and project management.

Appendix B summarizes our survey of District employees.

LA04-19

• Change order review and authorization procedures have not been formally

developed.

• The Plant Facilities Department lacks procedures to ensure the District is

awarded reimbursements from utility and road construction.

Much of this guidance has been handed down by legal opinion or other

memorandum form, but has not been formally adopted to help ensure staff are aware

and follow the requirements. The District indicated they are in the process of

developing more detailed policies and procedures using Clark County School District as

a model.

Capital Projects Planning Could Be Strengthened

The District has developed a Long-Range Facilities Plan; however, the last Plan

approved by the Board was in 1997. This plan identifies the District’s facilities needs

through 2015. Although the Plan is comprehensive, only minimal updates have

occurred and the Board has not approved these changes. Given the growth in the

District, periodic review and update of the plan would help ensure it still meets the

facilities needs of the District. Facility plans provide the framework for identifying and

allocating resources, evaluating and prioritizing projects, and considering alternatives.

Even though the District’s Long-Range Facilities Plan is comprehensive, it does

not give project specific information for the short-range. Generally, a formal capital

improvement plan (CIP) identifies the capital projects to be completed, and coordinates

financing and timing of completion. Currently, the District’s capital projects planning

comprises various components of a capital improvement plan. These components

include rollover bond information, technology plan, technical team recommendations,

and 2 year plan and 7 year needs forecast summaries. The District is currently in the

process of combining the Long-Range Facilities Plan and the various components of its

capital projects planning into a formal CIP. District officials indicated this plan should be

completed by February 2005, and will be updated annually and presented to the Board

of Trustees.

Improvements Needed in Energy Conservation Program

The District has made some efforts to be energy conscious, but more work

needs to be done. Specifically, the District can improve its planning to achieve greater

LA04-19

energy conservation. In addition, some energy conservation projects were not

competitively bid and some did not accomplish significant energy savings. Energy costs

across the State and nation have increased to levels requiring close monitoring and

management. The 2001 Legislature appropriated $6.5 million to assist school districts

in meeting the demands of rising energy costs. Of that amount, Washoe County School

District received $1 million. In fiscal year 2003, the District spent $10.9 million on

utilities.

Energy Conservation Plan Is Lacking

An energy conservation plan guides the school district in ways to lower energy

use and utility costs. Not only do such plans minimize waste, they encourage energy

awareness across the District. Although the District has implemented some energy

conservation measures, it has not developed an energy conservation plan.

Furthermore, our survey of District employees found only 26% of 422 respondents felt

the District has an effective energy conservation program. Only 41% of respondents felt

the District informed them of the energy program and their role in cost savings.

Development of a comprehensive energy plan would help inform staff and could provide

additional savings to the District.

Other states’ best practices recommend the adoption of energy conservation

plans. According to Clark County School District’s budget highlights, their energy

program achieved significant savings in fiscal year 2004. With the addition of more

monitoring staff, the savings are expected to increase in fiscal year 2005.

The following are some of the suggested items to include in a comprehensive

energy plan:

• realistic energy saving goals

• ways to keep the plan visible and linked to the budget

• commitment from the School Board and Superintendent

• designation of an energy manager

Conservation Agreements Were Not Competitively Bid

To help control energy costs, the District has contracted with an energy

retrofitting company. Between 1997 and fiscal year 2003, the District has entered a

pilot program agreement with four program extension agreements (phases 1 through 4)

LA04-19

with this company totaling about $15 million. Competitive bids were not obtained for

any of the agreements, as required by state law. NRS 338 provides bidding guidelines

for governmental agencies. More recently, the 2003 Legislative Session amended NRS

Chapter 332 to include a section for performance contracts for operating cost-savings

measures. This amendment requires the local entity to issue a request for qualifications

(RFQ) to not less than three potential qualified service companies. It also requires the

local entity to compile a list from the RFQs of those companies it determines satisfy the

requirements of qualified service companies. If the local entity wants to enter into a

performance contract, it must notify each appropriate qualified service company.

District personnel believed the agreements were for professional services, and

therefore were exempt from the bidding requirements. However, the agreements were

not exclusively for professional services. The energy conservation measures

implemented through these agreements included lighting retrofits, HVAC retrofits, roof

replacements, boiler retrofits, and ventilation upgrades.

Energy Savings Were Insufficient for Projects

Energy savings were sufficient to recover the costs of retrofitting for only two of

the four program extension agreements entered into by the District since 1997. NRS

sections and industry standards suggest that energy conservation projects be evaluated

to ensure the savings will justify the retrofit costs. For an energy conservation retrofit

project to be paid for with savings from reductions in energy usage, those savings

should occur within the useful life of the project. The energy services company

contracted by the District to undertake various energy conservation retrofit projects

guaranteed energy savings over a 10-year period. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency also recommends using a 10-year period when evaluating the worth of energy

conservation retrofit projects. Exhibit 12 shows the project cost, guaranteed annual

savings, and years to recover the costs (payback) for the four projects.

LA04-19

Exhibit 12

Energy Retrofit Projects

Fiscal Years 1997 - 2003

Pilot Program

Extension Agreement

Project Cost

Guaranteed

Annual Savings

Payback

(Years)

Phase 1 $5,294,076 $481,798 11

Phase 2 $2,152,858 $204,948 11

Phase 3 $4,826,612 $234,995 21

Phase 4 $2,557,455 $ 34,141 75

Source: Washoe County School District Records.

As shown in Exhibit 12, the simple payback for the third and fourth phases were

21 and 75 years, respectively. This is well beyond the useful life of the projects. We

asked District staff if a formal financial analysis was conducted to determine the worth of

pursuing each phase of the energy conservation retrofit project. District staff indicated

they believe a financial analysis was conducted but could not provide an analysis for

any of the projects.

Maintenance and Housekeeping Lack Complete Policies and Procedures

The Maintenance and Housekeeping Divisions do not have complete policies

and procedures in place to help employees know their responsibilities and to ensure

good business practices are followed. Other states’ best practices acknowledge the

importance of comprehensive policies and procedures over maintenance and

housekeeping functions. In addition, internal control standards recommend policies and

procedures are documented.

Housekeeping Supplies

Housekeeping supplies are purchased and stored at a central location and

allocated to schools by the housekeeping supervisor. In addition, the Housekeeping

Division assumed control of housekeeping supply budgets for each school and non-

school site in fiscal year 2003. However, the Division has not developed procedures for

the inventorying, distributing, and safeguarding of the supplies. Procedures would help

to provide greater assurance that supplies are not stolen or wasted.

In addition, the Division tries to maintain 2 or 3 months of custodial supplies.

However, a review of the supplies inventory found about half the supplies had quantities

exceeding 5 months and nearly 25% had quantities exceeding 1 year. Although the

LA04-19

Division’s inventory listing identifies order points, no ordering guidelines have been

developed. In addition, many of the supply order points exceed the 2 or 3 month

quantity the Division tries to keep on hand. Although supply inventory costs are not

excessive, large amounts of supplies can reduce the District’s operating budget and

increase storage needs. Opportunities may exist for additional savings in this area.

Maintenance Division

The Maintenance Division has not developed complete policies and procedures

to assist employees in carrying out their duties. Establishing procedures helps promote

good administrative practices and efficient operations. In addition to a lack of a

complete policy manual, we also identified several instances where policies and

procedures could help improve Division operations. For example:

• The Division uses many types of large and small equipment and tool items.

Although equipment and tools are either recorded in a database or hand-

written records, there is no process to periodically count the items. These

items represent a significant value to the Division. Many of the items are

small and easily misplaced, lost, or stolen.

• The Division does not monitor deferred maintenance activity. The Division

indicated the list is reviewed quarterly by the plant facilities supervisor and

annually by the plant facilities administrator. Upon further review, we found

no evidence this routinely occurs.

• The Division has not established procedures for determining general work

order priority and estimating completion dates for input in the ACT1000

system. During our work on the Preliminary Survey Report, we were told

that priority guidelines existed. However, these guidelines are used to

assess the condition of District facilities as part of its periodic facilities

assessment program in the Facilities Condition Information System, not to

prioritize general maintenance.

Recommendations

6. Require all District schools to use the Process Cleaning method.

7. Continue developing the construction management procedures.

8. Continue developing the capital improvement plan and develop

procedures to periodically review and update the plan as needed.

9. Develop a comprehensive energy management plan.

LA04-19

10. Perform a cost benefit analysis for each energy retrofit contract

and competitively bid the contracts.

11. Develop maintenance policies and procedures, including

procedures for custodial supply inventories, maintenance

equipment and tools inventories, monitoring deferred

maintenance, and determining general work order priorities.

Personnel Management

We found the Human Resources Division has implemented some innovative

programs and, generally, meets the needs of the District employees and management.

However, some improvements are necessary to ensure its recruitment and retention

efforts maintain qualified staff. For example, the Division needs to improve its planning

efforts and compile operational data to manage its personnel resources effectively.

These and other personnel management issues have been mentioned in prior audits

and management reviews, but the District has not fully addressed them. Because

personnel costs comprise nearly 90% of the District’s budgeted expenditures,

improvements are needed to assist in making financial and operational decisions and

ensure management directives are followed.

Human Resources operations should be further enhanced when the District

completes efforts to develop comprehensive, consolidated procedures. In 2002, the

Division started to develop procedures by following guidelines set forth in a quality

management system. However, this process is not complete and, as a result, the

District still does not have all-inclusive procedures.

Personnel Program Accomplishments

The WCSD has developed programs intended to improve recruitment and

retention of employees. For example, WCSD is in the process of implementing an on-

line application system. This system should streamline the process and track recruiting

efforts. According to The New Teacher Project, a nonprofit group that helps some of

the largest school districts recruit teachers, Clark County School District (CCSD) has a

similar system that eliminated data entry and dramatically improved application

turnaround time.

LA04-19

WCSD has also implemented two programs in recent years in an effort to

maintain a stable and effective work force. Each of the programs is briefly described

below:

Mentor Teacher Program – The purpose is to train veteran teachers to serve as

mentors to novice teachers. According to District reports, between 1997 and 2001,

5.4% of new teachers in the mentor program resigned as compared to 10.5% of new

teachers not in the program. The District continues to assess and modify this program

not only to address teacher retention but to help impact teacher performance and

student achievement.

Teacher Performance Evaluation System (TPES) – WCSD is part of a five-year study

funded by the U.S. Department of Education to find connections between teacher and

administrator attitudes and behaviors, their evaluation scores, and student achievement.

After 3 years, the majority of teachers believed the evaluation process reflected good

teaching and the system could improve teaching. In addition, administrators felt that

TPES helped them frame evaluation discussions, provide useful feedback to teachers,

and generally augmented their instructional leadership.

Lastly, the District has taken action to identify why teachers leave the District,

including what job aspects were factors in leaving and what job aspects caused

dissatisfaction. According to a survey performed by the University of Wisconsin, over

half of the teachers exiting WCSD during or after the 2002-2003 school year cited

retirement as the reason for leaving. Key portions of the survey are summarized in

Appendix C.

Improvements Needed in Planning and Evaluating Recruitment Efforts

The WCSD would benefit from tracking recruitment efforts and integrating this

information into a formal recruitment and retention plan. Prior audit, consultant, and

internal reports advised the Human Resources Division to develop a recruitment and

retention plan. These reports also identified the need to improve the Division’s

information system to compile and evaluate efforts.

Recruitment and Retention Plan

In 1999, the Division drafted a document containing the components of a

recruitment plan. This document defined the Division’s goals, identified action steps,

established anticipated completion dates, and defined anticipated results. However,

this document was not completed. A plan is important because the District faces

recruitment challenges when having to hire 400 to 500 new teachers each year.

LA04-19

Planning is a basic, core element of management. Without a plan, the risk that efforts

are inefficient and ineffective increases.

The District relies primarily on the experience of its personnel to determine how it

will recruit. Techniques employed include:

• attending job fairs

• cultivating relationships with local colleges and universities

• utilizing a web-based recruitment service

• attending events that could generate potential job seekers

In an area related to recruitment, the District does not have a stated business

strategy addressing teacher retention. As part of its comprehensive human resources

plan, the District should develop a strategy for addressing teacher retention. The plan

should identify the District’s goals for teacher retention, define the measurable

objectives, and design strategies to attain those objectives. Finally, monitoring the

results of those efforts is essential for future planning.

Evaluate Results of Recruitment Efforts

The District also does not currently compile data on the results of its recruitment

efforts. Monitoring results of efforts would allow the District to more efficiently utilize its

scarce resources. Comparing historical data to current and projected needs in its

recruitment efforts would assist the recruitment process. For example, with the

historical data the District could evaluate the results of various job fairs, and then

eliminate those non-producing recruiting locations.

Our survey of District employees indicated a mixed reaction to the question of

whether the District has an effective recruitment program. Most District management

and school administrators believe the District has an effective recruitment program;

however, only about one-third of teachers and support staff believe it is effective.

Furthermore, in a related area, most respondents to our survey did not think the

District’s hiring practices minimized the time to fill positions. Evaluating recruitment data

could help in improving the effectiveness and timeliness of the recruiting process.

Better Management Data Needed

The District’s human resources information system does not provide basic data

needed by personnel managers to effectively manage operations. The human

LA04-19

resources information system cannot provide accurate position counts, calculate turn-

over rates without significant personnel effort, and produce vacancy reports. This

information is an important management tool used for planning and budgeting.

The need to improve the human resources information system has been

identified through various audits and reviews since 1997. Although some information

system issues have been addressed, others have not. An adequate information system

is essential for effective internal control. Operational and financial data is needed to

make operating decisions, monitor performance, allocate resources, and ensure

effective and efficient uses of resources.

Position Control Could Be Improved

The District needs to implement a better district-wide position control system.

This issue has been noted in numerous reviews since 1997. A position control system

acts as a budgetary control, helping to ensure personnel expenditures do not exceed

budgets. Accurate position information is also essential for budget preparation, trend

analysis, and workforce forecasting.

To address concerns related to position control, one staff person in the business

office monitors employees assigned to schools. This is a manual monitoring process,

performed by matching two spreadsheets, and is very labor-intensive. Controls are

weakened because this position also has system access to change payroll and

personnel information. Without an adequate position control function, it is possible to

overfill positions, fill unauthorized positions, or overpay employees – all of which can

result in budget overruns.

Clearly Defined and Structured Training Program Is Needed

Although the WCSD puts forth significant effort into professional development,

the training planning and reporting structure needs addressing. Our survey found most

teachers and administrators believe that the District’s professional development classes

improved their skills. However, the District lacks a district-wide training plan. Also, the

current structure and responsibilities need to be more clearly defined. This is important

because WCSD training costs are significant. In fiscal year 2003, the District spent

nearly $4.5 million for training of teachers, administrators, and staff. This amount

included about $1.7 million in federal grants, including funds related to the No Child Left

LA04-19

Behind Act. Having well-trained employees is imperative to meet student achievement

goals and operate efficiently and effectively.

No Comprehensive Training Plan

The District does not have a comprehensive plan regarding district-wide training

goals and objectives. Prior audit recommendations and studies have pointed out the

need to develop a consolidated training plan that addresses not just teachers and

administrators but all staff development. In 1997 and 1999, recommendations were

made to develop a consolidated training plan, expand resource commitment to staff

development and training activities, and implement district-wide coordination of this

function. Further, in 2001, an internal task force recommended a formalized system for

managing all staff development services. Although separate training programs within

the District, such as the Northwest Regional Professional Development Program and

the Mentor Teacher Program, have plans and strategies, the District as a whole does

not.

Reporting Structure for Training

Despite some positive changes in recent years, the reporting structure and

responsibilities of WCSD’s training program are still unclear. Three years ago, the

District made changes to better coordinate training programs within the Center for

Teaching and Learning (CTL). The CTL’s purpose is to provide leadership, direction,

and instructional support designed to improve student achievement. According to

management, this move has allowed the professional development and curriculum

functions to work together more and better utilize limited resources.

Another positive change is the formation of the Student Achievement Leadership

Team. The Team reviews and comments on training offerings for teachers and school

administrators, ensuring the direction and content of professional development is

aligned with District goals. However, its role and purpose are not clearly defined.

The District is again reorganizing its training program structure to be in effect for

the 2004-2005 school year. Although this structure appears to be a good start, it could

be more clearly structured and the responsibilities more clearly defined. For example,

the proposed reorganization shows several training programs without any direct

reporting line. In addition, the proposed reorganization does not address other training

LA04-19

programs. The Principals Academy is not shown on the CTL organization chart even

though the Principals Academy Coordinator reports directly to CTL’s director. Also, the

responsibilities of the Human Resources Division and other department heads in

training non-certified employees are not included. Not having a clearly-defined structure

increases risk for duplication of efforts and unmet needs.

Recommendations

12. Develop a recruitment and retention plan.

13. Track and analyze data on the effectiveness of various

recruitment efforts.

14. Develop procedures to ensure all positions are authorized and

limit position control staff’s ability to modify personnel

information.

15. Continue the review and development of consolidated,

comprehensive procedures related to personnel management.

16. Modify the human resources information system to provide

operational data on employee turnover and retention.

17. Continue the reorganization of the District’s training function,

ensuring a training plan is developed that includes all District

staff, and that clearly defines the responsibilities and

organizational structure of the function.

Transportation

Opportunities exist to improve the operation of the Transportation Department.

The District can improve its process for developing bus routes to reduce the number of

buses needed. In addition, it needs to develop a bus replacement cycle that will help

reduce maintenance and operating costs. Finally, the District needs to compile and

review information about bus operating costs and fuel consumption to help minimize

costs. We estimate the District can save over $1.3 million annually by better managing

transportation operations. These savings would be available for use in the classroom or

operations, including the Transportation Department.

LA04-19

The District transports over 18,000 students on more than 450 daily runs. The

Transportation Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of 292

buses and 164 other vehicles throughout the District. During fiscal year 2003, the

Department had approximately 340 FTEs, of which 290 were bus drivers and

assistants. The Department had expenditures of approximately $13 million for fiscal

year 2003. Services are provided from three separate transportation facilities, with the

central facility located in Sparks.

Bus Routing Could Increase Efficiency

The Transportation Department can increase efficiency in bus routing through

several best practices used in other states and the student transportation industry.

These best practices include the use of computerized routing software and staggered

school start times. We estimate the District could save over $1.3 million from the

increased efficiency associated with better bus routes and the need for fewer buses.

These savings do not include any efficiencies that might be achieved when the Board

reviews the student walk zone policy.

Routing Software

The Department purchased the SMARTR computerized bus routing system over

4 years ago, but still schedules bus routes manually. The SMARTR system cost

$61,000 and requires annual maintenance costs of $9,000. According to Department

officials, the primary reason for purchasing this system was to address zoning, even

though the District accepted the 1997 KPMG audit recommendation to purchase a bus

routing system. Department officials feel that additional staff would be necessary to

implement the bus routing portion of the package. We agree some staff would probably

be required to fully use the SMARTR system. However, we believe the significant

savings the Department could obtain would more than offset these costs.

The 1997 KPMG audit report recommended the purchase of computerized

routing software. At that time, KPMG estimated the District would save between 10%

and 15% over baseline costs or about $600,000 each year. Using this same

methodology, we estimate the District could have saved over $1.1 million in fiscal year

2003 due to the increase in expenditures since the 1997 report. When Clark County

LA04-19

School District implemented a bus routing package, it reported operational savings of

about $3 million for fiscal year 1997.

The increased efficiency associated with better routes will also reduce the

number of buses the District relies on to provide transportation for students. This, in

turn, reduces the need for future bus purchases. For example, Clark County School

District reported for fiscal year 1997 it needed approximately 10% fewer buses upon

implementation of a computerized bus routing system, thereby saving approximately $8

million. Therefore, not only could Washoe County School District save on operating

costs, it could eliminate older buses and reduce its future capital expenditures.

Computerized routing software is designed to help ensure districts select and

implement the most efficient routes. Washoe County School District Board Policy 3545

requires buses to be assigned to routes that accomplish the most efficient use of

available seating capacity. Other districts using computerized routing systems have

reported an increase in productivity and efficiency.

Staggered School Start Times

The District’s current school start times allow most buses to make only two runs

each morning and afternoon. Each morning and afternoon buses pick up or drop off

middle or high school students and then pick up and drop off elementary school

students. Adjusting school start times that allow each bus to maximize the runs made

each morning and afternoon could increase efficiency resulting in the District needing

fewer buses and drivers to meet the student transportation needs. In addition, the

excess buses could be used to replace older buses.

KPMG recommended the District explore further staggering of school start times

after the implementation of a computerized routing program. In addition, other states’

best practices recommend the use of staggered start times to increase efficiency. For

example, the Texas School Performance Review’s 101 Ideas for Cutting Costs and

Maximizing Revenues states districts should stagger start times so each bus and driver

can make multiple routes each morning and evening. Florida’s best practices indicate

districts should adopt staggered school start times to help ensure the district’s buses

can serve as many students as possible, unless the district can demonstrate through

43 LA04-19

financial analysis that staggered school start times would not make student

transportation more cost-efficient.

During fiscal year 2003, the Department estimated it could save approximately

$245,000 through additional school start times. However, the District has not yet

adopted additional start times that would increase the number of runs each bus could

make. In addition, actual savings cannot be determined until revised start times are

processed through the Department’s routing system. Furthermore, other factors can

impact these savings such as increased bus usage.

Review Student Walk Zone Policy

Washoe County School Board Policy 3545 requires the District to provide

transportation to elementary, middle, and high school students living more than 1, 2, or

3 miles, respectively, from their school. Although District officials indicated the Board

has reviewed the walk zones, the policy has not been updated to reflect any reviews

since 1997. Since that time, the Transportation Department prepared a report that

outlined the cost savings associated with increasing walk zones in ½ and 1 mile

increments. The April 2001 report estimated the District could achieve savings between

$490,000 and $620,000 by increasing the distance students must walk. Actual savings

will be affected by other transportation improvements and operations. Exhibit 13

summarizes the Department’s estimated savings that may be attained by increasing the

walk zones.

Exhibit 13

Expansion of Walk Zones

2004

Type of School

Elementary $ 334,915 $ 415,757

Middle School 70,830 99,162

High School 88,020 $ 105,624

Total $ 493,765 $ 620,543

1/2 Mile Increase

Savings

1 Mile Increase

Savings

Source: Washoe County School District Transportation Department.

44 LA04-19

Other states and districts have a variety of student walk zones, ranging from 2

miles for all students to different walk distances depending on grade level, similar to the

District’s. Exhibit 14 summarizes the other states’ and districts’ student walk distances.

Exhibit 14

Student Walk Zones

Other States and Peer Districts

2004

State/District

Elementary

School

(miles)

Middle

School

(miles)

High

School

(miles)

Texas 2 2 2

Florida 2 2 2

Clark County School District 2 2 2

Wichita, Kansas 2.5 2.5 2.5

San Juan, California .75 to 1 2 3

Anne Arundel, Maryland .5 to 1 1.5 1.5

Washoe County 1 2 3

Source: LCB Audit Survey and Washoe County School District.

Increasing walk zones is a sensitive issue and concerns will need to be

addressed with the community and staff if walk zones are extended. Based on our

survey, the majority of 223 district managers, teachers, and school administrators felt

the current walk zones should not be increased. However, it is important the Board

periodically review the policy to ensure it still reflects their intentions.

Bus Replacement Policy Needed

The District has made some efforts in recent years to replace buses in a timely

manner, but further improvements are needed. Older buses cost significantly more to

operate and are less likely to have the latest safety features. Over 60% of the District’s

buses are older than 14 years and have been driven an average of 270,000 miles.

Industry standards vary for bus replacement cycles; however, most generally

recommend replacement of buses every 12 to 15 years. Although industry standards

can be used as a general rule, maintenance and operational data is also needed on

each bus to make cost-effective decisions. However, the Department lacks this key

data to help them make economical decisions on when to replace buses.

45 LA04-19

Age of Bus Fleet

In November 1993, the District started a 5-year rollover-financing plan to replace

buses. Even with the 5-year plan, 62% (180) of the District’s 292 buses are model year

1990 or older. For these buses, the average total mileage per bus is nearly 270,000

miles. Exhibit 15 shows a breakdown of the District’s buses as of March 2004.

Exhibit 15

District Bus Fleet

March 2004

Model Year

1978 26 2 297,784 11,453

1979 25 6 350,960 14,038

1980 24 1 109,158 4,548

(1)

1981 23 27 368,071 16,003

1983 21 5 346,349 16,493

1984 20 5 331,479 16,574

1985 19 5 241,312 12,701

1986 18 8 368,625 20,479

1987 17 10 295,459 17,380

1988 16 26 229,230 14,327

1990 14 85 225,476 16,105

1994 10 9 225,870 22,587

1995 9 10 158,049 17,561

1996 8 15 155,902 19,488

1997 7 26 132,850 18,979

1998 6 1 105,027 17,505

1999 5 14 108,136 21,627

2000 4 16 85,273 21,318

2001 3 16 52,201 17,400

2003 1 5 25,566 25,566

Total Buses 292 211,389 17,411

Age in

Years

Number

of Buses

Average

Total Miles

Average

Annual Miles

Source: Washoe County School District Transportation Department.

(1)

4-Wheel Drive Bus Used Sparingly.

The age of a bus fleet can result in increased maintenance costs. Older buses

cost more to maintain than newer model buses. According to a report from the National

Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, two studies done in

California and Washington identified that after 12 years of use, the annual operating

cost of school buses began to increase significantly and continued to increase each

year thereafter. As such, whenever operating and maintenance costs reach a certain

46 LA04-19

level, it may make better economic sense to purchase a new bus rather than continue to

maintain an older one.

Carpenter Buses

The District faced challenges in fiscal year 2004 because of 71 Carpenter buses

in its fleet. After a school bus accident involving a Carpenter bus in Florida, it was found

that Carpenter buses built between 1986 and 1995 may have significant safety issues.

As a result, the District and Nevada Highway Patrol inspected all of the District’s

Carpenter buses. Several of the buses had significant defects in welds connecting the

roof of the bus to its sides and were immediately removed from service. As of May

2004, the District had removed 27 Carpenter buses as a result of roof inspections.

Exhibit 16 shows a breakdown of the District’s Carpenter buses.

Exhibit 16

Status of Carpenter Buses

May 2004

Status Number

Newest

Model Year

Average

Age

Average

Mileage

Removed for Roof Defects

27 1990 18 Years 322,620

Removed for Other Reasons

(Engine, Accident, Etc.)

10 1990 23 Years 314,221

In Service

34 1987 22 Years 358,288

Overall

71 1990 21 Years 338,518

Source: Washoe County School District Transportation Department.

On average, the Carpenter buses in service are 22 years old and have over

350,000 miles. Of the 34 buses in service, all are more than 15 years old. These buses

either did not have roof defects or were repaired and have been reassigned to lower

speed routes to better insure safety. As a result of this issue, the District, during fiscal

year 2004, made additional appropriations of $200,000 and contingency fund

appropriations of $1.5 million to purchase 34 buses in addition to the 20 buses originally

budgeted. Had the District been following a standard bus replacement plan, a majority

of the Carpenter buses may have already been replaced.

LA04-19

Development of a Replacement Policy

Even though the District generally follows its 5-year rollover financing plan, there

is no evidence this plan has been adopted by the Board as its replacement policy.

Further, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services

believes the timely replacement of buses must be a planned process. Available funding

is likely the single most important consideration in determining when buses are

replaced. However, the policy should also be based on an analysis of total miles

operated, age, and operating and maintenance costs. In addition, the policy should

consider a route rotation plan to accrue mileage evenly and reduce unequal bus wear.

This type of policy provides several benefits, such as older buses or higher

maintenance buses are replaced first. In addition, the policy allows for better budgeting

since smaller numbers of buses are purchased each year. This can help to avoid

situations like the appropriation the District needed in fiscal year 2004. Finally, it

impacts the timeliness of introducing the latest safety, efficiency, and emissions

improvements into the fleet, demonstrating a commitment to maintaining an up-to-date

fleet.

Other states’ best practices recommend that school boards adopt a bus

replacement cycle. Industry standards vary regarding when to replace buses, but

generally recommend a 12 to 15 year replacement cycle. In addition, the KPMG report

completed in 1997 recommended the District adopt a bus replacement cycle. As stated

in the KPMG report, replacement plans are standard practices for bus managers.

These plans allow managers to determine the point when it is more costly to repair a

bus than replace it. By knowing the replacement schedule beforehand, transportation

managers are able to budget accordingly.

Vehicle Operating Information Not Available

The Transportation Department does not have vehicle operating information in a

usable format. Although fuel usage for two of the District’s three transportation facilities

has been entered into the new fleet management system, vehicle maintenance records

have not. This information is in paper files at the various facilities and has not been

compiled. In addition, information prior to August 2003 cannot be loaded to the new

LA04-19

database. As such, the Department is unable to determine and analyze bus operating

costs.

Fleet Management System

In August 2003, the Department purchased a new fleet management system.

The new fleet management system’s capabilities include, but are not limited to, the

following:

• vehicle repair history

• preventive maintenance tracking

• fuel usage

• parts inventory

• work orders

According to Department officials, the new system was purchased because the

previous system was too expensive to maintain and was unreliable. However, in

making the transition, the Department did not get historical information from the old off-

site storage in a readable format. The historical information was provided to the

Department in a language that District information systems cannot read. As such, the

Department is unable to access vehicle operating data prior to August 2003.

New System Not Fully Used

The Department has not used many of the capabilities of the new system during

much of fiscal year 2004. Department officials cited the challenges associated with the

Carpenter buses as the main reason that the system had not been fully implemented.

Examples of system features that had not been fully implemented include the following:

• The Department has not input vehicle maintenance data into the new

system. Consequently, the Department’s only maintenance records are in

paper files, making it time-consuming for tracking maintenance and doing

comparative analyses. This limits the Department’s ability to assess bus

efficiency and impairs its decision-making ability regarding whether to repair

or replace a bus.

• Only two of the three transportation facilities have entered fuel usage

information into the new system. Staff at one of the facilities reported being

told not to use the new system, while staff at another facility was told to

enter fuel information.

• Throughout much of fiscal year 2004, the parts inventories were not tracked

using the fleet management system. As of June 2004, the Department was

LA04-19

working on entering parts information into the system with the hope of

implementation for fiscal year 2005.

Operational data is needed when making decisions, including which bus to use

for particular routes and which bus to replace. The District will be receiving over 50

buses in calendar year 2004. Therefore, operational data such as vehicle repair history

and fuel usage is critical in determining which buses should be replaced. For example,

review of this data may indicate buses that can be operated longer or which should be

replaced sooner.

Tracking operational information offers many benefits. First, it ensures

preventive maintenance is done; second, it helps identify recurring problems; and third,

it tracks total costs per vehicle and employee productivity. A tracking system can also

identify warranty information. However, a tracking system must be used and monitored

to be effective. The last report available showing maintenance and fuel costs per bus

we were able to obtain was for fiscal year 2001. This information shows miles per

gallon (mpg) and miles driven fluctuate widely among buses. For example, fuel use

ranged from 4 mpg to over 33 mpg. We saw no evidence this information was reviewed

to ensure its accuracy. Accurate records on the operating and maintenance costs

provide the data necessary to analyze bus costs and to make informed decisions.

Fuel Usage Controls Could Be Improved

The District’s controls over vehicle fuel at its transportation facilities are not

adequate. The District operates three transportation facilities where District vehicles

can be fueled. According to District officials, during fiscal year 2003 the Department

purchased nearly 700,000 gallons of fuel at a cost of over $750,000. With rising fuel

prices in fiscal year 2004, District officials indicated they purchased over 670,000

gallons at a cost of over $850,000 through May 2004. Without adequate controls, the

District cannot be assured that fuel is being used only as authorized. In addition,

without vehicle operating information as discussed earlier in the report, the District

cannot analyze vehicle fuel consumption to identify variances and fluctuations.

Analyzing operational data has several benefits, including detecting fraud, identifying

poorly running vehicles, and determining vehicles with high operating costs.

LA04-19

At the main transportation facility, a cardlock system requiring a fuel card and

personal identification number (PIN) is required to operate the fuel pumps. However,

the fuel cards are kept in an unlocked desk drawer and the PINs are written on each

card. With the PINs written on the cards, anyone with access to the card can fuel

vehicles.

Although employees need a PIN and the vehicle number to begin pumping fuel,

an override code can be used. Employees reported that the override code is used

primarily when fuel is needed for lawnmowers and other equipment that do not have

vehicle numbers. However, the Department lacks procedures requiring supervisory

approval when the override number is used. We identified over 3,000 gallons of fuel

with the override code in fiscal year 2004. However, we found no evidence the

Department reviewed the use of the override code to ensure the fuel usage was

appropriate.

The other two transportation facilities do not have a cardlock system in place. All

fuel is to be entered into a paper log with vehicle numbers. Individuals at the bus yard

reconcile the fuel pumped and the paper log on a daily basis. We examined several

days’ reconciliations and found no variances. However, the paper logs could be easily

manipulated for the reconciliation.

The Department plans to establish a contract with Western Energetix to provide

fueling services. This contract should go a long way in helping the District control fuel

costs. However, the District still needs an adequate control environment and needs

complete data to monitor vehicle fuel usage activity.

Recommendations

18. Use bus routing software to design the most efficient bus routes.

19. Consider a school start schedule to maximize daily bus runs.

20. Periodically review the walk zone policy to ensure it still meets

the needs of the District.

21. Adopt a bus replacement policy to help ensure buses are

replaced in a timely and economical manner.

LA04-19

22. Implement and fully utilize the fleet management system

including procedures for data input, parts inventory control,

maintenance and fuel control, and data analysis.

23. Establish effective controls over fuel usage.

District Organization

The Washoe County School District is governed by a Board of Trustees. The

Board employs a superintendent to administer the District and carry out Board policy.

The District’s staffing ratios and administrative costs appeared reasonable when

compared to other districts’ averages. In addition, the District has done a good job in

getting more of every dollar spent into the classroom even with the lowest per pupil

expenditure among its peer group. However in governing the District, the Board and

Superintendent could make several improvements to provide better management. For

example, policies and procedures need to be reviewed and updated, and the Board

needs to perform self-evaluations. Further, an audit committee needs to be activated

and the internal audit function needs to be enhanced. These changes would go a long

way in providing better accountability of the District’s operations to the Board and the

public.

Staffing and Administrative Costs Per Pupil Were Reasonable

The District ranks favorably with its peer districts in pupils per teacher.

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) latest information for 2003, the District averaged 15.9 pupils per

teacher. This places the District in the upper half of its peer districts. The District also

compares favorably to Nevada’s pupils per teacher ratio of 19.6. Exhibit 17 shows the

pupils per teacher ratios for 2003.

52 LA04-19

Exhibit 17

Pupils Per Teacher

2003

District

Pupils Per

Teacher

Aldine, Texas 14.9

Washoe Count

, Nevada 15.9

Wichita, Kansas 16.1

Anne Arundel, Maryland 16.6

San Juan, California 20.7

San Bernardino, California 21.2

Nevada 19.6

Source: NCES 2003.

In addition, the District ranks favorably with its peer districts in pupils per

administrator. According to the National Center of Education Statistics latest

information for 2003, the District averages about 343.1 students per administrator. This

places the District in the upper half of its peer districts. Although, the District is a little

below Nevada’s statewide ratio of 358.0, it is still reasonable when compared to its

peers and given the diversity in Nevada between districts. Exhibit 18 shows the pupils

per administrator ratios for 2003.

Exhibit 18

Pupils Per Administrator

2003

District

Pupils Per

Administrator

Aldine, Texas 135.7

Anne Arundel, Maryland 275.0

Wichita, Kansas 322.9

Washoe County, Nevada 343.1

San Juan, California 388.5

San Bernardino, California 497.3

Nevada 358.0

Source: NCES 2003 and auditor calculated.

53 LA04-19

Administrative costs are those associated with managing the District at both the

school and district level. At the school level, administrative costs are primarily

associated with such things as the principal’s office and staff. At the District level,

administrative costs are associated with the personnel, business, and superintendent

functions. Of its peer districts, the District has the second lowest administrative cost per

student at $771. Exhibit 19 shows administrative costs per pupil for 2001.

Exhibit 19

Administrative Cost Per Pupil

2001

District

Administrative

Cost Per Pupil

Aldine, Texas $677

Washoe County, Nevada 771

Wichita, Kansas 798

San Bernardino, California 829

Anne Arundel, Maryland 867

San Juan, California 947

Nevada $912

Source: NCES 2001 and auditor calculated.

Dollars to the Classroom Favorable

Although the District is lowest in per pupil current expenditures among its peer

districts, it has done a good job in getting more of every dollar spent into the classroom.

According to the most recent financial information provided by NCES for 2001, the

District ranks high among its peer districts for the percent of every dollar going into the

classroom. WCSD had 61.3 cents of every dollar going into the classroom, while the

peer districts averaged 60.1 cents. Exhibit 20 shows current expenditure per pupil,

current instructional expenditure per pupil, and the percent of every dollar spent that

goes into the classroom for fiscal year 2001.

54 LA04-19

Exhibit 20

Percent of

Dollars to the Classroom

2001

District

Current

Expenditure Per

Pupil

Current

Instruction

Expenditure

Per Pupil

San Juan, California $7,144 $4,486 62.8 %

Aldine, Texas 6,835 4,268 62.4

Washoe County, Nevada 5,751 3,526 61.3

Anne Arundel, Maryland 7,793 4,654 59.7

Wichita, Kansas 6,533 3,767 57.7

San Bernardino, California 6,699 3,868 57.7

Nevada $5,798 $3,438 59.3 %

Classroom

Dollars %

Source: NCES 2001 and auditor calculated.

Classroom dollars used in our analysis are based on the definition developed by

the NCES and accounted for by the District. Classroom dollars include expenditures

such as teacher salaries, benefits, and supplies. Current expenditures are those costs

used to operate the District. Current expenditures exclude costs for debt repayment,

capital outlays, and other programs outside the K-12 area.

Opportunities for Better Governance

The Board uses the Key Work of School Boards governance style. The Key

Work of School Boards is a framework of eight key action areas intended to support and

guide school boards as they focus their efforts on student achievement. Using this

guidance will enable the Board to provide leadership through governance. Although

Board policy 9720 requires an annual self-evaluation using the Key Work of School

Boards governance, we found no evidence the Board performed these evaluations. In

addition, the National School Boards Association’s publication “A Guide to Effective

School Board Service – Becoming a Better Board Member” states an effective board

has procedures for self-assessment and invests in its own development. It further

states a Board should be evaluated regularly to ensure it continues to exercise effective

leadership.

LA04-19

The policies of the Board define the organization and the manner of conducting

the business of the school district. The Board adopts general policies as guides that

provide authority and responsibility for the Superintendent and administrative staff.

Application of general policies to specific situations is an administrative detail to be

performed by the Superintendent and the administrative staff. Although policies and

procedures have been developed, many date back to 1997 and 1998. District policy

requires the Board to review policies on a 4-year cycle, one-quarter being reviewed

annually. We found the Board reviews policies as presented by staff for amendment,

but found no evidence of a routine policy review as required. According to District staff,

the last complete policy review was done in 1997. Further, as reported in many

sections of this report, the District’s policies and procedures could be improved. Internal

control standards recommend the adoption of comprehensive policies and procedures

to assist employees in knowing their roles and responsibilities.

Operating Oversight Could Be Strengthened

The Audit Committee could be activated and the internal audit function could be

strengthened to help improve oversight of school district operations. An audit

committee is important because it helps improve accountability and the governance

process of the District. Internal audits serve many purposes, including improving the

effectiveness and efficiency of operations and the reliability of financial and operational

information.

Audit Committee Needs to Be Activated

The Audit Committee has not been active, even though recent management

letters issued by the financial auditors recommended the Audit Committee be re-

established. On November 25, 2003, the Board directed the District to resume the Audit

Committee in January 2004. As a result, a draft of the District policies governing

committees was presented to the Board and received preliminary approval on March

16, 2004. As of June 8, 2004, the Committee had three vacancies. At the June 8

regular Board meeting, two community representatives were appointed. However, the

employee representative had not been appointed. As such, the Committee is well along

in being activated, but the District needs to complete the process.

LA04-19

A primary role of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board with its oversight

function for financial reporting and internal controls. One way public officials can

demonstrate accountability over public funds is to establish an adequate control

environment that includes an effective audit committee.

When considering the implementation of the Committee, the District needs to

examine the relationship of its internal audit section to the Audit Committee. To function

effectively, internal auditors must operate in an environment of independence and

objectivity. Generally, this means reporting to top management or the Audit Committee.

The Internal Auditor currently reports directly to the Superintendent. Regardless of the

reporting structure, the Internal Auditor should have access to the Audit Committee.

Scope of Internal Reviews Should Be Broadened

The Internal Auditor spends most of the time auditing the student activity funds.

Although auditing the activity funds is important, the Internal Auditor should expand the

reviews to include district-wide operations. One function of an Internal Auditor is to

advise District management and to appraise District operations. For example, the

auditor should advise on how to streamline or improve operations, while appraising the

organization’s control environment.

The internal audit function at WCSD uses a reasonable risk approach to identify

areas to audit within the Student Activity Fund. Although $13 million is processed

through these accounts annually, other significant operational areas are not considered

in the risk assessment. For example:

• Personnel and payroll costs are about 90% of the District’s budget.

• Transportation Department had total expenditures of about $13.6 million in

fiscal year 2003.

• Facilities Department (including custodial, maintenance, grounds, and

energy) had a final 2003-2004 budget of about $36.8 million.

Further, the Internal Auditor developed a student activity accounting manual and

provided training to assist District staff and administrators at the school sites with

accounting for these funds. These are positive steps in gaining control over the activity

accounts at the individual schools. As such, the Internal Auditor needs to consider

other areas when developing the risk assessment. The Institute of Internal Auditors

LA04-19

recommends the internal audit activity should evaluate risk exposure relating to the

organization’s governance, operations, and information systems regarding the:

• reliability and integrity of financial and operational information

• effectiveness and efficiency of operations

• safeguarding of assets

• compliance with laws, regulations, and contracts

In addition, the Internal Auditor’s job description requires the Auditor to plan and direct

audit activities to provide objective evaluations and recommendations toward improving

the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of operations; and to evaluate the adequacy

of accounting and administrative controls.

Reports Should Be Presented to Board

The District does not have policies and procedures for the distribution of internal

audit reports and to ensure they are appropriately presented. Although the Internal

Auditor provides the Superintendent with completed reports, the Internal Auditor’s job

description requires significant findings be reported to the Audit Committee or the Board

of Trustees. However, audit reports or summary information are not routinely presented

to the Board of Trustees, thus the Board may not be up to date on significant issues

affecting the District. Governmental audit standards state that officials of the audited

entity are responsible for providing appropriate reports to those who oversee their

actions and to the public. This helps ensure accountability for the resources used to

carry out government programs and the results of these programs.

Follow-Up Process Is Needed

The District also does not have a formal follow-up process for internal audit

reports. The District has no policies and procedures directing audit follow-up to help

ensure audit recommendations are implemented. The Internal Auditor writes the

principal’s comments made during the exit conference on a copy of the management

letter. However, this provides little assurance that audit recommendations are

implemented. Internal control standards state that organizations should ensure that

findings of audits and other reviews are promptly resolved.

LA04-19

Organizational Changes

Over the last several years a number of organizational changes have occurred at

the District. According to the Superintendent, these changes were made to more

effectively provide school services and better manage the District. For example, he

stated the last change created district-level administrators more specifically focused

upon student achievement at the school level. This changed the structure from having

area superintendents that were assigned specific schools to having these individuals

responsible for areas, such as elementary education and the Center for Teaching and

Learning, secondary education, and operations. According to an analysis completed by

the District, this change should result in savings of $186,000 during fiscal year 2004.

We agree an organization needs to change as circumstances require, but as

stated by one survey respondent, change can also give the impression of progress

when the opposite is the case. We surveyed District employees regarding the recent

organizational changes. The majority of District management and school administrators

in our survey feel the changes have made the District more efficient and effective.

However, only 22% of teachers and support staff feel the District accomplished this

goal. Further, over 25% of survey participants were undecided. These mixed

percentages may indicate the changes and the goals were not clearly communicated to

all staff.

Recommendations

24. Perform self-evaluations as required by Board policy.

25. Review and update policy and procedures as required.

26. Complete activating the Audit Committee.

27. Expand internal audits to include other areas and develop

policies and procedures to include a reporting and follow-up

structure relating to internal audit reports.

28. Continue periodically evaluating the District’s organizational

structure, ensuring the change and the goal are clearly

communicated to the Board and District employees.

LA04-19

Employee Health Plans

Health coverage represents a considerable cost to the District. As such,

oversight by the District is necessary to ensure its fiduciary responsibility to its

employees and taxpayers. WCSD has a self-funded health plan that is available to

support staff, teachers, and administrators. Employees can choose between a Health

Maintenance Plan and a Preferred Provider Plan. During fiscal year 2003, the District

made monthly contributions of between $370 and $440 per eligible employee,

depending on the employee’s collective bargaining group. The Health Insurance Fund

revenues were about $38.9 million in fiscal year 2003.

Health Plans Have Reasonable Oversight

The processes used by District staff and others are reasonable to provide good

oversight of the health plans. Oversight of the health plan lies with the District’s risk

manager and accounting staff. District staff perform reconciliations with District records

and the information provided by the Third Party Administrators (TPA) to ensure only

eligible employees receive benefits. Staff also review the monthly TPA billings.

Recently, the District identified a potential concern with the premiums paid from

employees that move to a position with a different work year. For example, employees

can work 9, 10, 11, or 12-month work years. However, when employees change their

work year, this also changes the premiums paid per pay period, that could result in an

over or underpayment of contributions. The District has contracted with an independent

auditor to examine this area.

The District has also established an Insurance Committee comprised of District

and labor union representatives. The Committee meets monthly and reviews various

reports provided by the District and its consultant. In addition to the District’s oversight,

an independent consultant monitors utilization and cost information producing a monthly

Health Plan Cost report. The District also uses two TPAs to process and control the

benefit claims and expenditures. An independent company periodically performs claims

audits on these TPA’s.

Rising health care costs are a concern to school districts in Nevada. These

unexpected costs have impacted the District’s health plans requiring plan managers to

make several benefit modifications, such as increasing co-payments and limiting

LA04-19

coverage. In addition, the Legislature, during the 2001 session, made a supplemental

appropriation of $13 million to the Interim Finance Committee. This appropriation was

to assist school districts with unexpected health care costs during the 2001-2003

biennium. WCSD requested over $3.9 million and was allocated $2.4 million. Our

review found the District used the $2.4 million in accordance with the law’s

requirements. The District also made an appropriation to the Health Insurance Fund

from the District’s General Fund in fiscal year 2004. As such, the District money, plan

modifications, continued oversight, and the money appropriated by the Legislature

should go a long way in maintaining the financial status of employee health care plans.

Recommendation

29. Continue to monitor employee health plans making changes

as required.

LA04-19

Appendices

Appendix A

Audit Methodology

To gain an understanding of current issues school districts are facing, we

reviewed audit reports and educational studies from other states, the U.S. General

Accounting Office, and national education organizations. Additionally, we reviewed the

Clark and Washoe County School Districts Performance Audit Preliminary Survey

Report prepared by our office in 2002. We also visited the school performance review

offices of Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability

(OPPAGA) and Texas School Performance Review (TSPR). In addition, we reviewed

applicable NRS and NAC, minutes of Legislative committees and subcommittees, and

appropriation and authorization acts and reports. We then reviewed budgets, statistical

data, and the audit reports of internal and external auditors. We interviewed

management and program personnel, Nevada Department of Education staff, and staff

of the Fiscal Analysis and Research Divisions of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Finally, we performed a risk analysis considering sensitivity, significance, report users,

district programs, operations, processes, management controls, and compliance with

laws and regulations.

To obtain views on school district operations, we surveyed administrators,

principals, teachers, and support staff. We developed the survey questionnaire based

on information obtained from OPPAGA, TSPR, and our observations. The surveys

were web-based, although respondents were able to obtain and complete a paper

questionnaire upon request. Survey participants were selected from District employee

listings resulting in a sample of 1,504 District employees. See Appendix B for survey

results. We also requested the District identify five peer districts. The District selected

San Juan Unified School District, California; Anne Arundel County Public Schools,

Maryland; San Bernardino City Unified School District, California; Aldine Independent

School District, Texas; and Wichita School District, Kansas as its peer districts. We

then surveyed these districts to obtain data that can be compared to WCSD information.

LA04-19

Financial Management

To determine if controls are sufficient to provide accountability for financial

resources, we examined the propriety of the District’s use of the special appropriations

available from the State for textbooks, utilities, at-risk programs, and educational

technology. We then met with the Nevada Department of Education and District

managers regarding the District’s federal grant program. As such, we determined the

various grants available to the District, analyzed the federal grant dollars awarded,

spent, and reverted, and documented controls over grant expenditures.

Further, we examined the District’s Internal Audit function, including development

of audit plans, scope of reviews, reporting structure, distribution of reports, and audit

follow-up. After that, we analyzed how the District determined the costs for the food

service program. We also reviewed food service reports for fiscal year 2003 and

analyzed the District’s process for maximizing participation in the federal school

breakfast and lunch programs. Then, we assessed the District’s efforts to obtain

Medicaid reimbursement for school-based medical services provided to special needs

students. Finally, we reviewed the District’s investment and debt management policies.

Facilities Management

To determine if construction, maintenance, and facility usage programs are

properly planned and controlled, we documented and evaluated the processes for cost

estimation, use of prototype designs, project management, prioritizing maintenance,

and evaluating facility condition. In addition, we documented relevant cooperative

agreements with other entities. We then reviewed job descriptions and district staffing

analyses, computed staffing ratios, and compared staffing levels to peer districts and

national and other standards. Additionally, we obtained and reviewed District analyses

for the privatizing of maintenance, and custodial functions.

Furthermore, we evaluated the planning and control process over the

construction program, documented the accountability mechanisms for the construction

program, and reviewed the District’s site selection process for new schools. Then, we

analyzed the District’s facility master plan, bonding authority, and use of bond funds.

In addition, we reviewed the District’s use of computer resources to prioritize and

track maintenance projects and staff productivity. We also examined the preventive

LA04-19

maintenance program and the district’s equipment warranties. Finally, we analyzed the

District’s energy conservation plan and reviewed the energy retro-fitting program,

including controls over the procurement process for energy conservation projects.

Personnel Management

To determine if recruitment and retention efforts are adequate to ensure a

qualified staff, we reviewed recent management studies and audits and determined

what steps the Human Resources Division has taken, is taking, or plans to take to

address each report’s recommendations. Since the Division has begun a process of

evaluating its internal process using ISO 9001 standards, we determined the Division’s

progress and discussed plans for the future. We also evaluated the adequacy of their

record-keeping system and examined the District’s position control system, including

employee classification and tracking.

Next, we interviewed key personnel to identify formal and informal recruiting

activities, assessed the effectiveness of their efforts, and identified successful

recruitment strategies used by the peer districts. We then compared staff patterns to

allocation formulas, and reviewed employee turnover. After that, we assessed the

District’s professional development programs documenting how the programs are

developed and operated. We also determined if there is overlapping of the WCSD’s

professional development classes and those offered by the state-sponsored Regional

Professional Development Program. We then determined how the District is preparing

teachers to meet the “highly qualified” requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Transportation

To determine if student transportation programs are adequately planned to

ensure the safe and efficient transportation of students, we documented the

Transportation Department’s organizational structure and reviewed the Department’s

policies and procedures for providing services to the District. We then documented

District procedures for receiving federal funding for the transportation of special

education students, analyzed historical data on the receipt of federal and state funding,

and determined if the District maximized federal reimbursements.

Furthermore, we reviewed the process used to determine maintenance and

operating cost per vehicle mile, reviewed the length of time for repairs, and the

LA04-19

methodology used for determining when to complete major repairs. Then, we reviewed

the use of staggered school start times, and the District’s bus routing system. We also

reviewed the District’s replacement cycle and how the District purchases new buses.

District Organization

To determine if the organizational structure enhances the effectiveness and

efficiency of Board governance and District management, we reviewed District policies

and procedures for Board governance and District organization. We also identified the

Board’s and Superintendent’s roles and responsibilities, reviewed the Board and

Superintendent evaluation processes, and analyzed the responsiveness of the

Superintendent and District staff to the Board. Then, we identified Board committees

and functions and compared them to District policies, best practices, and peer school

districts. Further, we reviewed the strategic plan of the District and associated District

goals, objectives, strategies, and performance measures.

Next, we developed an analysis of instructional, administrative and support staff

and compared this analysis to national and peer sources. We then developed cost per

pupil and staffing per pupil for administrators, teachers, and support staff and compared

this information to national and peer sources. Additionally, we developed the percent of

each dollar spent that goes to the classroom and compared this data to national and

peer sources. Finally, we evaluated the process for and impact of the recent

reorganizations.

Employee Health Plans

To determine if the health plans are appropriately managed, we reviewed health

plan documentation for plan years 1999 through 2003 and evaluated them for

contribution rates and benefit changes. We then discussed with management the

District’s efforts to mitigate health care costs and assessed the District’s oversight and

monitoring responsibilities. Next, we reviewed the processes for establishing new hires

in the plan, changing employee plan elections, and reconciling human resource records

with payroll deduction and plan payments. We also met with personnel from the

Nevada Insurance Division and contacted federal regulatory agencies to obtain an

understanding of their oversight responsibilities. Additionally, we reviewed claims audits

of the District’s third-party administrators. Finally, we reviewed the distribution of dollars

LA04-19

appropriated for unexpected health care costs (SB 587) and assessed the

appropriateness of the monies spent.

Our work was conducted from August 2003 to May 2004 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

In accordance with NRS 218.821, we furnished a copy of our preliminary report

to officials of the Washoe County School District. On August 18, 2004, we met with

District officials to discuss the results of the audit and requested a written response to

the preliminary report. That response is contained in Appendix D, which begins on

page 89.

Contributors to this report include:

Shawn Heusser Stephany Gibbs, CPA

Deputy Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditor

James R. Gray, CPA Ian Allan

Deputy Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditor

Gary Kulikowski, CPA David Steele, CPA

Deputy Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditor

Eric Wormhoudt Stephen M. Wood, CPA

Deputy Legislative Auditor Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor

Timothy Brown, CPA

Audit Supervisor

LA04-19

Appendix B

Washoe County School District Personnel Survey

To collect information about the operations of the Washoe County School

District, we sent questionnaires to school district personnel. We asked questions about

financial management, facilities management, transportation, personnel, organization,

and the employee health plan. Survey questions were discussed with WCSD

management prior to the survey being sent out.

Questionnaires were sent to personnel from the following five categories:

• District Management – includes Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents,

Financial Managers, and all other management level school district

employees

• District Support – Includes all other District employees

• School Teachers

• School Administration – includes only school Principals, Assistant Principals,

or Deans

• School Support – includes all other school employees including counselors,

custodial staff, etc.

Questionnaires were sent to all District Management and School Administration

personnel. A sample of personnel from the other three categories was randomly

selected. A total of 1,504 questionnaires were sent. The following three tables

summarize general information about the respondents, including the type of facility

worked at, and years of employment.

Table 1

What type of facility

do you work at?

Elementary

School

Middle

School

High

School

District

Office

Facilities

Transportation

Other

38% 11% 17% 20% 4% 3% 7%

Table 2

How long have you been

employed by WCSD?

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

> 20 years

25% 22% 21% 13% 19%

LA04-19

Table 3

How long have you been in

your current position?

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

> 20 years

58% 22% 10% 5% 5%

A summary is included in this appendix starting on the next page, and is based

on 422 responses. Not all persons responded to each question, therefore, the number

of responses to each question is shown as “n”. Percentage totals will not always agree

to 100% due to rounding.

LA04-19

District Organization and Management

1. School Board members understand their role as policymakers. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

44% 13% 31% 8% 0%

School Administrators 5% 75% 4% 11% 5% 0%

Overall 5% 61% 8% 20% 7% 0%

2. School Board members are knowledgeable of the operations in the School District. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

40% 6% 38% 17% 0%

School Administrators 4% 54% 7% 25% 11% 0%

Overall 2% 47% 7% 31% 13% 0%

3. The School Board leaves the day-to-day management of the District to the superintendent and

staff. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

31% 6% 33% 23% 0%

School Administrators 13% 63% 0% 20% 5% 0%

Overall 10% 48% 3% 26% 13% 0%

4. Administrative practices in the Washoe County School District are effective and efficient.

(n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

58% 8% 21% 6% 0%

District Support 0% 39% 10% 41% 10% 0%

School Teachers 2% 39% 10% 33% 16% 0%

School Administrators 2% 66% 5% 25% 2% 0%

School Support 4% 47% 9% 28% 9% 3%

Overall 3% 47% 9% 30% 10% 1%

LA04-19

5. The Board operates effectively and efficiently under its governing structure. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

31% 15% 44% 10% 0%

School Administrators 4% 66% 4% 23% 4% 0%

Overall 2% 50% 9% 33% 7% 0%

6. The District’s administrators are easily accessible and open to input. (n = 374)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Support 4%

43% 10% 32% 10% 0%

School Teachers 3% 39% 11% 31% 16% 1%

School Administrators 9% 75% 2% 11% 4% 0%

School Support 6% 49% 12% 24% 7% 2%

Overall 5% 49% 10% 26% 10% 1%

7. Administrators and others have adequate opportunity for input to the Board. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 2%

65% 6% 21% 6% 0%

School Administrators 5% 54% 11% 23% 7% 0%

Overall 4% 59% 9% 22% 7% 0%

8. Recent organizational changes have resulted in better support to my area. (n = 353)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 13%

46% 6% 21% 8% 6%

School Teachers 0% 18% 23% 36% 18% 5%

School Administrators 23% 45% 9% 16% 5% 2%

School Support 5% 25% 22% 32% 9% 6%

Overall 7% 29% 18% 29% 11% 5%

9. Recent organizational changes have resulted in better access to the District by parents and

the community. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 13%

50% 15% 13% 0% 10%

School Teachers 1% 26% 38% 26% 6% 3%

School Administrators 14% 39% 30% 11% 2% 4%

Overall 7% 35% 31% 19% 4% 5%

LA04-19

10. District operations are more efficient and effective since the recent organizational changes.

(n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 17%

35% 19% 21% 6% 2%

District Support 4% 22% 23% 36% 14% 0%

School Teachers 0% 17% 28% 33% 18% 4%

School Administrators 9% 50% 20% 18% 4% 0%

School Support 4% 21% 30% 28% 11% 6%

Overall 5% 25% 26% 29% 12% 3%

11. Employee feedback regarding work and policy issues is encouraged. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 8%

48% 6% 25% 13% 0%

District Support 6% 32% 6% 35% 22% 0%

School Teachers 3% 37% 13% 22% 25% 0%

School Administrators 2% 57% 4% 30% 7% 0%

School Support 8% 40% 8% 28% 14% 2%

Overall 5% 41% 8% 27% 17% 0%

12. I feel valued as a member of the District. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 15%

54% 4% 15% 10% 2%

District Support 7% 38% 3% 28% 25% 0%

School Teachers 2% 34% 11% 27% 26% 0%

School Administrators 11% 55% 4% 20% 11% 0%

School Support 8% 38% 10% 28% 15% 2%

Overall 7% 41% 8% 25% 19% 1%

13. I understand the mission of the District. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 40%

54% 0% 6% 0% 0%

District Support 14% 65% 9% 10% 1% 0%

School Teachers 14% 60% 8% 15% 3% 0%

School Administrators 32% 64% 0% 4% 0% 0%

School Support 12% 73% 7% 7% 2% 0%

Overall 19% 65% 6% 9% 2% 0%

LA04-19

14. District administrators are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 19%

63% 2% 15% 2% 0%

District Support 4% 42% 10% 32% 12% 0%

School Teachers 3% 39% 19% 25% 13% 1%

School Administrators 23% 59% 5% 9% 4% 0%

School Support 5% 48% 17% 22% 6% 2%

Overall 8% 48% 13% 22% 8% 1%

15. The number of administrators in the District is: (n = 422)

Too

High

Just

Right

Undecided

Too

Low

District Management 17%

31% 15% 38%

District Support 45% 32% 19% 4%

School Teachers 55% 16% 25% 4%

School Administrators 14% 43% 11% 32%

School Support 48% 22% 24% 5%

Overall 41% 26% 21% 12%

LA04-19

Personnel

16. The District successfully predicts future staffing needs. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

42% 4% 40% 4% 4%

School Administrators 2% 55% 2% 39% 2% 0%

Overall 4% 49% 3% 39% 3% 2%

17. The District has an effective employee recruitment program. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

44% 8% 35% 4% 4%

District Support 0% 36% 13% 41% 6% 4%

School Teachers 0% 34% 19% 34% 8% 4%

School Administrators 2% 54% 9% 36% 0% 0%

School Support 2% 33% 25% 25% 8% 7%

Overall 1% 38% 17% 33% 6% 5%

18. Teachers are knowledgeable in the subject areas they teach. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 10%

71% 6% 2% 0% 10%

School Teachers 24% 64% 5% 6% 1% 0%

School Administrators 25% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Overall 22% 68% 4% 4% 0% 2%

19. The Center for Teaching and Learning offers classes that improve my job skills. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

27% 10% 15% 4% 38%

School Teachers 13% 49% 14% 12% 8% 4%

School Administrators 32% 50% 4% 4% 4% 7%

Overall 17% 44% 11% 10% 6% 12%

LA04-19

20. The Regional Professional Development Program offers classes that improve my skills.

(n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 10%

35% 8% 13% 4% 29%

School Teachers 13% 50% 12% 13% 8% 5%

School Administrators 34% 45% 5% 11% 2% 4%

Overall 18% 45% 9% 12% 5% 10%

21. The Center for Teaching and Learning and the Regional Professional Development Program

work together to improve my job skills. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

21% 17% 23% 6% 29%

School Teachers 9% 42% 25% 13% 6% 4%

School Administrators 27% 38% 20% 13% 0% 4%

Overall 13% 36% 22% 15% 4% 9%

22. The employee orientation program informed me of District opportunities and expectations.

(n = 119)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

School Teachers 4% 39% 8% 22% 7% 21%

23. The orientation program was helpful in getting me started in the District. (n = 119)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

School Teachers 3%

38% 4% 24% 9% 22%

24. Hiring practices minimize the time to fill positions. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

35% 2% 40% 15% 4%

District Support 1% 35% 13% 36% 12% 3%

School Teachers 3% 24% 25% 25% 16% 8%

School Administrators 4% 38% 13% 36% 11% 0%

School Support 3% 31% 19% 34% 6% 7%

Overall 3% 31% 17% 33% 11% 5%

LA04-19

25. The signing bonus is a helpful tool in recruiting teachers. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 8%

50% 10% 8% 2% 21%

School Teachers 17% 39% 16% 8% 9% 10%

School Administrators 4% 30% 18% 39% 7% 2%

Overall 12% 39% 15% 16% 7% 10%

26. The District’s health insurance package meets my needs. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

31% 2% 38% 17% 6%

District Support 1% 22% 3% 36% 38% 0%

School Teachers 3% 33% 3% 29% 29% 3%

School Administrators 5% 38% 0% 32% 25% 0%

School Support 4% 37% 9% 28% 18% 4%

Overall 4% 33% 5% 31% 25% 3%

27. Health insurance claims are paid timely. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 8%

44% 6% 15% 21% 6%

District Support 4% 52% 9% 26% 9% 0%

School Teachers 3% 49% 10% 22% 9% 8%

School Administrators 4% 55% 9% 13% 14% 5%

School Support 5% 48% 12% 18% 6% 11%

Overall 4% 50% 10% 19% 10% 7%

28. Current class sizes provide an appropriate teaching environment. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

29% 6% 38% 6% 15%

School Teachers 3% 22% 2% 33% 40% 1%

School Administrators 2% 41% 2% 36% 20% 0%

Overall 3% 28% 3% 35% 28% 4%

LA04-19

29. Retirement incentives are effective in filling positions at schools designated as needing

improvement. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

27% 19% 31% 6% 17%

School Teachers 2% 26% 35% 17% 16% 4%

School Administrators 5% 14% 27% 29% 16% 9%

Overall 2% 23% 30% 23% 14% 8%

30. Retirement incentives will be effective in recruiting teachers for difficult-to-fill positions, i.e.

special education, math, etc. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

35% 15% 21% 6% 19%

School Teachers 3% 34% 29% 15% 16% 3%

School Administrators 9% 27% 30% 18% 13% 4%

Overall 5% 32% 26% 17% 13% 6%

31. Human Resources staff are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 13%

63% 2% 17% 4% 2%

District Support 14% 58% 1% 22% 4% 0%

School Teachers 16% 61% 8% 8% 4% 3%

School Administrators 45% 45% 0% 7% 4% 0%

School Support 22% 58% 7% 8% 4% 1%

Overall 21% 58% 5% 11% 4% 1%

LA04-19

Facilities Management

32. The facility construction program is effective in meeting the District’s needs. (n = 292)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

38% 10% 33% 13% 0%

District Support 0% 33% 23% 28% 10% 6%

School Teachers 2% 23% 24% 33% 16% 3%

School Administrators 2% 39% 9% 38% 13% 0%

Overall 2% 31% 18% 33% 13% 3%

33. Buildings are clean. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 8%

69% 8% 10% 4% 0%

District Support 1% 55% 7% 29% 7% 0%

School Teachers 8% 64% 3% 17% 8% 0%

School Administrators 9% 75% 0% 13% 4% 0%

School Support 12% 62% 2% 18% 5% 1%

Overall 9% 64% 4% 18% 6% 0%

34. Buildings are properly maintained. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

48% 4% 42% 2% 0%

District Support 0% 51% 6% 30% 13% 0%

School Teachers 5% 50% 3% 29% 13% 0%

School Administrators 4% 59% 2% 27% 9% 0%

School Support 9% 48% 5% 31% 6% 1%

Overall 5% 50% 4% 31% 9% 0%

35. Buildings are maintained in a timely manner. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 2%

44% 4% 46% 4% 0%

District Support 3% 35% 10% 42% 10% 0%

School Teachers 5% 40% 8% 32% 15% 0%

School Administrators 5% 41% 4% 43% 7% 0%

School Support 7% 46% 5% 33% 7% 2%

Overall 5% 42% 6% 37% 9% 0%

LA04-19

36. Emergency maintenance is handled promptly. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 13%

69% 10% 6% 0% 2%

District Support 7% 64% 12% 10% 6% 1%

School Teachers 7% 59% 11% 8% 8% 8%

School Administrators 16% 68% 2% 9% 2% 4%

School Support 15% 64% 8% 6% 4% 3%

Overall 11% 64% 9% 8% 5% 4%

37. The quality of new construction is excellent. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 15%

58% 13% 6% 6% 2%

District Support 3% 38% 26% 22% 4% 7%

School Teachers 7% 43% 24% 15% 3% 8%

School Administrators 13% 45% 18% 14% 4% 7%

School Support 6% 40% 15% 18% 7% 15%

Overall 8% 43% 19% 16% 5% 9%

38. The District’s portable buildings are in good condition. (n = 175)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

School Teachers 3%

18% 26% 19% 8% 25%

School Administrators 0% 14% 13% 20% 11% 43%

Overall 2% 17% 22% 19% 9% 31%

39. The District informs employees of its energy conservation plan and their role in cost savings.

(n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 8%

31% 13% 40% 8% 0%

District Support 1% 35% 14% 41% 4% 4%

School Teachers 1% 36% 9% 37% 14% 3%

School Administrators 0% 59% 5% 30% 4% 2%

School Support 3% 39% 14% 32% 10% 2%

Overall 2% 39% 11% 36% 9% 2%

LA04-19

40. The District has an effective energy conservation program. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 10%

31% 27% 27% 4% 0%

District Support 0% 23% 29% 41% 4% 3%

School Teachers 1% 18% 34% 30% 14% 3%

School Administrators 0% 32% 30% 32% 2% 4%

School Support 1% 24% 38% 24% 8% 5%

Overall 2% 24% 33% 30% 8% 3%

41. District equipment is properly maintained. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

52% 17% 17% 13% 2%

District Support 1% 45% 14% 28% 7% 4%

School Teachers 1% 49% 13% 18% 14% 4%

School Administrators 2% 70% 5% 20% 2% 2%

School Support 3% 47% 13% 23% 10% 4%

Overall 2% 51% 13% 21% 10% 4%

42. The District’s alarm/surveillance systems are properly maintained. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 2%

44% 17% 21% 10% 6%

District Support 1% 33% 19% 30% 7% 9%

School Teachers 5% 45% 24% 8% 6% 11%

School Administrators 9% 48% 2% 23% 14% 4%

School Support 6% 39% 28% 10% 6% 10%

Overall 5% 42% 21% 16% 8% 9%

43. Facilities staff are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 29%

52% 13% 4% 2% 0%

District Support 7% 68% 13% 7% 3% 1%

School Teachers 13% 58% 15% 5% 3% 6%

School Administrators 16% 73% 2% 7% 0% 2%

School Support 11% 75% 5% 5% 2% 3%

Overall 14% 66% 10% 5% 2% 3%

LA04-19

Financial Management

44. Principals are well trained in fiscal management techniques. (n = 353)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

29% 17% 40% 4% 10%

School Teachers 8% 50% 23% 9% 6% 3%

School Administrators 9% 48% 4% 39% 0% 0%

School Support 10% 44% 20% 13% 3% 10%

Overall 8% 45% 18% 20% 4% 6%

45. Purchasing processes are easy to use. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

48% 4% 27% 10% 6%

District Support 3% 32% 13% 35% 7% 10%

School Teachers 4% 45% 16% 20% 11% 4%

School Administrators 5% 52% 4% 36% 4% 0%

School Support 5% 42% 11% 22% 7% 13%

Overall 4% 43% 11% 26% 8% 8%

46. District funding is allocated to the schools in an equitable manner. (n = 104)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 2%

60% 10% 13% 6% 8%

School Administrators 4% 64% 5% 23% 4% 0%

Overall 3% 63% 8% 18% 5% 4%

47. The financial system of the District is efficient and easily used. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 6%

33% 10% 33% 13% 4%

District Support 1% 22% 16% 38% 12% 12%

School Teachers 1% 24% 27% 26% 16% 6%

School Administrators 4% 45% 9% 36% 7% 0%

School Support 2% 22% 31% 27% 8% 12%

Overall 2% 27% 22% 30% 11% 8%

LA04-19

48. The additional funding provided for textbooks has benefited the District; my class; or my

school. (n = 223)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 21%

35% 17% 8% 2% 17%

School Teachers 11% 36% 8% 16% 17% 13%

School Administrators 66% 27% 2% 5% 0% 0%

Overall 27% 34% 8% 12% 9% 10%

49. Financial and accounting staff are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. (n = 422)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 29%

46% 2% 15% 4% 4%

District Support 10% 54% 13% 16% 3% 4%

School Teachers 3% 39% 30% 7% 4% 18%

School Administrators 34% 48% 5% 9% 2% 2%

School Support 7% 48% 25% 8% 2% 11%

Overall 12% 46% 19% 10% 3% 10%

LA04-19

Transportation

50. Adding or modifying a route for a student is easy to accomplish. (n = 222)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 0%

19% 27% 21% 4% 29%

School Teachers 4% 14% 31% 14% 8% 29%

School Administrators 0% 43% 7% 29% 11% 11%

Overall 2% 23% 24% 19% 8% 24%

51. The District has a simple method to request buses for special events. (n = 173)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

School Teachers 5%

61% 12% 7% 7% 9%

School Administrators 11% 82% 4% 2% 2% 0%

Overall 7% 68% 9% 5% 5% 6%

52. Buses arrive and leave on time. (n = 173)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

School Teachers 9%

58% 6% 15% 4% 8%

School Administrators 5% 64% 4% 18% 9% 0%

Overall 8% 60% 5% 16% 6% 5%

53. Allowing high school students to use Citifare as an alternative to the District’s buses would

benefit the District. (n = 222)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 17%

31% 19% 15% 4% 15%

School Teachers 19% 43% 25% 1% 3% 8%

School Administrators 18% 27% 23% 4% 2% 27%

Overall 18% 36% 23% 5% 3% 14%

54. Concerns over high school students using Citifare can be overcome. (n = 222)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 10%

44% 19% 8% 6% 13%

School Teachers 18% 47% 22% 3% 2% 9%

School Administrators 16% 29% 23% 0% 2% 30%

Overall 16% 41% 22% 3% 3% 15%

LA04-19

55. Contracting with a private company, other than Citifare, to provide student transportation

would benefit the District. (n = 222)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 4%

19% 25% 21% 21% 10%

School Teachers 4% 19% 42% 19% 9% 6%

School Administrators 14% 23% 34% 7% 7% 14%

Overall 7% 20% 36% 16% 11% 9%

56. Transportation staff are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. (n = 421)

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

District Management 23%

56% 2% 10% 4% 4%

District Support 6% 58% 13% 9% 0% 14%

School Teachers 10% 47% 18% 13% 4% 8%

School Administrators 16% 66% 4% 9% 5% 0%

School Support 8% 58% 14% 8% 3% 8%

Overall 11% 56% 12% 10% 3% 8%

LA04-19

Student Walk Zones

57. Elementary School walk distance should: (n = 223)

Be Increased Stay the Same Undecided Be Decreased

District Management 8%

65% 15% 13%

School Teachers 9% 60% 8% 24%

School Administrators 4% 79% 5% 13%

Overall 8% 65% 9% 18%

58. Middle School walk distances should: (n = 223)

Be Increased Stay the Same Undecided Be Decreased

District Management 15%

58% 15% 13%

School Teachers 19% 50% 13% 18%

School Administrators 11% 61% 18% 11%

Overall 16% 55% 14% 15%

59. High School walk distance should: (n = 223)

Be Increased Stay the Same Undecided Be Decreased

District Management 17%

54% 15% 15%

School Teachers 22% 50% 13% 16%

School Administrators 14% 55% 21% 9%

Overall 19% 52% 15% 14%

LA04-19

General

60. District Information Systems Support: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 10%

40% 4% 21% 25%

District Support 13% 23% 4% 33% 26%

School Teachers 5% 36% 16% 20% 23%

School Administrators 13% 39% 2% 27% 20%

School Support 22% 42% 3% 18% 15%

Overall 13% 36% 7% 23% 21%

61. District Purchasing Operations Support: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 10%

56% 2% 19% 13%

District Support 9% 29% 19% 26% 17%

School Teachers 3% 38% 33% 13% 14%

School Administrators 9% 59% 2% 18% 13%

School Support 9% 46% 21% 14% 10%

Overall 7% 44% 19% 17% 13%

62. District Building Maintenance Support: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 6%

31% 2% 40% 21%

District Support 6% 22% 7% 38% 28%

School Teachers 7% 36% 9% 23% 25%

School Administrators 11% 41% 2% 21% 25%

School Support 14% 43% 4% 19% 20%

Overall 9% 36% 5% 26% 23%

63. District Facilities Planning operations: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 4%

40% 6% 33% 17%

District Support 3% 30% 23% 14% 29%

School Teachers 3% 29% 23% 22% 24%

School Administrators 7% 46% 4% 29% 14%

School Support 4% 32% 23% 19% 22%

Overall 4% 34% 18% 22% 22%

LA04-19

64. District Student Transportation operations: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 8%

50% 4% 21% 17%

District Support 4% 26% 30% 17% 22%

School Teachers 5% 43% 13% 25% 14%

School Administrators 2% 64% 0% 20% 14%

School Support 9% 45% 11% 22% 12%

Overall 6% 45% 12% 22% 15%

65. District Custodial Service support: (n = 422)

Outstanding Adequate

Opinion

Needs Minor

Improvement

Needs

Improvement

District Management 13%

42% 2% 23% 21%

District Support 9% 28% 10% 29% 25%

School Teachers 12% 42% 6% 19% 21%

School Administrators 11% 46% 0% 27% 16%

School Support 19% 46% 3% 18% 14%

Overall 14% 41% 5% 22% 19%

LA04-19

Appendix C

Survey of Exiting Teachers

The Washoe County School District worked with the Consortium for Policy

Research in Education at the University of Wisconsin to conduct a study on teacher

satisfaction and turnover in the District. A survey was sent to all 130 teachers who

exited the District during or after the 2002-03 school year. The following three tables

summarize the data from the 67 surveys that were returned. Table 1 summarizes the

reasons cited by teachers for leaving the District.

Table 1

Washoe County School District

Teachers’ Reasons for Leaving

2002-2003 School Year

Reason % of Teachers

Retirement

53.7

Family reasons 28.4

Health reasons 25.4

To teach in a new district 16.4

To follow a spouse 11.9

To work in a job outside of education 10.5

To attend college or university 4.5

Sabbatical 3.0

To take a non-teaching job in education 3.0

Other 22.4

Source: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,

University of Wisconsin.

Note: Percentages total more than 100% since teachers cited multiple

reasons for leaving.

Teachers exiting the District were also asked to rate their satisfaction in 18

aspects of their job. Table 2 summarizes the percent of teachers leaving the District

that were dissatisfied in each of the areas.

LA04-19

Table 2

Washoe County School District

Exiting Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

2002-2003 School Year

Job Aspect % Dissatisfied

Time to prepare lessons

52.2

Intrusions on teaching time 50.0

Community support for schools 44.8

Resources and materials 43.9

Influence over school policies and practices 43.3

Class size 42.4

Salary 41.8

Recognition and support from administration 30.3

Student discipline 28.4

Student motivation 25.8

Working conditions 25.0

Opportunities for advancement 23.9

Teacher evaluation process 20.9

Support from colleagues 13.6

Teacher evaluation feedback and coaching 12.1

Control over classroom 9.4

Safety 9.0

Teacher evaluation result 3.0

Source: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,

University of Wisconsin.

Note: Percentages total more than 100% since teachers cited multiple

reasons for job dissatisfaction.

Table 3 summarizes the years of experience for teachers leaving the District.

LA04-19

Table 3

Washoe County School District

Years of Experience of Exiting Teachers

2002-2003 School Year

Years % of Teachers

1 – 3

16.7

4 – 10 19.7

11 – 19 9.1

20 – 24 6.0

25+– 48.5

Source: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,

University of Wisconsin.

89 LA04-19

Appendix D

Response From Washoe County School District

90 LA04-19

91 LA04-19

92 LA04-19

93 LA04-19

94 LA04-19

95 LA04-19

96 LA04-19

97 LA04-19

98 LA04-19

99 LA04-19

100 LA04-19

101 LA04-19

102

LA04-19

Washoe County School District

Response to Audit Recommendations

Recommendation

Number

Accepted Rejected

Financial Management

1 Develop procedures and increase fiscal management

oversight over the process for obtaining

reimbursement from the Medicaid Program for

school-based health services....................................... X

2 Adopt a policy to establish the fee charged for reduced-

price meals................................................................... X

3 Consider amending policy to require all direct and

indirect costs be recovered by food service

operations..................................................................... X

4 Consider establishing food service operations as an

enterprise fund ............................................................. X

5 Develop monitoring procedures to ensure monthly

billings from the food service contractor are

appropriate ................................................................... X

Facilities Management

6 Require all District schools to use the Process Cleaning

method ......................................................................... X

7 Continue developing the construction management

procedures. .................................................................. X

8 Continue developing the capital improvement plan and

develop procedures to periodically review and update

the plan as needed....................................................... X

9 Develop a comprehensive energy management plan ...... X

10 Perform a cost benefit analysis for each energy retrofit

contract and competitively bid the contracts................ X

11 Develop maintenance policies and procedures, including

procedures for custodial supply inventories,

maintenance equipment and tools inventories,

monitoring deferred maintenance, and determining

general work order priorities......................................... X

Personnel Management

12 Develop a recruitment and retention plan......................... X

103

LA04-19

Washoe County School District

Response to Audit Recommendations

(continued)

Recommendation

Number

Accepted Rejected

13 Track and analyze data on the effectiveness of various

recruitment efforts ........................................................ X

14 Develop procedures to ensure all positions are

authorized and limit position control staff’s ability to

modify personnel information....................................... X

15 Continue the review and development of consolidated,

comprehensive procedures related to personnel

management ................................................................ X

16 Modify the human resources information system to

provide operational data on employee turnover and

retention ....................................................................... X

17 Continue the reorganization of the District’s training

function, ensuring a training plan is developed that

includes all District staff, and that clearly defines the

responsibilities and organizational structure of the

function......................................................................... X

Transportation

18 Use bus routing software to design the most efficient bus

routes ........................................................................... X

19 Consider a school start schedule to maximize daily bus

runs............................................................................... X

20 Periodically review the walk zone policy to ensure it still

meets the needs of the District..................................... X

21 Adopt a bus replacement policy to help ensure buses

are replaced in a timely and economical manner ........ X

22 Implement and fully utilize the fleet management system

including procedures for data input, parts inventory

control, maintenance and fuel control, and data

analysis ........................................................................ X

23 Establish effective controls over fuel usage...................... X

District Organization

24 Perform self-evaluations as required by Board policy ...... X

104 LA04-19

Washoe County School District

Response to Audit Recommendations

(continued)

Recommendation

Number

Accepted Rejected

25 Review and update policy and procedures as required.... X

26 Complete activating the Audit Committee......................... X

27 Expand internal audits to include other areas and

develop policies and procedures to include a

reporting and follow-up structure relating to internal

audit reports. ................................................................ X

28 Continue periodically evaluating the District’s

organizational structure, ensuring the change and its

goal are clearly communicated to the Board and

District employees........................................................ X

Employee Health Plans

29 Continue to monitor employee health plans making

changes as required..................................................... X

TOTALS 29 0