Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carson Smith Scholarship Audit
Carson Smith Scholarship Audit
UTAH LEGISLATURE
Number 2018-06
A Performance Audit of
Office of the
LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR GENERAL
State of Utah
STATE OF UTAH
Sincerely,
JMS/lm
Digest of
A Performance Audit of
Selected Public Education Initiative Programs
Chapter II
Carson Smith Scholarship Program
Needs Stronger Controls
Student Eligibility Needs to Be More Precise. The scholarship amount that students
receive is based upon the recommended level of services needed. There are two scholarship
levels, which align with the two special education service levels used in public education.
Our review of students with the higher scholarship level raised eligibility concerns. The
number of students within the Carson Smith population who receive the Level 2
scholarship is significantly higher than the number of special education students in public
education who receive a higher level of services. An education specialist in the Special
Education Section at USBE with a background in school psychology reviewed 97 student
files and questioned if 76 students should be on the higher level of service.
We conducted an in-depth review of 24 student files and found that only 21 percent
should be receiving the higher scholarship amount. If this review holds true for all of the 76
students in question, scholarship payments should have been $200,000 less.
2. Applications submitted by the parent or guardian were not complete (14 percent).
Staff should more carefully follow program guidelines and award scholarships
consistently to ensure the program is managed equitably. The scholarship amount that
students receive is based upon the recommended level of services needed. There are two
scholarship levels, which align with the two special education service levels used in public
education.
Parent Verification and Payment Review Process Are Ineffective. We found that the
parent verification process is circumventable, and the check payment process lacks controls.
The parent verification process should provide reliable verification of students’ eligibility for
scholarships and is important for protecting the integrity of the program. However, we
found unauthorized and missing signatures on 17 percent of the verification forms and
checks in the student files that we reviewed. We projected that about $387,000 was
deposited without proper authorization. The parent verification process is an important
control, and USBE should inform the private schools of the proper procedure and the
importance of the parent verification process. USBE is revising the check payment process
to avoid unauthorized endorsements on checks.
In addition, a more effective review process for scholarship payments is needed. Four
staff at USBE are involved in the review process, but a control document is needed to look
for improper payments. As discussed in the previous section, we found 49 examples of
improper scholarship payments.
Chapter III
Controls and Oversight Over the
ProStart Program Need to Improve
ProStart Program Receives Additional State Funding Compared to Other
Culinary Courses. Utah high schools have discretion over the Career and Technical
Education (CTE) programs they offer, including culinary arts courses. USBE establishes
academic standards for culinary arts education for the state. Schools may choose from two
However, the ProStart program receives additional state funds compared to the
Culinary Arts courses. Both ProStart and Culinary Arts courses receive state funding at the
classroom level. The ProStart initiative appropriation is additional funding for the program
on top of the funding already provided for classroom instruction. We surveyed four nearby
states’ restaurant associations and found that they do not receive a statewide ProStart
appropriation like the initiative funding that goes to URA. Furthermore, the URA also
received a total grant award of $29,000 in 2017 from the NRAEF, which was used for
statewide administration of the ProStart program.
It is important to note that the program features one winner at the end of the
competition. The economic benefit to the state of sponsoring the television program is not
certain because the winning contestant is awarded a scholarship to an out-of-state culinary
program at Johnson & Wales University (JWU) in Denver, Colorado. An economic impact
analysis could better measure the benefit of the program.
Furthermore, separate data collection by the vendor and USBE has resulted in
discrepancies between the organizations. Potential changes to allow USBE to conduct the
initial registration process could improve verification and data matching.
The statute requires an annual evaluation of the program. USBE has run two requests
for proposal for an evaluator, each for a five-year contract. The Evaluation and Training
Institute (the evaluator) has been awarded a contract for both requests and has been the
sole evaluator over the program’s ten-year operation.
A Performance Audit of
Chapter III Controls and Oversight Over the ProStart Program Need to Improve ......... 25
$50 M
44,756,600 45,549,400
$40 M
35,954,700 35,762,500
$30 M
21,752,600
$20 M
$10 M
$ M
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: COBI
Figure 1.1 shows that in the last three years the largest increase in
initiative program funding occurred in fiscal year 2018. Funding
increased $8.9 million that year. The initiative appropriations for fiscal
year 2019 total $45.5 million, only slightly higher than 2018’s $44.7
million.
-2- A Performance Audit of Selected Public Education Initiative Programs (July 2018)
2019 with 19 programs operating. Since 2015, 11 new initiative
programs have been created, and 6 initiatives are no longer funded.
Education initiative programs are interventions created for several Initiative programs are
reasons, but the overall goal is to foster student achievement. Initiative developed to help fill
programs give parents and students additional educational options. gaps in students’
educational
Sometimes initiative programs are developed to help fill gaps in experience.
students’ educational experience. Other initiatives are designed to
accelerate learning and make a difference in crucial educational areas,
such as improving reading skills. Some programs, like the Carson
Smith Scholarship program, focus on students with disabilities and
require community engagement. Frequently, initiative programs offer
unique learning products with differentiated learning activities.
We reviewed three
ProStart Initiative Funding. The initiative funding goes toward
initiative programs in the administration of the ProStart program for culinary arts.
detail: Carson Smith
Scholarship Program, UPSTART. The initiative program is an online pre-
ProStart Initiative
Funding, and kindergarten school readiness program.
UPSTART.
We reviewed another initiative in a previous audit, the K-3 Early
Intervention Reading Software. This initiative promotes literacy
through the use of interactive computer software. The review of the
K-3 Early Intervention Software initiative was included in A
Performance Audit of the History of Selected Public Education Programs
(Report No. 2017-12). We reviewed the overlap that exists among the
reading programs available for students in kindergarten through third
grade.
-4- A Performance Audit of Selected Public Education Initiative Programs (July 2018)
Chapter II
Carson Smith Scholarship Program
Needs Stronger Controls
Figure 2.1 Carson Smith Funding History. This figure shows the
funding history for the program for four fiscal years.
Program
2015 2016 2017 2018
Participation
Carryforward $ 796,726 $ 849,506 $ 1,080,965 $ 54,068
New
3,995,800 4,749,200 4,002,400 5,935,800
From 2015 to 2018, the Appropriation
appropriation for Total
Carson Smith has Available 4,792,526 5,598,706 5,083,365 5,989,868
increased 49 percent. Funding
Scholarships
(3,825,918) (4,406,764) (4,946,740) (5,687,734)
Distributed
Administrative
(117,465) (110,977) (82,557) (78,182)
Costs
Ending
$ 849,143 $ 1,080,965 $ 54,068 $ 223,951
Balance
Source: USBE
Notes: (1) There is a discrepancy of $363 between the ending balance in 2015 and the beginning balance 2016. (2)
The expenses for 2018 are as of May 2018.
-6- A Performance Audit of Selected Public Education Initiative Programs (July 2018)
The number of scholarship recipients is based on the funding The number of
available for the program and other factors such as the scholarship scholarship recipients
amount. Figure 2.2 shows the number of scholarship recipients since is based on the
funding available for
2015, and the number of private schools participating in the program. the program.
During the 2015 General Session, the Legislature authorized Pre- The Legislature
K scholarships for children ages 3 to 5 who attend preschool. These authorized Pre-K
scholarships have contributed to the increased total number of scholarships for
children ages 3 to 5
scholarship recipients. Also, the number of private schools who attend preschool,
participating in the program has increased. Private schools have to which increased the
submit an application and be approved by USBE staff to be eligible to number of
scholarships.
receive a scholarship for a Carson Smith recipient.
Special Education’s
For purposes of establishing the scholarship amount, what is
two service levels for the appropriate level of special education services that would be
full day students are: provided if the student enrolled in a public school? (Level 1 is 1
Level 1 (less than 179
minutes a day),
to 179 minutes a day for a full-day student, and Level 2 is 180
Level 2 (180 minutes or or more minutes per day.)
more a day).
Assessment teams evaluate students receiving the scholarship for the
first time. Students are also evaluated every three years to determine
continued eligibility for the program. The team determines the level of
special education services a student would be provided in a public
school, which establishes the student’s scholarship amount.
-8- A Performance Audit of Selected Public Education Initiative Programs (July 2018)
services that would be provided if the student enrolled in a public
school.
We found that 373 students, or 38 percent of all students in the For fiscal year 2017,
program, were designated as Level 2, the higher level of service. there were 373
However, in public education, only 10.8 percent of students statewide students, 38 percent,
that were Level 2 in
are a Level 2. It is concerning that the scholarship program has such a Carson Smith. In
high percentage of students at Level 2 as compared to the percentage public education, only
found in public education. 10.8 percent of
students statewide
were Level 2.
A USBE education specialist with a background in school
psychology reviewed the diagnosed disabilities of 373 students on
Level 2. She was also concerned with the number of students (26
percent) on Level 2 who were diagnosed with a specific learning
disability (SLD), other health impairment (OHI), and speech
language impairment (SLI). Figure 2.3 shows the percentage of public
education students on Level 2 with OHI, SLD, or SLI, compared to
the percentage of students within the Carson Smith scholarship
population on Level 2 with the same disabilities.
In Utah, only a small percentage of public education students with After reviewing 97
OHI, SLD, and SLI disabilities receive Level 2 services. The students’ files at USBE
percentage of students within the scholarship program’s population on Level 2, an
education specialist
receiving Level 2 services is significantly higher. After reviewing files questioned if 76 of
from the 97 students in the Carson Smith program who receive Level those students should
2 scholarships and have OHI, SLD, and SLI disabilities, the education be on Level 2.
specialist questioned whether 76 of those students should be on
Level 2.
For example, one assessment stated, “It appears that [student] does
not meet eligibility requirements for special education.” Another
assessment stated that “[student] appears to have the cognitive abilities
[the student] needs to be successful in school.” The findings of this
review also raise the question of whether all Level 1 students need
special education services. The number of missing assessments was
also concerning. USBE sends Carson Smith program guidelines to the
participating school districts. According to these guidelines, districts
are supposed to retain documentation of the meetings held and
decisions made for each student. However, four students from the in-
depth review did not have assessments in their files.
A strong LEA
For the assessment team, the general education teacher—or
assessment team another representative—would be from the private school. However,
would help ensure that the other team members should be LEA staff from the district where
the student is eligible
for the program. the private school is located. A strong LEA assessment team would
help ensure that the student is eligible for the program.
The figure shows that the amount of improper payments did decrease
by 61 percent in fiscal year 2017.
For each quarter of the school year, deadlines are established for
submitting applications and assessments. For example, to have been
eligible for the first quarter in fiscal year 2016, an application had to
be submitted by August 17, 2015. The assessment had to be
completed 45 business days later, by October 16, 2015. If those
deadlines were not met, the student was not eligible for a scholarship
until the next quarter.
The assessment deadline was listed on the schedule for fiscal year
2016, but it was not on the schedule for fiscal year 2017. However,
the program manager at that time said even though it was not
specifically listed, she followed the same 45-day practice in 2017. As
long as the assessment was completed within 45 days, then the
scholarship was paid for that quarter. The program manager makes the
decision to award scholarships, but we found the previous manager
did not always follow the guidelines.
The practice of
The assessment deadline was not always followed. For example,
accepting late an application was received on August 22, 2015, in time for the first
assessments allows quarter. However, the assessment was not received until December 8,
scholarship payments
to cover days enrolled 2015, after the second quarter deadline. However, the scholarship
in a private school amount totaling $2319.00 was paid for in the second quarter—
before a disability has $1,159.50 for the first and second quarter.
been determined.
Although paying for previous quarters can violate program
guidelines, as shown in the previous example, it can also serve a valid
purpose. This practice allows scholarship payments to cover days
enrolled in a private school before a disability has been determined.
We believe scholarships should not be awarded until the required Sometimes recipients’
information for an application has been submitted. It is not equitable eligibility is
to parents and families who follow the guidelines and complete their reassessed, resulting
in an increased service
applications, especially in a lottery system. level and increased
scholarship amount.
3. Scholarship Amounts from Service Level Change
Increases Have Sometimes Been Retroactively Applied
The program
The program management system that distributes the scholarships
management system is flawed because it is not able to automatically begin paying the
that distributes higher service level amount when a new assessment is completed
scholarships is flawed
and pays the increase during the school year. The system pays the higher service level
in the service level amount back to the beginning of the school year, unless a staff
amount back to the member catches the service level change and manually changes it in the
beginning of the
school year. system. We recommend that the program management system be
updated to correct this flaw.
Staff need to carefully review check amounts before they are We recommend that
distributed to ensure that overpayments are caught. (The review USBE update the
process will be discussed in the last section of this chapter.) We Carson Smith program
management system to
recommend that USBE update the Carson Smith program prevent back paying
management system to prevent back paying scholarships when an scholarships when an
increase in a student’s service level occurs. increase in a student’s
service level occurs.
In addition to the three reasons for overpayment described in this
section of the report, we found two other reasons. For one student, an
ATMR was not submitted, and there was no record of an IEP
verifying that the student had a disability. The student’s application
was submitted in October 2015, and the student has been awarded a
scholarship since then. The total amount awarded to the student since
October 2015 is $11,616. Also, this student’s application is not
complete, as a proof of residency was not provided.
Concern Count
Unauthorized Signature (Check & VRD) 14*
Unauthorized Guardian Signature (Check & VRD) 12
Missing Signature (Check & VRD) 4
Total Count of Check and VRD Concerns 30
Total Count of Student Files with Concerns 21
Total Student Files Reviewed 123
Source: Auditor review
*One unauthorized signature is on the check only; the VRD had no concerns.
In fiscal year 2017, the In fiscal year 2017, the total amount of scholarship funds
total amount of deposited without proper authorization for the 21 students was
scholarship funds $48,149. Since this was a statistically valid sample, we projected that if
deposited without
proper authorization all 989 student files were reviewed for fiscal year 2017, potentially
on 30 VRDs and $387,000 was deposited without proper authorization. In addition,
checks for students we also reviewed all other VRDs in the 123 student files from other
(from a sample of 123
student files) was years and found that 52 VRDs had inappropriate or missing
$48,149. signatures. The 52 VRDs totaled $87,535 in scholarship payments.
The Current Check Payment Process Is Being Revised. While USBE told us they are
we found checks with unauthorized signatures, the money is being planning to change the
deposited at the private schools. Also, S.B. 153, passed in the 2018 check distribution
process and have the
General Session, allows USBE to revise the check payment process. checks addressed to
During the audit, USBE told us they are planning to change the the private schools.
process and have the checks addressed to the private schools. This will This will eliminate the
concern of having
eliminate the concern of having unauthorized check endorsements by unauthorized check
the parents. endorsements by
parents.
Review Process for Scholarship
Payments Is Not Effective
From our perspective, it does not make sense to have four different
individuals review this report, unless each individual has a specifically
defined role. Also, one person who reviews the report should do an in-
A more effective and depth review of check amounts that are different from scholarship
efficient review
process is needed, amounts to make sure overpayments are not occurring, considering
such as a control that we found $94,000 of inappropriate payments over a two-year
document to compare period. In addition, the reviewers have no comparison document to
against the check
amounts. determine if check amounts are correct. A more effective and efficient
We believe the Carson Smith program needs to strengthen We believe the Carson
procedures before the program is given additional funding for growth. Smith program needs
The assessment process for eligibility determination needs to be to strengthen
procedures before the
strengthened. The program needs to award scholarships following program is given
established guidelines and policies. The parent verification process additional funding for
needs to be followed to preserve the integrity of the program, and a growth.
more effective review process for scholarship payments is needed.
Recommendations
1. We recommend that the Utah State Board of Education
strengthen the Carson Smith Scholarship Program’s eligibility
process by requiring the following:
The Utah ProStart culinary program receives funding at the district The Utah Restaurant
level for classroom instruction. In addition, the Utah Restaurant Association (URA)
Association (URA) receives a ProStart initiative appropriation to assist receives the ProStart
initiative appropriation
with statewide program administration. This initiative appropriation is to assist with the
additional funding for the ProStart program in addition to the funding administration of the
already provided for classroom instruction. The allocation has program statewide.
The ProStart program The ProStart program is a certificate-based culinary arts curriculum
is a culinary arts operated by the National Restaurant Association’s Educational
curriculum operated by
National Restaurant
Foundation (NRAEF). The program is offered in all 50 states in
Association’s partnership with state restaurant associations. The URA oversees the
Educational program in Utah. Individual schools may choose to offer ProStart to
Foundation (NRAEF),
and administered by
teach culinary arts, but it is not a required curriculum. Schools may
state restaurant also choose to offer a culinary arts curriculum through the state’s
associations. Career and Technical Education (CTE) program.
This audit is not about ProStart program operations, but the use of
the ProStart initiative funding. However, as background information
the Utah ProStart program began in 1996 with strong education and
industry support. The URA reports the program has been successful
in training many students in a high-quality culinary curriculum and
providing certifications for skills learned. The program’s curriculum is
supported by USBE and many local education agencies (LEAs) as a
way for students to gain the necessary skills to further their education
or find employment in the culinary industry.
The curriculum for both ProStart and Culinary Arts courses meet Secondary schools
state academic standards. Schools can choose to offer either option if can choose to offer
sufficient student interest exists. ProStart offers two courses for either the ProStart
program or Culinary
culinary credit and certification. The courses do not have to be taken Arts courses.
in order. The Utah ProStart program consists of 51 high schools, with
some districts combining the course for multiple high schools. The
Culinary Arts courses are offered in 47 high schools, slightly less than
ProStart.
Both the ProStart and Culinary Arts pathways are considered an Students that
educational benefit to the student. Students that participate in either participate in either
curriculum will learn necessary skills to further their education or find ProStart or Culinary
Arts will learn the
employment in the culinary industry. necessary skills to
further their education.
ProStart Initiative Appropriation
Has Increased 48 Percent Since 2011
Figure 3.2 shows that the funding level has remained the same for
the past three years, with increases in prior years. The URA counts the
Participation in the ProStart program has declined 37 percent over Participation in the
the last several years according to enrollment figures entered into the ProStart program has
declined 37 percent
statewide student information system and reported by USBE. over the last several
Enrollment numbers for the ProStart program are entered into the years.
system by each LEA according to the class identification number and
the number of students enrolled.
For the 2017 school year, the ProStart program and the state’s
Culinary Arts courses enrollment numbers are similar according to
USBE figures. CTE culinary arts courses had 1,936 students
participating compared to the 1,986 students participating in ProStart.
Source: USBE
Figure 3.3 shows that in 2011, the cost per student was $87 but grew
to $203 per student in 2017, an increase of 133 percent while student
enrollment has decreased 37 percent.
The cost per student
for the ProStart
program has increased The URA disagrees with the enrollment figures collected by the
by 133 percent. student information system and reported by USBE. The student
enrollment count provided by URA is less than what USBE reports,
as shown in figure 3.4. As a result, the cost per student would be
higher for the initiative funding. These enrollment figures were
reported by the URA from a separate data source than the student
information system used by USBE. We cannot validate the enrollment
numbers provided by the URA.
Figure 3.4 shows the URA’s enrollment numbers are a higher cost per
student when compared to the student information system enrollment
numbers as reported by USBE.
State Teacher
Student Training Regional State National
Restaurant Training
Events Competitions Competitions Competitions
Association Event
Utah X X X X X
Arizona X X X
Montana X X X
Nevada X X X
New
X X X
Mexico
Per-diem exemptions are not included in the contract, and we Per-diem exemptions
believe no exemptions from state per-diem rates should apply to the are not included in the
URA’s ProStart activities without proper justification and approval. contract, but in a
number of cases, the
We were told by USBE staff that opportunities for teachers and state per-diem rates
students in the Culinary Arts courses for industry tours are more were not applied.
limited, and they do not get reimbursed for expensive dining.
Administration
School needs
Teacher and student training
Expert resources
Regional, state, and national competitions
Recommendations
1. We recommend that the Legislature review the ProStart
initiative funding level, given the additional activities conducted
in Utah compared to other states.
Over the two most recent years, enrollment of students in UPSTART program
families above the low-income requirement has tripled. This growth over the last
growth is shifting the focus from students in low-income two years has tripled
for families with no
families. In 2014, 71 percent of the participating students were income restrictions.
in low-income families. In 2018, 42 percent of the students
were in low-income families.
Source: USBE
Low Income/
School Total Low No Income
No Income
Year Students Income Restriction
Restriction Ratio
2010 1,631 980 651 60/40
2011 1,382 858 524 62/38
2012 1,168 737 431 63/37
2013 1,250 775 475 62/38
2014 1,502 1,070 432 71/29
2015 5,090 2,233 2,857 44/56
2016 6,639 3,903 2,736 59/41
2017 10,745 5,409 5,336 50/50*
2018 14,278 5,976 8,302 42/58*
Source: Auditor Generated
*Includes students under both 185 percent and 200 percent of poverty standards
Figure 4.2 shows that from 2010 through 2014, the focus appears
The first five years of to have been students in low-income families. Over the first five years
the UPSTART program,
the average
of the program, the average participation of students in low-income
participation of families was 64 percent, more than double the requirement. However,
students in low-income because income is self-reported and not verified, we cannot confirm
families was 64
percent.
that the low-income requirement was being met.
An UPSTART advisory committee directs the evaluator each year An UPSTART advisory
and recommends changes or improvements to the evaluation process. committee
The committee is made up of staff from both the vendor and USBE. recommends
improvements that can
The modifications suggested by the committee have resulted in be made to the
improved evaluation methods over time to better consider variables evaluation process.
and communicate outcomes. Two significant changes are (1) an effect
size (measure of significance between the treatment and control
groups) benchmark, and (2) including key demographics for the
treatment and control group comparisons.
1
Evaluations are done using the Bader and Brigance testing systems to assess
phonological awareness and vocabulary knowledge of pre-kindergarten students.
Even with the addition of key demographics for the treatment and
control comparison, it is difficult for the evaluation methodology to
account for all external variables. For example, parental involvement is
not considered in the treatment-control comparison. Also, it would be
difficult to account for individual student abilities.
Family size should be The evaluator also changed their methodology in the year 6
included in the treat- evaluation by adding household income levels to better consider low-
control comparison to income populations between the treatment and control group
determine if students
are in families below children. However, family size is a demographic not included in the
the 185 percent treatment-control comparison. Without that information, the
poverty level. evaluation cannot accurately determine if students in both the
treatment and control group are in families below or above the 185
percent poverty level. The evaluator should consider adding family size
to the methodology.